How GC Leaders Reacted to Spectrum's Establishment

I can’t say how, but Jesus-citing one of David’s psalms-seemed to say that everyone listening to him was god.

This, after reportedly insisting that the creator cares about every aspect of his creation and that direct interaction with one’s maker is available to everyone.

And all of that just before he had to make himself somewhat less transparent as he was apparently about to be was stoned, ironically, for allegedly committing blasphemy….


1 Like

Should they be considered “Castroidians” or “Castratedians” … ? :wink: :wink:


Nobody should do it. For me, and knowing all that we know about EGW, equating her to the Bible, or adding her to the Bible is true sacrilege committed against the Holy Bible. When one adopts a cultic approach, then they can commit sacrilege without feeling guilty about it. I believe it becomes a numbness of conscience.

And, anyway, I don’t understand why isn’t the Bible enough for those people. The Christian faith was established based on the Bible, and it was OK. Then, some 18 centuries later suddenly the Bible is no longer enough… Go figure.


Christianity was built on a small section of the Bible - the four gospels. Stories about one man. All the rest of the NT is trying to explain what He taught. The OT explains why He had to come.

I don’t know of anyone who deems EGW’s writings are as good or prophetic as any book in the Bible. Do you?

1 Like

She herself often demurred, saying in that her writings were not the same as the Bible. As time has passed her writings have had a level of reverence and importance that should never been attributed to them. This, it seems, really gelled together in the 1919 Bible conference and took on a whole life of its own in terms of a value, authority and reverence that never should have been. Now we have generations of folks who have had this drilled into their head and base their personal identity around the myth of EGW.


This is the existential fallacy of organized religion, George, that is, the belief that people can know god by reading words or studying books about our maker.

Just as a nerd might be deluded into thinking he can understand and know women by reading books, religious people believe it is possible to relate to and with our maker by scrutinizing religious documents and dogma.

If books are ever any help at all, it is as sign posts which point us toward a destination. To think that they have meaning in and of themselves is to mistake the word “Pittsburgh” on a billboard for the experience of riding up the Monongahela Funicular, looking down at the confluence of the three rivers and trying to take in the great city for oneself.

The Bible doesn’t mention this (duh) but I suspect that Jesus tried to avoid this problem by not writing any books himself, knowing that doing so would only add to the level of religiosity in the world.

But decades later, he wasn’t there to discourage anyone else from doing so and, as they say, the rest is history. So now we have billions of people who don’t know that calling out the word “Jesus” can’t possibly do any good because “Jesus” wouldn’t have answered to that name, nor do they believe-much less know-what it’s like to have two way talks with his dad, as Jesus reportedly claimed was possible and wanted his followers to have.

Sure do, Elmer.

My parents raised me with this mindset.

And lest you be tempted to think that belief died when they did, there have been comments in this forum claiming that SDA’s have the potential to understand Jesus better than the writers of the gospel did, if they will only take a few decades to digest EGW’s writings.

You know, kinda like how one can get to know all about real life by staring at Dali’s surreal paintings?!?!



I think it is an extension of inerrancy. This comes from not understanding inspiration and a desire to control God, thus making the Bible god. Really understanding that The Word became flesh is not the Bible or any written work is the first step away from this.


I am sure you captured @elmer_cupino 's sarcasm (very well hidden…) is his question, right?
In this sense, I too have never seen anyone equating Ellen’s writings to the Bible. At least not in the Adventism realm, or even here.


I was fortunate enough that my parents never fell for this EGW stuff. We lived in the vicinity of the main SDA school in Brazil, the center of Adventism in that area. All pastors got their college degrees in that school - as did I. But I am glad that when I came back home from school I always found an environment of free, independent thinking. This was a great help to rebalance the brainwashing pressure that I was under during the day at school.


In Revelation there is a warning to those who add to the word of the Bible. It’s found in Revelation 22:18-19.


My mother never mentioned EGW. I got a heavy dose of it from the teacher at school. One day I a bologne sandwich in my lunch. And I had to listen to her lecture me about EGW counsel against meat eating. Then it was a downer on a cheese sandwich. Then my mother made me an egg sandwich. That was bad too. Finally I had enough and asked what the hell can I eat. I won’t bother with what happened to me for saying hell.

She is still alive, the teacher, that is. I asked her daughter several years ago if she was still of the same mindset. She told me that she ran out of gas one Sabbath afternoon, and sat there till after sundown to go buy some gas to get home.

I have often wondered how many students she indoctrinated over her too many years teaching, stayed in the church.


I agree with your sentiment, but to be precise, the New Testament letters and other works were not used to found Christianity.

Paul was the first writer of the the New Testament we have today. His first letter, Galatians, was written about AD 48, 15-18 years after Jesus death, when there were already large communities of Jesus-followers (not yet called by the derisive slur “Christians”) inside and outside of Palestine - thriving in various Roman cities around the Mediterranean.

The Gospels were written much later, between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous, their titles added later, and written by educated Greek speaking authors (Jesus and team spoke Aramaic) who were not eye-witnesses to the events they wrote about. Based on the early manuscripts that survive, changes were made to them well into the 2nd century. Mark was written first, and then the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a primary source and basically re-wrote it to suit their needs. John came last and is mostly an original work, not based on the other three.

Besides the four that were eventually canonized, many other Gospels were written and were in common circulation for some time, and many were given the same authority as the ones that were canonized, by different groups that the Roman church later decided were heretical.

The works we have weren’t canonized for centuries after Jesus death, and were not even considered scripture in the modern sense when they were newly available, which makes sense. They were just letters form a traveling preacher and stories of Jesus based on oral tradition and some now-lost texts containing the sayings of Jesus. They were written decades after his death, in a language he didn’t speak. (Technically, Jesus didn’t speak one word that is attributed to him in our bible, even in the original works, since the Gospels are written in Greek and he spoke Aramaic.)



I get it…now!

(Why isn’t there a dunce cap emoji!?!?)



Ask and ye shall receive:


And I thought I was the only one who didn’t get that some questions are rhetorical……


1 Like

Yes, Tim, I understand what you say. My brush was apparently too wide!.. LOL :wink:

In the context of this thread, I wonder if anyone has any input on the current relationship between the GC Administration and Spectrum.

There is nothing special about doing all those things. Just makes you look like an idiot,

1 Like

Apparently, since the beginning Spectrum’s major challenge has been dealing with “MAGA Adventists”…
(Making Adventism Great Again no matter what).