While one cannot truly “leave” one’s family of origin, one can leave their family of faith. But, if that “family” rescued you from your family of origin and gave you a place to stand in your humanity, that may be almost impossible. The family of origin can be broken but it never leaves you. The same is true for faith. If you need to “leave” your origin family to survive, you must do it. I would say the same for the faith family. On the other hand, if you can stay and survive and maintain your integrity and commit to “reforming” it, that too is a kind of integrity. Des Ford’s integrity in pointing out a historical and theological “pathology” to the church ostracized him from the overall community, but enhanced his standing with those for whom the “truth” is paramount. We’ve all heard the arrogant phrase: “We have the truth” and took pride in it at first. We learned how to defend our doctrines in self-satisfying ways which led to our dismissal by other serious Christians. Attacked, we closed ranks and tolerated NO challenge or disagreement, especially over Ellen White. Like the Pharisees, whose work was a blessing in so many ways to the Judaism of their period, our fear of being wrong or losing authority over our devotees, made us cruel and short-sighted while our fervor reached fever-pitch. Admitting a wrong is so much more difficult than clinging to our truth, but it is required if we want to “free.”
I could accept everything you say if you prefaced these comments with, “I believe…”. There is no arguing someone’s “belief”, but your certitude does not make it “the way it is”. Surely with your education background you should be able to distinguish personal belief from an established fact. (Even facts are suspect and dependant on who is stating them). It’s complicated.
I’m sure you are standing firm on your convictions, but a little humility might be called for, just as a matter of respect for those who - might be blind to truth as you see it; or, are just too dumb to agree with your obvious “truth”. Give us a break
Greetings to you too.
About inspiration and the gift of prophesy given to a “prophet”-
Based on reports given by those few who have actually read EW’s written statements, it’s her secretary that was the “prophet” as Ellen’s notes were almost incomprehensible. If one believes there was “inspiration” involved in the whole process, that’s fine, but the major credit goes to her secretary (ies) who had to make sense of them and write them out to be a benefit.
lol…that’s never going to happen…this site is about opinion, hopefully shaped by some amount of education and reflection, but opinion none the less…and keep in mind, opinion is always subject to change…it is what it is only for as long the perception of facts warrant it…
i’ve read the original egw material available, and i agree they can be a challenge, at least at first…but i disagree that Marian Davis, or anyone else, added anything that someone with a modest amount of education couldn’t have…the impetus behind egw’s writings is clearly hers - in some of her awkward, incorrect passage work, for instance, there is a starkness and riveting energy that’s actually missing in Marian’s finished product…
what i think Marian brings, which is important, in addition to a measure of refinement, is one on one familiarity with egw from the time of egw’s first visions, before her marriage to James, which obviously shaped the way Marian presented things…also importantly, Marian shared egw’s 19th century sensibilities and working habitat, and that also comes through clearly…remember that egw is repudiated to have reviewed what Marian and others processed before releasing it…Marian isn’t the author of the egw writings…
i think all of this touches on some or all of the Pauline epistles, and maybe even the Book of Hebrews…after-all, if Paul’s vision was permanently affected by his three-day blindness from his Damascus call, obviously someone must have written for him…it does seem as though Tertius was an amanuensis for the Book of Romans, Rom 16:22…
And the authors from whom she copied. I personally can’t see, and don’t believe, that EGW understood scripture at all.
It appears Glacier View was a set up and pretense for looking objective and fair, at least in how it was eventually conducted and concluded, according to this eye-popping interview by one who was there. Driving this cellophane presentation is the fact that the fundamental beliefs are about to be “codified” in that year’s GC. Telling. The Consensus Statement you cannot find, or at least I have not found it, yet we can get the 10-point comparison that set up the unceremonious firing of Ford. It has taken these many years for leaks and research and belated testimony, like Johnnson’s here, for this to come out. This is truly unfortunate and something our church needs to reckon with.
Well, most stuff is opinion in these remark sections of media, but this isn’t opinion pulled out of thin air here. There is basis in fact. The Consensus Statement was never designed or meant to be “inspired.” It was meant to be based upon objective exegetical research addressing the material Dr. Ford was rolling out with much prayer and reflection, and apparently the statement reached was not acceptable nor anticipated by leadership that was calling the shots. That is simply just being dishonest.
But to reduce this to opinion based only upon one’s personal notions and nothing else is just not a fair or accurate appraisal. I have my issues with things that are believed and stated on this site, but the vast majority I see are not simply opining to be opining.
And you are opining yourself upon some basis in the facts as you understand them. That is the nature of these remark sites. Glacier View as NOT the success the church has presented it as being in the hopes that no one will probe any further. Well, we know how that has turned out for years now and as the years pass the evidence keeps making it worse.
“It’s not what you say, as your opinion; but the way you say it”. That’s borrowed from my kids when caught rolling their eyes.
and that may be a by-product of the medium of commenting in prose…we’re not seeing facial expressions, or registering tone in the words of any particular commenter…in fact we’re supplying these from our own repertoire…
Yes, I had to convey that message to my spouse, “not what you’re saying but how it’s said”. I agree with your comments…“a little humility might be called for just as a matter of respect”. I think a couple of other people have made the same observations regarding Jeremy’s comments. They do come across quite often as condescending, and a bit arrogant.
Carol, do you think if i adopted the tone you often do when you disparage the Church and egw, that this would cause you to think i were less condescending and arrogant…if i left the Church, as you have, and have nothing good to say about it, or anyone in it, would you see this as more respectful…
i appreciate your comment, and Sirje’s, but understand that it’s value for me is being coloured by what i see you in your own comments…not that i’m using your comments as a guide for how i comment, because i understand that we see adventism through very different filters, and I’m OK with that…
Oh man. Lliked, hearted, upvoted, or whatever it’s called around here for Roy Clark. If listening to Yesterday, When I Was Young doesn’t stop and make you think, I don’t know what to tell you.
My comments are directed towards a woman that I consider to be a false prophet and has damaged a lot of people, and the church that is the product of her “visions”, and writings. If I have been arrogant and condescending towards individuals, I will (and do) apologize.
i can understand this, even though i don’t agree…and i can also apologize for being what you call arrogant and condescending…in my mind, it’s actually about being true to what i’ve experienced through adventism and especially egw…but perhaps it’s also about learning to communicate more effectively with others with a different experience…
Thanks for your reply. We are all a work in progress. 
Yeah. I did a deep dive this morning, and believe I found it. The fact that it isn’t readily available somewhere like Adventist Archives is kind of frustrating, though. What was the point?
This is a PDF of the October 1980 Ministry Magazine, and as best I can tell, it’s on pages 16-19: https://cdn.ministrymagazine.org/issues/1980/issues/MIN1980-10.pdf
Apparently there were two consensus documents. The longer one is “Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary,” and the shorter is “The Role of the Ellen G. White Writings in Doctrinal Matters,” which is only seven paragraphs. Both of the documents are in the PDF. If I’m wrong about this, somebody correct me, please.
(Edit: I had a comment here related to the third paragraph, but I think I misread originally. The intro in Ministry isn’t a part of the actual document itself.)
You’re right.
I can’t prove I’m not, and never really was, an Adventist.
Just as you can’t prove that you aren’t, and haven’t always been, a moro…I mean, a Mormon.
In fact, I think I might just be the best Adventist on the planet, since I no longer believe that being a Christian has anything to do with going to church, reading books, trying to show oneself acceptable in the sight of the lord by living up to EGW’s uninspiring testimonies, or any other such frivolous nonsense.
IOW, I no longer fear The Second Coming, and instead I can’t wait for it to happen “soon”, i.e., probably right after Harry Potter graduates from Hogwarts and starts his own magic wand repair shop on Diagon Alley,
Again you are correct.
I contribute because the force that created, and constantly recreates me, inspires me to do so.
Bold claim. Completely unprovable. You are definitely on solid SDA ground… …
SDA?
Yes.
Solid?
Also as you say, unprovable.