DISQUS

Andre · 1 year ago

I'm pleased and surprised the White Estate would even consider engaging such wild and irresponsible claims made by Tom Norris in interview. One would think that Tom's ideas had already been rejected by the readership of this blog but this response was a bonus.

Mr. Burt has shown a far more balanced, Christ-like spirit in his letter than Tom in his repeated tirades.

Would that be one of the fruits of a belief in God's messengers, ancient and recent, that would make their work authoritative and relevant, authentically "God-breathed"?

Gordon · 1 year ago

If I may venture to say so, I find the phrase 'enemies of Ellen White' a little difficult to understand. Ellen White is the author of many books and as a consequence she is obviously open to a fair amount of criticism. In my opinion I think we need to move a little away from the overtly 'religious' criticism of EGW and a little closer to an analysis of the historical background etc.

This has been done considerably and I think the results are quite revealing. However, I wonder if, in the instance of both Tom Norris and johnny workentine we are looking at two viewpoints which are in reality quite similar. I think it would be more profitable to this forum if we considered the more academic issues involved.

Herb Douglass · 1 year ago

I am sorry to have just read this interesting thread. When I first read Tom's concerns, I sensed an echo that I have read about or heard for many years. That was one of the chief reasons I wrote MESSENGER OF THE LORD, a 587 page textbook now used in colleges and universities worldwide. I wanted to look at every stone thrown at Ellen White, turn it over, and give a fair assessment. It seems to me that these various allegations concerning Ellen White or the White Estate are usually the product of quoting previous opinions handed down year after year. Frankly, the real basis of these charges is based on different understandings of the New Testament gospel. When one establishes his own understanding of this gospel and compares it with White's emphasis, the core differences are apparent. To me, when one understands the biblical picture of the Great Controversy Theme, troubles with Ellen vanish. Let us all keep studying. Cheers, Herb

Tom Norris · 1 year ago

Response to Herb Douglas

Herb Douglas, like all of those associated with the White Estate, is part of the problem. While he is sorry to have read the Norris Interview, he is not sorry for the right reasons.

Douglas, a long time supporter of the White Estate, is not being honest with the issues or the facts. His 1998 apologetic about Ellen White, Messenger of the Lord, does not deal with the massive suppression and manipulation of Ellen White's writings that was the point of the Tom Norris Interview. Nor does it correct the many misconceptions and myths about 1888 that the White Estate and others have foisted on the Adventist community.

So no one should buy this self-serving claim of innocence by Douglas that is calculated to avoid the real issues.

Moreover, this idea that Douglas book has somehow met all the charges "thrown" at the White Estate is laughable. He has failed to explain why the White Estate was hiding THOUSANDS of key documents until long after the RBF debates had ended, and the church had exiled Dr. Ford and entered into deep schism. This is one of the primary points articulated in the Interview. Why did he ignore it?

But as usual, this question was ignored, as if no discovery of hidden documents occurred. However, the question remains? Why were the White Estate and the General Conference hiding thousands of historical documents about 1888? And why have they failed to explain what was contained in these documents?

Douglas has also failed to admit, much less address, why the White Estate has so grossly misrepresented Ellen White's views about the law and the Gospel that were so hotly debated in 1888 and again during the 1970's. The White Estate needs to address these issues; not pretend that they are innocent and above investigation. They need to stop with the diversions and denials and tell the truth.

Douglas has also failed to deal with the charges that the church has not correctly explained Ellen Whites view of eschatology, including how the IJ relates to the Three Angels Messages. While all SDA's today have been instructed to believe that the IJ is part of the 1st Angels Message, Ellen White never taught any such view. And neither did Uriah Smith or any 19th century SDA.

So why does the White Estate teach a patiently false view about Ellen White's position about the IJ and the 1st Angels Message? And why did Glacier View also endorse this same false view about Ellen White and the IJ? Avoiding this point will not save the White Estate.

It is clear that nothing contained in the Norris Interview has been refuted in the least by Mr. Douglas or anyone else. His statement that the "these charges are based on different understandings of the New Testament gospel" is absurd. Perhaps, Mr. Douglas needs to read the Interview again, because he has conveniently missed the very points that must be addressed by the White Estate.

Pay attention Mr. Douglas: The basis for my charges against the White Estate has zero to do with my personal views of theology. Rather, the basis for my criticism is the discovery of thousands of documents that were hidden in both the White Estate and the GC Archives. These historical documents contain a very different story from the official version of 1888 that has been endorsed and promoted by the White Estate and the General Conference. Thus the historical facts are the basis for what I am saying.

When one understands the historical record, it becomes clear that the White Estate and the General Conference have not been honest whatsoever. They have deliberately and willfully deceived the Adventist people about the very fundamentals of the Advent Movement, including how Ellen White views the Gospel and the Judgment. These are serious charges, and they need to be addressed, not avoided.

It is time that the White Estate is held accountable for what they have done and for what they are still trying to do. They have not been honest and they are not being honest now. I suggest that if the church wants to be viewed as credible, they must deal openly and honestly with the issues raised and stop pretending that there has been no wrongdoing in the White Estate.

The White Estate has betrayed Ellen White as well as the Advent people. They have hidden, suppressed, and manipulated Ellen White's writings to the point where the real Ellen White, and the true fundamentals of Historic Adventism, is confused and virtually unknown.

But the facts have been discovered and the White Estate has been caught. The historical record is clear and unambiguous. The White Estate, as well as the General Conference and the Review are guilty of perpetrating a massive fraud about Ellen White and church history on the Advent community. They must be investigated and held accountable. Then the record must be corrected. This is what Ellen White would want to take place, and so too the Advent people.

I look forward to the day when the White Estate will repent and tell the truth. Because unless the record is corrected, and the full story told, the SDA church will continue to self-destruct because they misunderstand Ellen White as well as the very fundamentals that define and empower the Advent Movement.

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

Herb Kersten · 1 year ago

Sincere people of goodwill everywhere patiently wait for the publication of Tom Norris' new book. Ideally the only evidence that is needed are numerous photocopies of never-before-seen EGW documents. The tone of writing should be Christian.

Blessings,
Herb Kersten
Evangelist
HKEA

GENESIS 2DAY.com · 1 year ago

Tom, even if your views were remotely close to being barely correct, it's easy to reject them because of what it causes one to become: bitter and unChristlike.

Herb Kersten · 1 year ago

I have now learned that in 1988 the EGW Estate quietly released never-before-seen EGW documents relating to 1888 and surrounding issues. (4 Volume set headed '1888 Materials' - 2000 pages). I say 'quietly' because many people I have spoken to about this did not know about these documents.

Can the EGW Estate please explain why the 100 year delay? I understand that EGW requested (in her Will) that her documents be made freely and readily available to the church and the world.

Blessings,
Herb Kersten
Evangelist
HKEA

Marshall · 1 year ago

Tom,

I think that you are correct to push for a greater understanding of the issues surrounding the 1888 conference in Minneapolis. I have recently discovered that the issue surrounding the RBF issue is more serious then most people realize. It goes to the heart of EGW claim to Prophetic Authority. Let me give those reading a summary.

The problem starts in 1856 at a bible conference in Battle Creek. In 1854 J.H. Waggoner, father of E.J. Waggoner published a book "The Law of God an examination of the Testimony of the Two Testaments." In this book he examines the uses of the law in the OT and NT. His view is a correct view of matters. The law is there to convict us of our sins and lead us to Christ for cleansing by the spirit. Well in 1856 the church voted to not continue publishing this book in favor of another position. This was the view endorsed by the church from 1856 to 1888. The church studied and then a testimony from God through EGW came and confirmed the position which had studied and settled on. This was the standard method of how the SDA church established its doctrine, study then receives a vision from the Lord through EGW. At the meeting in 1856 were Uriah Smith and George Butler they distinctly remember EGW sending a vision endorsing a position opposite of J.H. Waggoner’s views. EGW herself confirms that such a testimony was given, but said she could not find it, nor did she remember exactly what was said in it.

Fast forward 32 years. Uriah Smith and GI Butler, were preaching the SDA view on the law and then the Son of JH Waggoner, EJ Waggoner come along with is buddy AT Jones, preaching the same message as his father, U Smith and GI Butler naturally expect EGW to endorse there position. Well she dose not. She does a complete 180 and reverses her position and endorses EJ Waggoner. This throws Smith and Butler into confusion. EGW vote out Waggoner’s position and then 30 years later votes it back in. How could the prophet reverse her position, especially after receiving a "vision" from God? This was the core doctrine of Christianity and if EGW was flip flopping how could she be a prophet and how could this movement be a true movement? If you don't think this is a big deal this issue took DM Canwright out of the Church.

Uriah Smith did not have a problem with the Theology of RBF, but with EGW's role in establishing the doctrine he had been teaching for the last 30 years. If she was wrong in 1856, she was not a prophet and there was no way he was going to allow that to be the case. That is why he was fighting so hard. And that was the real issue in 1888. Did EGW flip flop or not after a God endorsed vision?

Marshall · 1 year ago

Genesis 2day.com

you have espressed a very dangerous attitude. Assuming that Tom should be pleasent and polite as though that were Christ manner at all times. Christ Called things ars they were, the pharriese he called brood of vipers and white washed tombs, Hearod he called a fox and to the people who were exploiting people in the temple he took a whip and drove them out. not exactly friendly. Toms attitude is approprate for someone who believes we are being lied to and is concerned with finding the truth. Lies hurt people and we should be angry and have an attitude when people are bing hurt. I see nothing in the life of Christ that says other wise.