@Erik: It is far more racist …

Comment on Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…” by Sean Pitman.


It is far more racist to argue or even to suggest that any ethnic group of humans living today was ever the result of human-animal hybridization of any kind. Certainly Mrs. White spoke against such an idea in her dealing with various ethnic groups during her day noting that all peoples are of “one blood” and are brothers and sisters before God. – Education, p. 67 ( http://www.whiteestate.org/books/ed/ed7.html )

Therefore, it seems far more consistent with her known views on “race” to suggest that her use of the world “amalgamation”, with specific regard to different groups of humans, was in reference to mixing those people who acknowledge God with unbelievers in marriage and other close human associations. This concept is far more in line with her known views on these various topics.

Sean Pitman

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
For further clarification:

I’m not saying that David Read is wrong. I’m just saying that his theories aren’t based on very solid evidence as far as I am able to tell. As such, they don’t seem to me to be all that much more reliable that just-so stories or conjecture (similar to the just-so story telling used to back up popular evolutionary theories). However interesting, they simply don’t have all that much predictive value. While certainly within the realm of possibility, the likelihood that these stories are true cannot be determined with any significant degree of accuracy nor can they be clearly tested in a falsifiable manner.

Even the SoP statements he uses aren’t very clear as to what, exactly, Mrs. White was actually saying with regard to what she meant in different contexts by the word “amalgamation”. We can surmise all day long, but even David admits that his conclusions are dependent upon a great deal of conjecture. For me, this isn’t very useful as anything to base much on beyond whimsical stories about what might have happened on the level of a novel or some other such fanciful story that is very loosely based on real life.

In short, I think there is far better scientific evidence upon which to base our faith than these just-so stories and large leaps of imagination…

Hope this helps.

Sean Pitman

Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
@David Read:

There are degrees of “class-bending” I suppose. Simply giving a creature with features usually associated with different groups of animals the name “monotreme” does not change this. Looking only at fossils makes this job all the much more difficult and subjective. I may be “obtuse” in my reticence to declare an obvious blurring of boundaries between most animals in the fossil record vs. living animals, but so be it. I think it contrary to the cause I stand for to be too overzealous with theories that you yourself describe as being “highly speculative.”

Sean Pitman

Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”

A faithful reading of the text requires that one read in context – something you are not doing. The Bible is its own interpreter. You are placing an interpretation onto the text which is contrary to the clear context in which it was written and contrary to how the biblical writers themselves interpreted all mankind as being of “one blood”.

You may believe that this is preposterous because you are seeing the world from a modern naturalistic perspective but the issue is was it preposterous to the mind of the person writing this passage? If you think it was you have not been paying attention to much ancient or indeed more recent literature. What precisely were the centaurs and medusa in greek mythology? What of the animal human hybrids that we have captured in stone from the egyptian empire that were likely part of Moses heritage? Have you not read Miltons Paradise Lost a book with many parallels to the great controversy; what was the provenance of the guardian of the pit into which the Devil was cast after the war in Heaven? How did the devil look upon the first woman?

What are you talking about? The notion of human-animal hybrids and even hybrids between humans and “the gods” is certainly part of mythology, but it is clearly not part of the thinking of the Biblical authors. Also, Milton’s Paradise Lost, while certainly having many parallels, is not supported in many details by the writings of Mrs. White who very clearly explained the whole concept of “sons of God vs. daughters of men”. Did you not read the above-listed commentary in this regard?

Sean Pitman

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!

The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…

The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…

Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.