Comment on Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…” by Erik.
Sean,
Your post represents some of the more racist thoughts I’ve seen represented on this site, and I would encourage you to rethink what you have said and offer an appropriate apology. Ellen White did not support the type of racism that you have tried to use her statements to support. Nor did she ever say what you have made it appear. I understand that you may not be aware of some of her statements on the topic, and I understand that several of the statements, when taken singly, can be ambiguous. But looking at all of the relevant statements collectively (of which I can only present a few here), I hope you will see what she is saying, and what she is not saying.
“Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.” {1 SP 78.2}
In this statement it is clear that “amalgamation” caused new “confused” species to exist, but these species were not preserved in the ark. Following the flood, she says, more amalgamating occurred, and this even among men. The statement clearly establishes that certain races of men came about by “amalgamation” which would not have otherwise existed.
Now, was that “amalgamation” which caused new races of men the result of intermarriage of the lines of Cain and Seth? Two points: 1) she is talking about post-flood events, so the “amalgamation” occurred entirely with the line of Noah; and 2) she does not equate the marriages of the “sons of God” with the “daughters of man” to be on par with the sin of “amalgamation.” See the following quote.
Every act, however small, has its place in the great drama of life. Consider that the desire for a single gratification of appetite introduced sin into our world, with its terrible consequences. Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men resulted in apostasy which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood. The most trifling act of self-indulgence has resulted in great revolutions. This is the case now. There are very few who are circumspect. Like the children of Israel, they will not take heed to words of counsel, but follow their own inclination. They unite with a worldly element in attending gatherings where they will be brought into notice, and thus lead the way and others follow. What has been done once will be done again by themselves and many others. Every step these take makes a lasting impression, not only on their own consciences and habits, but upon those of others. This consideration gives awful dignity to human life. {5T 93.1}
Notice in the statement above that she never uses the term “amalgamation” to refer to those intermarriages. Nor does she speak in such strong terms as to call them “abominable.” What she seems to imply instead is that these marriages represented a “trifling act” which led to much greater apostasy down the line.
Let’s face it: if it were the abominable and “base crime” of “amalgamation” for the descendants of Seth to marry those of Cain, we are facing a tremendous apostasy in our church today, far more extensive than this little issue of teaching evolution at LSU. We have thousands of mixed-race marriages, and many Adventists “unequally yoked.” And why would not Mrs. White have verbalized the same rhetoric toward these types of marriages today if these were truly the cause of the flood? The answer is simple: Ellen White taught no such thing as some people in our church today may claim. Truly, this would be racism at best, and a “hate crime” at worst.
Regarding the “amalgamation” defacing “the image of God,” I would remind you that only mankind was created in God’s image. “Let us make man in our image…” There is no such statement regarding the animals. Therefore, the only way to deface that image would be to involve man. In fact, Mrs. White supports the fact that it was man, and not animals, which were made in God’s image.
The spies upon our Saviour’s words dared not, in the presence of the multitude answer this question for fear of involving themselves in difficulties. They knew that while they would leave men to suffer and die rather than to violate their traditions by relieving them upon the Lord’s day, a brute which had fallen into danger would be at once relieved, because of the loss that would accrue to the owner if he was neglected. Thus the dumb animal was exalted above man, made in the image of God. {2SP 198.3}
Beings formed in the image of God are dragged down to a level with the brutes. {PP 458.1}
The spies dared not answer Christ in the presence of the multitude, for fear of involving themselves in difficulty. They knew that He had spoken the truth. Rather than violate their traditions, they would leave a man to suffer, while they would relieve a brute because of the loss to the owner if it were neglected. Thus greater care was shown for a dumb animal than for man, who is made in the image of God. This illustrates the working of all false religions. They originate in man’s desire to exalt himself above God, but they result in degrading man below the brute. Every religion that wars against the sovereignty of God defrauds man of the glory which was his at the creation, and which is to be restored to him in Christ. Every false religion teaches its adherents to be careless of human needs, sufferings, and rights. The gospel places a high value upon humanity as the purchase of the blood of Christ, and it teaches a tender regard for the wants and woes of man. The Lord says, “I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.” Isaiah 13:12. {DA 286.4}
The evidence is strong that “amalgamation of man and beast” was a reference to either bestiality or purposeful genetic mixing between human and animal DNA.
If you mix human species with human species you get human species. “Amalgamation” yields new species, “confused species.” You cannot get a “confused species” simply from people marrying their own species. If you could, God would be to blame, for He it was who invented our DNA and made such confusion possible. There seems only one way to have introduced this “confusion,” and not by means of ordinary human marriages.
Erik
Table of Contents
Erik Also Commented
Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)
“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)
“That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.” (Philippians 2:15)
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:1-2)
We are the sons of God if we receive Christ and follow Him. The line of Seth did this, and were, therefore, called the sons of God. Cain’s descendants did not follow God, and were not called His sons.
Erik
Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God–the descendants of Cain, the sons of men. As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry. Many cast aside the fear of God, and trampled upon his commandments. But there were a few who did righteousness, who feared and honored their Creator. Noah and his family were among the righteous few. {3SG 60.2}
After the translation of Enoch to heaven, the sons of men that were set against the worship of God were drawing away the sons of God. There were two parties in the world then, and there always will be. The worshipers of God called themselves the sons of God. The descendants of Seth went up into the mountains and there made themselves homes separate from the sons of Cain. Here in their mountainous homes they thought to preserve themselves from the prevailing wickedness and idolatry of the descendants of Cain. But after the exhortations and the influence of Enoch were removed from them, they commenced to unite with the descendants of Cain. {CTr 39.2}
That should help clarify the identity of the “sons of God.”
Erik
Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
It does our position no service to claim too much or to base too much on such large leaps into very thin air… claiming that this or that animal within the fossil record was the clear result of human genetic manipulation before the flood and for that reason was not saved on the Ark….
Sean,
It seems like Ellen White said “Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark” (1 SP 78.2). Therefore, any species which became extinct at the time of the flood must necessarily have come about via amalgamation. That seems fairly clear. So we know where T-Rex came from, right?
Erik
Recent Comments by Erik
CCC Requests “Decisive and Conclusive Resolution” from LSU
Dear Adventist in High School,
The devil frequently mixes just a small amount of error in with a larger amount of truth. This is sufficient to accomplish his purposes. He does not need to undermine every truth, only some select truths. The Bible tells us how to know whether or not we can accept something as pure and true: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). If what they say, even a part of it, does not agree with scripture, even the rest of what they have said is of no value according to this.
We have a saying in English that goes something like this:
A barrel full of sewage with one tablespoon of wine is sewage.
A barrel full of wine with one tablespoon of sewage is sewage.
It does not matter how much “wine” there may be with that sewage, the sewage has perverted the entirety.
Consider how entirely the “sewage” has perverted truth at LSU, given that one of the professors’ statements relegated Mrs. White to “the lunatic fringe” for “the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago.” Mrs. White clearly informed us that Creation week was six literal days about six thousand years ago, and further, she has told us that God was not dependent upon pre-existing matter and could but speak them into existence. Yet all of that flies in the face of those who wish to believe their own opinions to be superior to inspiration, doesn’t it? It makes perfect sense that if they believe we evolved from apes, they could not believe what Ellen White taught was true.
Nay, the evolutionist “sewage” has defiled the pure and true at LSU, and its effect permeates the remaining departments of the university. One cannot contain such a far-reaching apostasy as this within a single corner or department of the university. Indeed, we have been given clear evidences that the theologians at the university have also been affected. Whither goes the biology department, and then the theology department, thither goes the whole school.
Erik
LSU responds to Michigan Conference
Sean,
[off topic]
Erik
LSU promotes acceptance of homosexuality but not creation
Lydia,
Do you believe the Bible authors’ writings to be infallible? If so, why? Because they are “scripture?” or because they were inspired by God?
If Ellen White’s writings were inspired by the same Holy Spirit, wherein do they differ from those of the Bible?
My concern is that you or others may be influenced to use Mrs. White’s writings in a manner inconsistent with their inspiration, i.e. “of private interpretation.” Placing Mrs. White’s writings upon a sub-scripture platform is the first step toward “higher criticism” of them, which leads to judgments such as those expressed right here on EducateTruth.com by our evolutionist friends that “well, on that point she was wrong.”
Guess which point it was that these Adventist scholars had selected? One of those very important points upon which Mrs. White had described Creation as she had been shown by God. In other words, once we start picking and choosing what to believe, we will soon have no regard for God’s words. As Mrs. White herself said, those who reject her writings will eventually be led to reject those of the Bible.
Erik
A Historical Review of the Creation Debate Among SDAs
Bill,
I think the problem is apathy. People don’t want to know “the negative.” They don’t want to see any “dirty laundry,” much less be participant to hanging it out to the open air and sunshine for a proper cleansing.
I’ve tried talking to a few about this problem and their response was a mixture of incredulity (as in “you’re not going to get me to believe that”) and of disinterest. Putting one’s head in the proverbial sand will not make the problems go away. But it is true that we must face the problems in the right spirit and with wisdom.
There are three swords that the Bible tells us we must choose from: that of Hazael, or of Jehu, or of Elisha. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. We must choose one of the above. There is no escaping from all three, according to 1 Kings 19:17, but one of them must take us. Will it be that of Hazael, who as an outsider cruelly persecuted and slaughtered God’s people? Will it be that of Jehu, who as a member raised his sword against his own leaders? Or will it be that of Elisha, who had the double portion of God’s Spirit: truth and mercy, justice and love?
It is high time to see cleansing in the church. But let us not become Jehus and Hazaels. We can stand up for truth without living by the sword of criticism. We must speak the truth, but always in love.
Erik
LSU promotes acceptance of homosexuality but not creation
Ellen White herself did not consider her writings to be on the same level as the Bible, which is what really concerns me when you refer to them both as sacred. Her writings are authoritative but the Bible is infallible.
Lydia,
You may be correct regarding Ellen White’s estimation of her own writings. She was humble. You imply that you don’t believe she was infallible. I agree. She was not infallible. However, let me ask you a few questions.
1) Was Moses infallible? David? Saul/Paul? Peter?
2) Do you think Paul considered his writings to be on the same level with scripture? How about his personal letters, like the ones to Timothy and Titus? Do you believe he considered them to be “holy scripture?”
3) Do you think the scribes for the kings of Israel and Judah considered their historical record-keeping “scripture?”
4) Do you believe something can only be called “scripture” if its author called it such?
The Bible defines scripture. By the Bible’s definition, Mrs. White’s writings qualify.
If only our church today would accept Mrs. White’s writings as God-inspired and authoritative, this entire website would not exist. LSU might not accept Ellen White’s writings as fully inspired, but if the church leaders, board leaders, conference, union, and division leaders would all have full confidence in Mrs. White’s writings, this matter might have been nipped in the bud long ago.
Mrs. White is abundantly clear on the creation vs. evolution issue. It seems shameful to relegate her writings to a sub-scripture standard which makes it easier for others to “pick and choose” from them which points they will accept. The Bible says “ALL scripture” is inspired by God. We accept as scripture even Paul’s personal comments, where he explicitly stated that he spoke by permission and not by commandment…yet do we think we can draw lines in what Ellen White wrote and say “such and such was inspired, and this or that was not?”
Regarding creation’s literal days, Ellen White specifically details for us that the message she gave was of God. For example, she says “I have been shown that without Bible history, geology can prove nothing.” Who showed her?
Erik
