I leave for others the debate on "Anthropogenic Global Warming", a  topic on which I have no expertise.  But in connection with the debate Brother Douglass has put his finger on one of the most critical issues in the Adventist denomination - Integrity. 

It has been "open season" of late for some, church leaders and lay members alike, to question the integrity of science teachers in our educational institutions who dare accept a paycheck from the denomination, while at the same time struggling with the dilemma of how to teach Adventist students modern "sciences", some aspects of which apparently are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the declared and believed "truth" of the denomination.  It is relatively easy for believers to take shots at scientists since, unlike scientific assertions, religious "truth" on a topic can simply be declared and believed, whether or not there are messy little problems like observed data that conflict with the believed "truth".  

Many denominational leaders are far less attuned to their own integrity issues when it comes to their leadership of the church organization and its institutions.  I have served numerous times over the years as a delegate and/or committee member at Conference, Union and NAD levels, and as a board member of healthcare organizations.  During such service I have frequently observed leaders who simply can't seem to recognize their own integrity issues, even if they were to jump up and bite them, despite the frequency with which they arise.  Integrity issues come up all the time in often hobbled "discussion", "deliberation", or "debate" of matters that come before committees.  Sometimes these integrity issues are manifested in financial matters, legal matters, tax matters, donor matters, immigration matters, government relations matters, publicity matters, evenn theological matters, and especially matters involving employees who have fallen out of favor.  Brother Douglass has barely scratched the surface of the integrity issues that manifest themselves during the "group think" that more often is the rule rather than the exception in our boards and committees.  But denominational leaders certainly don't have a monopoly on the problem.  Many pastors, teachers and lay members often stifle their true thoughts - pastors and teachers because of sadly well-founded fears of retribution by adminstrators, and lay members from simple lack of courage or apathy.  Mere silence, by otherwise good people, has been a rampant and debilitating cancer in our multitudinous boards and committees. 

Douglas is also absolutely correct to ask the question, "what group is determining the content" of denominational publications?   I might add another question: "Who is controlling the dissemination or concealment of the content?"  These questions apply not only to denominational information outlets such as magazines, books, web sites, and media programs, but also to numerous other types of content, such as reports presented to committees (both written and oral), financial statements, feasibility studies, Ellen White materials, and many others forms of disseminated or concealed information.  Manipulation of information has been a persistent problem.

 Integrity issues often exist in connection with theological pronouncements within the denomination, whether by pastors to their congregations, or at any other level in the food chain, including those who either have been entrusted with, or have appointed themselves to, the "preservation of the faith".  Some assertions are made, and frequently parroted, with a much greater degree of certainty than is justifiable.  And though some of the ones making or repeating the assertions of "truth" may have personal uncertainties or doubts, there is rarely any open and sincere questioning or debating of the declared "truth" because as a denomination we have been so efficient at punishing those who have the temerity to challenge the status quo.

Yes, integrity is a topic that deserves a lot more attention in our church family.  We need to open our minds and change our organizational behaviours to encourage integrity in all situations, instead of so often punishing those who attempt to act with integrity.

Been gone for a week teaching a class for four days in So Cal but I would like to join the earlier comments that I surely agree with. What is so upsetting about getting historical facts straight, especially when we are discussing denominational history,  never mind the "facts" re AGW?  Why not question so-called "peer-reviewed" material? What do honest people want to hide?   When I read some "historical" materials re the "facts" of what went on in the Minneapolis 1888 General Conference, I wonder what planet they have been on!  Of the facts surrounding the theological detours in denominational teaching and publications following the 1957 publication of Question on Doctrine. Or the real issues dividing the various groups among us in fundamental Adventist issues?  Or what we mean by "academic freedom." Etc.

Elaine wants to know about 1919 for example. The reason why Elder Daniells put the minutes in the drawer was not regarding the discussions they had about EGW but the open discussion of some of the prophetical interpretations in the bible teacher meetings before another group discussed EGW--he thought they weren't settled on anything in their prophetical notions and he thought it would be "unsettling" to average church members to hear some of their leaders giving their opinions.  Not a bad move.  Regarding Glacier View, it surely would be profitable if the reports truly revealed the fundamental issues that separated us. I was there and I did note that perhaps getting to the essential issues were trully too divisive for most to handle. I guess we all learn from from either our mistakes or our timidity.  Cheers, Herb  

"Regarding Glacier View, it surely would be profitable if the reports truly revealed the fundamental issues that separated us. I was there and I did note that perhaps getting to the essential issues were trully too divisive for most to handle. I guess we all learn from from either our mistakes or our timidity. Cheers, Herb,"

Herb, Would you be comfortable explaining, now, the essential issues, which may have been too divisive, then, to discuss?

Friend Hanson: Good question as usual. You well know that the answer you request requires more than a few lines here. The opposing issues of Glacier View were directly caused by the theological detour taken in 1957 with the publication of QOD. I gave an overview in A FORK IN THE ROAD.

Bull and Lockhart drilled deeper in chapters 5 and 6 of their remarkable contribution, SEEKING A SANCTUARY--showing how basic Adventist distinctives were foggged over in Seminary instruction by certain prominent teachers since the 1960s. Bull and Lockhart observed that our pastors and teachers since that time were taught a strange mix of generic Protestantism that minimized the Adventist distinctives that had been uinderstood before QOD.

  I remember well that afternoon at Glacier View when Des Ford was defending his position from the platform. Ted Heppenstall arose from the assembly and tried to fend with Des. Des responded, "I wouldn't be here today, Dr. Heppenstall, if it were not for you!"  Not many at that time understood the laser beam of reality tdhat Des had shot in his defense. In a few words,

 Adventists today are divided as they never were before 1957. Epistemologically, we really don't use the hermeneutic of sola toto scriptura--the Bible and only the Bible in all our doctrinal positions. Whenever we consciously or unconsciously borrow from Augustine, etc., for our theological notions regarding the nature of sin for starters, we instantly are impregnating all other theological teachings with extra-biblical notions. Or when we emphasize the Cross and lessen the equal importance of what Jesus is doing today--we fall into the trap that QOD principals fell into and where so many Adventist thinkers are still today.  Just a brief fly over but I think you can see where we are going. Lots of good men and women in this Adventist mix.  Cheers, Herb

Herb,  That was one of the greatest "change ups" I have ever experienced. When you made the following remark, I was expecting that you were going to point to EGW as an extra-Biblical influence. When Augustine popped up, I missed the pitch entiely. I should have known that you would not be one to drag EGW into this as a negative extra-Biblical influence.

"Adventists today are divided as they never were before 1957. Epistemologically, we really don't use the hermeneutic of sola toto scriptura--the Bible and only the Bible in all our doctrinal positions. Whenever we consciously or unconsciously borrow from Augustine, etc., for our theological notions regarding the nature of sin for starters, we instantly are impregnating all other theological teachings with extra-biblical notions."

Wouldn't you agree that EGW has been, among SDA, a much more profound  extra-Biblical influence than has Augustine? I doubt that the current evolution/creation debate would be going on, except for the commentary of EGW regarding the 6000 year narative.

EGW's Great Controversy paradigm, which places the Decalogue rather than the Cross at the center of the conflict, I reject. Maybe I have misunderstood EGW; however, after reading more than 50 of her books,  doing computer studies of her use of  imputation and  cognates, I really don't like her emphasis. With her, the Decalogue is around every corner. 

The gospel preaching of Des was much more a Lutheran perspective than an EGW perspective. That's why a lot of people hated his message. I really didn't care about the apotelesmatic principle, still don't in some respects. What I care about is the cross and what it signifies. My feeling about Glacier View is that the denomination made it clear that there were things more important than the cross of Christ, justification, assurance, and so forth. They were willing to sacrifice Des in order to preserve the sanctity of things which were of a secondary nature. Bad move, very bad move.

Any denomination that does that deserves to be ripped into pieces.

Wow, Hansen, are you andI reading the same Ellen White? It seems I cannot turn a page without seeing the cross. This is the same lady who wrote:

"When you go from this place, Oh be so full of the message that it is like fire shut up in your bones, that you cannot hold your peace.  It is true men will say, 'You are too excited; you make too much of this matter, and you do not think enough of the law;  now, you must think more of the law; don't be all the time reching for this righteousness of Christ, but build up the law.'

Let the law take care of itself.  We have been at work on the law until we get as dry as the hills of Bilboa, without dew orrain.  Let us trust in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (1888 Materials, p. 557).

Or this: "The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In orderto be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light which streams from the cross of Calvary, and in connection with the wondrous, central truth of the Saviour’s atonement" (SDABC, vol. 5, p. 1137).

On and on it goes . . . .  It just leads me to conclude that someone who only sees the law around every corner is looking only for the law.

Shawn,  Why would you  assume that I approached her writings with a certain agenda?

I systematically read more than 50 of her books in their entirety, hoping to better understand the plan of salvation. I came away from that study a legalistic perfectionist. Maybe it was my fault, not hers; however, Luther impacted me in an entirely different way. Unfortunately, changing what I think did not transform my character.

EGW wrote, what, about 30 million words? Many of the books I read were compiled by the EGW Estate. It is certainly possible that the compilers had a certain perspective which they wanted to emphasize. I don't judge their motives.

Recently, I noticed many Christ centered statements in some of the old daily devotionals, such as "The Faith I live By" and "That I May Know Him". I discovered some of these statements in the process of reviewing the more than 350 statements kicked up when computer searching "impute" and its cognates in her writings. Certainly, she wrote many statements which focus on the cross.

Her Great Controversy paradigm, as I understand it, puts the Decalogue, rather than Christ at the center of the battle. I'm of the opinion that EGW is wrong, theologically. She saw the cross as a means of exalting the Decalogue,

I can go tit for tat with you all day long, if that's what you want to do:

"We are saved through the merit of the blood of Christ, but Christ's righteousness does not cover the sin of transgressing God's law, without repentance. We must do all in our power to keep the commandments of God, and then he will impute unto us his righteousness, because we believe in Christ and seek to obey the divine law. This is the reason that Christ came to this world, that he might bring his righteousness to man, that man might lay hold of his strength, and make peace with God. God accepts the efforts of man to keep the law, because Christ imputes his righteousness to him. We could not keep the law in our own strength." {ST, September 23, 1889 par. 7}   

But while God can be just, and yet justify the sinner through the merits of Christ, no man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins, or neglecting known duties. God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul. {RH, November 4, 1890 par. 4}

"True religion is nothing short of conformity to the will of God, and obedience to all things that he has commanded; and in return, it gives us spiritual life, imputes to us the righteousness of Christ, and promotes the healthful and happy exercise of the best faculties of the mind and heart. Infinite riches, the glory and blessedness of eternal life, are bestowed upon us on conditions so simple as to bring the priceless gift within the reach of the poorest and most sinful. We have only to obey and believe. And his commandments are not grievous; obedience to his requirements is essential to our happiness even in this life." {RH, May 27, 1884}

More than the individual statements, such as those above, studying her comments on the justification experience of Abraham in Genesis 15 and comparing it with Luther's Genesis Commentary convinced me that EGW, compared to Luther, was/is a legalist. Luther leaned heavily on Romans 4 in explaining what took place in Genesis, EGW, not so much.

Luther, on the other hand, squeezes many precious lessons about salvation by faith from Genesis 15. I'll stick with him, and Paul.

If EGW floats your boat, that's fine with me. I find Luther boring at times. EGW, I can hardly stomach. Perhaps I'm just such an evil guy, I can't take her "straight testimony." I'm enjoying George Williams' Radical Reformation, presently.

It may help me better understand why Luther took the position he did. What about you? Read any good books lately? 

www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com

Friend Hanson: I apologize for this lateness in reponding to your earlier post. Last Friday I valiantly inserted not one but two responses but each was kicked back unceremoniously so I gave up, thinking that the stars were not properl aligned. I am trying again.

Re EGW being extraBiblical: I think we all agree that EGW was a remarkable "user" of biblical texts in building her articles or sermons. I don't think of her as "adding" to the Bible but more as an illuminator. Her metanarrative is the clearest, most consistent, unfolding of what is going on in our wonderful universe--we call it The Great Controversy Theme. Where would one go anywhere to get a more logical, integrating, internally consistent world-view and at the same time, so  soul-satisfying, in answering the deepest questions that philosophers and theologians have sparred with for centuries?

Regarding Luther and Des: As many have pointed out, the probem with most historians is that they interpret Luther through Melancthon and later Lutherans--most of whom have frozen Luther into a museum piece. Luther's understanding of faith is exactly what Ellen picked up--that it is far more than a mental agreement that Jesus died for us all and in accepting that fact, we are "justified."  Faith is a new attitude of awesome awareness of one's sinfulness and Christ's forgiveness AND His power to transform the sinner so that we don't keep making those mistakes we are asking forgiveness for. He knew that "righteousness" in Greek meant more than only "justification" in later English.

Walking with Paul and Ellen is really a mind-settling, heart-satisfying experience for me. Cheers, Herb

Richard L. Noel, DMD

Herb, you have raised to our attention the core problem among us as believers.  We must choose what and whom to believe.  Most of us were brought up to believe that the SDA church possessed the "truth".  In one sense that is correct.  In a broader view we don't really read the Bible. We "raid" the Bible for texts to defend our chosen opinions.

Many of our opinions/ doctrines are actually quite good and very old.  Some of them are just "old" and in direct conflict with the message of the Bible.  We overwork some verses and ignore others to our own destruction.  I would recomend a careful reading of Numbers 10, while asking the question; "what is the sanctuary?"  This will undo a very ancient Jewish tradition we have swallowed hook line and sinker.  Verses 17 and 21 point to the exact answer.  It is not what I used to teach as an SDA pastor for many years.  Simple deductive logic forced me to realize that the "sanctuary/ miqdash" cannot be either the tabernacle or a room in that structure. This opened my eyes to the need for more accurate teaching on our part.

I know this may sound disruptive, but it illustrates our need for integrity when we read the Bible, as well as when we discuss our doctrines among each other.

Herb,  I have been challenged and encouraged by the Christian attitude you have manifested. As Melanchthon said, "In all things charity."

I didn't get my understanding of Luther from Melanchthon. I read more than 80 of his Wittenberg sermons and numerous other tracts, debates, treatises, and comments on Scripture. I have the English editionof  his works on a CD. 

There is nothing complicated or difficult about "Christian Liberty." lt is definitely antinomian in its emphasis. It is a far cry from EGW in works such as Steps to Christ.   I doubt that anyone could compare EGW on Abraham in Patriarchs and Prophets with Luther's view of Abraham in his Genesis Commentary and not conclude that EGW was a legalist.

EGW used passages out of context to buttress her legalistic emphasis, thereby confusing those seeking to understand salvation.

She was critical of A.T. Jones for saying "Works amount to nothing." Why? As far as justification goes, that's true. The Bible is quite clear both in its historical record of the OT and its inspired commentary in the NT.

Romans 4 clearly states that circumcision was a sign of the righteousness Abraham had by faith. Around 15 years had elapsed between the time Abraham was justified and circumcision was instituted. Works did amount to? Nothing, yet EGW herself couldn't stand to hear the trumpet sound of faith alone. Why? Because she was a legalist. 

Probably 30 years or more had elapsed from the time Abraham was justified and Issac was offered. So the answer to James regarding justification is that Abraham was not justified by faith in the promise when he offered Issac. Abraham had been justified decades before. And he never lost that justification, in spite of his adultery and numerous other sins, contrary to EGW's  sinless perfection emphasis. 

Most of the confusion regarding justification, perfection, and legalism in Adventism can rightly be placed at her feet.  

Luther became more of a legalist himself in his roll as a sheriff rather than a theologian. Many of the people liberated from Rome by the gospel were not Christians, they simply enjoyed the freedom provided by the new order of things. Their hearts were not transformed. Of course, they descended into debauchery and licentiousness. To maintain civil order, Luther emphasized the Decalogue.

As for Melanchthon, Luther, as I'm sure you know, highly recommended Melanchthon's "Commonplaces of Theology." It was also Melanchthon who wrote the articles on justification in both the "Augsburg Confession" and the "Apology." Luther never took issue with these things during his lifetime.

I can't agree with your perspective on Luther or EGW, nor with the idea that Des was channelling Melanchthon rather than Luther, if that is what you are suggesting.

Still friends, though.

Herb, I'm sorry. I don't agree that EGW was a remarkable user of texts. Her emphasis, in my opinion, is misdirected. I don't hold EGW in high esteem as a Biblical expositor.

Rather than try to resolve such a broad issue here, I would simply invite those who care to compare "Christian Liberty" with "Steps to Christ." Then compare the chapters on Abraham in "Patriarchs  and Prophets" with Luther's comments on Abraham in his Genesis commentary.

As for Melanchthon, the "Apology to the Augsburg Confession" deals with justification in depth as well as the roll of works in salvation.

I am disappointed that Climategate and the CRUtape letters seem to be a nonevent for those who have been circling the wagons to defend SDA science educators promoting the "settled science" of Darwinian theories in their classrooms ("nothing to see here - let's move on").  There are multiple lessons to be learned, I am sure. But let me point out just a couple.

Religion and science cannot easily or long be separated.  When one resorts to ridicule and demonization of the opposition; when one advocates suppression and marginalization of the dissenters to defend logic, reason, and science, it's a good bet that the cause they are defending is religion, not science.  

Second, the notion that religion can be excluded from the realm of science and reason is a lie that was first suggested in the Garden, and still has great purchase. Empirical science and reason lead to truth claims about life, human nature, and the nature of ultimate reality. These theories, without ever being scientifically confirmed, inform convictions about good and evil, as well as morality and ethics, finally forming the bedrock of political debate and public policy. This is why scientists, politicians, and academicians so passionately defend pseudo-science as science.  This is why they try to prevent competing truth claims from even entering their pristine temples, by solemnly intoning their mantra - "The science is settled", or "There is a consensus among thoughtful people." There is power, not to mention wealth, in the ability to manipulate human emotion and conjure fear. And scientists are as prone to that temptation as religious leaders.

Much of the religion of climate science has been well known by those who have analyzed the claims of its itinerant preachers and tele-evangelists for years. Data has been falsified, selectively retrieved, smoothed, and then concealed from other scientists, so as to prevent verification or falsification of results. Specious theories, like positive feedbacks have been programmed into computers along with undisclosed algorithms, parameters and primary components to yield catastrophic scenarios.  But until now, we didn't have the devastating self-incrimination by the paleoclimatologists, whose "research" has been the primary driver of warming alarmism. 

Is Darwinian science any more immune to the religious temptation of being used as a basis for theory, morality, and public policy than climate science? I don't think so.   

Herb, it seems a bit off topic. But since it's your blog, and since you and others have gone there, let me raise a question about your observation that you don't think of Ellen White as "extrabiblical". Who has greater authority - the author of a text or the arbiter and interpreter of that text? As a practical matter, do the writers of the Constitution have greater authority over its meaning than the U.S Supreme Court? The Conflict of The Ages series are like a behind-the-scenes tour of Disney World. For the most part, Ellen White doesn't change the Bible stories, but she offers us innumerable embellishments, suggesting divine access to the mind and machinations of God and Satan, as well as the feelings and motivations of human actors. 

Are these  insights authoritative? That is to say, should we accept them as factual divine revelations?  If so, must we not agree that Ellen White, with her vast overview of the canon of scripture, should be viewed not as a "lesser light", but as a super prophet? You see, this is the problem: When accused of sectarianism, the Church says, "Aw schucks, E.G. White is no big deal - just the lesser light to lead to the greater light." But when its (the Church's) authority is challenged from within, it piously wraps itself in the garb of Remnancy and The Spirit of Prophecy, claiming to be the institutional messiah predicted by Scripture.  

Am I creating a false dichotomy here? I don't think so. I don't think the Church can have it both ways. And the sooner we can jettison Ellen White -as authoritative - the sooner we will be forced to judge our raison d'etre not by the uniqueness of our message, but by the clarity of the imprint of Christ's image on our lives.  And as I read my Bible and view history, the incarnation of Christ in the human heart is vastly more unique than propositional formulations of the Incarnation as eternal truths.

Nathan: Well said, and frankly I agree with your presentation, all of it. Yes, Ellen functions as Paul did when he "interpreted" the OT. But, as I wrote in later editions of Messenger of the Lord,  408: "In her larger context, Mrs.. Whte seems to be referring to how all biblical prophets are lesser lights leading their people "to the Saviour"--the "Light of the world" (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46)--even as John the Baptism "came . . . to bear witness to the Lirhg" (John 1:7,8). Because people in her day were giving "little heed . . . to the Bible" (which was tolead people to Christ, Light of the world) the Lord spoke to her as a "lesser light" (even as John the Baptist and all other biblical prophets were lesser lights) to lead people to Christ, the "greater Light." From another viewpoint, no one can question that Ellen White regarded the Bible itself as a "greater light" with its centuries of inspired writings andits gold-standard acceptance as the Worf of God."

 Does that help us out? The Constitution/Supreme Court is almost a good comparsion, but IMO just almost.  Cheers, Herb

Announcement: We have a new moderation policy [see posted announcement]. We are aiming to raise the bar in our forums and by doing so we are moderating all comments before they are published. Please read the announcement and stay informed as it may affect your future comments.

Marcel Schwantes

Online Editor, Adventist Today

Hanson: Any way I look at it, you are a remarkable "Lutheren" encyclopedia. You really impress me properly with your "reading" of Martin. Surely, he is a rare giant. The right man in the right place at the right time.

May I suggest, that Luther wrote much on "faith," as you well know but not always with the same beat. And we must also remember that he was breaking new ground in a terrible wildnerness.

The later Lutherans and Calvinists, not Arminians, froze pisitis into a static mental assent (Glaube) equating "faith" with mental belief, that man's primary response to God is "to believe." An unconscious equating of biblical faith with intellectual belief. One of the results of this kind of thinking is the awful translation of  NT pistis as "believe"  or "belief" instead of plain "faith, etc."  Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran, spoke out plainly against the prevailing "Christian" misunderstanding of pistis and grace. (The Cost of Discipleship, 58).For Ellen, she understood "faith" as a response to grace, a heart appreciation for what Jesus has said and done that embraces trust and willingness to do whatever Jesus has said. In the language of James, as well as Paul, "the faith that works by love."  Or, in our Lord's words, "works that glorify the Father."  That's why RXF requires a clear definition of "faith" as well as a clear definition of "righteousness."  Does this help!  Cheers, Herb

Nathan wrote in part-- "And the sooner we can jettison Ellen White -as authoritative ---"

 And Dr Douglass wrote that he agrees fully with what Nathan wrote and by implication that charaterization. That's from the writer of a book that fully supports EGW. Is Douglass trying to be all things to all people? I'm surprised and puzzled.

Happy to clarify. I said we should jettison Ellen White AS AUTHORITATIVE. Her enormous prophetic role in the founding and growth of the SDA Church is obvious.  Her apocalyptic messages and interpretations were present truth for the realities of her times. To the extent that a present or future generation of believers finds a galvanizing power in her messages, she may again speak as one having authority - and not as the SDA institutional leadership. For better or worse, EGW was institutionalized for many decades, and hijacked to bolster the image of the SDA Church as the ark of God's Truth. Church authority, the authority of Scripture, and the authority of EGW were unfortunately and inseparably fused so that to reject any one was to reject all. The Church was proud that SDAs didn't leave the Church for other churches; they left God altogether when they left the Church because they knew that the Church had the Truth.

Ellen White must always have iconic status when it comes to her role in the founding and growth of the SDA church. She was a sainted servant of God whose legacy deserves our admiration and gratitude.  But the Church must demonstrate that it can survive without Ellen White as an authoritative voice if it is to survive at all. 

Thanks Nathan for clarification. I think I hear you saying that Ellen's authority rests not in what a church may claim but in her own writings that should bear the test of time and authenticity. That seems to say it for me. After I became an Adventist, and surely after years in theological doctoral studies, I had many occasions to compare The Great Controversy Theme as a metanarrative with all other world views, past or present--and Ellen is the foremost interpreter of the Bible story from the standpoint of coherence, interacive integrity, and continuing relevance. That to me is her authority. Am I clear or not?  Cheers, Herb

Herb,

How can you say that Ellen was the foremost interpreter of the Bible story? It is obvious she was getting her materials from other peers in the world of 19th century christianity. I think we call it plagiarism. Apologetics aside there is enough evidence that in many of her books she is borrowing from contemporaries. None the less some fairly inspirational books came out of it.

On the other hand historians within the SDA community such as Doug Hackleman and R. Numbers have shown a very different side of Ellen White and her "visions" which suggest that she was very eccentric or worse, nuts. I think she fits the profiles of religious leaders discussed in William James The Variety of Religious Experience. I do not doubt for a moment her sincerity. But, I am dubious regarding many claims surrounding this eccentric personality, especially in the arena of unique interpretations of biblical scripture which supposedly arose from within herself. Other than that I like your blog, keep up the good work. 

Ella M

 Your original blog is a good one, and integrity is what we all want.  However, what is felt to be integrity by one is not seen as such by another.

On the Dec. 5 post--are you saying that the church should never change its beliefs on certain issues?  This seems to contradict the idea of truth being progressive as though we have nothing more to learn.  I don't think our belief system came about in one day.  It takes time, and we should still be learning. 

 You talk about QOD, but I suspect that the real issue may be that you differ on the nature of Christ. The church has never taken a stand on this and maybe it shouldn't. (Yet both sides don't have equal access to church publications.) 

 I respect your stand on this, and perhaps it is correct.  I don't think it can be known in this world.  There are things to be said from both sides.  But for the believer of either side, this is an issue of integrity for them. 

If I understand it correctly, I object to the comment about Dr. Heppenstall.  Never was there a more honest scholar than he and a caring Christian man that brought to his students the truth of righteousness by faith and lived it.  Christianity and integirty are found in the everyday life. Des Ford did contribute to the church in ways that are still in evidence. And to him his stand was integrity.  How he was treated wasn't. (I am not saying he was right in every respect.)

I also dare to say we can learn from other Christians.  I was taught in SDA church history that we even got the Sabbath from another denomination.