Why are the critics of the SDA church and EGW so deceptive?

[djconklin]

For instance:

1) They claim that EGW contradicted the Bible 53 times. But, those have been proven false.

2) One critic on another forum (Beliefnet) claimed that the number was actually 75. When I noted that the real number was 53 he claimed that it was my research that was faulty. But, despite repeated requests he didn't produce the missing 22 and has since left the forum.

3) The same critic as above claimed that EGW copied Foy's visions. But, when his claims as to what was copied is examined only one could be found in Foy. He never dealt with the discrepancy.

4) They claim that EGW repeatedly made false prophecies but those claims also failed.

5) They claimed that EGW was a millionaire; that claim also failed.

6) They make various claims as to what the SDA church teaches when we don't (one recently here on this forum).

7) They claimed that EGW plagiarized and the church knew about it and was covering it up. If that claim was true then why did the church hire Dr. Veltman and a team of researchers, spending thousands of dollars over 8 years to find out what they supposedly already knew?

8) They claim that the amount of EGW's plagiarism is 80-90% (one web site says "90% and possibly even higher"!). At best, i.e., on the high side, Dr. Veltman could only come up with a dependency (not necessarily plagiarism) of 31%. Which means that the rest of DA would have to be over 100% to get the 80% average.

9) In producing the "evidence" of EGW's alleged plagiarism we find that the original source(s) have been manipulated and distorted without telling the reader that this has been done.

9) To prove the plagiarism claim one needs to do the kind of study that Dr. Veltman noted in his study and yet none of the critics have done even one.

10) The critics claim that Dr. Veltman's study proves that EGW plagiarized when in fact he notes in his intro that he isn't even looking at the plagiarism question. Was it that hard to read?

How many free rides should we give these critics? Has any critic ever disowned any of the lies* that have been told?

*This assumes that the person saying it knows that what they are saying is a lie. They could (moast likely) be simply repeating what someone else told them or they read on the web without ever checking to see if it is so--not the Bereans of old!

[Byfaithalone1]

For instance:

1) They claim that EGW contradicted the Bible 53 times. But, those have been proven false.

2) One critic on another forum (Beliefnet) claimed that the number was actually 75. When I noted that the real number was 53 he claimed that it was my research that was faulty. But, despite repeated requests he didn't produce the missing 22 and has since left the forum.

3) The same critic as above claimed that EGW copied Foy's visions. But, when his claims as to what was copied is examined only one could be found in Foy. He never dealt with the discrepancy.

4) They claim that EGW repeatedly made false prophecies but those claims also failed.

5) They claimed that EGW was a millionaire; that claim also failed.

6) They make various claims as to what the SDA church teaches when we don't (one recently here on this forum).

7) They claimed that EGW plagiarized and the church knew about it and was covering it up. If that claim was true then why did the church hire Dr. Veltman and a team of researchers, spending thousands of dollars over 8 years to find out what they supposedly already knew?

8) They claim that the amount of EGW's plagiarism is 80-90% (one web site says "90% and possibly even higher"!). At best, i.e., on the high side, Dr. Veltman could only come up with a dependency (not necessarily plagiarism) of 31%. Which means that the rest of DA would have to be over 100% to get the 80% average.

9) In producing the "evidence" of EGW's alleged plagiarism we find that the original source(s) have been manipulated and distorted without telling the reader that this has been done.

9) To prove the plagiarism claim one needs to do the kind of study that Dr. Veltman noted in his study and yet none of the critics have done even one.

10) The critics claim that Dr. Veltman's study proves that EGW plagiarized when in fact he notes in his intro that he isn't even looking at the plagiarism question. Was it that hard to read?

How many free rides should we give these critics? Has any critic ever disowned any of the lies* that have been told?

*This assumes that the person saying it knows that what they are saying is a lie. They could (moast likely) be simply repeating what someone else told them or they read on the web without ever checking to see if it is so--not the Bereans of old!

Where is the evidence of that any of these alleged claims have been made in this forum? Please post the links that will confirm your claims.

BFA

[thecountrydoc]

PLEASE NOTE: When a link is posted, with no opposition to it being stated, it is legaly correct to believe the link posted is in fact endorsed by the poster.

Respectfully,
Doc

[honorthesabbath]

A-G-E-N-D-A!!!!!

[djconklin]

Where is the evidence of that any of these alleged claims have been made in this forum? Please post the links that will confirm your claims.

Hmm, #2 clearly stated "One critic on another forum (Beliefnet) ..." what part don't you understand?

Where's the rule that says I can only expose the false claims that are made here vs, anywhere on the web?

11) Another critic on a Catholic forum claimed that due to the plagiarisms involved EGW's book The Great Controversy wasn't allowed in the Library of Congress. In less than 5 minutes of work, that anyone could have done, I found out that they have 13 copies.

[Byfaithalone1]

Hmm, #2 clearly stated "One critic on another forum (Beliefnet) ..." what part don't you understand?

Where's the rule that says I can only expose the false claims that are made here vs, anywhere on the web?

11) Another critic on a Catholic forum claimed that due to the plagiarisms involved EGW's book The Great Controversy wasn't allowed in the Library of Congress. In less than 5 minutes of work, that anyone could have done, I found out that they have 13 copies.

Then obviously the former and non-SDAs who post here cannot speak to your claims. You need to go to the people with whom you have concerns and address it directly with them. We have no background or context with which to view your claims.

BFA

[JonMiller]

Why are you attacking all critics on the points of a few extremists?

Jon Miller

[Jimlarmore]

I can remember most of the claims DJ is talking about. What always pops up with someone who is about to become a former sda is EGW bashing. You can find all sorts of stuff on the internet that bashes EGW. Just google her name and see what pops up. The basic foundation of most of the claims is either lies or distorted facts.

Recently, we have all been the witness of a lot of EGW bashing over the great disappointment. What the basher's main agenda was to accomplish was to invalidate or impune EGW's writings and specifically William Miller's stance on the date setting. His focus was on a presumed lie and EGW's support of that lie. He never said much about the evangelistic aspect of what happened back then. He never said anything about the relationship of the great disappointment in 1844 to the bitter sweet experience of Rev 10 even though he demanded I show the relationship. I did that in a separate thread. No response at all to my knowledge as to the validity or not.

It's relatively easy to bash someone when they are not alive to defend themselves. It's relatively easy to bash someone after a century's separation of time and context to blurr true facts and context. It's easy to bash someone if the content of the slander's are partial truths that confuse and obfuscate.

All in all I am not an EGW fan or scholar. I can say I feel blessed each time I read her writings and the fact that so many are attacking her writings at this time makes me think that satan is behind most of it and is the virtual author of any of the confusion that has resulted sor far.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[tall73]

Miller set dates. Miller was wrong. Ellen said his date-setting message was a test.

It is not hard to discount that message as false.

And you once again go to personal attacks and attribute it all to Satan when people raise questions about Ellen White.

[Jimlarmore]

Raising questions for the right reasons to clarify or to fully understand all perspectives is good. No one who is a clear thinking person would question that. What you have done is so one sided that it's very obvious what your motive is, i.e. bashing EGW and the sda movement in general. You call it personal attacks. I call it telling it like it is.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[JonMiller]

Why do people hold Ellen up as someone who made no mistakes? Who was perfect in understanding?

We hold up no one in the Bible but Christ to that standard. And we should hold up no one but Christ to that standard.

Take Ellen off the pedestal, she doesn't belong there and putting her there makes the SDA church appear as edge Christianity (like the Mormons).

Jon Miller

[PostTribber]

Why do people hold Ellen up as someone who made no mistakes? Who was perfect in understanding?

We hold up no one in the Bible but Christ to that standard. And we should hold up no one but Christ to that standard.

Take Ellen off the pedestal, she doesn't belong there and putting her there makes the SDA church appear as edge Christianity (like the Mormons).

Jon Miller
.... that's good preaching! somebody anoint this guy before TBN signs him up! :thumbsup:

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Jon,

It is for those very reason's that I don't use Ellen white to defend my faith. Nor do I believe in using her writings as a "battering ram" against others.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

[Your Neighbor]

"Why are the critics of the SDA church and EGW so deceptive?"

Who is their father?

[djconklin]

Then obviously the former and non-SDAs who post here cannot speak to your claims. You need to go to the people with whom you have concerns and address it directly with them. We have no background or context with which to view your claims.

Sure they can! Are they true or false?

12) The claim that EGW saw tall people on Jupiter.

Is it true of false?

As for not having the excuse of not having the "context," the web is very easy to search.

[djconklin]

Why are you attacking all critics on the points of a few extremists?

I'm not; obviously those critics who disavow the claims that are listed aren't covered by the post. The only questions are who disavows what?

[djconklin]

Miller set dates.

Not quite true. Miller used 1843/4. It was Snow and others who set specific dates. Therefore Miller was not wrong because he can back them up from Scripture and as Arasola noted most preachers back then agreed with him.

[Jimlarmore]

Not quite true. Miller used 1843/4. It was Snow and others who set specific dates. Therefore Miller was not wrong because he can back them up from Scripture and as Arasola noted most preachers back then agreed with him.

The focus of some here to bash, impune or otherwise invalidate is on William Miller. However, he was only one of many who was proclaiming the same message of 1843/44 time period for the cleansing of the sanctuary. Why don't we look at some of the other's who proclaimed the same message?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[djconklin]

Why don't we look at some of the other's who proclaimed the same message?

Because it would dilute the "effectiveness" of the unfactual bashing? Innuendo works well for those who don't critically analyze what they are being told.

[tnp2140]

"Why are the critics of the SDA church and EGW so deceptive?"

Who is their father?



Amen and Amen!

[djconklin]

Why do people hold Ellen up as someone who made no mistakes? Who was perfect in understanding?

Supposedly Rea held EGW up on a pedestal and would preach whole sermons on her (which she said NOT to do).

[Sophia7]

Supposedly Rea held EGW up on a pedestal and would preach whole sermons on her (which she said NOT to do).

Please provide evidence to support your statement.

[JohnT]

I find it interesting that the OP is a prime example of the difficulty that I and others have here.

BTW are my recent posts "in the cooler" as I can not find them? The content of each is very tame.

Conklin, in his OP begs to discuss other forums' content, and them makes an accusation, unsubstantiated as of this posting, calling certain unnamed posters "deceptive"

Yet, to disallow the posters from that other community who might disagree with Conklin is to allow him to make accusations, and have them unanswered by definition of having a closed forum.

This attributes no ill will to Conklin, but merely shows the complexity of the issue.

Thanks for letting this be posted

[Sophia7]

BTW are my recent posts "in the cooler" as I can not find them? The content of each is very tame.

Did you do a search for all your posts? There could be some bugs in the search function because I've noticed that a lot of people's most recent posts are not showing up in searches.

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=45767043#post45767043)
Supposedly Rea held EGW up on a pedestal and would preach whole sermons on her (which she said NOT to do).

Please provide evidence to support your statement.

Search the web.

[djconklin]

Conklin, in his OP begs to discuss other forums' content, and them makes an accusation, unsubstantiated as of this posting, calling certain unnamed posters "deceptive"

1) Only some of the remarks are found in other forums, not all of them. Most can be found on anti-SDA or anti-EGW web pages.
2) I have never ever called a person deceptive--they may be simply repeating what they have been told. I very clearly said at the end of the OP:

"How many free rides should we give these critics? Has any critic ever disowned any of the lies* that have been told?

*This assumes that the person saying it knows that what they are saying is a lie. They could (most likely) be simply repeating what someone else told them or they read on the web without ever checking to see if it is so--not the Bereans of old!"

Which part didn't you understand? Isn't it deceptive to say that called people deceptive when I didn't?

[JohnT]

Did you do a search for all your posts? There could be some bugs in the search function because I've noticed that a lot of people's most recent posts are not showing up in searches.


The latest post in "Own Posts" is labeled March 20. I made about 5 posts here since then.

Several of the latest were on topics pertaining to the rules here, and I made what I thought were pertinent suggestions. I tried to use the search functions on yours and T & O's name, but couldn't do that, either.

Thanks for the help!

[JohnT]

1) Only some of the remarks are found in other forums, not all of them.
2) I never ever call a person deceptive--they may be simply repeating what they have been told. I very clearly said at the end of the OP:

"How many free rides should we give these critics? Has any critic ever disowned any of the lies* that have been told?

*This assumes that the person saying it knows that what they are saying is a lie. They could (most likely) be simply repeating what someone else told them or they read on the web without ever checking to see if it is so--not the Bereans of old!"

Which part didn't you understand? Isn't it deceptive to say that called people deceptive when I didn't?

Then if you "never called a person deceptive" then why did you title the thread thus: Why are the critics of the SDA church and EGW so deceptive?

Your contradiction, not my accusation. :D

[djconklin]

then why did you title the thread thus: Why are the critics of the SDA church and EGW so deceptive?


Playing off the title to another thread "Why is the SDA so deceptive? (http://christianforums.com/t7115716-why-is-the-sda-so-deceptive.html)" And then I listed examples of deception.

Note that none of those who disagree with the SDA church or EGW have yet to disown even a single one of the points listed.

[djconklin]

Note that none of those who disagree with the SDA church or EGW have yet to disown even a single one of the points listed.