By Mike Furches

Is Seventh Day Adventism a denomination of Christianity, a Sect of Christianity, or a Cult?  While moderating and reviewing a forum on the movie Bruce Almighty for the web site www.hollywoodjesus.com I became engaged in a discussion taking place over this issue.  Over the years, I had lived for a period in Hendersonville North Carolina near the small town of Fletcher North Carolina.  This community had a large Seventh Day Adventism community and David Koresh of Waco Fame  recruited a number of members from this community.  As a pastor, I was ashamed that I knew little about Seventh Day Adventism.  After reading and reviewing the discussion taking place on Hollywood Jesus I decided to do some research on the topic and the following is a result of much of that research. 

As I was researching the subject, I came across a name in some cult material written by Dr. Richard Kyle of Hillsboro Kansas and Tabor College.  Dr. Kyle or Coach Kyle as I came to know him was one of my football coaches and professors while I attended Tabor.  After some discussion with him I realized the importance of developing my own conclusions about this particular group. 

So what do I believe?  Frankly, while there are many aspects of Christianity within this group, I have found that I have serious issues with the church.  Among those issues is the perspective of their view of Jesus Christ as the same entity as Michael the Ark Angel.  They also practice Sabbath Observances and follow rather strict dietary guidelines.  There are other views that will be gone over in the writings that follow.  The primary issue of concern that I have with the SDA has to do with the respect and recognition given to Ellen G. White.  The church views this particular individual as a prophet and with her history there are some serious concerns.  Frankly, I do not recognize or accept the fact that Ellen G. White is a prophet.  Based on the belief of the church, SDA, that she was a significant leader and founder in, I believe their doctrines and teachings need to come under serious question.  While I have a responsibility to love all persons accordingly, I have serious concerns over their view of Jesus Christ.  I also believe that for the church to receive credibility they must denounce many of the teachings of Ellen G. White as being false.  As you read some of the following, you may see why I have come up with the conclusions I have. 

The following are among the links used for research of this particular topic.  As you will notice the information studied included not only Christian web sites that debunk Seventh Day Adventism, they also included web sites that are supportive of Ellen G. White and Seventh Day Adventism.  My research also included many of the writings of Ellen G. White.  Why was the research so critical.  Simply put, many if not most Christians seem to base their opinions of SDA on people they know or things they have heard.  When looking at and considering the teachings of Christ, and the authority of the Bible, I felt it important to base my opinions on Scripture and historical evidence.  It became vital that nice people did not influence my thought, instead my thoughts and opinions needed to be based on Gods Word.  I realized from a very early age that even the Devil himself can appear as an angel of light and he himself is the author of all lies.  Below is a list of Web Sites that provided valuable information to my research.  Although this is not the complete list the list does give some good information.  I would caution the importance of finding legitimate research material and to be careful when using the web.  Make sure that the site that you are visiting has accurate information, this can be done by cross-referencing materials and comments.

Ellen G. White Estate

 http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/issues/issues.html
_____

Links attached to that page specifically:

http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/issues/scripsda.html

http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-c1

http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-c2

_____

Unfulfilled Prophecies of Ellen G. White?

http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-d

_____

Alleged Historical Errors of the SDA Church.

http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-e

_____

Apparent Discrepancies and Contradictions.

http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-f

_____

Extra-Biblical Descriptions of the SDA.

http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-h2

Here is also a good link:

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/spiritbehindchurch.htm

_____

One of the teachings espoused by many within the church is that Archangel Michael is in reality Jesus, I haven’t found anything saying EGW was the one who said this, of course it is possible that I just have not found it yet. I did find information on the SDA General Conference's (the main conference for the church) website at these links.

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/Biblequestions/jesusothername.htm

_____

 

An  article on Ellen White, as a PDF file and the amount of info that is on her is in the first couple pages

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_74.pdf

_____

 EGW & Hermeneutics.

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/Hermeneutics.htm

_____

Another criticism of EGW is her use of plagiarism.  The following link is a reply to that complaint.  It is as well in PDF format.  Even this article, used to support EGW in my opinion shows the loose translation of the work of supporters of SDA as well as their own willingness to go to great lengths to support this particular leader in their faith as opposed to recognizing her fallacies.  This is also a PDF file. 

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/plagiarist.pdf

The following is a review of a EGW SDA book that is fair and again shows concerns of the church.

http://www.tagnet.org/adventist.fm/articles/clear.htm

The Clear Word Bible is a book that is debated to be published by the SDA.  There are serious misinterpretations in this particular Bible that is used to support the SDA perspectives as opposed to translating the Word of God.  It is always a dangerous sign when a translation is made to support a particular group as does the SDA as does the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 
http://millennium.fortunecity.com/lincoln/666/clearwordbible/clear-word.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/clearword/clearword.html

(all the links but one is broken, that link is pretty good)

One of the problems with this bible as you will see is the extra biblical texts.  While study guides are appropriate, text incorporated as biblical text is dangerous and misleading.  It certainly seems to go against the concept that we should not add to or take away from the Word of God.  It becomes evident that with this particular text and Bible that the SDA have done just that to support their religious positions.  

The book was printed by the same publishing company that prints the Adventist Review and many other Adventist related articles. Whether or not that publishing company is owned by the General Conference is not certain.  While many may question the legitimacy of if this bible is owned and supported by the SDA Church, it is certainly obvious to me that the church at the very least supports the bible due to their publishing house publishing it.

Views of the church & EGW - Different people can interpret the Bible and life experiences differently.

View of SDA:  The Creator of all ideas may impress different minds with the same thought, but each may express it in a different way, yet without contradiction. The fact that this difference exists should not perplex or confuse us. It is seldom that two persons will view and express truth in the very same way. Each dwells on particular points which his constitution and education have fitted him to appreciate. The sunlight falling upon the different objects gives those objects a different hue.

Through the inspiration of His Spirit the Lord gave His apostles truth, to be expressed according to the development of their minds by the Holy Spirit. But the mind is not cramped, as if forced into a certain mold. (Letter 53, 1900.)

My perspective:  While it is true that different people may have different perspectives, an example here is the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus.  That truth should never contradict the ultimate truth.  EGW has the tendency to not just contradict her self, but to contradict the truth of Scripture.  The Scripture also deals with ultimate truths and those truths, the existence of God, His Son Jesus Christ, His Death, Resurrection, etc, can not be contradicted or interpreted differently.  Another great danger I have is that EGW seems to describe truth according to what she believes as opposed to obvious truths that are mentioned in Scripture.  Those interpretations center around a variety of areas including Hell, Salvation, Works, etc.

Comparison between EGW and the Apostle Paul or other Biblical writers.

View of SDA:  Surely Paul never imagined that his letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon would become public domain. But the Lord planned those letters to be part of the canon to bring inspiration, instruction, and comfort to many young ministers and believers confronting similar circumstances.

Likewise, Ellen White never imagined that her personal letters, especially those addressed to her husband and children, would become public domain.  In deciding to make these available, the White Estate board of trustees considered two principles: first, Ellen White herself stated that testimonies that had been directed to a single individual to instruct, correct, or encourage that person in a particular situation would be helpful to others also.( Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 660)  Second, if the Lord allowed Paul's personal letters to be in the Bible to serve a wider audience, why should He not do the same with a later prophet?

Ellen White's personal letters show the prophet corresponding with her audience, expressing her burdens and feelings. Many times there is no "I saw" at the beginning of the letter. But this does not mean that she is writing only her personal feelings or opinions. She is well aware of the divine source of her writings.(Ibid pg 68)

The Role of Prophets

1. An Imperfect Messenger

View of SDA:   The fact that prophets were called "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21) neither means they were sinless nor prevents us from recognizing their weaknesses as human beings. Any attempt to make the Biblical prophets "perfect" will be confronted by the Bible record itself. Think of King David. Though he was a prophet, he committed gross sins. When his relationship with God was broken by sin, God sent another prophet to correct His servant (2 Sam. 12:1-13). After David's repentance, the way of communication was once again open, and he was inspired to write the beautiful psalm of confession (Ps. 51).

We should not build our confidence in the Biblical prophets on the basis of the prophets' perfect record. Neither should we do so with a modern prophet--the authority of the prophetic word is not based upon a perfect life or perfect behavior. Ellen White never claimed perfection or infallibility. "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His Word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning.”  (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 37)  From her diaries and personal letters, we know that sometimes she was discouraged; sometimes she had disagreements with her husband; many times she had to ask forgiveness; she made mistakes.

My perspective:  I can agree with much of what is said above.  The question becomes though; what about the prophesies of the prophet?  When those prophesies are disproved or false, then at that particular point it becomes obvious that they are not speaking for God.  God is without error and never fails. 

2. A Mistaken Prophet

View of SDA: In the Biblical record we find instances in which a prophet had to be corrected because of preconceived ideas. The apostles first believed that only the Jews could be saved. The Holy Spirit had to correct that idea if the gospel was to be carried to all the world. A vision in Peter's case (Acts 10, 11) and special revelations in Paul's case (Eph. 3:3-6) enlightened the apostles and thereby the whole church.

In the Advent movement we also find instances when the prophet had to be corrected because of preconceived ideas. Our pioneers were greatly limited in their comprehension of mission by a theological error carried over from the Millerite movement--the shut door doctrine, the belief that the door of mercy was closed. Even Ellen White accepted it. In successive visions, the Spirit corrected the idea, first in her mind and then, through her, in the entire movement.(Ibid., pp. 63, 64.)

The fact that the Holy Spirit corrected any mistaken doctrine related with global mission in the minds of Peter, Paul, and Ellen White gives us the assurance that the Spirit is in control of the inspired message.

In other instances, a prophet had to be corrected because the counsel or suggestion was different from the Lord's plan.  Thus, we find Nathan the prophet first approving David's plan to build a house for the Lord, but the Lord corrected that idea.

We find parallels in Ellen White's ministry. In 1902 the publishing house operated by Seventh-day Adventists in the South of the United States was struggling financially. The leaders of the church sought inspired counsel. After some consideration Ellen White endorsed the decision of the leaders to close the publishing house. But during the following night God corrected His messenger. She had to write a different message.(Letter 208, 1902, in Spalding and Magan Collection, p. 282)

Again, all the New Testament writers believed Jesus' return was near. Although we cannot follow the exact chronological manner in which the Holy Spirit dealt with this issue, we know the apostles received further information. For instance, in his First Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul gave the impression that he expected to be alive for the Lord's coming (1 Thess. 4:16, 17). However, additional information between the two letters led him to caution the church not to expect the Lord to come immediately (2 Thess. 2:1-4).

Likewise, John was convinced he was living in "the last hour" (1 John 2:18). Further visions gave him the opportunity to tell the church, surely with sadness, that many things would happen--including fierce persecution--before the coming of the Lord. Undoubtedly, the book of Revelation was the answer of the Spirit to many questions arising in the mind of the beloved apostle.

All the believers in the Advent movement, the Lord's special messenger included, shared the conviction that the Lord's coming was near. We do not need to be embarrassed [p. 27] by the fact that Ellen White expressed her expectations, as did Paul, Peter, and John in Biblical times. Once again the Holy Spirit had to correct some ideas and give additional information to guide the church in the right direction.

In 1856 Ellen White was shown that some believers attending a meeting would be alive until the coming of Jesus. (See Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 131, 132)  In the years that followed, the Lord gave her an extended vision of the great controversy with additional information about the journey that was still ahead. It also was revealed that "we may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years.” (Evangelism, p. 696)

My Perspective:  One of the primary problems with the logic used in this argument is a presumption of acceptance that these individuals representing the Adventists are indeed prophets.  Part of the acceptance of this particular belief system falls upon the unconditional acceptance that the people who speak for it are from God.  If looking at their lives and comments you will find it dangerous, especially in the areas where they seem to contradict scriptural teachings.

Some of the comments regarding the apostles thinking that only Jews can be saved for instance is in itself false in that not all of the apostles were Jews.  This is certainly evident that this was not Jewish thought even from Old Testament writings where God provided salvation and safety for Gentiles.  Jewish leaders of the time were certainly aware of these laws and teachings within the Law. 

Another concern is the willingly acceptance of false and bad teachings.  Even the SDA admit themselves that many of their teachings were based on “theological error” as taught by the Millerite Movement and EGW.  They do state that the Holy Spirit corrected EGW but one of the questions I have is, that if this is the case why did the Holy Spirit change his mind so much?  The truth is I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit does change his mind, and it is evident that throughout her life EGW changed her mind and perspective numerous times.  That fact is easily documented and proven, if that is the case she again disqualifies herself as a prophet.  Again notice in their writings how EGW is again held in the same regard as Paul and other writers of the New Testament.  Again this is extremely dangerous.

One of the dangers of being held in the same regard is that at this point she could follow the same logic as Muslims or others who claim that others came after Jesus to complete his work. It assumes that his work was not complete but it also concludes that the writings of some who come after have the right to interpret, to their own likening often,  the writings of those of in the New Testament.  We see examples of this all through EGW’s writings.

Concluding on this particular point, while it is true that many of the writers of the New Testament seemed to think that Christ was returning soon, physically, those beliefs are stated primarily as beliefs and are not involved in the teaching of doctrine other in how we are to live.  In other words, there is a clear distinction between hopes, that Christ will return quickly, and teachings, that we should love one another.  There seems to be issue again with SDA that the Holy Spirit, “corrected” teachings.  This again is a concept you don’t see in the New Testament.  The Holy Spirit may have completed and shown issues of fulfillment but those things were discussed and prophesied during the initial prophesies.  In the teachings of SDA there seems to once again be an effort to justify the false and inaccurate teachings of EGW.  Who is to know which of the visions of EGW where legitimate visions or messages from God and which were simply wrong. The fact is that if any were wrong then she was not a prophet of God.

3. Imperfect Language

View of SDA: Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in verbal inspiration (the idea that God dictates the exact wording to the prophet). With the exception of the Ten Commandments, all the inspired writings are the result of the combined efforts of the Holy Spirit, who inspires the prophet with a vision, an impression, a counsel, or a judgment; and the prophet, who begins to look for sentences, literary figures, and expressions to convey God's message accurately.

God gives the prophet freedom to select the kind of language he or she wants to use. That accounts for the different styles of the Biblical writers and explains why Ellen White describes the language used by inspired writers as "imperfect" and "human."

Because "everything that is human is imperfect," (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 20, 21) we must accept the idea of imperfections and mistakes in both the Bible and Ellen White's writings. This means at least two things: 1. The prophet uses his or her common, everyday language learned from childhood and improved through study, reading, and travel; there is nothing supernatural or divine in the language used.

2. The prophet can make orthographical or grammatical mistakes, as well as other kinds of language imperfections such as lapsus linguae (a slip of the tongue) or lapsus memoriae (a slip of the memory), which need to be corrected by an editor before the text is ready for publication. The editor corrects not the inspired message, but rather the noninspired language.

We find a lapsus linguae in Matthew's Gospel, when he quotes Zechariah but mentions Jeremiah in connection with the 30 pieces of silver (Matt. 27:9, 10; Zech. 11:12, 13; Jer. 32:6-9). For a person who believes in verbal inspiration, this raises serious questions; but for those who accept that the Lord speaks to human beings in imperfect speech, this illustrates how the divine message reaches us through an imperfect language.

The following statement of Ellen White, when she quotes Paul but mentions Peter, is similar: ."The love of Christ constraineth us," the apostle Peter declared. This was the motive that impelled the zealous disciple in his arduous labors in the cause of the gospel." (Review and Herald, Oct. 30, 1913; see Paul's statement in 2 Cor. 5:14) [p. 28] Fortunately, we have enough evidence in the Bible, as well as in the history of the Advent movement, to show us that the Holy Spirit always corrected His messengers in matters important to the church.

The Lord surprises us with His marvelous and sometimes strange ways. In communicating with His people, He has selected human beings, dedicated but faulty, using an imperfect human language, as His instruments to convey His message. We must be grateful to our heavenly Father that He did not select a "superhuman" language understood by only a few select persons, but chose to use our own imperfect, common way of seeing and understanding things.

In accepting His ways, we also must be careful not to confuse the content with the container. We must not discard the "treasure" inside just because the "vessel" is imperfect and sometimes unworthy. (See Selected Messages, book 1, p. 26)

My Perspective:  While there is truth in much of what is said it seems as if a great deal of the controversy surrounding EGW lies not only in the messenger but in the message that she delivers.  It is in the message that many contradictions are found.  Not in the mistakes that are described in these writings of the church but in the prophesies themselves.  It is those prophesies that seem to have blatant errors and mistakes.  These mistakes often times contradict themselves and thus give cause of concern of the teachings as a whole. If looking at these comments closely you will once again see an attempt to justify the mistakes of their church leader.  While there are good people within the church, there must be distance placed between those individuals and the reality and teaching of Christ.  The legalism, and false teachings and following of false prophets can’t help but give serious concerns as to the possibility of following an angel of light.

 One of the claims by opponents of SDA and specifically Ellen G. White is her belief and comments regarding humans breeding with animals.  This is known of as Amalgamation of man and beast.  Below are comments regarding her perspective and mine on this particular issue.

Amalgamation of man and beast

View of SDA:  Some have charged that Ellen White wrote in 1864 (and republished in 1870) that humans once cohabited with animals and that their offspring produced certain races that exist today. The statement reads: "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him." [1]

No dictionary has ever used "amalgamation" to describe the cohabitation of man with beast. The primary use of the word describes the fusion of metals, the union of different elements such as in making tooth cements. Nineteenth-century usage included the mixing of diverse races.

Granted, her statement could appear ambiguous: Does she mean "amalgamation of man with beast" or "amalgamation of man and of beast"? Often, repetition of the preposition is omitted in similar construction. [2]

On other occasions, when Mrs. White used the word "amalgamation," she used it metaphorically, comparing faithful believers and worldlings. [3] She also used it to describe the origin of poisonous plants and other irregularities in the biological world: "Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up.  All tares are sown by the evil one.  Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares." [4]

Recognizing that Satan has been an active agent in the corrupting of God's plan for man, beast, plants, etc., we can better understand what Ellen White may have meant when she described the results of amalgamation. That which "defaced the image of God" in man and that which "confused the species [of animals]" has been the handiwork of Satan with the cooperation of humans. Such "amalgamation of man and [of] beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men," becomes understandable.

Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human relationship. She did speak of "species of animals" and "races of men" but not any kind of amalgam of animals with human beings.

We recognize, however, that serious students of Ellen White's writings differ on what she meant by "amalgamation." "The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term." [5]

For further study of this issue, see "Amalgamation" in the Reference Library.

My Perspective:  The truth be known, on this particular issue the estate of EGW is not certain as to what she meant by her comments and admit to differing opinion even within their church.  From the comments and their own records, indication seems to show that she did in fact make statements and believe that at one time animals and humans mated and engaged in sexual activity.  This issue of her belief here is not nearly as important as the Estate of EGW and the SDA Church trying to cover up for her beliefs and explain her comments away.  Again the fact that they still give her prophet status after comments like this take away from her and the churches credibility. 

Ellen G. White also has a great deal of debate surrounding her comments and position on various issue regarding the solar system and space.  She claims to have visited another planet and made numerous other comments regarding the solar system and on issues regarding Astronomy.  The following looks at some of those particular issues.

Her visit to another planet

Astronomical statements

View of SDA:  Attention has been called to statements that seem to show that Ellen White made grievous errors regarding scientific issues. Prophets are not called to update encyclopedias or dictionaries. Nor are prophets (or anyone else) to be made "an offender by a word" (Isa. 29:21). If prophets are to be held to the highest standards of scientific accuracy (every few years these "standards" change, even for the experts), we would have cause to reject Isaiah for referring to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12) and John for writing that he saw "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1).

Some point to the phrase, "As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun," charging that Ellen White was untrustworthy in scientific matters. [1] But most readers would recognize this use of "stars" for "planets of our solar system" as a non-technical description easily understood by laymen.

Some have declared Ellen White was in error when she allegedly said that she had visited a "world which had seven moons," [2] and that the planets visited were Jupiter and Saturn. In point of fact, she never named the "world which had seven moons." But there is more to the story.

Less than three months after she and James were married in 1846, she had a vision at the Curtis home in Topsham, Maine, in the presence of Joseph Bates. Although Bates had seen Ellen White in vision on several occasions, he still had doubts about her prophetic gift; but through the Topsham vision he was convinced that "the work is of God." [3] James White reported that, in this vision, Mrs. White was "guided to the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their moons, etc. It is well known, that she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one question in relation to the planets, before she had this vision." [4]

What was it that convinced Bates, the old sea captain and amateur astronomer, that Ellen White was "of God"? After the vision, she described what she had seen. Knowing that she had no background in astronomy, Bates said, "This is of the Lord."

Obviously, what Bates heard corresponded to his knowledge of what telescopes showed in 1846. Almost certainly this vision was given in Bates's presence to give him added confidence in Ellen White's ministry. If she had mentioned the number of moons that modern telescopes reveal, it seems clear that Bates's doubts would have been confirmed. [5] (See "Avoid Making the Counsels 'Prove' Things They Were Never Intended to Prove.")

My Perspective:  One of the differences between the comments in Scripture that is used by the supporters of the SDA Church is that the terms used by Isaiah and John are generalization statements as opposed to statements that claim to be scientifically accurate.  In other words, when those comments were  made they were made explaining the truths that were known at the time in describing the world.  No where did these Biblical texts pretend to be scientific.  On the contrary Mrs. White’s comments have been given scientific credibility by many within the church.  This is of course if one makes the presumption that she actually did visit another planet via some form of transcendental meditation experience.  The reality of it is that many have had concerns over the accuracy of her description of other planets and of her own mental health at times.  One of the questions I would ask is was she actually having visions or hallucinations as a result of a mental illness or some other possible effect.  Many individuals, including myself, who has experience with mental illness believe that Ellen G. White suffered from some form of brain damage of mental illness which caused the hallucinations.  The inconsistencies of her own visions and the apparent contradictions and changes of her own writings seem to indicate this.  Understand, that my opinion on this issue is that this visit to another planet did not occur.  It would be amazing that God would decide to give the need for this at the time when we see no explanation of this in any other area of Scripture.  It is another example of how EGW has expanded the current Scriptural narrative and how the church has to work at supporting her supposed experiences.

On this issue one of the concerns is that I have is the danger that could come about from individuals believing that they could obtain the same level of spirituality as EGW supposedly possessed.  It is the same danger that can come about from the profession that if one is sick that the sickness is from Satan.  This is dangerous when God deals with different people in different ways and when sometimes there are natural consequences for our actions.  The truth is that following the example of EGW on this issue could result in one opening themselves up to Eastern or New Age practices.  While prayer and meditation are a part of the New Testament, we don’t see those examples going beyond the point of vision as EGW seemed to on this and other particular examples. 

There is an underlying implication that EGW was needed as a messenger to explain things that are not in the Bible, this is dangerous due to the fact that the Bible and it’s message are completed and perfected in Revelations with mention of no need to add to or take away from.  Prophets may very well be needed in various areas but they would not add to scripture or need further clarification of Scripture, that becomes the job of the Holy Spirit.

It could be interpreted that many web sites that are objectionable to the SDA Church raise serious questions.  After review of material written by EGW this becomes obvious as to why.

Obvious on one web site is verification of what I am talking about here.  The web site I am speaking of is available here:  http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/spiritbehindchurch.htm, That the church has some issues with EGW and in some ways is trying to distance themselves from her.  This needs to be done in an official capacity and knowledge of these concerns need to be discussed within the general membership of the SDA Church.  Until this is done, and EGW continues to be revered in the way she is I will continue to have serious objections and concerns as to whether the church is at the least a Christian Sect and quite possibly a Cult. 

Another controversy has to do with the predication of the return of Christ.

View of SDA:  Although William Miller(One of the founders of the SDA movement)  admitted his mistake regarding October 22, 1844 being the date of Christ’s return,  Ellen White never did.

Closing comments:  Before going on let me say there are many more things that I could have gone into, including the observance of the Sabbath.  Those are issues that while I may have some level of disagreement , those issues in them selves would not classify this group as a cult.  I will make closing comments though on some things discussed earlier.

This is true. After the Great Disappointment, William Miller admitted his mistake regarding Christ's returning on October 22, 1844, and he also gave up believing that October 22 had any prophetic significance. On the other hand, Ellen White never discarded her belief in the prophetic significance of the October 22 date, so she had no reason to admit a mistake had been made regarding the calculation, beyond the obvious fact that Christ had not returned that day. Several references showing her consistent position are given below.

Resources:

·                     Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 1858, pp. 148-150.

·                     Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 1858, pp. 148-150.

·                     Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 1884, pp. 251-257.

·                     Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, 1911, pp. 403-408.

According to Ellen White, God made the mistake on the Millerite prophetic chart referred to in statement 6.  Imagine the implications of God making a mistake! 

Answer: God, in His providence, permitted events to unfold as they did for His own divine purposes.

·        Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, 1998, p. 490.

·        Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, 1951, pp. 342-344.

The web site:  http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/Biblequestions/jesusothername.htm Does support the idea that Jesus and Michael are one in the same.  Again, this is dangerous theology because it runs the risk of giving Jesus a lesser position.  On the event that they would be wrong here they would seriously be devaluating God’s creation, either for his son or for the Archangel Michael.  While Jesus is given Deity status, to not recognize the difference between an angel and the Son of God could bring about serious lack of understanding as to the Savior and his role as well as the role of angels.  http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_74.pdf

Many Adventist have issues with her prophetic leadership.  There seems to be much contradiction as well, did she lead or did she not.  In the one article from the newsletter she is described as the leader of SDA.  If this is the case it would certainly allow SDA to fall into at least and possibly more of the cult status criteria.

This article as well admits to her mistakes. 

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/plagiarist.pdf

The definition of plagiarism is not consistent and does not take away from the fact that if she took any credit for material she didn’t write she was lying, this would give serious credibility issues to her.  If she had quoted or given credit that would have been fine, however to give the impression that she wrote something or had an idea that originally came from an additional source is I believe lying.

I must also go back to the premise that a prophet can make mistake or for that matter a messenger, in the prophesies of the Bible, or messages that were said to have come from God I do not see mistakes and this again causes me to seriously question her legitimacy.  I have not even gone into the area of exploration to her potential mental illness or brain damage.  I am leaving that up for further review later on.  One of the articles that attorneys seem to give legitimacy to the plagiarism issue is that the materials she borrowed from where not copyrighted.  This seems to be more of a legal position than it does a moral position.  It is also one that raises large level of concerns, at least from the perspective of supporting the wrongs of a leader.