Annoying Vegans
by Adam Hendron
A block of cheese — it’s a favorite whipping-post within Adventism. We hear familiar phrases: “It’s not a sin to eat cheese.” “There’s more to worshipping God than avoiding cheese.” “A lot of people will go to Hell who wouldn’t touch cheese.”
I was not raised in a believing family, and before becoming a Christian, I was a vegan vegetarian. It could not be said, therefore, that I was trying to work my way to heaven through diet. For me, it was a matter of biology, ecology, sociology, economy, and sympathy for animals.
In the kitchen of a Seattle restaurant where I worked, the radio was always tuned to a particular station from which a whiney voice cried regularly, “What about the cheese?!?” It was an amusing way of describing their ‘no nonsense’ broadcast style.
Cheese is that superfluous, non-essential ingredient that largely makes up for a lack of imagination in cooking. It covers a multitude of evil. Cheese, it seems, can redeem most any dish. Unlike the Savior, however, the effect of cheese is deleterious on the digestive system.
Many of us have heard the testimonies: “Cheese stops-up my system.” “Cheese makes my arthritis flare-up.” “Cheese disturbs my sleep.” Anticipating these problems, Jesus gave the gracious counsel: “Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach.”1
Whether or not we experience any symptoms, it should be enough that Jesus has spoken on this matter. It is an insult to His grace, to presume that His message is not clear enough. While church members debate the meaning of this subject, outsiders suffer.
John was considering becoming a Seventh-day Adventist. One of his children was extremely allergic to dairy. Out of consideration for the boy, the whole family was vegan. At a youth event, however, an unaware leader insisted that the child have some pizza. “A little cheese now-and-then won’t hurt anyone,” she said, not realizing that it would precipitate a trip to the hospital. John was even more exasperated after learning what the Church’s prophet warned about cheese.
Notwithstanding that Christ would discourage ice-cream socials, even crueler it is for our Churches to host one and make no provision for those who wish to avoid the harmful combination of milk and sugar2 Such must either face strong temptation or social isolation.
Should a little paper sign that reads ‘vegan’ be placed beside respective dishes, or is this an affront to those who choose to eat otherwise? On the other hand, some vegans are indignant at what they see as rebellion in the kitchen. Yet those who object to dairy don’t necessarily condemn those who partake of it, as it is often claimed. Both parties err, at times.
Though we should teach people the dangers of dairy, it is not the worst of evils and should not be our primary burden, nor should its use made a test of fellowship.3
Strident vegans are annoying. On the other hand, vegans are understandably upset by the carelessness of those who know better. “I am sad,” said Mrs. White, about those who willfully made dairy an article of diet.4 She was especially grieved when it seemed a particular hostess knowingly tempted her husband to eat cheese — for which he had a weakness.5
It is especially disheartening to see the leadership snubbing Christ’s counsel. “Your responsible men in the Office are not reformers. They eat meat, butter, cheese and rich pie and cake. Others will excuse their indulgence of appetite…”6
“Nothing brings such discouragement upon the Lord's watchmen as to be connected with those who have mental capacity, and who understand the reasons of our faith, but by precept and example manifest indifference to moral obligations.”7
“The gospel of health has able advocates, but their work has been made very hard because so many ministers, presidents of conferences, and others in positions of influence, have failed to give the question of health reform its proper attention. They have not recognized it in its relation to the work of the message as the right arm of the body. While very little respect has been shown to this department by many of the people, and by some of the ministers…”8
“Satan and his agents are seeking to hinder this work of reform, and will do all they can to perplex and burden those who heartily engage in it.”9 But no one suffers so much as our Savior, and those on both sides of this question can look to Him for strength to do what is right.
( Scripture references: Gen 1:29, John 16:12-13, Acts 3:21, Romans 8:21 & 14:15, 1 Cor 6:13; 19-20, 8:13, & 10:31, James 4:17, Rev 21:27.)
—————-
1 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 368.
2 Ibid, p. 533 & 536.
3 See Second Manuscript Release, p. 107.
4 Seventh Manuscript Release, p. 348
5 Fifteenth Manuscript Release, p. 246
6 Pamphlet 11, p. 76.
7 Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 38.
8 Ibid, p. 73.
9 Ibid, p. 76.
"Many of us have heard the testimonies: “Cheese stops-up my system.” “Cheese makes my arthritis flare-up.” “Cheese disturbs my sleep.” Anticipating these problems, Jesus gave the gracious counsel: “Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach.”1 "
A classic example of Adventist confusion, Jesus and Ellen White…no really they are not the same person!
Please, please, stop confusing Jesus with EGW.
Where in the Bible could you come up with such a statement:
"Whether or not we experience any symptoms, it should be enough that Jesus has spoken on this matterWhether or not we experience any symptoms, it should be enough that Jesus has spoken on this matter"?
This is an outright lie! Sorry to be so explicit, but unless you can give a Bible text where Jesus says anything about cheese, please do not spread such untruths.
Yes, there are allergies, but many more to nuts than cheese, and anyone who has such life-threatening allergies, carries an epi-pen for such hidden foods.
Cheese, in moderation is a good source of calcium and is far more safe than meat, for which it is often a substitute for vegetarians. If one wishes to be a vegan, then he should more carefully observe his diet to get proper nutrients. Cottage cheese and yogurt are also dairy products that are recommended on a healthful diet. Adventists have often been obsessive about diet and if the SDA message is to include becoming vegans, it shouldn't claim to be an SDA doctrine. It is such ideas that have caused many to completely reject EGW.
The Testimony of Jesus—not Ellen White—is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10). When God's prophets served their role, "the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when it testified" 1 Peter 1:11. Two chapters later, we read that Jesus preached to the antedeluvians through Noah (vv 18-20). Noah was the spokesperson, but Jesus was the preacher. Whose message is it? Christs! His Spirit testified through the human agency.
EGW in too many places is not only erroneous, but contradictory. To equate her with Jesus is blasphemy, something she never claimed.
Peter may have claimed that Noah preached to the antedeluvians, but it was never mentioned in the several accounts in Genesis. Sadly, Noah may not have known that millennia later he would be cited as preaching. Why did the writer exclude that?
First, no one is equating EGW with Jesus. That's a straw-man argument. Next, her writings are no more "erroneous" or "contradictory" than the Bible itself. (Critics make the same sort of arguments about both.) Now, are you questioning the inspiration of Peter's epistle? If the Bible is not trustworthy, you put yourself in the position of God as the final aribiter of truth. You ask why the writer of Genesis did not mention that Noah preached? Well, why did Moses not mention a plethora of other details that later biblical writers added to the periods he wrote of, for that matter? Paul, for example, says the rock that followed Israel through the wilderness was Jesus. And how could Moses himself write authoritatively about events that took place long before he was born?
Too many eggwhites is bad for the system.
Balance is the BEST option.
The Bible shows us what we can and what we cannot eat and cheese isn't described as something that we can't.
I've been a vegan before knowing Christ and I'm the only one in my family even now that almost all my relatives accepted Jesus as their Savior.
To eat or not cheese, does not make any difference in salvation or relationship with God, but in fact, avoid eating diary products is way healthier and beneficial to the body, than eating it.
"Know ye not that your body is the temple of God?" "Hearken diligently unto Me and eat ye that which is good." We should be intelligent as to what is the best food for the best physical, mental, and moral growth. Diary is never the best or even good. Great article here…. "" It's at the bottom of the page. http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/jul/fav5.htm Thanks Adam.
Don't give us modern evidence, Peter, just stick with the Bible! Besides, if the diaries are filled with sweet words, one might do well to eat them! (…better than animal products 😉
Cool y'all got edit, bold, tab, undo – the works – nifty! Thanks…
Humans seem to be the only mammals that feed their young the milk of another species and continue to consume it even into adulthood. Weird!
T
Actually, Americans use more cow's milk that any other nation. However, cheese is a very, very old food as is yogurt–which has many health benefits.
If one wishes to be a vegan, the diet is more important to ensure sufficient nutrients.
Is this a serious article? It reads like something from The Onion. It certainly puts the exclamation point to Annoying Vegans. Eating a nutritious vegan diet that includes everything one needs for health is very difficult. It requires a knowledge of nutrition that few vegans I've known have. Additionally, I agree with Elaine that equating EGW with Christ is blasphemous. It certainly won't win anyone to your point of view if they actually go looking for the cheese quote in the Bible and discover it's not there.
This provides another context for asking what do this verses mean: 1 Timothy 4: 1-5? They seem very clear (and contrary to the direction of this article) to me.
That verse is a reference to the Roman Church, which has commanded its members to abstain from red meats on Fridays, and it's priests to abstain from marriage. The SDA church makes no such demands.
Are there any true vegans here? No leather shoes, no leathe belts, furniture or car upholstery? What are you shoes made of?
This is a perversion of Adventism if it's real, and not a joke. If any SDA pastor promoted this type of message, it would be the last time many listen. Is this for real? Where did ANYONE, let alone a SDA pastor come up with the idea of promoting veganism for Adventists? Even vegetarians should read the verses highlighted above:
"Everything God has created is good, and no food is to be rejected, provided grace is said for it. Jesus certainly was not a vegan, and what Bible character has ever been a vegan? Surely the article is satire.
Surely, Jesus has been vegan for some 2000 years since His ascension and for an eternity prior to His incarnation. And the verse you quoted is followed directly by these words: "For it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer." The Word of God clearly does not sanctify every animal for food. See Leviticus 11. The Lord even forbids the use of dairy in a certain context (Ex 34:26). These last days also present a questionable context, in the way dairy is produced. Jesus sent His messenger to attest of such.
Did anyone notice that not a single Bible text was quoted to support the writer's thesis? Only EGW quotations were used. Some Bible texts were linked but unquoted. Could it be that not a single Bible text supports the idea of veganism as does the writer?
Could it be? Look them up and find out. Obviously, the Bible does not address these issues so specifically as does the prophet of the end. The quotes were chosen on the basis that people are more familiar with the Scriptures than these, and for brevity. (A discussion of the Bible references could consititute another entire article.) Familiarity, however, does not always equate to understanding. "Some who profess to make the word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the word that they have neglected to follow. The word of God abounds in general principles for the formation of correct habits of living, and the testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention more especially to these principles" 5T 663.3 "Your testimony is of a different character. It is to come down to the minutiae of life, keeping the feeble faith from dying" 2T 608.2
"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes about doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has received him" (Rom 14:1-3).
"We must remember that there are a great many different minds in the world, and we cannot expect everyone to see exactly as we do in regard to all questions of diet. Minds do not run in exactly the same channel. I do not eat butter, but there are members of my family who do. It is not placed on my table; but I make no disturbance because some members of my family choose to eat it occasionally. Many of our conscientious brethren have butter on their tables, and I feel under no obligation to force them to do otherwise. These things should never be allowed to cause disturbance among brethren. I cannot see the need of butter where there is an abundance of fruit and of sterilized cream. Those who love and serve God should be allowed to follow their own convictions. We may not feel justified in doing as they do, but we should not allow differences of opinion to create disunion. May the Lord help us to be as firm as a rock to the principles of the law spoken from Sinai, and may He help us not to allow differences of opinion to be a barrier between us and our brethren:.–Letter 331, 1904. {MM 269.1}
Excellent EGW quote. It does not, of course, obviate the others. And the prophet does not express the same sentiment with regard to flesh meat, alcohol, or coffee. The Scripture cited is with reference to clean meats, offered to idols; not everything man might dare to eat. But notice the writer calls for abstitenence of the food in question, rather than eating that which might offend another (v. 21).
This sounds like satire to me. Good nutrition is not a sacrament or religious work. It is strictly for good health. Granted, what affects us physically can also influence our spiritiual health. A prophet with inspired insights, obviously does not use God's words, but speaks in her/his own vernacular and time period. SDAs have long taught that or are supposed to as per EGW herself.
As for cheese, its greatest evil is the high sodium with so many suffering hypertension. Its best left alone if for that reason only. Dairy is not a good food as many researchers are discovering; there is more osteoporsis in countries with a high-milk diet. There is lot of misinformation about the vegan diet. It's a myth that it is difficult to get nutrients this way. In fact it uses the highest-nutrient foods available. Vegetables have all the protien you need, and we are generally over-proteinized. It's a simple way to lose weight because one knows what they can and can't eat–no calorie-counting. It's the best diet for almost any disease including heart, diabetes, etc. One good source for information on a plant-based diet is at drfuhrman.com It is also the diet used in popular wellness programs like Pritikin and the LLU Program called CHIP (Coronary Health Improvement Plan) that has more than 55,000 graduates.
Good nutrition not a sacrament or religious work? "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Cor 10:31
EGW is inspired on the same basis as the Bible writers.
Nice health info.
Vegans are not annoying to me they are simply a non spiritual issue. Bless them in their observances. My mantra is moderation in all things including foods exercise and weight. Rom.14:17.
Some have made a god of diet.
"…whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things" Ph'p 3:19.
Adam,
Since you so obviously like the writings of Ellen White, I'm surprised you appear to be unfamiliar with her explicit instructions about how her writings were to be used. To summarize, no doctrine or teaching should be based on anything she wrote. Rather, we should teach from the Bible and the Bible only. If you can't make your point using just the Bible, you should be quiet and study the scriptures until you can.
The manuscript I submitted placed the Scripture references at the very beginning of the article; not the end (an editor has done this). The effect was intended to be something like each chapter of the Desire of Ages, "this chapter is based on… (texts)."
William, do you like the writings of Ellen White?
Adam,
I sympathize about what editors sometimes do to what we write. Still, that's a lame excuse because your posting was so typical of how the writings of Ellen White have been abused and elevated by many in the church to the same authority as scripture, if not superior. The issue is not how I feel about her writings, but if we are willing to follow her explicit admonitions to never base any doctrine or teaching on her writings because we should be using the Bible and the Bible only as our supreme authority.
Are you quite sure Rom 14:1-3 is about clean and unclean meats? If so, on what basis? Some insist that it is referring to foods offered to idols. But is there absolutely clear evidence for that? In 1 Cor Paul does write about foods offered to idols, but is specific in addressing the issue. Why not in Rom 14, if that is the issue there?
As for EGW, did you notice the date for the quotation I posted? It was 1904. You quoted from CD, which was published later, BUT the citation(s) to which you refer were from the 1890s. That being the case, should they not be interpreted in light of the LATER statement?
I'll go with the testimony of Jesus, Doctor. "Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach" CD 368. How's that for moderation?
I did mention idols, but nowhere in the Bible are unclean meats ordained as food. There is certainly no clear evidence to the contrary. If Paul were not speaking of (biblically) clean meats, idols would be a moot issue at that point. Unclean animals are forbidden, regardless of idols.
Now regarding the EGW statements, there are several. Can you be more specific?
Only the weakest of theologians resort to Ellen White to advance their arguments.
For these, the Bible is simply not enough, Ellen White is much more fun than the Bible.
What a shame, I'd expect more from Adventist Today writers…
Fun?!?
If the arguments are so weak, what does it say that you cannot overcome them?
Adam:
1. You misuse Ellen White to advance an opinion that is not in equilibrium. She once said: "Never quote Sister White again until you can obey the Bible." Clearly the Bible has primacy in ANY theological matter, not EGW. She is a lesser light and you continue to upgrade her to the GREATER light.
2. Worse, you have made her words to be the words of "Jesus". Wrong. She wrote many things that were not revelatory nor came from Jesus. For instance, she once said to her own child (!) that God does not love disobedient children. That's not the testimony of Jesus, that's heresy, something she later realized and made up for. She has caused more problems for Adventist theology than helped, not the least of which is our tendency to put her ahead of the Bible, something you yourself did. Bible references are a mere footnote in your text. Every theological controversy in the church, from the sanctuary to the human nature of Christ, was caused by things that EGW said or wrote. Read up. So much for making the Bible "clearer'.
3. Because of an out of balance view of EGW's relationship to the Bible, your agenda on this forum seems to be to advance an adventist worldview that is mostly preocuppied with exterior, behavior, estereotypes and petty questions that no doubt concerned our members in a bygone, legalistic era. You are trying to ressurrect it.
4. I continue to think that a conservative blogger to counterpoint others in this forum should AT LEAST base his/her reading on the Bible, and the Bible alone. EGW is irrelevant if you can't speak from Scriptures. As George Knight says, "If it's not in the Bible, it's not important for the SDA church." If she's taking the place of the word of God, she is a curse, not a blessing.
1. Jesus said, "The Father is GREATER than I." Does this make the "red letters" less authoritative than the rest of the Bible?
2. Is it the Testimony of Jesus, or isn't it? Are you charging God with error for sending the gift of prophecy? You misquoted His messenger. Here is the Estate's response: A careful look at the whole letter (and her total writings on child guidance) suggests strongly that when Ellen White wrote that "wicked children God does not love," she meant that ultimately children who continue to be "wicked" will not be taken to heaven. (The Bible contains far mor "scandalous" statements than this.)
3. The Bible would appear to be more "precoccupied with exterior behavior" than the writings of Ellen White.
4. Are you disturbed because a conservative doesn't behave as you would like; because someone outside your camp is not in your camp?!? The Scriptures I have cited suffice. The rest is there because some do not see that.
John-A-M-E-N !
Can't help wondering what seminary some pastors attended–the short Weimar-type Bible school or what's-it-name in Oregon? If this is what Andrews is teaching, we should worry for the future of the church.
Play nice, sister. If you can't speak to the issues, better not speak at all.
Well Said Adam Hendron Sir,
A good advice that ought to be accepted…….Cheers
Adam, you said "Good nutrition not a sacrament or religious work?"
My understanding of the word "sacrament" as used by many Christian religions (Catholicism for instance) is a religious act that is thought to be a means of salvation. The same is often meant by the term "religious works" as well. Diet is not a means of salvation in our church; only by Christ's righteousness are we saved.
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Cor 10:31
"The glory of God" means that we live as a witness to his glory and point to Him by how we live. The fruits of this are better health to serve for His glory. It is not a goal in itself, but a means to an end–to serve and show God's goodness in better health.
You said: " EGW is inspired on the same basis as the Bible writers."
I don't think the church has ever taught this, though some people act as if it were true. EGW herself says many times that the Bible comes first. She has also said that she should not be quoted in sermons and that the words of even the Bible writers were not God's words but the words of the writers who were inspired. She spoke within the context of her time period and culture. The principles do not change but the specifics often do. I don't have time to look these quotes up now, but you can find them through the GC White Estate or the EGW-CD index.
Are you a new convert? You might want to study this subject of inspiration a little more. That way you won't become disillusioned when you find minor inconsistencies in the Bible or with EGW. Only God is perfect and His son, Jesus. Pray for understanding and guidance by the Spirit in all your study.
Those were your words; not mine. I didn't know you had Catholic definitions in mind. My point is that all Christian conduct, including diet, connects to our religion on some level. "That which corrupts the body tends to corrupt the soul. It unfits the user for communion with God, unfits him for high and holy service" MH 280.
Regarding the use of milk, EGW did not just speak to her own "time and place," but to an increasingly corrupt future. (CD 204.4, 206.1)
Regarding contradictions, I addressed that in the 5th comment, above.
Regarding the time of my conversion, I think you have violated the comment guidelines.
Adam,
For some reason my reply to this post didn't go through. First I wanted to apologize for what appears to be a personal question. I should have said, "if" instead of asking.
The quote from MH sounds a little harsh. Then I found it had to do with the use of clean and unclean meats by the Israelites. Mrs. White's language often sounds harsh concerning behavior, because this is the way people in the 19th-century spoke concerning such things. Reading a secular magazine of that period would show the same thing. But I did say that the physical has an influence on the spiritual, so was agreeing with you.
I agree that the milk quote was for the future which is certianly now, as even many nonAdventists understand. But place will make a difference–If one lives on an island in the Pacific where fish is the main food, it's needed for health. Or for Eskimos in the north, the food choices are limited. But we have no excuse in this or most western countries, we have an abundance of replacements, and B12, provided for and planned for us by our Creator.
Please understand that, unlike your long-term diet experience, diet changes for most people, especially in families, takes time and patience. Your promotion of the plant-based diet is appreciated.
The only nutrient that it is not possible to get with a 100% plant based diet is Vtitamin B12. Period. Some people don't need the B12 supplement but it is wise for all vegans to take B12 as a measure of insurance. The words of Christ have always gotten my attention. To paraphrase; It's not as important what goes into your mouth as what comes out.
Does that paraphrase include what comes out of our computer keyboards?
(Try pouring some milk on yours…he he.)
Mt 15:20 concludes that matter you addresssed… "These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." The context is hand-washing. Jesus is not giving us permission to eat just anything.
The principle is the same, whatever you eat, that will not defile you, but whatever comes from your HEART, that will defile you. The "context" does not cancel out the greatest principle Christ is trying to drive home.
Many pork eaters will be saved, many vegans will be in the lake, and not lake Michigan…
Adam, you may be interested in reading the following verses: "So Noah went out, and; his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him. Every beast, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark. . . . And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that moves on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs" Gen 8:18-19; 9:2-3. Doesn't it seem as if these verses not only do not prohibit eating "unclean" meats, but clearly gave permission to do so?.
There was no prohibition I am aware of against eating unclean meats until after Sinai. {If I am mistaken, please correct me–with specific BIBLICAL evidence.) There was, however, a prohibition against eating blood in Gen 9:4-6. .
It is interesting to notice that at the Jerusalem Concil in Acts 15, there was no indication that Gentile Christians were not to eat unclean meats, but there was a prohibition against eating blood. Might that possibly have been the issue in Rom 14? (I am not interested in eating unclean meats, but should we not be fair and accurate with the Scriptures?)
In Rom 14 it is possible to find four very interesting and important points for serious consideration (1) the strong should not DESPISE the weak; (2) the weak ("vegetarian") should not JUDGE the strong; (3) the strong should be careful not to place a stumbling block in front of the weak; and (4) the weak should not violate his/her OWN conscience, for doing so is sin. Sound like good counsel?
As for EGW quotations, I am not sure what you mean about being "more specific." If the one I quoted was not specific enough, which I think was originally written LATER than all of the ones you quoted) could you let me know more clearly what you are looking for. I should add, however, that I believe, and believe EGW also believed, that the Bible should be our source of doctine. That is where I would prefer to leave it. However if someone insists on EGW, I think we should be fair with her. She can be found to be more reasonable and balanced than many peope realize (both supporters and critics), but the BIBLE must ALWAYS come first and be the final authority for doctrine. And we really should not have to have her be he one to tell us that, as the 28 Fundamentals seem to suggest, though she does.
Genesis seven contrasts clean and unclean beasts (vv 2 & 8). Even in Leviticus, God mentions unclean animals in earlier chapters, before giving the descriptive terms in chapter eleven. We have the same understanding here as with the Sabbath; that it was observed from the beginning, not just after its delineation on Sinai.
I see what you mean about the dates on EGW's statements. Again, one does not obviate the other. The Lord does not contradict Himself. Look carefully at the statement you selected: 1) She makes no disturbance because some eat butter occassionally. 2) While she does say that it should not be a regular article of the diet, she does not resort to force. 3) Emphasis is on how the truth is administered; not whether the counsel on diet is truth.
Ymous,
It appears that your reading of Genesis 9 is premature. You would have to consider chap 7:2 to properly grasp the context of what happened. Why would the Lord ALLOW eating of the unclean when it was alotted only to have a pair of each species on the Ark? In contrast there was an alottment for 7 pairs of clean animals of each species to enter the Ark? Would it not be true that under the pretext of your statement that extinction would have become an issue as a result?
It is my understanding that the Lord had made provision for the needs of man after the flood event. Flesh eating was to be a temporary arraigment until the necessary vegetation would become replentished for the good of man.
Romans 14 is not talking about vegetarians vs. flesh eaters, as is 1 Corinthians 8. It's about food offered to idols. The weak thought it was wrong to eat perfectly good food because it was offered to idols and purchased at the market later. The strong, didn't have an issue with eating perfectly good food that was bought, more then likely at a better price, at the market, knowing full well that the idol could not effect the quality of the food in any way.
So instead of declaring me to be a conservative / legalist because you think its wrong for me to eat food offered to idols, its not your place to judge me for that. Likewise, its not my place to despise you because I have the feedom to to eat the food offered to idols. God is judge of us all. And we all must stand before Him for ourselves… Whatsoever is not of faith… that's sin.
Let me get this right…
So instead of declaring me to be a liberal / law breaker, because you think its wrong for me to eat food offered to idols, its not your place to judge me for that. Likewise…
Elaine,
My dad would be spinning in his grave if this sort of stuff is now taught at Andrews. He was the head of the agriculture department there for near 30 years. Last I checked they still had a pretty good herd of milk cows and sold off any bull calves most probably for meat purposes. He did know better than to get into arguments with vegans, though, not because they'd win but because it was a waste of time.
I grew up lacto-ovo vegetarian, because that's what you did at Andrews, and never could tolerate the taste or texture of meat. Even Grillers are too close to the real thing for me. I did make sure our kids could eat meat on occasion though if they so chose, because an obnoxious vegetarian at a barbecue is a poor witness to the love of Christ.
I think the world has far more obnoxious carnivores than vegetarians.
Your practice regarding meat with the children has alarming implications. What if that principle were applied to alcohol, fornication, and other harmful activities?
"I think the world has far more obnoxious carnivores than vegetarians."
Really? Any statistics to back that up? I think carnivores do not necessarily become all of a sudden obnoxious on the question of "food" since they don't see it as a major issue of life.
Quite different from the adventist vegetarians who suddently become monomaniacs (and annoying!) about eating soy.
Still more troubling is Hendron's lambasting of the commentator for allowing her kids to eat meat occasionally and drawing a silly parallel with alcohol. Little does he know that many biblical character consumed alcohol with moderation, including Timothy. Most likely Jesus turned water into wine and not grape juice. He also sat down with meat-eaters and drunkards, according to witnesses. Was he a drunkard and pork-eater? Not necessarily, he just met people where they were.
We need a little more grace in this forum.
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval." (Rom. 14:17-18)
…a little more grease
Adam, the software at present is refusing to let me reply directly to your post beneath mine. Regarding the "alarming implications" regarding our children, they turned out very well. Both are active church members, our son holding several postions from choir director every week to deacon to sound board manager, pianist, and organist on a rotating basis. They are very healthy and to my knowledge are not the least interested in "fornication" despite active social lives. They attended Christian-sponsored schools, not SDA other than 2 rather unfortunate years, and State Universities. And yes, they occasionally eat meat. Despite this horrible lapse by us, their parents, they have stayed faithful.
The reactions to this article indicate the extent that our appetites control our actions.
Little David!
Laffal: If you believe I was unaware of Gen 7:2, you are mistaken. As to why God specifiically stated that Noah and his descendants were allowed to eat of everything that moves, are there not times when even you wonder why God allowed certain things? Isn't the question at issue here not WHY He allowed it in Gen 9, but WHETHER He allowed it? If we leave the WHY out and ask WHETHER, doesn't the answer seem pretty clear from the verses?
Did God not have the right (and the wisdom and love) to change it later? (By the way, for those who depend as much or more on EGW as on the Bible, she also changed on the issue of unclean meats). I cannot help but wonder why the SDA Church makes an issue of unclean meats, but while it does not require vegetarianism, has nothing to say about eating blood, which WAS specifically forbidden both in Genesis and at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).
Sometimes it is assumed that if God says not to do something, it is always, and always has been wrong to do it. But will such an assumption hold up under close investigation? I think not. After Israel was called out of Egypt, they were told that marrying a close relative, including half-sister, aunt, or uncle, (and I think cousin also, though no time to double check now) was an 'abomination." Did Abraham commit "abomination" in marrying his half-sister, Jacob commit an "abomination" in marrying his cousin, the father of Moses commit an "abomination" in marrying his aunt, which I think (but am not quite sure) was the case? What about circumcision? What about David and his men eating the shewbread (KJV spelling)? Is the Bible really as rigid (and EGW as well) on some issues as some people make it sound?
Will you show me where the prophet changed her position on unclean meats?
Still, what does 1 Timothy 4:3-5 mean in this context? There seems to be no reference at all to food offered to idols (which, I agree, is forbidden). Rather, verse 4 is all inclusive and verse 5 provides a remedy for other questionable foods.
Yes, verse five provides the remedy: The Word of God sanctifies ("sets aside") foods that may be eaten, from those which should not. Notice also verse three: "..meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." It's one thing to know the truth and another to believe (practice) it. In any case, one must know and believe the truth (Thy Word is truth) to understand what meats God has ordained as food. Clearly, He did not create any animals to be food in strict sense, because death was not part of His design. After sin, He made the decision that certain animals could be eaten, with numerous caveats. Overall, the passage refers to the Catholic Church, departing from the faith (the great falling away), forbidding priests from marrying and commanding its members to eat no meat but fish, every Friday. "Friday is a day of abstinence from meat for Catholics in order that this little sacrifice will be a work of satisfaction for the sins they have committed. The Church commands it" (The 40 Questions Most Frequently Asked About The Catholic Church By Non-Catholics).
How is abstinence one day a week (and, since Vatican 2 nearly 50 years ago, only on Fridays in Lent) "commanding to abstain from meats"?
…maybe hiding like Guideon. No wonder, seeing these comments.
Ymous,
I don't believe it is a fruitful argument to try and parse out why God would "why" or "whether" He allowed Noah and his family to eat "everything that moves." By that I mean to say, sure God has the freedom to change things later if He so chooses, but why would He out of wisdom and love allow man to eat "everthing that moves" knowing that "everthing" that may taste good is not good for us. And if we really get down to the heart of the matter when it comes to what / what not to eat, it's taste. Health is not even in the question, which happens to be God's stated concern from His wisdom and love.
Is the Bible rigid? Or is it speaking to what is best for mankind?
"You have washed your robes in My blood, stood stiffly for My truth, enter in." 1T 60.3
…sounds rigid to me (as far as their own lives were concerned; not forcing it on others, of course)
Jesus was neither a vegetarian or a vegan. For all those who wish to follow His example, maybe his diet should be our diet, too? Oh, I just forgot, He hadn't read EGW.
You speak of Jesus as though He were dead and gone.
Mrs. Nelson,
'Oh, I just forgot, He hadn't read EGW'……..
Does it in anyway…I mean anyway (Adventist/ Non Adventist, Christian/non Christian or Ex Adventist etc) display civil and human manner…..you have problem with EGW fine. That is understood but there are many of us here who feel She was the lesser light and had God's special message for us. Now that is not a doctrinated phrase. It's a conviction.
Yeah, food is been produced differently. I was at an animal feed manufacturer the other day and saw fish waste in bags which I assumed were to be added to the sheep and cattle feed. I have also heard of animal flesh been added to the feed of supposedly grass eaters – even genetically modified stuff, antibiotics and maybe some steroids/hormones? There is also the ‘reworked’ chicken industry which takes 'past the sell by date chickens' off the shelves and injects them with scientific goodies and repackages them (reworked) – then sends them BACK to the stores at a reduced rate.
Mr. Adam Hendron has taken it to the next level…
Those who accept the Gift of the Prophecy in the writings of Ellen White will have to acknowledge such admonition from the pen of inspiration and deal with it.
The lesson I can learn from this blog is that we need to take our health and diet seriously. Obesity in the US and around the world is a growing concern which is compounded by economic crisis and depleted healthcare benefits in the First World and the insurmountable lack of decent healthcare in the Third. Maybe that's why our planet has become so… CHEESY?
T
Don't confuse us with the big picture, brother. Let's keep it narrow and "in house." 😉
TH
You are right–it's time for a change and more nonAdventists understand this than
Adventists. More of them are seeing the light in dropping animal products because harvesting animals takes more space, time, and money. It causes pollution unsurpassed by other processes. On the eastern shore of Maryland chicken raising for eggs and meat has polluted the bay and waterways substantially. Marine life is dying. Cattle raising is even worse. The animals are treated inhumanely and cattle cut up before they are even dead! This is not only a health issue but one of caring for the planet and its animals. It goes beyond our selfish desires to resolving world hunger. Of course this won't happen before Jesus returns because of human selfishness and addictions.
Angels and YHVH ate meat and dairy products:
Gen. 18:8 he [Abraham] took curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and placed it before them [angels and YHVH]; and he was standing by them under the tree as they ate.
The passage in Timothy is a quote from a passage in Genesis:
Gen.9:1 and god blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
2 "the fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.
3 "every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
4 "only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
5 "surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. and from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
1 Tim 4:3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which god has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4 for everything created by god is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of god and prayer.
You seem very particular about the tetragrammaton, but not about Christ's health message. The Lord also accepted animal sacrifices back then, but today calls for something better.
Regarding the last two incongruent passages, see previous responses.
The text in 1 Timothy seems to me to not be a "quote" for Genesis 9 at all. The context is completely different. Timothy is not discussing survival or replenishing the earth. He is talking about the last days and the preaching of false doctrines.
For some reason, declarative sentences (from Paul, it particular) are often rejected as having some other context that conveniently avoids any conflict with traditional Adventist teachings.
I believe we miss much, wanting the Scriptures to conform with our traditions rather than meaning what they actually and directly say.
Seems remarkably like asceticism doesn't it Glenn…but if that is what they choose it is ok with me…but not binding on me.
Thanks for the editing improvements Atoday
regards,
pat
Which of God's counsel is binding on you?
…I find it quite liberating to be free of the troubles unhealthful foods incur.
Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed in this article/blog, and that Adventists should in general eat a plant-based diet, I have to ask this question: Why do most of the vegan Adventists I know look like walking death? Why are they more prone to illness? Why are they so sickly? Do they exclude too much from the diet? Do they not know that by excluding meat/dairy/eggs they must replace them with something.
Many vegans I know also seem to be more intolerant of different foods (or at least they won't/can't eat them).
The other problem is inflexibility. The goal should not be to set a record (eg I have not touched animal products for x years) but to eat the best diet you can in your circumstances. My wife and I travel to the Philippines for evangelism and sometimes take others with us. Some are rather inflexible in their diet and insist on being able to eat things difficult or impossible to get over there. Also, fish and rice with a few leaves is all that many people there can afford. Vegetables are rather expensive and may only be affordable for a special treat once in a while. To stick to veganism in such circumstances is not setting a good example for the locals, whilst making it difficult to find acceptable food for the hosts. And it causes friction and arguments.
By all means we should promote a plant-based diet (and we should call it a plant-based diet rather than veganism, which has eastern religious connotations). But we must not fall into extremism.
And those of you who do eat meat and/or eggs/milk, don't tempt those who don't to eat them. Let us all live according to our conscience whilst promoting the healthiest way to live.
Some go too far, to be sure. But the great majority do not go far enough. There are vastly more diseased, obese "walking dead," as you put it.
Thank you especially for that last paragraph. Very nice.
Dear Pag,
Your first paragraph doesn't fit my experience or that of researchers. Dr. Fuhrman (drfuhrman.com) has researched some 20,000 studies and, as a physician, he works with ill patients and gets them back to health with the plant-based or what he calls nutrient-based diet. He is only one of many around North America. This includes places like Weimar. For most of us in situations like yours, we do need to be flexible and the diet can't work where food sources are limited. This is common sense. Our best witness in such places may be to eat what is set before us. But here in this country of abundance, there is no excuse. By the way, there is nothing wrong with "eastern religious" terms if we want to reach those people even here in our own country. We have to decide what is more important to us, reaching people or keeping our terminolgy "pure." We are to meet people where they are.
Ella, I agree that a plant-based diet is the best. But my experience comes from Melbourne, Australia and surrounds, where most mainstream Adventists are fairly liberal and most "conservative" Adventists seem to be very conservative, on the edges of Adventism, frequenting "independent" churches and ministries and being more of the "extreme" or "fruitcake" mentality, highly critical of the church proper, arguing about semantics such as sinful vs carnal with the speaker during the sermon, dressing like James and Ellen White and having long beards. I think you know what I mean.
Hi Elaine,
The way I understand the example of Christ is in the light of the sanctuary service. The priest ate meat in the holy place or when they would serve in the holy place. There was no meat eaten in the service of the most holy place. At this point in earths history we are to enter into the most holy place with Christ by faith and experience. This would include excluding meat from our diet. Again, this is the way I understand it. I am open to correction of course.
KellymanSDA
ApproveDelete
“The way I understand the example of Christ is in the light of the sanctuary service. The priest ate meat in the holy place or when they would serve in the holy place. There was no meat eaten in the service of the most holy place. At this point in earths history we are to enter into the most holy place with Christ by faith and experience. This would include excluding meat from our diet. Again, this is the way I understand it. I am open to correction of course.”
*********
This is an interesting argument favoring a vegetarian diet. I am wondering what would have happened to the system of animal sacrifices in the event the Israelites had accepted the vegetarian diet the Lord wanted them to adopt in the desert? Is it possible that perhaps the killing of all the animals might have been avoided and cereal offering would have been the only kind required by God from his people?
Under such a scenario, is it possible that God’s chosen nation would have accepted Jesus as their rightful Messiah and that God’s kingdom would have been established two thousand years ago and extend itself to all the earth? Didn’t Ellen White state that ifIsrael of old had accepted Jesus as their King, that Jerusalem
Nic,
The Israelites did practice the vegetarian diet in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:1-5), with the exception of the quail given them by God upon their request for meat. The only other exception was the portion of the sacrifice that was alloted from the sacrificial service.
KellymanSDA,
Christ ate flesh (broiled lamb) at Passover (Luke 22:7-8,14-15), and, later, AFTER the resurrection (broiled fish, Luke 24: 41-43), when He was, again, fully God – only.
Christ was not a vegetarian — even after His resurrection.
Forks Over Knives makes a great case for the vegan diet. http://forksoverknives.com/
When I hear theories like Kellyman given, I like to remind others that we will not have sexual intercourse in heaven. Shall we discard this legitimate pleasure of the spirit and flesh now for a "superior ascetic" practice?
I think not.
But if it makes your boat float vegans…go for it.
The kingdom of heaven is not about food and drink.
I appreciate Kellyman's humility and the tentative way he put forth his idea. His view seems to be based on what is happening in the Sanctuary right now; not the future reward that you speak of.
Now sex is much more than "pleasure," as you say. But if it is so legitimate, why do you like to remind people that we will not have it in heaven? It's a rather sensational subject to be preoccupied with.
Ella M Rydzewski
“Dr. Fuhrman (drfuhrman.com) has researched some 20,000 studies and, as a physician, he works with ill patients and gets them back to health with the plant-based or what he calls nutrient-based diet. He is only one of many aroundNorth America . This includes places like Weimar
*********
Yes! I grew up inArgentina U.S.
Okay, now whose going to take a pot-shot at this guy? (God bless you, Sir.)
Check out those egregious videos showing extreme views of the vegan industry.
Adam, you asked for evidence that EGW changed her views about swine's flesh. The quotation below was written in 1858 in response to a man who was apparently trying to make not eating pork a test of fellowship. About that time James White wrote in the RH that there was no biblical support against eating it. I have seen this statement, but do not remember offhand where it was. In any case, isn't the final authority the Bible rather than EGW or JW? Wasn't that HER position? Wouldn't anyone who disagrees be disagreeing with her?
"If God requires His people to abstain from swine's flesh, He will convict them on the matter. He is just as willing to show His honest children their duty, as to show their duty to individuals upon whom He has not laid the burden of His work. If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach His church their duty. {1T 206.3}
You may say that the above statement keeps the door open for a later change. Agreed. But likewise, the fact that God gave specific permission to eat everything that moves at the time of Noah doesn't mean He couldn't prohibit some things later.
Someone above implied that some things might not taste good, so God's permission was limited. But God did not COMMAND that everything SHOULD be eaten. He rather gave permission for everything that moves to be eaten. Isn't there a pretty big difference between the two?
I might add that the issue of swine's flesh was not the only issue on which she changed her views.
Did this command you speak of permit cannibalism? (I'd try to stay really still.)
And if one failed to eat everything that moved (like the "see food" diet), was this disobedience?
I personally am a vegan, at least for the most part. While I may partake of the dreaded dairy foods if that is the realistic only option I pretty much do not each much dairy. Nevertheless this article is very ridiculous and rather legalistic. Paul informs us that "each must be fully persuaded in his own mind" yet the author attempts to do the persuading for us. I was convicted to give up dairy (for the most part) not through people saying it was a "salvational" issue, but because I saw that it could have health benefits that would be favorable in God's eyes. This does not mean I look at my fellow brother eating his cheese pizza with disgust or judgment. Peter learned this lesson, the hard way over several issues. The issue of diet is one which the individual must be convicted of. Sure we can provide relevant information and materials or even documentaries like Fork Over Knife, but ultimately the person who makes the choice to become vegan will do so under free will without the kind of pressure and actions of "annoying vegans" that this author subscribes.
What pressure and actions are you referring to?
Is it that you just don't want anyone to quote the testimony of Jesus?
While on military duty in Germany, my 9 year old daughter went to a 'Metzgerai' (butchering company) on a class field trip. She became a Vegan on the spot. I praised her decision, but advised her to NOT make a religion out of it.
Amen! (on both counts)
I am in excellent health, and at age 86, I have been a life-long vegetarian, but never a vegan. Each year of life, my longevity expectation is extended, so I expect to live another 10 years, and by then will be willing to go. We have not been promised immortality by what we eat or don't eat.
The focus on food is contrary to Paul's instruction to the Christian church and there has been no reason to now dispense with it. "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind." When did Jesus or the apostles prohibit eating meat? It was only that which was offered to idols and than which had been strangled. Why are there Adventists now who want to add to Paul's decisions?
In Moses' day, "He [The Lord] did not prohibit their eating meat, but withheld it from them in a great measure." TSDF 159. But let's not stay stuck in the past. Jesus has present truth for those who are preparing for translation. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind, and let us exhort one another while we see the day approaching.
…God bless you too, Ma'am.
The author was most prescient and astute in titling his article "Annoying Vegans." Such extreme diet positions in the SDA church have been most annoying to those who try to have a balance in their lives and find that diet is not religion, although it seems for some that it is their entire religion.
The first word in that title was intended as both an adjective and a verb. The growing mass of "total vegetarians" out there find the religious excuses of Adventist regressives to be most annoying. God forbid these Spirit-led seekers should show up at a potluck and hear the dietary liberties we boast of. Jesus has declared His position on dairy in this day, and we dare not call it extreme.
Yes, right on, Elaine–it's the vegan who can be annoying and not the practice. But it's not an extreme any more. A lot of people and especially the young are doing it. They are ahead of the "church." Any way you are making the right choice for yourself. (by the way, a lot of us are milk intolerant)
There is no reason why one's personal diet choices has to have a religious reason, nor that everyone needs to be told. We all have certain foods we either like, or don't like, or can't tolerate, but we quietly live and understand our bodies. It's the "do-gooders" who want to convince others that the choices they have made are not only more healthful, but should be adopted by others because of religious reasons, ignoring that what emanates from the mouth can be far more harmful.
"Some may think that the question of diet is not important enough to be included in the question of religion. But such make a great mistake." EV 265
You must be on a level with God, to know the hearts of men.
Rom 2:1
Do you take pride in annoying vegans?
Adam, vegans have many health benefits and a few hazards that can be managed by supplements, but before you use Sister White to promote the vegan diet, you need to be meticulous about the context of the statements you are quoting.
Although immortalized in the compilation Counsels on Diet and Food, you should know that the origin of the “Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach” statement is from Testimonies 2, page 68 dated as 1868. The context of that Testimony is clearly directed to two individuals, Brother and Sister “I”. We learn that these are the sickest Adventist family Ellen White knew in 1868, that they had pale faces, that they suffered from anorexia, insomnia, fevers, chills, and specifically had “diseased livers.” The husband especially was sedentary.
To someone sick with cirrhosis, hepatitis, untreated cholecystitis, or fatty infiltration of the liver, surely the counsel that “cheese should never be introduced into the stomach” sounds both prudent and Heaven sent.
Also in 1868 to re-publish that advice for the general little flock of Adventists who only had unpasteurized cheeses in a pre-refrigeration, pre-antibiotic, pre-pasteurization era could have been a great idea, The FDA has published warnings even with our refrigeration, that soft raw-milk cheeses can cause "serious infectious diseases including listeriosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis and tuberculosis." In 1868 those illnesses were often fatal, so again the advice to avoid cheese may have of general applicability and both prudent and Heaven sent.
In a previous quoted letter in the comments above, Sister White in 1904 offers “sterilized cream” as an alternative to unsterilized butter and cheeses, suggesting that the infectious risk may have been behind the Heaven sent advice?
But for American Adventists today and those in places like Switzerland, Greece, France who survive largely on cheese, it is of no service to quote what was good Heaven sent advice in 1868 to some very sick believers.
The Adventist health message for the world at large is NOT the cheese should never be used. It is limited use of high fat dairy including cheese, free use of low fat dairy including pasteurized cheeses.
Unless you have a specific problem with allergies or a moral issue with taking the drink away from baby lambs, kids, and calves! To suggest that Jesus says cheese eating should never be done or to intimate that it is a sin, is reprehensible. Adventists are heading to a land flowing with milk and honey.
You've violated the comment guidelines (point three) and foisted a heap of conjecture, besides.
I suppose virtually all of the testimonies Jesus gave us back then have lost their relevance, since we're so sophisticated and knowledgable any more. One could have a real commical hayday with that tactic and inverting countless other insights from the Lord's penman.
Adam,
This is posted elsewhere. How do you explain this (below)?
Was He limited by His environment?
To place seemingly strange statements from Sister White, in their historical context so we can understand how they were not strange and even Heaven sent, under those circumstances, is to be Ellen White's friend and defender. She has ministered to my spiritual and physical health too much to allow her to be misapplied by bumper sticker Adventists who can quote the Testimonies, but haven't taken the serious effort to think about them first. I'm a fan of vegans. I'm a huge fan of Ellen White. It is great not to eat cheese. But it is not great grab a sentence from Ellen White's writings out of context to thump over the head those Adventists who are cheesier than thou.
I hate to bring this up after so many people have added their serious comments, but is it possible that this blog was written as a well-designed spoof of the obsession of traditional Adventists on what they eat? How about the title: “Annoying Vegans”? Does that mean that vegans are annoying or that we should annoy vegans? Should that title have been the tip off that the author might not be entirely serious? Or how about the line: “Unlike the Savior, however, the effect of cheese is deleterious on the digestive system”? Just think for a moment about the logic of that statement. Do we create or attract cheeseophobic people? Just wondering if the author has had enough fun and would consider coming clean.
Ervin – I considered that when it first went up; however, I consider myself a connoisseur of great satire, and this didn't quite make the cut, particularly the comments he's made after some of the remarks. It it truly was intended as satire, I hope he keeps his day job. Also, I googled his name and couldn't come up with anything that looked like someone with a sense of humor about life.
There are some rather, um, unique pieces, however, and each taken on its own merit might be considered satire, e.g., http://www.examiner.com/seventh-day-adventist-in-national/governments-consider-tainting-water-to-slow-reproduction-and-revolution. In total, though, I think perhaps the author is more likely one who reads satire, thinking it is truth. Like conservatives who thought the Onion article on children in grade school children starting up covens as a response to the Harry Potter books was factual. (see http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp)
…"Unclean! Unclean!"
Erratum:
Methinks I made a minor error in describing daughter's decision to skip meat. She's actually a vegetarian rather than a Vegan. She eats seafood, and dairy, but no meat from any creature that has walked on the Earth.
Jack Hoehn,
Thank you for illuminating that statement about cheese.
Illumination vs Inspiration. Explain it away…
That the author is associated with "Amazing Discoveries" suggests rather clearly that this is not satire.
I've been looking to see what the Bible says about cheese. I can only find three texts. 1 Samual 17:18 (Jesse tells David to take cheeses to his brothers), 2 Samuel 17:29 (David and his men given provisions to sustain them, including cheese), Job 10:10 (cheese making a simile for Job's experience). Jesus never saw fit to mention it, either during his earthly ministry, during his resurrection appearances, in his revelations to Paul or in his revelations to John.
What did Ellen White mean by "cheese"? Cottage cheese? Cream cheese? Ricotta? Mascarpone? Hard aged cheeses like parmagianno-regianno? Blue? Brie? Cheddar? Gruyere? Morbier? The editors of Counsels of Diet and Foods noted after one reference, "Cheese [TRANSLATED 'STRONG, SHARP CHEESE,' WITH ELLEN WHITE'S APPROVAL, IN THE GERMAN-LANGUAGE EDITION.] is still more objectionable; it is wholly unfit for food. {CD 368.5}"
There are really only a handful of references to cheese in her writings, republished in multiple compilations so it seems like she talked about it more often. Most are simple dictums, "Don't eat it." Why? "Deleterious"? How so? What kind? She never mentions it in connection with a vision, so where did she come to this understanding?
What did she do when she visited someone who had cheese? Did she make a fuss? Nope. Here's how she writes about her trip to Sweden:
"At eight o'clock we were called to breakfast. There was a round table with a cloth upon it and a flower pot in the center, and bread, a quarter of uncut cheese, hot milk, and fried cakes, which constituted our breakfast. There were no plates at first, two knives and two forks. We were invited to come to the table, all standing. A blessing was asked and then we stood around the table, took something in our hands, and walked about, talking and eating. Plates were then brought in and we put our food upon the plates and I was offered a chair. Some seated themselves on the lounge, others walked about, eating with the plate in their hands. All the while when we wished anything we would take it from any part of the table. This was a new style to us but we shall get used to it, I think. After the meal is finished the guests shake hands with the landlord and landlady, thanking them for the food. {3MR 385.1}"
"A round table stood in the center of the room, with bread, butter, cheese, and cold sliced meat. We all stood around this table while Elder Matteson asked a blessing in Swedish. We then took bread and butter–if we eat the articles–and either stood and walked about and ate, or sat in chairs or sofas, of which there were several. Before these sofas and chairs were small tables covered with linen cloths. Next came the plates of plum soup and meat soup. The first soup was made of prunes, raisins, apples, and I know not how many kinds [of fruit]. These [plates of soup] were placed on the small tables. After this dish was brought wild meat and fish prepared in a very nice manner. After this was the dessert, of cooked peeled pears with cream. Then all stand and ask a silent blessing; then each guest shakes hands with the host and hostess and thanks them for the dinner, and the ceremony is ended. {3MR 388.2}"
She says that here and there that she might have had a nibble at this time or that, but that she didn't buy it or use it on a regular basis. She didn't want the example of her occasional nibbles to mean that it was OK to eat it. She got upset at Lucretia Canright at one point for bringing some cheese into the White house for suspicious reasons. She was upset it was sold at a camp meeting.
But is it mentioned in Patriarchs and Prophets? Prophets and Kings? Desire of Ages? Acts of the Apostles? Great Controversy? This great series of books she intended for the general population to introduce them to the great themes of the plan of salvation? Not a word.
There are certainly things that can be said from a health standpoint about dairy products, milk based proteins, etc. But if we can't demonstrate it from the Bible and the Bible only as a point of faith, let's lay out the real science and encourage people to make informed decisions.
We dare not quote a snippet from Ellen White and say, "Jesus said it."
The fifth comment above is the first part of my reply here. Moreover, is it the testimony of Jesus or is it not? We dare not say it is only human.
The counsel is that we should not discuss diet at meal time; this accounts for your lengthy citation. Her tact is not to be mistaken for anything like approbation. Again, the Lord does not contradict Himself, and has given unmistakeable and universal warnings, even to the end of the age.
Again, health reform is to prepare a people for translation. If we limit ourselves to salvation, you may have to wait in the grave while others see about God's vindication.
"Universal"? No.
Did you go to the seminary? Did you take the course on the Spirit of Prophecy?
I'm reminded of the story A. G. Daniells told at the 1919 Bible Conference.
… Take this question of health reform. It is well known from the writings themselves and from personal contact with Sister White, and from common sense, that in traveling and in knowledge of different parts of the world, that the instruction set forth in the Testimonies was never intended to be one great wholesale blanket regulation for peoples' eating and drinking, and it applies to various individuals according to their physical condition and according to the situation in which they find themselves. I have always explained it that way to our ministers in ministers' meetings. We had a ministers' meeting over in Scandinavia, and we had one man there from the "land of the midnight sun," up in Hammerfest where you never grow a banana or an apple or a peach, and hardly even a green thing. It is snow and cold there nearly all the time, and the people live to a large extent on fish and various animal foods that they get there. We had sent a nurse from Christiania up there as a missionary. He had the strict idea of the diet according to the Testimonies, and he would not touch a fish or a bit of reindeer, nor any kind of animal food, and he was getting poor; because missionaries that are sent out do not have much money, and they cannot import fresh fruits; and it was in the days when even canned goods were not shipped much. The fellow nearly starved to death. He came down to attend that meeting, and he was nearly as white as your dress [speaking to Sister Williams]. He had hardly any blood in his body. I talked to him, and I said, "Brother Olson, what is the matter with you? We will have to bring you away from up there if you do not get better. You have no red blood corpuscles in your blood." I talked with him a while, and finally asked him, "What do you live on?"
"Well," he said, "I live a good deal on the north wind."
I said, "You look like it, sure enough."
We went on talking, and I found out that the man wasn't eating much but potatoes and starchy foods, – just a limited dietary. I went at him with all the terror I could inspire for such foolishness.
Voice:Did you make any impression?
A. G. Daniells: Yes, I did. And I got other brethren to join me. We told that man he would be buried up there if he tried to live that way. We talked with him straight about it.
When I got back to this country I talked with Sister White about it, and she said, "Why don't the people use common sense? Why don't they know that we are to be governed by the places we are located?" You will find in a little testimony a caution thrown out, modifying the extreme statements that were made.
I did read this story, at school. Of course, the rebellion we are addressing now has little to do with this, for such situations hardly exist any more. (How's that, for "time and place"?)
"Rebellion"? Eating cheese? Understanding when she wrote it and why? The issue here is simply this–you can't take statements from Ellen White out of context, treat each dictum as verbally inspired, and make it a test of faith in every place. That is completely contrary to everything she ever wrote herself. It is contrary to everything Jesus taught and practiced.
"Annoying" is the appropriate word for anyone who has an extreme fetish on food. There are many diabetics, people with celiac disease, those with extreme allergies and more who do not feel it necessary to share their food habits and the specifics of their diet. This is such a personal matter that it is both discourteous and offensive to even expect anyone else to pattern their diet after ANYONE, regardless of whether it is illness, allergies, or worst of all: a religion that has very esoteric beliefs that should be practiced equally for everyone who claims Jesus as His leader.
This is nothing short of sacrilege since Jesus never advocated vegetarianism as it was one of the main problems with Judaism: a Kosher diet was so restrictive that they had special butchers (meat, anyone?) and special separate kitches and utensils for preparing food. Why not advocate such a diet? After all, most of Adventism is straight from the Hebrew Scriptures, with additional advicer from the sainted EGW.
Ervin wrote:
"I hate to bring this up after so many people have added their serious comments, but is it possible that this blog was written as a well-designed spoof of the obsession of traditional Adventists on what they eat?"
I don't think you guys publish any satire, I seem to recall submitting a satire article last year, maybe you and the others at Atoday forgot what satire is, I published it on my blog however so if you want to review satire take a look. http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2010/07/time-to-take-back-adventist-church.html
I thought it sounded a good bit like "The Adventist Man" column from AT.
Yes, it is so far-out that it could be satire, but the further comments by the author did not suggest satire.
I agree, however, that such a subject is perfect for satire.
Why did the early Adventists oppose cheese? That's not clear from anything written by Ellen White. But let's look at what was being written in other Adventist publications.
John Harvey Kellogg argued that it contained lots of germs, and that these increased with age.
We may take food that is already poisonous, such as cheese, for instance. A very small piece of cheese contains millions of germs and germ poisons. It is simply decayed milk. {February 11, 1895 N/A, GCB 92.1}
Cheese always contains germs in great numbers. When six weeks old, a bit of cheese as large as grain of wheat contains thousands of germs. The germs increase as the cheese becomes older. {February 15, 1895 N/A, GCB 170.9}
Here's how he described a camp-meeting that was an example to him of backsliding in health reform:
John Harvey Kellogg on cheese at camp meeting:
The provision stands, and boarding-tents at camp-meetings ceased to be object lessons for our people and those not of our faith, in healthful dietetics. The camp-meeting provision stand in the last decade has rarely failed to include in its stock a good supply of lard crackers, ginger snaps, baker's pies and cakes of various sorts, dried beef, smoked halibut, sale codfish, smoked herring, painted candies and unwholesome knick-knacks of various sorts, a good supply of cheese, ripe enough to be buried and lively enough to move on if not kept in a cage, and in the background might usually be seen, arranged in a picturesque manner, sundry coils of sausage, warranted, however, to be bologna, as I have frequently been told, which is a guarantee that the article is not Simon pure swine's flesh, but a miscellaneous assortment of all manner of beasts. {March 9, 1891 N/A, GCDB 42.2}
And this was J. N. Loughborough, Hand Book of Health (1868)
405. What of cheese as an article of diet? {1868 JNL, HBH 190.5}
Cheese is always more or less difficult of digestion, beside being frequently colored by poisonous substances, as annato, arsenic, etc. Old cheese should never be used. Cheese not more than three months old made of milk from which the cream has been mostly taken, is most easily digested. But, of cheese in general, it would be well for all to keep in mind the old adage, {1868 JNL, HBH 190.6}
"Cheese is a mighty elf, Digesting all things but itself." {1868 JNL, HBH 191.1}
Old cheese is exceedingly obnoxious as an aliment. {1868 JNL, HBH 191.2}
406. What of curds, and Dutch cheese? {1868 JNL, HBH 191.3}
Curds made of fresh milk, and pot-cheese made of milk as soon as it sours, before it becomes bitter, are not very objectionable. {1868 JNL, HBH 191.4}
And that is it, by way of explanation.
Cheese, hard and soft, like yogurt contain "good" bacteria; bacteria was a word not known or used then, and "germs" covered much more than today. Many of the foods regularly used today were either unknown or rare then. Fresh fruits and vegetables were available only "in season" as refrigerated shipping was unknown. It is difficult to realize that so much of our food today is far superior to that of 100 years ago, we take for granted. People used underground cellars to "refrigerate food, or drying meat was very old.
Using any writer of 100 years ago as a nutrition expert is ludicrous. It was a different world with so many conditions of living unknown to moderns today who take so much for granted. I can still remember foods being placed in cellars to extend shelf life; oranges were a rarity and tomatoes were available only in season, as were so many foods that are on the produce shelves today.
The last few postings are the voices of reason and historical context on this silly subject. The anti-cheese campaign in classic Adventism is an excellent example of Adventist folk religion in full bloom.
I'm not sure I'd ever use Kellogg to justify any piece of advice I follow…
Per Josh Clark, one of Kellogg's biographers,
"Kellogg made sure that the bowel of each and every patient was plied with water, from above and below. His favorite device was an enema machine ("just like one I saw in Germany") that could run fifteen gallons of water through an unfortunate bowel in a matter of seconds. Every water enema was followed by a pint of yogurt — half was eaten, the other half was administered by enema "thus planting the protective germs where they are most needed and may render most effective service." The yogurt served to replace "the intestinal flora" of the bowel, creating what Kellogg claimed was a squeaky clean intestine.
…cries "Foul!"
Really? What biography of Kellogg did "Josh Clark" write?
Bill, I found the description on several Internet sites, referring to Josh Clark as "one of Kellogg's biographers." I didn't spend a lot of time looking for one of his books. He seems to have some connections with a website/blog about famous American quacks. It fits with all the stories I've heard of the man, however. One of our instructors at Loma Linda told a story that Kellogg liked to carry a vial of his own …um… manure shall we say… on his tours to prove that his "stuff" didn't stink. That story is purely anecdotal as our teacher wasn't quoting from anything I was aware of, but it was definitely before Road to Wellville came out.
There is more than only one account of Kellogg's "Bowel Obsession" as it has been called. Even some of the self-supporting SDA (non-institutional) small sanitariums still suggest coffee enemas (supposedly, intaking in reverse is not sinful!) and high colonics.
These can be very dangerous to some individuals and even Kellogg "applied" yogurt rather than merely eating it, which we know today is very beneficial. No one needs a "squeaky clean intestine", as there are good bacteria absolutely necessary to be retained in the intestine for proper nutrition.
I would hope that there are still no SDAs today (somewhat doubtful after this thread) who would limit their lives to 19th century medical and dietary advice, but I'm afraid that there are some who eschew modern medicine for such "natural" methods which can be very suspect. Where is the evidence that vegans live healthier and disease free?
Elaine,
First of all, there are no one who claims that a vegan diet will bring about disease free living. Secondly, when it comes to a squeaky clean colon, it is vitally important because the colon is responsible for nutirition distribution to each organ group in the body. And whatever the state of the colon will be the state of whatever is distibuted to the body's organs. The yogurt implants were designed to add the intestinal flora (bacteria) back into the colon. Acidopholus is another means of keeping the bacterial flora in its proper balance. And bear in mind, my father had colon cancer at 36 years old, and dies of cancer at 40. So I have a vested interest if for no other reason then genetically to understand the importance of colon health.
As for modern medicine, for the most part it's designed to deal with catastrophic disease. Yet, chronic disease is crippling our health system. For the most part, medication is the answer.
I would be the first to admit that there are "health reformers" that are definately annoying. But nonetheless, properly understood and applied it is a positive blessing for mind / body / soul. And I speak from experience. My wife and I spent over $32,000 in over a 4 year period for health insurance, and spent a little over $100 for copays in the same period. Personally, I would have rather had the $31,900 then the umbrella I didn't need. That does not mean I will some day need the medical community's help. But I can vouch for a vegan diet… we stay healthy almost all of the time.
Coming as a direct descendent of EGW, I just discussed this matter with my grandmother (EGWs great-granddaughter), we both find many of the quotes taken here to be erroneous and grosly out of context. My grandmother believes that even Ellen White never gave up cheese and eggs. Her children, the W.C. Whites at least, definietly never gave either up as well, I know for a fact her daughter-in-law cooked with both (I have been researching and writing a book on her, Mrs. May Lacey White, so this is all very fresh in my mind).
I am positive if EGW could read this she would be horrified to see how her words have being taken and used here (and many other places as well). Diet was never something to be used to determine salvation. EGW was very adamant about the fact that it has, and always will be a personal choice of conviction. If you're vegan great, but the rest of us are not damned, thank-you-very-much.
Lastly, I think the thing that shocks and scares us (and my grandmother – who doesn't like to use the computer so I'm giving voice for her here too) the most is that Ellen White is being quoted as Jesus, this is heresy, and a serious apology and retraction needs to be made.
Nice rhyme! But it's not about cheese, its about what to do with words inspired by the timeless God, given by mortal prophets for humans who lived in a particular place and during a particular time.
If an inspired prophet like Paul says in Corinth, "I do not allow women to speak in churches." Does that mean Ellen White can never step into a pulpit? No.
If Ellen White writes in 1864, "Drugs never cure disease." Does that mean that the children cured of Lukemia, and the malaria victims rescued from death, and the meningitis victim healed by modern drugs maker her a false prophet? No.
So unless all Adventist can learn how to tell what was true then, under those circumstance, may not be true now, under present conditions, we are doomed to becoming as Dr. Siegfried Horn once worried, "a church of oldsters and simpletons." "God said it, I believe it, that settles it, so I don't have to think about it," is a recipe for spiritual disaster.
“You have told me what the advantage of a meat diet is to you. I must tell you what a non-flesh diet has done for me. Ever since the stone was thrown in my face, when I was nine years old, I have had difficulty. At that time I nearly lost my life through the loss of blood.
Dropsy then set in, and since I have suffered very much from kidney affliction. .After a long sickness of eleven months of malarial fever and rheumatism, I was not able to ride without the most easy spring seat. Even when this was made as easy as possible, with soft cushions, it was a torture to my hip and lower part of my spine to ride.
I prayed much over this matter. I sought the Lord during the night hours, and He heard me. Some months ago a new spring seat was made for me. One day I said, “Take that spring seat and put it in the store room; I shall not need it any more.” This was done by faith, and never since have I needed it. The difficulty which made it agony for me to sit in meeting or in the carriage, was taken away. After I had suffered for years, the Lord healed me. My hip continues to trouble me, but I think my health is better than it has been all through my lifetime. I prayed much in regard to the affliction of the kidneys, and I am healed of that trouble also. Some four years I was dependent upon the use of a syringe in order to make a movement of the bowels, but after the lower part of my spine was healed, I have no need to resort to artificial means.
I eat only two meals, and can not eat vegetables or grains. I do not use meat: I can not go back on this. When tomatoes, raised on my land were placed on my table, I tried using them, uncooked and seasoned with a little salt or sugar. These I found agreed with me very well, and from last February until June they formed the greater part of my diet. With them I ate crackers, here called biscuits. I eat no dessert but plain pumpkin pie. I use a little boiled milk in my simple homemade coffee, but discard cream and butter and strictly adhere to a limited amount of food. I am scarcely ever hungry, and never know what it is to have a feverish, disagreeable feeling in my stomach. I have no bad taste in my mouth.” Spalding Magan 38
Notice that EGW suffered from constipation for four years and required a syringe enema to move her bowels. Furthermore, she was unable to eat grains or vegetables.
Sometimes at an omnivore lunch where some delicious veggies and salads are prepared to cater for the vegans/vegetarians, I do notice that the mainline carnivores will grab their meat dishes quickly and then weirdly en masse seek to devour the veggies as well, leaving very little for the herbivore constituency. This wholesale assault on the veggies by the flesh-eaters is one way of ANNOYING VEGANS. Though, not yet a Vegan myself, I have noted that flesh-eaters tend have issues with appetite and temperance. When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness after His Baptism, the first temptation was on the point of Appetite [Matt 4:3] And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.”
The first test in the Garden of Eden which our first parents failed after been tempted was again on the point of appetite. [Gen 2:16-17] “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” So apart from the temperance aspect which Christians have to be accountable for We have to acknowledge too, that cheese is not a very healthy food.
We have to also acknowledge that there are those who will turn this into a self-righteousness exercise which encourages a spirit of criticism and ill-feeling towards brothers and sisters who may eat cheese. This the danger of extremism which Ellen White has warned about. With that been said we will be accountable for our actions based on the light God has sent through His Messengers. It was this ‘form of religion’ which ANNOYED JESUS too [Matt 23:23-26]. This blog does not encourage this although Mr Hendren has come down hard 'like a ton of bricks' with regards to us wilfully disregarding the counsel of His messenger. After all she was right about tobacco and the flesh eating. Look at all the disease manifested as a direct result of these unhealthful practices. Cheese will have to fall in this category too. All we have to do is to learn to say NO CHEESE – PLEASE!
T
Oops – spelling mistake:
It should be – Mr Hendron
Jesus multiplied fish and bread and fed it to people before seeking to convert them. It was considered to be a great miracle. His example is sufficient for me.
I agree with you Brother Preston. It was indeed a great miracle. Jesus CAN feed us (He does) when we are hungry, and hungry we are. But… 'fish' from the hand of Jesus ain't 'cheese' from the hand of McDonalds. ; )
I wish to second Heidi's comment:
"Ellen White is being quoted as Jesus, this is heresy, and a serious apology and retraction needs to be made."
I too would like to third Heidi's comment:
"Ellen White is being quoted as Jesus, this is heresy, and a serious apology and retraction needs to be made."
I agree but I'm afraid that the individual(s) who make these kind of statements are in no mood to retract them. Let's apologize for them.
No where but AToday would such comments "Ellen White quoted as Jesus" be acceptable in any official SDA publication. I will stand corrected when there is proof otherwise.
Mrs Nelson says: "No where but AToday would such comments "Ellen White quoted as Jesus" be acceptable in any official SDA publication."
—–
Question is: "Is AToday really an Adventist publication?" "An official one at that?" Here we go comparing apples with oranges…
Surprising how some of the anti-Ellen White ‘heavies’ who regularly denigrate, mock and insult her, together with the inspired writings of her pen, should be found at pole position to second and third the concerns expressed by her descendant.
I am sure Mr Hendron is quite able to explain his usage of language in the queried statement; however, logically, his statement is correct and cannot be heresy, if one is a believer that it was Jesus who inspired her writings through the working of the Holy Spirit. In other word was it not Jesus speaking through her writings via the Holy Spirit? Is not the testimony of Jesus Christ the Spirit of Prophecy which Ellen White received as the Gift of Prophecy? After all, it is clear that Ellen White was indeed a Messenger of the Lord. (Just my humble opinion)…
T
I’m still waiting for Mr. Hammond to point out a statement on the AT web site which supports his assertion that:” some of the anti-Ellen White ‘heavies’ . . . regularly denigrate, mock and insult her [Ellen White]. “ I guess he can’t find any, so perhaps he just hopes that by not answering, perhaps we will forget his comment?
Dr Taylor is quite a persistent character in his effort to badger me for a statement supporting what I have claimed regarding the regular denigration of Ellen White on AToday by a number of people. Come on Dr. Taylor you should know better! This website insults her and one doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to point this out: It is a glaring fact. I have opted NOT to post any for two reasons – 1] in order to avert further insult and 2] I will leave readers to see for themselves and decide. Most unbiased readers will see the anti-Ellen White mood quite easily by browsing maybe even just a few posts and see for themselves what I have claimed. So sorry not to indulge you at this stage Dr. Taylor but I have opted for 'discretion is the better part of valor' for now. You do know how eager I am to post the many remarks which directly or indirectly insult Mrs. Ellen White, even those that discreetly take a swipe at her. I’m sure her descendant will be able to see this too. From her post it seems that she too is a reasonable person like many others who may visit this site which boasts your version of ‘tailor-made’ Adventism.
T
Please keep in mind too that the health REFORM message was not only for those in her time but also for those in the future when diseases from animals will bring sickness on humans. Heard of Mad Cows disease, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Tape Worm infection? Some through contact and some through eating. I have even seen articles on how SIV in monkeys could have passed on to humans when eating these animals thereby infecting them with HIV. So the messages on health reform weren't only for our pioneers and they equally should admonish us. Can I get an Amen out there? ; )
T
laffal
“Nic,
The Israelites did practice the vegetarian diet in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:1-5), with the exception of the quail given them by God upon their request for meat. The only other exception was the portion of the sacrifice that was alloted from the sacrificial service.”
*********
Are you suggesting that all the animals they kept were used exclusively for their sacrificial system?
Nic,
That's about the size of it. That's what the Bible says. Unless you can find any other evidence.
I would appreciate it if Mr. Hammond would please point out a statement on the AT web site which supports his assertion that:” some of the anti-Ellen White ‘heavies’ . . . regularly denigrate, mock and insult her [Ellen White] “
Say Erv,
I believe Mr. T has been biting off more then he can chew. There's no way anybody can defend the SDA church, EGW, and all things Adventist, even if he lived as long as Methusalah. I understand what he's trying to do, but he seems to continue to tie himself in his own knots tighter, and tighter.
Trevor, you have misunderstood AToday. It has never been an SDA publication, but has always been a private, independent venue for allowing wide-range Adventist discussions; something that NO official SDA publication today allows. You have been allowed the privilege of participating here, something that no SDA publication allows and heavily censors any "letters to the editor."
The old saying: "Don't bite the hand that is feeding you" is most appropriate. To complain of the very site that allows one and all to post here is the same thing.
It is the hand of God that feeds us Sister: NOT the publication!
[Matt 6:26] Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
T
Mr. T. your statements sound a mite unstable, and often with no relevance to the subject under discussion or even a recent comment.
Perhaps a clearly explanation if "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." If you are unappy with AToday and the comments posted here, no one is forcing you to read or comment.
Mrs Nelson
Ma'am, in your last statement you say "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" together with a few lousy remarks in the lines above that – which I have been tempted to respond to: however, I have opted for 'discretion is the better part of valor' – for now.
T
Those of you who consider the writings of EGW the words of Jesus, what do you make of statements such as the one above where she recites her bowel problems and the use of a water syringe to assist her bowel movements over a four year period?
Do you consider a statement such as that inspired? If not, how do you decide what is inspired and what is not?
[Paragraph omitted]
"Lucretia, if you did not mean to tempt us in buying cheese, what did you mean? Did you buy that cheese merely because you wanted to gratify the wish of my husband? If so, you could have gratified his taste for fresh, dried black raspberries which you heard him often speaking of desiring. You had them but did not cook them. You heard him often express a wish for this, but you did not gratify it. He could not eat strawberries, but kept wishing for raspberries. If my husband had wanted cheese, he could have bought it, for he was at Black Hawk and Central as often as three times a week. What your motive was, you know and the Lord knows, but we do not."
EGW sounds more like a scold than a prophet in this passage. Lucretia offered James White some cheese, really, is that so horrible? Since when does a prophet need to scold people over eating or offering cheese to others. Inspired statement or not?
Cheese, I have been told, was made differently in those days. However, we know today that it can cause hypertension for those who are salt sensitive, as it is highly salted. That is why I can't eat it any more. I just wish I had known this years ago. Even people with high BP who are not salt sensitive tend to get higher readings with salt over about 1500-2000gm per day. I would say this could be an important health issue for some people. The problem is most people don't know if they are salt sensitive.
It is probably not a problem in youth, but it can be later.
We often forget that diet is something best decided upon individually. Our bodies are all unique and it is up to us to discover, over time, what foods are best processed by our bodies which include the liberal use of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and dairy products–for the majority. For others, there may be foods that simply do not agree with their digestive systems, or affect their health, and a wise person is in tune with her body.
One size does not fit all!