Seventh-Day Adventists/Tom Norris, Ellen White, & the IJ

Advertisement


Question
Patricia said:  Tom, Thank you for your comments and I, too, am writing to set the record straight.

Patricia then said:  Tom, you said that I was asked about your position concerning EGW and the IJ. That is a false statement.

Tom replied:  It was a correct statement.  I stand by it.

Patricia said:  Please carefully note that she did not ask me anything regarding your position on the IJ. Her specific question was, "What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

Tom said:  The Questioner started out by referencing Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White’s position on the IJ.  How can you pretend otherwise?  How can you say: “She did not ask me anything regarding your position of the IJ…”  

Of course she did.  That was the point of her question. This is exactly what was asked.  Here is the question:

Dear Patricia:

I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment. I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment. What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2013/3/ellen-white-invest
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The context of the question is about Tom’s Norris view of Ellen White’s IJ position.  Why deny what is so obvious?  She wanted to know if what she “heard” about Tom Norris’ view was correct.  Why deny it?

Patricia said:  The first two sentences were simply commentary or opening remarks. In those two sentences, she clearly stated that you among other unnamed sources didn't believe that EGW supported the IJ. She did not ask me anything about you so your communique to me begins on a false premise.

Tom said:  I disagree with your double-talk.  You were asked point blank if Tom Norris’ (alleged) position about Ellen White and the IJ were correct.  Why deny such a clear question?  

I can tell you were a long time SDA, because they can’t think or talk straight.  They prefer word games to support their dubious views, even after they leave the church.   Sad.

Regardless, the facts are self-evident.  The questioner asked you if my views abut Ellen White, were correct.  Stop trying to deny reality.  

Patricia said:  I am sure that you are aware that there is a difference between making a statement and asking a question. Again, she asked me nothing about you or your position and I didn't even mention your name.

Tom said:  First off, her statement was false.  She never heard me, or anyone, say that Ellen White did not believe in the IJ.  So you should have figured this out and corrected her.  This is the job of an expert.

But no.  You assumed these myths were correct, even as you try to pretend you have made no errors in this matter.  You should have taken the time to look up what I had written about this topic.  Otherwise, how could you answer the question, much less understand the genuine Pre-Advent Judgment of the church?

Second, you were asked if you agree with what Tom Norris has (allegedly) said about Ellen White and the IJ.   You were asked about Ellen White’s view of the IJ in the context of what Tom Norris had been writing.  Was Tom Norris correct or not?  

So the question is about “your thoughts” relative to Tom Norris’s view of Ellen White and the IJ.  

Third, this is not the first time you have been asked such a question about Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White and the IJ.  You were asked this question on 8/3/2012.  See below.

Dear Patricia:

SDA expert Tom Norris tries to distance Ellen White from the SDA false doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. What is your take on that? Did Ellen White actually support the doctrine or not? I thought that she supported it as a very important if not foundational doctrine of SDAism?

Thanks for your thoughts!

Karen

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2012/8/ellen-white-ij.htm

Tom said:  Patricia, you need to stop pretending that you don’t understand the questions.  It is clear that you have been asked this same question before, and you failed to get it right then as now.

Of course you agreed with her, just like you have done with the last person who asked you the same question, (which you pretend not to understand).  As far as you are concerned, Tom Norris is wrong, even though you have no clue what he is talking about or what Ellen White is saying.  Strange.  

Here is your response to this similar question.  

Patricia answered:

Hello Karen,

Thank you for your comments and question.

I am in total agreement with your thoughts. Ellen G. White cannot be separated from this foundational doctrine….

Tom said:  Then you go on to incorrectly answer this question, which once again proves that you don’t know what you are talking about.  You are no expert on 19th century Adventist doctrine, and it shows.

Ellen White and the IJ
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2012/8/ellen-white-ij.htm

Patricia said: Furthermore, I am not in the habit of answering what "I think" the questioner is asking. If I don't understand the question, I have no problem asking for clarification.

Tom said:  I don’t know how anyone could misunderstand these questions as you pretend.  But regardless, now that you understand, you still don’t know the correct answer.  You are not an expert about the IJ or Ellen White and thus you should not pretend to be something you are not.  

You are not qualified to answer questions because you don’t know what you are talking about.  Being a confused and wrong SDA for many years is not enough to make anyone an “expert.”  The discovery of error is not the same as finding Gospel truth.  You have run from one set of errors, only to embrace a different set of errors.  Is this progress?  Does this make anyone an expert?  Hardly.

So why are you here?  What do you have to offer, but more error and confusion?  You have embraced one false doctrine after another after you left the errors of Adventism, so what have you accomplished?   For example, you don’t understand the Sabbath or eschatology correctly, much less anything else that I can tell.  So what is the point?  You can’t help anyone until you better understand things yourself.

Just look at how hard it is for you to understand a simple question?  You are still confused about what is being asked.  What are the odds you can get the answers correct if you can’t understand the questions?  

How difficult can this be?  The questioner, like others before, wanted to know if the rumors about what Tom Norris was saying about Ellen White and the IJ are true.  But this was too much for you to comprehend.

Understand that the rumors are not true.  Tom Norris has NEVER said that Ellen White did not believe in the IJ.  Nor is there any evidence that anyone has taken such a view.  Why could you not give make such a correct answer?

Here are the facts:  What Tom Norris (and Dr. Ford) said is that Ellen White never believed in the IJ in the same way as the Takoma Park apologists claimed for Ellen White.  Here is a major point that you fail to comprehend and acknowledge?  Why it that?

If you were a true expert about SDA history and theology you would have given the right answer.  But you are just an angry ex-SDA who only knows what she was taught during a certain time period.  You do not understand the historical development of SDA doctrine correctly, nor are you an expert about Ellen White, the IJ, or church history.  

Being an angry critic does not make anyone an expert.  Such a bad attitude often prevents people from understanding things correctly, which is what is taking place here.   You need to learn before you can teach.

Patricia said:  She was quite pointed in her question and I answered accordingly. If you disapprove, I can't help that.

Tom said:  The question was clear enough, even though it was full of bias and false assumptions that you failed to detect.  

However, your answers were convoluted, misleading, and wrong.  You need to admit this and move forward with a better understanding of Ellen White and SDA theology.  Like many former, confused SDA’s, you are fighting things you don’t understand.  Sad.

Here is the real problem:  You don’t want to know what Tom Norris or Dr. Ford are saying about the IJ and Ellen White, nor do you want to know Ellen White’s true view of this controversial teaching.  Nor do you seem to care to do any research and educate yourself.

You may very well know what you were personally taught about SDA doctrine, but this is not near enough information to hold yourself out to the public as being an “expert’ in Adventism.  Not even close.

Patricia said:  Also note that I did not ever say, "Tom Norris is wrong", I just provided proof that Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment, which is what was being asked. I had no knowledge of what she had read or what you had said. I simply answered the question.

Tom said:  First off, the questioner thinks you said Tom Norris is wrong.  And so too does the last one who asked you the same question. Because this is the bottom line of your answer.  So you said it, even if not explicitly.  

Which is why I am protesting.  You are the one who is wrong.  You don’t know Ellen White’s genuine view of the IJ, nor do you know what I am saying or what Dr. Ford has said.  So you could not have botched this answer any more, if you tried.

Second, your proof is a joke.  You do not know how to define the IJ or even deal with this critical point under discussion. Which again underscores the point that you are moving beyond your knowledge base.   Unless you know the background of Glacier View and how to define the IJ correctly, how can you even comment on any of this?  Throwing out random quotes from Ellen White proves very little when you don’t know what it is you should be trying to prove.

Third, it was a great error to quote Froom’s 20th century views about the IJ and attribute them to Ellen White.  Such a glaring error underscores that you don’t know what you are doing.  Ellen White does not support what Froom says about the IJ and the fact you think otherwise disqualifies you from further discussion.   

It is clear from your answer that you had “no knowledge” of what Tom Norris was saying about Ellen White’s view of the IJ.  So why did you try to answer a question about my views without taking the time to find out what they were?  Strange.  You own words condemn you.

Let’s face facts: You failed to understand the question, which was full of wrong assumptions.  You also failed make a correct response.  Period.  Own up to it and learn from your mistakes.  This is the best course.  Can you do that?  

Patricia said:  The quotes that I provided were written by Ellen White and speak for themselves.

Tom said:  Wrong.  First off, you did not give the right quotes, much less get close to understanding the issues under discussion.

Second, you also quoted Froom, and tried to make it seem like his views about the IJ were the same as Ellen White’s, when that is not true.  Why did you do this?  And then why did you deny you quoted Froom?

You really don’t know what you are doing, or what you are saying.  This material is beyond you and thus you should not think you are a serious expert, nor should anyone else.  You are an amateur, like so many other Adventist critics that shoot off their mouths without having the facts.

Patricia said:  I have not given false information as you have declared and if I did or were to, I'm not too proud to say I was wrong. I am not infallible. However, you did falsely accuse me of providing incorrect information about you as I have previously pointed out.

Tom said:  You seem very proud and defensive.  Sorry, but this topic is well beyond your comprehension.  You are not an expert on Ellen White or the IJ, nor do you even understand the questions from those trying to get the facts.  You are over your head, which explains why you have given out false and misleading information, for which you should repent and educate yourself on the facts.

Patricia said:  You replied to a questioner by saying that, you agreed that Ellen White believed in the Investigative Judgment, so you and I are on the same page, yet you are attempting to call me out on it and suggesting that I apologize. Apologize for what?

Tom said:  First off, why did you not look up that information and make it part of your answer?  You should have corrected the questioner and said that Tom Norris does not deny that Ellen White embraced the IJ.

So it seems you can do some research if you want.  But it is also clear that you failed to fully quote the material, ignoring what you don’t want to see.  Why can’t you be honest with the issues and the material?  

Second, I agree that we are on the same page, meaning the IJ is wrong.  So I am not trying to make it seem better or sugar coat the fact that there is no such doctrine in the Bible.  Nor I am trying to protect Ellen White by pretending she never embraced false doctrine.  The IJ is wrong and Ellen White is not infallible.  We agree.

However, here is the point that has escaped you:  The IJ of the 19th century is very DIFFERENT from what was taught by the Takoma Park apologists.  This fact is very important and cannot be overlooked.  What the White Estate taught about Ellen White and the IJ was not fully true or correct, and it is this point that must be understood by the modern SDA’s, because it allows them to return to the original fundamentals that are true, correct, and prophetic.

The IJ was NEVER the Judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7.  Although this is what all 20th century SDA’s were taught, and what most all think Ellen White believed, - it was never true.  NEVER!  Neither Ellen White nor Uriah Smith, or any of the Pioneers embraced such a view.  Which means that all modern SDA’s have been badly misled by the White Estate for generations.  Here is a stunning point that must not be overlooked.

It also means that Glacier View was a sham, and so too Traditional Adventism in general, which is based on the IJ being a fundamental doctrine from the 1st Angels Message.

I suggest that you do some much-needed research on this topic and find out why this is such a paradigm-shifting situation.  The Pre Advent Judgment is a true concept, but it is not found in Dan 8: 14 as the SDA’s incorrectly teach.  It is found in Rev 3:14.  Let all go to the proper place in scripture to find this correct doctrine.

When the Adventist Community locates the true PAJ, they will understand their error about the IJ.  Then all should apologize to Dr. Ford and condemn the White Estate for what they have done.   The sooner this takes place the better.

Patricia said:  Am I to apologize because you read more into the question than was asked?

Tom said:  You need to apologize because:

1) You failed to correct the errors embedded in the question.  Tom Norris has never said that Ellen White did not embrace the IJ.  You were wrong not to point this fact out.

2.) You failed to articulate Ellen White’s true view of the IJ, leaving the impression stand that what is traditionally taught by the SDA’s about Ellen White and the IJ is historically true when it is not.

3.) You omitted many necessary quotes from Ellen White about the IJ, even as you quoted Froom’s 20th century views, as if Ellen White shared them when she did not.  This is a very dishonest and unprofessional use of sources.  

4. You also left the false impression that Tom Norris is promoting “nonsense” about Ellen White and the IJ.  But you never even knew my views, or those of Ellen White for that matter.  So how could you give out such a false answer, for which you need to apologize.

5.  Then you tried to cover up your incorrect answers with one excuse after another, pretending that you didn’t understand the question, when you had received this same question before.  This is typical SDA double-talk, for which you have been well schooled.

So here are at least 5 reasons why you need to apologize.  Do you need more?  

Like I said, experts are not here to promote their own opinions and errors; they have a duty to honestly deal with the evidence and stay true to the facts.  You have not done this.

Patricia said: Am I to apologize because the GC brethren and those in authority have (according to you) misinterpreted Ellen White's views about the IJ?

Tom said:  The topic of the publishing fraud in the White Estate has been in the public domain, unrefuted, for more than a decade.   Anyone that claims to be an expert on SDA history and theology had better understand what documents were hidden in the White Estate and why.  They must fully understand the real Ellen White of history, not the phony one that was invented by the White Estate and pushed forward at Glacier View to condemn the Gospel.

Ellen White
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=225

So here is another point where you need to apologize.  You should have understood that Ellen White’s writings have been suppressed and manipulated by the White Estate.  Then you would have also discovered that this manipulation also encompasses the IJ, whereby the leaders claimed far too much for the IJ in the name of the Ellen White.  

See the following:

Hidden Documents 3-30-06
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/Hidden-Documents.htm

Ellen White- 3/15/2007
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/Ellen-White-5.htm

Investigative Judgement according to Ellen White 7/31/2012
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2012/7/investigative-judg

Pillars of Faith in EGW Writings 2/24/2009
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2009/2/Pillars-Faith-stat

Patricia said:  Am I to apologize because I did not read more into the question from the questioner?

Tom said:  You should apologize because of the 6 points above and now the 7th.  Which is this:  

You don’t understand the Gospel.  Those who seek to teach the Bible to others must first know the material.  You are not qualified to teach anyone the Gospel Story or Adventist history.  You have much to learn before you are fit to teach others.  So repent and learn the Gospel.  You are years behind.

Patricia said:  She asked a pointed question and I gave a pointed answer.

Tom said:  She asked a question with a false premise, which you failed to detect or correct.  She also asked if what Tom Norris was (allegedly) saying about Ellen White and the IJ was correct.  Just like other previous questions you were asked.  So let’s not pretend this was a new question for you.  It was not.

Regardless, your answer was wrong on all counts.  You were wrong about Ellen White’s view and you are wrong about my view of the IJ.  So wrong is wrong.   Congratulations, you are expert at making errors and ignoring the facts, for which you should apologize.

Patricia said:  Am I to apologize because I did not query through your many answers to questions to see your position?

Tom replied:  You claim to be an expert about Adventism.  But yet you don’t know near enough to know what you are talking about.  To make matters worse, you seem too lazy to look up what you don’t know.  

So what kind of expert are you?  So yes, you need to apologize to a lot of people because this material is way over your head and you are in no position to explain what you don’t understand.  You need to learn, not teach.

How hard is it to Google “Tom Norris, the IJ, and Ellen White?  How hard is it to look up my previous answers on All Experts?  The search for knowledge and truth is never ending.  Those who rest satisfied, thinking they have all the information they need, will never understand anything but their past errors.  Truth is only for those who keep looking.

Patricia said:  Again, you were not the subject. Am I to apologize because you made up a question that wasn't even asked and then accused me of answering it incorrectly?

Tom replied: The question put to you, - was about Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White and the IJ.  Denial will not change the facts.

Patricia quoted Tom Norris who said: "Unfortunately, the questioner failed to frame the question accurately, making a number of false assumptions, which you failed to detect."

Patricia then asked:  Why would you say that she framed her question incorrectly?

Tom said:  Because it was based on the false assumption that Tom Norris, and others, had claimed Ellen White did not believe in the IJ.  So this question was wrong from the start.  And you should have corrected this error as part of your answer.  This is what real “experts” do.  This is why you are here.

Patricia said:  Her question was very brief, very much to the point and exactly what she wanted to ask.

Tom replied:  The question embraced myth and rumor as if they were true.  You also embraced these errors and went on to add more error and confusion to the issue.  So you both need to be corrected.  Here is a good example of the blind leading the blind.

Patricia said:  It appears that she could have been mistaken by your position on the subject but what other false assumptions did she make and how does misinterpreting your position affect her question?

Tom said:  There is no “appears” about it.  She was wrong to make such claims about what I believe.  My record is clear on this point.  

She also assumed what the SDA’s teach about the IJ and Ellen White is true.  But it is not.  What most all think about Ellen White and the IJ is FALSE.  And you should have known this fact, except you too are clueless about your former faith to understand.

Patricia said:  If she had asked if I knew your position regarding Ellen White and the IJ and if she had asked if Ellen White and the 20th Century Adventists have the same view of the Investigative Judgment, THEN I would have had to do due diligence in research BUT those were not the questions. She only asked one question and it wasn't about you or the different IJ views.

Tom said:  Wrong.  The entire question was about Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White and the IJ.  Just read the question and see for yourself.  It reads like a Syllogism, which is an argument that makes a major and then minor point, followed by a conclusion.

There were only three sentences, and the first one makes clear what is on the questioner’s mind.  Thus the Major premise = Tom Norris’ view of Ellen White and the IJ?

The second sentence introduces additional reasoning, which questions Tom Norris assumed viewpoint about this topic.

The third sentence is the conclusion; is Tom Norris correct or not?

Here is the question broken down for you:

1).  “I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment.”

2) “I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment.”

3) “What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

From start to finish, the question is about Tom Norris view of Ellen White and the IJ.  You can deny it all you want, but the facts are self-evident for all to see.

Patricia quoted Tom Norris who said:

"Second, the issue is not whether Ellen White “supported” or believed in the IJ, like all SDA’s of her time period, but rather, has the White Estate correctly explained the details of her position.  Do you understand this distinction?"

Patricia then responded:

Of course I understand the distinction but do you understand that she did not ask for that distinction?

Tom said:  I don’t think you understand any such distinction.  If you did you would not have failed to answer the question correctly.  But you have no idea how to explain this distinction, nor are you aware of it.  You don’t know the doctrinal development of the IJ and you should admit this fact and stop pretending.

Patricia said:  Please note that you are changing her question into what you think her question should be. So do you understand that you want me to answer her question according to what you think she should have asked?

Tom said:  Please note that the question, from start to finish, was about Tom Norris view of Ellen White and the IJ.  And so too were other questions you have received and incorrectly answered.

Why deny what is so obvious and plain?  But this is the way of many SDA’s, they love to argue over minor points, so there is no time to deal with the real issues that they don’t understand.  This seems to be how you also operate. Typical SDA blindness and double-talk.

Patricia said:  The following quotes about EGW and the SDA church regarding the IJ is taken from an article posted on the whiteestate.org and written by Robert Olson in 1981 titled: 101 Questions on Ellen White and the Sanctuary.

Tom said:  Why are you posting this?  Did anyone ask you what Robert Olsen believed about Ellen White and the IJ?  I know Bob Olsen; he was in charge of the White Estate when I was researching 1888.  He was there when I found thousands of hidden documents in the White Estate and Archives.  

So I can explain his IJ views, and place them in the proper context, but you have no idea what you are saying or quoting, just like most all SDA’s, who are so confident and arrogant.  But yet, when you pin them down, they don’t know what they are talking about or quoting.  Just like now.

Patricia quoted:  

4. ELLEN WHITE ON THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT

"Does Ellen White support the Adventist interpretation of the Bible with regard to the investigative judgment doctrine? Yes. She states:

“The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest.
Otherwise, it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time, or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill.” - The Great Controversy, Page 488. See the entire chapter,
pages 479-491.

“For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word--especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly
sanctuary, and the message of heaven for these last days as given by the angels of the fourteenth chapter of Revelation. Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the
place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord.

“But the way marks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and through the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us
to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority. “—

Manuscript 44, 1905. See al so Selected Messages, book 1, pages 124, 125

Tom said:  That post made no sense.  These are random quotes, lacking both historical and theological context.  They don’t help your case whatsoever.  Nor do you know what these statements even mean.  You are shooting blanks.  You do not understand the issues or problems, much less the solutions.  You need to be asking questions, not trying to answer the questions of others, who are as confused as yourself.

Patricia said:  Now whether the above is true or false, I can't say, but it is taken from the source (EGW).

Tom said:  Pulling random quotes from the White Estate website hardly settles anything.  

When it comes to the Judgment and the IJ, what are the “waymarks”?  This is the real question.  Do you know?  And who says the White Estate is to be trusted about any of this?  They are part of the problem and not to be trusted.  So your quotes have no meaning or relevance.

While all modern SDA’s have been taught that the IJ is the great Judgment Pillar from Rev 14: 7—and thus foundational for all SDA theology, this was never true.  

Although the White Estate claims this is what Ellen White believed, it is not true.  No 19th century SDA ever took such a view of the IJ.  NOT ONE OF THEM.   Proving that the White Estate has been misleading and deceiving people about Ellen White for generations.  What all think is normative SDA doctrine, is not.  The White Estate has deceived millions, and yet, they refuse to admit what they have done, much less correct the record.

Although Ellen White says that the waymarks are to be preserved, she does not mean that they were to be changed into error and posthumously supported by the White Estate in her name.  Ellen White gave no one permission to change her views about the IJ, the Gospel, or the Prophetic Fundamentals that define and empower the Advent Movement.  But this is what has happened and this is why the SDA’s are self-destructing in confusion and double-talk.  

Dr. Ford is correct; only the doctrine of the 2nd Coming is the Judgment Pillar in Rev 14: 7.  This is also what Ellen White embraced.  This is one of the great SDA landmarks that has been marginalized and changed into myth and error by the leaders.  Even those who leave the church, do so not understanding what has taken place.  The SDA’s have embraced error for so long that today they have no clue about the fundamentals that once defined them.

Dr. Ford tried to help the SDA’s understand the facts about the IJ, but the leaders did not want to hear truth.  They were more comfortable with tradition, myth, and legalism.  You also were not paying attention, because if you were, you would know how to answer the questions correctly.

So I say again, Ellen White does not embrace the IJ as the church taught you and me.  She never thought or said it was a fundamental pillar, even though you are conditioned to think otherwise.  You need to repent for this error as well.

Patricia said:  I, and others, can only provide what EGW and the SDA church post and write.

Tom said: No one today needs to depend on the White Estate for much of anything.  Those days are long past.  The White Estate is very dishonest, a great source of myth and double-talk.  They are the primary reason for so much confusion and why little makes sense within Adventism.

Today, there is all manner of information online about Adventism, including how Ellen White really viewed the IJ, and what Tom Norris and Dr. Ford say about such a points.  There is no excuse for anyone, much less an expert, to remain ignorant about the issues relating to Adventist history or theology.  They are all accessible online.

Patricia said:  The Sanctuary and the IJ (which are often used simultaneously) are listed among their fundamental beliefs even back in 1863 when the church was organized.

Tom said:  SDA theologians often view The Pre-Advent Judgment and the IJ as the same term.  However, the Sanctuary can mean many different things depending on which version of Dan 8:14 is being discussed.  So once again, you don’t know what you are talking about.  You need to stop pretending you are an expert, you are not even close.

Did you know that there are 6 different views of Dan 8: 14 (the basis for the IJ), and now the 7th view is being promoted as part of Adventist Reform?  How can an expert not know these things?  How can an expert get things so wrong?

Pay attention:  There was never a time in 19th century Adventism when the IJ was viewed as the judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7.  While this may seem impossible, it is a fact.  One, which Dr. Ford pointed out in his Glacier View document, which apparently you have not read.

The Pioneers ONLY viewed the 2nd Coming as the Judgment pillar in the Three Angels Messages.  Not the IJ.  Never the IJ.

Only in the 20th century, did this dishonest and false change take place.  Why?  Because the Takoma Park leaders were legalists that misunderstood the law and the Gospel, as well as Historic Adventism.  So they hid thousands of documents and manipulated Ellen White’s writings, even changing her view of the fundamentals.  As a result, nothing makes sense and Ellen White looks like a fool.

But Ellen White is no fool.  She never embraced this false view about the IJ being a pillar in the 1st Angels Message.  She never thought the IJ was the reason for the existence of the Advent Movement or that it was even part of the 1st Angels Message.  The fact that everyone thinks otherwise is a tribute to the White Estate’s ability to brainwash generations of trusting people.

This point about the IJ not being a pillar is critical for all SDA’s to understand.  It changes everything for the Advent Movement, even as it places Ellen White in direct opposition to the White Estate on a major point of doctrine.  It also proves that Glacier View was a farce and the SDA leadership corrupt and incompetent to the core, which is still the case today.

Patricia said:  The Sanctuary doctrine was its foundation and this is where the work of Investigation supposedly takes place. So it was/is a pillar which you deny.

Tom said:  Wrong.  You speak like an uninformed Traditional SDA.  Is this what you were for so many years?  

While the conservatives claimed the IJ to be the “foundational” doctrine in the 1st Angels Message, they were wrong.  Such a view is not only impossible, Ellen White never supported it.  She had another judgment pillar that she pointed to and it was the 2nd Coming.  So no.  The IJ was NEVER a “pillar.”  

This point never changed for Ellen White or the Pioneers, nor should it have changed for the Denomination at any time.  But it did, which is why the Advent Movement is self-destructing, - at the very time when the end of the world is closer then ever.  This great error must be corrected and the fundamentals re-established so the necessary work of the Advent Movement can go forward.

There is no such doctrine as “the sanctuary.”  Rather, there are numerous versions of Dan 8: 14 about the sanctuary, starting with Miller’s original view that the sanctuary was the earth, which would be cleansed with fire at the 2nd Coming.

After 1844, the heavenly sanctuary replaced the earth as the sanctuary in Daniel 8: 14.  But this was not the IJ, which would not be invented until 1857.  Rather, it was a doctrine called “The Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary,” which had zero to do with the IJ or a judgment of any kind.  (A real expert should know the different phases of the IJ).

So I say again; The IJ was NEVER a “pillar” in the 1st Angels Message as you were taught.  And Ellen White never said otherwise.  Which means you are wrong on numerous levels.  

It is time for all to understand the true history and theology of the Advent Movement, including what Ellen White really teaches.  What all have been taught by the church and the White Estate is manipulated, misleading, and very wrong.  

Shame on the White Estate and any that trust them, like Clifford Goldstein, Herb Kersten, or Doug Batchelor.  They promote great error and double-talk about the IJ.  But they are easily refuted and sent running away for all to see.

IJ Discussion: Tom Norris & Herb Kersten
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=1173

Patricia said:  As a child matriculating through the SDA church school system, this is exactly what I was taught to believe. I had no reason to doubt what was being taught and never questioned it until 50 years later.

Tom said:  I too was taught all manner of false doctrines at my SDA schools and College.  So what?  That is no excuse not to study the Bible and look up the facts of history and resolve the issues.  I knew something was wrong and that’s why I went to find answers, which I did.  I caught the White Estate hiding thousands of documents about Ellen White and the 1888 Gospel debates.  And they have yet to confess their great fraud, much less correct the record, even though the hidden collection is now online for all to see.

Anyone who wants to be an expert about the SDA’s had better understand what has been going on in the White Estate since the church purchased that collection in the 1930’s.   The place was, and still is, a propaganda factory.  They are the reason why there is so much confusion and error within Adventism.  

If you want to be mad at the SDA’s; fine, but be angry for the right reason.  Be angry because they have deceived everyone about Ellen White’s view of the law and the Gospel as well as the IJ and the very fundamentals that define the Advent Movement.  That should make everyone upset.

Patricia said:  I accept your disapproval of my answer, but I sincerely believe that this communique from you is based on a questions that weren't even asked. Therefore, I do not believe that an apology is necessary. However, I am sorry that you changed a comment into a question that wasn't asked because perhaps all of this could have been avoided.

Tom said:  You are wrong on numerous levels.  You need to first apologize to everyone for giving out wrong answers and for thinking you are an expert.  Anyone so clueless about Ellen White and the IJ cannot be considered an SDA expert.  To misunderstand Ellen White and the IJ is to misunderstand Adventism.

Patricia said:  I am simply not in the habit of reading more into what a person asks. If I answer a question and more clarification is needed, they have no problem with sending me a follow-up question.

Tom said:  The question was clear.  Your answer was wrong.

Patricia said:  Furthermore, from one expert to another, I would never degrade or deliberately misrepresent you in any way even if we disagreed. If she had asked me about you, I would have tried to seek your position. True story!

Tom said:  She DID ask about my views.  The question was asked BECAUSE of my views about Ellen White and the IJ.  The questioner wanted to know if I was correct or not.  Here is the question again:

1).  “I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment.”

2) “I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment.”

3) “What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

From start to finish, the question is about Tom Norris view of Ellen White and the IJ.  You can deny it all you want, but the facts are self-evident for all to see.

Conclusion:

Today, the Advent Community is very confused and disoriented.  So too their many critics, most of which are former SDA’s.  Enough of this needless, mindless chaos that prevents correction and forward progress.  

Adventism is important because represents a Protestant view of how the world will end.  But much of this important eschatology, like the Judgment of the 2nd Coming, has been marginalized and manipulated into nonsense and error, like the IJ.  Which means there is no credible understanding of last day events.

The Christian Faith does not function without serious eschatology, and at this point there is none in all of Laodicea.  This must be corrected.  It is time for straight talk about where the Adventists were correct and where they are in error.

It is time to correct the confused, false record in the White Estate and stop wasting time with myths, errors, and half-truths.   

It is time for genuine Gospel Reform, including Sabbath Reform and the search for a fully correct, NC view of the Sabbath, which has eluded the SDA’s who claimed to be the experts about the law and the Sabbath.  They should be, but they are not expert about anything except double-talk and error.

While the SDA’s were correct to understand the need for a Pre-Advent Judgment for the church, Dan 8:14 is not it, and neither are Sunday laws going to start the great Tribulation.  So a more credible view of eschatology must emerge to prepare the church for what is coming.  This is the point of the Adventist Movement and so it still must be, the sooner the better.

The Adventists correctly teach there will come a time when the Gospel and Prophecy are better understood; a time when the church repents for its many false doctrines, thus facilitating the last great Reformation of the church, which is located in Rev 18.  It is time.

I hope this helps,

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Answer
Tom,

It is obvious to me that you are a very angry man and if you need me to be your scapegoat to vent, I can handle it. Just because you say something about me doesn't make it a fact . Just because you believe something about me, doesn't make it true . In my opinion, you come across as a self-righteous, know-it-all, arrogant bully and I refuse to stoop to your level.

This correspondence from you is a waste of my time and amounts to total nonsense. Obviously you do not understand the difference between a statement and a question. She did NOT ask about your views. Let me break down the question for you in hopes that the veil will be lifted and you can finally SEE the question:

1. STATEMENT:  “I have heard some SDA’s such as Tom Norris state that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment.”

2. STATEMENT: “I was under the impression that she did support the Investigative Judgment.”

3. QUESTION: “What is your thoughts on whether or not Ellen White supported the Investigative Judgment?"

Now let's see if you understand. From the above three choices, which one has a question mark following it -- #1, #2, or #3? Congratulations! #3 is the correct answer. I knew you could do it!

You said:

"She DID ask about my views.  The question was asked BECAUSE of my views about Ellen White and the IJ.  The questioner wanted to know if I was correct or not."

My response:

I do understand what you are saying. It is quite possible that she was asking the question because of what she said you said, but the fact remains that she did not ask me about your views. While it cannot be denied that she mentioned you by name, it can be denied that Tom Norris is the subject. Take note that she stated that she heard you state that EGW did not support the IJ. If she "heard" you state it, why would she need me to tell her your position? Illogical don't you think? Seems to me, your argument is with her, not me. Her conclusion about your position was made before she asked for my thoughts. In other words, she felt she already knew what you believed and wanted to know what I believed -- plain and simple. To read anything else into it is reaching!

Sadly, what you have read into Mary's question is how most SDAs read and interpret the Bible. Scripture can be ever so plain but all they see is what Scripture DOES NOT say and write endless commentary regarding their adding to Scripture insight. A good example would be the Sabbath. The Bible plainly says it was given to Israel and Israel ONLY but SDAs somehow manage to read something entirely different into it by saying that it is applicable and commanded of all Christians. This is what I am experiencing with you and it is most frustrating.

Kindly redirect your need to be right and your anger to the responsible source -- Tom Norris, aka YOU! You will not be receiving an apology from me. And, yes, I am keenly aware that my refusal to do so is for the public to see, which is the platform of your choice . You had the option of sending me a private email and we could have taken it from there but you chose this platform.

Tom, I am not you. I don't think like you. I don't act like you. I don't believe like you and the way you treat people, I would never want to be you. Even though we are different on many levels, it is no excuse to be unkind, at least not for me. Stop trying to brow beat me into submission to your way of thinking and doing by trying to discredit me and my experiences. It ain't gonna happen Mr.(supposedly) 19th Century SDA doctrine expert!

If the truth were to be known, You owe me an apology. You have been quite loose with your remarks and accusations but I am a big girl and I can handle it. I suppose it comes with the territory although I am a tad bit surprised it comes from a fellow expert wanting to thrash it out in public. It's not my fault that you don't know the difference between a statement and a question.

You've taken up enough of my precious time by trying to "set the record straight", by trying to publicly put me in my place, and by trying to berate me for the world to see. In my eyes, your mission was unsuccessful. I am still standing! Your accusations are completely unwarranted and the manner you chose to handle them is questionable, even disappointing. I am not embarrassed but you should be. Your behavior makes you look very very small.

For the record, whether you approve of me or like my contribution or not, my calling and ministry on this site are just as important as yours and you will never have the power to make me feel belittled or discouraged. Who are you to question why I am here? Everything I mentioned in my answer regarding the IJ was quoted by the source, EGW. Yet, for some unknown and quizzical reason you accuse me of misquoting their history and that I don't know what I am talking about. I have never claimed to be a 19th century SDA doctrine expert (you gave me that distinction) but since I quoted Ellen White , does that mean that she doesn't know what she is talking about Mr.(supposedly) 19th Century SDA Doctrine Expert? It seems that you think you are the only one with "right" answers.

I could flip the question and ask you why are you on this site. Why are you here misrepresenting the Bible (aforementioned Sabbath example)?

Tom, I have come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to put you on notice: I do not care to, I do not want to, nor will I tolerate hearing from you in any capacity about anything.   If I hear from you in any manner, I will report you to the site administrators because I will consider it as harassment. I will also request them to view the published correspondence between us and let the chips fall where they may. As far as I am concerned, the subject is exhausted, closed and buried! I thank you in advance for honoring my simple request.

BTW, I have no disdain for SDAs. Some of my closest friends are SDAs. No need to try to make it personal. ;-( Again, shame on you!

Now breathe  s l o w l y  and try really hard not to contact me again because there will be consequences.

Seventh-Day Adventists

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Patricia Allen

Expertise

As a former Seventh-day Adventist (SDA), I have insight of value to those who are questioning and/or trying to decide if they should leave or become an SDA. It would be my privilege to discuss SDA church doctrine, structure, Ellen White, the old and new covenants, and their various beliefs. The Bible will be my main source of reference and all quotes, etc. will be documented. I understand that there are different variants of Adventists, but I am only familiar with what I would call traditional or main stream.

Experience

I was a Seventh-day Adventist for over 50 years. I attended their schools and I was always active in the churches I attended. I also worked for the denomination for 37 years. Since I was educated in their schools from Grade 1, and because what I was taught came from the Bible, I never questioned my beliefs. I considered myself as one whom the Lord had chosen to bring out of darkness into His marvelous light. In the year 2005, I became keenly aware that Ellen White contradicted the Scriptures numerous times and plagiarized some of her most popular writings. At this point, I had to seriously consider studying for myself with the aid of the Holy Spirit to see if indeed I really had the truth. Sad to say, I discovered that I was deluded and deliberately deceived by the church I loved and served. In 2010, I requested that my name be withdrawn from the membership roster of the church. Since then, it has been my passion to tell those in the SDA church and those considering joining Adventism, the truth and freedom that I have discovered and enjoy daily. I interact on Facebook with SDAs frequently regarding their beliefs and doctrines compared to the Bible. In addition to answering questions on this site, I have a blog (www.patricia-allen.blogspot.com) and the purpose of my articles is to expose the false doctrines of the SDA church After 50 plus years of trying to 'work' my way, I have discovered the sweet rest in the finished work of my Savior. I've also discovered that there is nothing that I have ever done to make Jesus love me less and there is nothing that I can ever do to make Jesus love me more. Jesus just loves me and this I know!

Education/Credentials
M.A.O.M. degree (Master of Arts in Organizational Management). I also have a B.A.I.C. degree (Born Again in Christ). My calling is to help spread the Good News of the Gospel and to help lift the veil by sharing Jesus, Who is the Truth and the Light.

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.