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

Advertisement


Question
Patricia, I am writing to set the record straight.  You were asked on 3/5/13 about my position concerning Ellen White and the IJ.  You failed to answer correctly.  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?

Mary

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

Unfortunately, the questioner failed to frame the question accurately, making a number of false assumptions, which you failed to detect.   So let’s correct the record and answer the question truthfully and with the facts.

First, I have never taken the position that Ellen White did not believe in the IJ.   No one has ever “heard” me take such a position, nor have I heard anyone else take such a view.   

So the question is based on a mythical and false premise, which you should have figured out instead of supporting silly rumors and continuing historical error.

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?

The fact of the matter is this:  the White Estate has not been honest about how Ellen White viewed the IJ.  Although they taught everyone that she viewed this Celestial Judgment as a fundamental doctrine from Historic Adventism; a defining “pillar” that could never be questioned or revised, this was never true.  

No 19th century SDA viewed the IJ the way it was later taught in the 20th century by the White Estate and others, like Froom.   No one should fail to understand this fact, which changes everything for the modern SDA.

The Takoma Park apologists were the ones that incorrectly claimed the IJ to be the Judgment Pillar from Rev 14: 7.   They were the ones that made up this point, which you quoted from Froom, that without the IJ, the SDA’s “would have no justifiable place in the religious world, no distinctive denominational mission and message, no excuse for functioning as a separate church entity today."  (Movement of Destiny, p. 542.)  

Ellen White NEVER took such a position, nor would she ever get close to such a view, which she repudiates.

I repeat: Ellen White never embraced such a view, nor did she ever claim that the IJ was a “pillar,” beyond investigation or correction.  Stop quoting Froom, as if he were a SDA Pioneer that knew Ellen White.  The 20th century SDA’s were not being careful or honest with Ellen White’s writings and views and this point about the IJ underscores this problem.

Ellen White & the IJ

While Ellen White “supported” the IJ, she did so in a very different way from what the 20th century SDA’s claimed for her.  She would never have supported Traditional Adventism, or the outcome of Glacier view, which claimed that the IJ is the Judgment Pillar in the 1st Angels Message.   Ellen White never, never, never, supported this view.  Case closed!  

For those who want to understand the facts, I suggest that they read the material written by Tom Norris about this topic.  

See:  The Judgment in the 1st Angels Message
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?id=227

Most SDA’s, and none of their critics, have any idea that the White Estate has been very dishonest about Ellen white’s views about the IJ.  But the facts cannot be refuted.  Ellen White NEVER believed in the IJ to the extent the White Estate claimed and it is time for the Adventist Community to stop being so dull and uneducated about such important points.

So Patricia, the question was wrong and so too was your answer, but yet, you left the opposite impression that Tom Norris is promoting error and “nonsense,” when that is not the case.   Shame on you.

The questioner said:  "Thank you Patricia. You have cleared up the nonsense that Ellen White didn't support the Investigative Judgment. You gave some very clear quotes. It's strange that those who deny the truth never see those quotes or pay any attention to them."

While your incorrect answer was appreciated by the questioner, you must now confess your error to all.  You have not "cleared up" anything, but only made matters more confusing.  Your quotes did not address the issues or answer the question, nor is Tom Norris the one who is "denying the truth" and playing fast and loose with the evidence.  It is Patricia who has overlooked many quotes, refusing to pay attention to the facts which prove her wrong.  Very "strange."

This is somewhat troubling, because “experts” should take the time to find the facts and give correct answers.  You have not done this.  

Experts should not be here to spout their personal opinions or lead people down a false path.  Nor are they here to promote myths and rumors, but to stop such nonsense through the use of credible facts and sources.  

Asked & Answered

There is no excuse for you to not answer this question correctly.  This exact same question was asked on 7/17/12 and posted on All Experts and on ATomorrow.  So why did you fail to find it?  Here it is, followed by my reply:

Tom,

I have been reading about your views re the first angels message. Are u saying Egw did not believe the IJ doctrine?  She did teach this doctrine, and it was a false doctrine.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2012/7/investigative-judg

Tom Norris replied:

Ellen White did embrace the doctrine of the IJ, which was invented by others in the late 1850’s and codified in the 1870’s by Uriah Smith.  I have never said otherwise.  

All the SDA's embraced this unique doctrine, which was built upon the earlier correction to Miller's sanctuary error of Dan 8: 14.  

However, NONE of them thought this doctrine was the Judgment “pillar” in the 1st Angels Messages.  They all knew that Rev 14: 6, 7 was only a reference to the Second Coming.  This is what William Miller taught and it is also what all the SDA Pioneers embraced, without exception and without change during the entire 19th century.

This historical fact has been lost on the modern SDA’s; they teach that the IJ is located in the 1st Angels Message, and that the IJ resides in Rev 14: 6.7.  Therefore it cannot be debated, revised, or removed.  It is incorrectly viewed by many SDA’s as fundamental history that defines historic Adventism…
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom said to Patricia:  Those who claim to be experts about Adventism must first know the facts before they can help others.  Being a critic of Adventism does not qualify anyone as an expert.  It more often than not means that prejudice and bias will be brought into the discussion, leaving the search for truth in a ditch.

IJ Not a Pillar

The problem is this:  the IJ was never a "pillar" in the Three Angels Message.  And Ellen White never said otherwise.  Nor is there any such “Celestial Judgment” in the entire Bible. The IJ has turned out to be a mistake.  It is not the “Pre- Advent Judgment of the Church” as the SDA’s teach, nor is it a “pillar” in any sense of this word.   For this error they must repent…

Ellen White’s view of the IJ was dramatically DIFFERENT from what the White Estate and Traditional Takoma Park Adventism teaches.  Although it was still wrong, it was not as wrong as what was later taught about the IJ in the 20th century.  This is the correct point that was being made.

I repeat, Ellen White’s 19th century view of the IJ does NOT agree with Traditional Adventism of the 20th century, - as the church has claimed for so many years.  She has a very DIFFERENT view of the IJ, as well as the law and the Gospel when compared to Traditional Takoma Park Adventism.  Shame on the White Estate for not telling the truth about such important details.

See:

Tom Norris’ View of the IJ
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/2012/7/investigative-judg

Ellen White and the IJ
http://www.atomorrow.net/fluxbb/viewtopic.php?pid=11372#p11372

Conclusion:

While those who submit questions at All Experts.Com are asked to understand the previous answers, some will not take the time to do any such research, and it shows.  But you are an expert and should know better.   Experts should find the facts and answer the questions correctly.  You have not done this.

In the future, both the experts and those who ask questions need to be more careful.  The Adventist Community does not need any more confusion and double-talk.  Rather, everyone needs to better understand the facts of church history and doctrine in an atmosphere where the search for truth takes top priority.  

The Advent Movement was all about the search for doctrinal truth and this proper Gospel attitude should never be marginalized or lost.

I thank you in advance for correcting your error about my position concerning Ellen White and the IJ.

Tom Norris for All Experts.Com & Adventist Reform

Answer
Tom,

Thank you for your comments and I, too, am writing to set the record straight.

"To begin, I would like to repeat your opening statement and the question that we are addressing.

You wrote:

"Patricia, I am writing to set the record straight.  You were asked on 3/5/13 about my position concerning Ellen White and the IJ.  You failed to answer correctly.  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?"

My response:

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

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

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

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?

Am I to apologize because you read more into the question than was asked? Am I to apologize because the GC brethren and those in authority have (according to you) misinterpreted Ellen White's views about the IJ? Am I to apologize because I did not read more into the question from the questioner? She asked a pointed question and I gave a pointed answer. Am I to apologize because I did not query through your many answers to questions to see your position? 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?

You said:
"Unfortunately, the questioner failed to frame the question accurately, making a number of false assumptions, which you failed to detect."

My response:

Why would you say that she framed her question incorrectly? Her question was very brief, very much to the point and exactly what she wanted to ask. 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?

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.

You 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?"

My response:

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

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

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

My Response:

Now whether the above is true or false, I can't say, but it is taken from the source (EGW). I  and others can only provide what EGW and the SDA church post and write. 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. 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.

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.

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

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. 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!

I apologize for the delay in responding to you. For whatever reason, your question did not appear in my inbox. I logged in today to answer another question and there it was.

Blessings,

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.