Njene vizije su
suprotstavljene Bibliji u pogledu mesa kao hrane.
Kako bismo ovde
njihove promene i nedoslednosti predstavili u pravom svetlu,
pogledaćemo prvo stav starešine Vajta koji prednjači u ovim
stvarima.
On kaže:
Neki od naše
dobre braće su dodale svinjetinu u spisak stvari koje je zabranio
Sveti Duh, kada su se apostoli i starešine okupili u Jerusalimu.
Osećamo se pozvanim da protestujemo protiv toga, jer je to u
suprotnosti sa jasnim učenjem svetih spisa. Da li ćemo staviti veći
teret na narod nego što je Sveti Duh smatrao za shodno, i sveti
apostoli našeg Gospoda Isusa Hrista? Bože sačuvaj. Njihova
ispravna odluka je stavila tačku na to pitanje, i izazvala je radost
u crkvama, i treba zauvek da zatvori to pitanje među nama."
„Rivju", peti tom, broj 18.
Gospođa Vajt
je u to isto vreme verovala i učila druge nečemu istom:
„Neki su
otišli predaleko u bavljenju pitanjem ishrane. Krenuli su rigidnim
putem i njihovo zdravlje je narušeno. Pomenut mi je Ročester.
Videla sam da kad smo živeli tamo nismo jeli hranljive namirnice,
kao što je trebalo, i bolest nas je skoro sahranila. Sve ovo nije u
skladu sa Reči Božjom. Da Bog od svog naroda traži da se uzdržava
od svinjskog mesa, on bi ih u to ubedio. Ako je crkva dužna da se
uzdržava od svinjskog mesa, Bog bi to otkrio ljudima. On bi naučio
svoju crkvu njenim dužnostima." „Svedočanstva", broj 5,
27-29. strana, sada je to potisnuto. Ovo je pisano 1859.godine.
Šta ona
podrazumeva pod hranljivim namirnicama? Kaže: „Nismo mogli da
jedemo meso, ili puter, i morali smo da se uzdržavamo od masne
hrane. Sklonite ovo sa stola sirotog čoveka, i ostaje veoma oskudan
izbor. Naši napori su bili tako veliki da nam je trebala jača
hrana." Drugi tom, 144.strana.
Kada je pisala
jednoj sestri koja je bila fanatik po pitanju svinjske hrane, rekla
je:
„Draga
sestro, počela sam da te sažaljevam dok sam čitala tvoje
pismo.Gospod mi je pokazao pre dve ili tri godine, da korišćenje
svinjskog mesa nije test vere, i da njegovo konzumiranje nije greh
protiv Boga. Ako draga sestro, tvoj suprug želi da koristi
svinjetinu, slobodno je smeš koristiti."
Opet,
1864.godine, kaže: „Bog ljudima nije dao dozvolu da jedu hranu
životinjskog porekla, sve do potopa. Sve je bilo uništeno, što bi
moglo da se jede, i Bog je iz nužde dao Noju dozvolu da jede čiste
životinje koje je poveo u barci. Ipak, hrana životinjskog porekla
nije najzdravija za čoveka. Posle potopa su ljudi uglavnom jeli
meso. On je dozvolio da one životinje koje imaju dug životni vek
jedu druge životinje, kako bi se skratio njihov grešni život. Bog
nikada nije imao nameru da svinjetina bude hrana u ma kojim
okolnostima." „Duhovni darovi", 4.tom, 121. strana.
Prvo: Ako je
Bog dao Noju dozvolu da jede meso, prvenstveno zato što nije bilo
biljaka za jelo, zar ne bi ograničio tu dozvolu do vremena kada se
može prikupiti dovoljno krompira, zrnevlja, i nečeg boljeg za
hranu?
Drugo: Ako
hrana životinjskog porekla nije najbolja za čoveka, zašto Bog nije
rekao Noju da u barku stavi dovoljnu zalihu povrća, koja bi mogla da
ih prehrani? Zar nije mogao da živi na povrću?
Treće: Ako je
Bog zlima dao da jedu meso kako bi im skratio život, zašto je dao
Noju da se isto tako hrani? Zašto je pravedni Avram ubio tele,
dobro, i mlado, i nahranio anđele, ako je meso tako loša
hrana?
Četvrto: Zar
sledeće vizije ne pokazuju da živimo u vreme kada treba da se
čuvamo zavodljivih duhova, i da se mesa zabranjuju kao hrana, koja
je Bog stvorio da se prime sa zahvalnošću onih koji znaju istinu.
Pogledati 1.Tim. 4:1-4,5.
Vidimo da je
ista proročica učila da je svinjetina hranljiva namirnica, i da je
proglasila za fanatike one koji se protive tome, a da sada uči da
Bog nikada nije imao nameru da se ona koristi u bilo kojim
okolnostima, i ide dalje i obeshrabruje korišćenje bilo koje hrane
životinjskog porekla. Složićemo se da Bog nije autor njenih
vizija.
-----------------------
Ellen White went against her own counsels
In the 1850's both James and Ellen White made use of swine's flesh as food. Later they abandoned it.
"Dear Sister Curtis: - I felt sorry for you as I read your letter. I believe you to be in error. The Lord showed me two or three years since
that the use of swine's flesh was no test. Dear sister, if it is
your husband's wish to use swine's flesh you should be perfectly
clear to use it." (EGW, letter to Str. Curtis, quoted in H.E. Carver,
Mrs. E.G. White's Claims to Divine Inspiration Examined. Emphasis
supplied.)
In 1858 Ellen White wrote a similar testimony,
"I saw that you had mistaken notions about afflicting your bodies, depriving yourselves ofnourishing food.
Some have gone too far in the eating question. They have taken a
rigid course, and lived so very plain that their health has suffered.
I saw that God did not require any one to take a course of such rigid economy as to weaken or injure the temple of God. All this is outside of the word of God. If this is a duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh God will discover it to more than two or three. A fanatical spirit is with you. You are deceived." Testimony No. 5. Emphasis supplied.)
This is the original testimony. The second edition has been put into
Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 206-7 - somewhat edited, with an
"explanation" by James White. Here Ellen White says that swine's
flesh is nourishing food, and that people who went against the use of
it, were deceived and led by a fanatical spirit. (The testimony had
to do with swine's flesh.)
Then we have the strange situation that God showed Ellen White in a vision
that the use of swine's flesh was not a test, and that it was OK to
eat it, in spite of what the Bible plainly says, that the swine is an
unclean animal.
". . .And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase" (Deut. 14:8).
This plain command, written several thousand years ago, was no unknown matter.
Later, Ellen White writes testimonies - allegedly based on visions -
that swine's flesh was unclean food, and that God did not sanction
its use. First, God shows Ellen White in a "vision" that the use of
swine's flesh is OK. Later, God shows her that it is wrong to make
use of it. Meantime, the Bible was clear on that point.
James White wrote in 1850,
"Some of our good brethren have added 'swine's flesh' to the catalogue of things forbidden by the Holy Ghost, and the apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem. But we feel called upon to protest against such a course, as being contrary to the plain teaching of the holy scriptures.
Shall we lay a greater 'burden' on the disciples than seemed good to
the Holy Ghost, and the holy apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ? God
forbid. Their decision, being right, settled the question with them,
and was a cause of rejoicing among the churches, and it should forever settle the question with us." (The Present Truth Vol. 1., Nov., 1850. - No. 11., 'Swine's Flesh'. Emphasis supplied.)
James White wrote this in 1850. In 1858 both he and his wife wrote
letters and testimonies echoing this article. James even claimed that
to go against the use of swine's flesh, was contrary to Scripture.
On the back of this letter to Str. Curtis (quoted above), James White had jotted down,
"That you may know how we stand on this question, I would say that we have just put down a two hundred pound porker." (H.E. Carver, Mrs. E.G. White's Claims to Divine Inspiration Examined.)
Ann Lee (1736-84), who founded "the Shakers", received "visions" which
she published as "Testimonies". She went strongly against the use of
swine's flesh - and that several years before Ellen White came into
the arena. All this was nothing new. At the very time James White
"brought down a hundred pound porker", Ann Lee's testimony against
the use of swine's flesh had been in existence for many years.
It then becomes clear that SDA's at that time did not dodge the use of
fat porkers, and they had Ellen Whites "inspired testimonies" behind
them to support this practice. But later she received equally
"inspired testimonies", saying that God did not intend that people
should eat swine's flesh, under any circumstances. (How to Live,
chap. 1, p. 58 (1865).)
"You know that the use of swine's flesh is contrary to His express
command, given not because He wished to especially show His
authority, but because it would be injurious to those who should eat
it." (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 96 (1868).)
Accordingly, Ellen White's statements where she "saw" that the use of
swine's flesh was not wrong, comes into a strange light. Later
editions of Ellen White's books have footnotes and appendices, trying
to "explain" her many contradictory statements on health issues from
that time. One common explanation is that Adventists got
"progressive light" on health issues. But that doesn't explain away the
fact that at the same time a substantial number of health reformers
both wrote and lectured against the use of swine's flesh, and flesh
meat in general, without pleading heavenly visions as basis for their
teachings. Both Graham, Fowler, Wells, Jackson, Trall, Ann Lee and
others warned against the use of swine's flesh, but God were obliged
to give Seventh-Day Adventists "progressive light" and in addition
contradict himself!
|
