Looks like we have some major issues here:
#1

On another forum people are talking about whether the duck is a clean or unclean creature, so they ate duck and deer. Would any of you eat meat in this situation? Or would you injure your body, which by the way would be violating the health laws, which is like breaking one of the 10 commandments.
A paradox don't you think, at least for those who believe eating meat is a sin?


How do you respond to the obvious consumption of flesh done by Sister White when she was alive?

It's not like its a lie, or to be hidden, but what do you tell people, while telling them that eating meat is a sin.

We have 2 instances where God used people while living in sin?! MM is going to fall out of his rocking chair on this one.
Any thoughts? We can lay to rest any attempts at making the above information at Daniel & Ellen White's meat eating to be fabricated or anything else..So please do indulgeus, at least me.
I am always willing to learn,but not at the cost of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt imposed by the presenters.

Willie shot a duck which came in a time of need, for our supplies were rapidly diminishing.--Manuscript 11, 1873.

Looks like we have some major issues here:
#1

We all know oysters are not clean.

How do you respond to the obvious consumption of flesh done by Sister White when she was alive?

It's not like its a lie, or to be hidden, but what do you tell people, while telling them that eating meat is a sin.

We have 2 instances where God used people while living in sin?! MM is going to fall out of his rocking chair on this one.
Any thoughts? We can lay to rest any attempts at making the above information at Daniel & Ellen White's meat eating to be fabricated or anything else..So please do indulgeus, at least me.
I am always willing to learn,but not at the cost of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt imposed by the presenters.

And now to all who have a desire for truth I would say: Do not give credence to unauthenticated reports as to what Sister White has done or said or written. If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works. Are there any points of interest concerning which she has not written, do not eagerly catch up and report rumors as to what she has said. {5T 696.1}

It is reported by some that I have not lived up to the principles of health reform, as I have advocated them with my pen. But I can say that so far as my knowledge goes, I have not departed from those principles. {CD 491.4}

It is reported by some that I have not followed the principles of health reform as I have advocated them with my pen; but I can say that I have been a faithful health reformer. {RH, March 3, 1910 par. 2}

Either she is telling the truth, or she is a hypocrite and a liar, it can't be both. I choose to believe that she was telling the truth. There is more than one way to do away with the Spirit of Prophecy, and this is one of the most effective ways, to believe that the Prophet was a hypocrite...

Cheri

Thanks for sharing your scripture study on vegetarianism.

Looks like we have some major issues here:
#1

On another forum people are talking about whether the duck is a clean or unclean creature, so they ate duck and deer. Would any of you eat meat in this situation? Or would you injure your body, which by the way would be violating the health laws, which is like breaking one of the 10 commandments.
A paradox don't you think, at least for those who believe eating meat is a sin?



#2


We all know oysters are not clean.

How do you respond to the obvious consumption of flesh done by Sister White when she was alive?

It's not like its a lie, or to be hidden, but what do you tell people, while telling them that eating meat is a sin.

We have 2 instances where God used people while living in sin?! MM is going to fall out of his rocking chair on this one.
Any thoughts? We can lay to rest any attempts at making the above information at Daniel & Ellen White's meat eating to be fabricated or anything else..So please do indulgeus, at least me.
I am always willing to learn,but not at the cost of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt imposed by the presenters.

In 1873 while on a working vacation high in the Rocky Mountains, the White party had no choice but to hunt and fish for food. She wrote in her diary: “Our provisions have been very low for some days. Many of our supplies have gone. . . . We expected supplies three days ago certainly, but none have come. Willie went to the lake for water. We heard his gun and found he had shot two ducks. This is really a blessing, for we need something to live upon.”26 26. Manuscript 12, 1873, cited in MR, vol. 7, p. 346

What shall we make of this request for oysters? Aren’t oysters considered unclean according to Leviticus 11? The answer to that question was not clear to Seventh-day Adventists in the 1880s any more than their attitude toward pork was clear in the 1850s.52

In 1883 W. H. Littlejohn, pastor of the Battle Creek Tabernacle, conducted a question/answer column in the church paper. In answering whether oysters are included among the unclean foods of Leviticus 11, Littlejohn said: “It is difficult to decide with certainty whether oysters would properly come under the prohibition of Leviticus 11:9-12. . . . It would, however, seem from the language, as if they might.”53

52. In a document entitled, “The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats,” Ron Graybill stated that “nineteenth-century Adventists . . . did not generally accept this distinction [between clean and unclean meats] based on Levitical law, even though they clearly condemned pork [eventually]. . . . While Adventists argued vigorously against pork, the weight of their argument continued to be carried by physiological criteria. Uriah Smith explicitly rejected the applicability of the Mosaic distinction: ‘We believe there is better ground on which to rest [the prohibition on pork] than the ceremonial law of the former dispensation, for if we take the position that the law is still binding, we must accept it all, and then we shall have more on our hands than we can easily dispose of.’. . .

“Ellen White’s own understanding of the clean-unclean distinction seems to have grown stronger over time. In 1864 she did note in passing that Noah wasallowed to eat ‘clean’ beasts after the Flood. And in 1890, when Patriarchs and Prophets was published, she noted that Samson’s parents had been instructed to withhold from him ‘every unclean thing.’ This distinction ‘between articles of food as clean and unclean’ was not, she said, ‘a merely ceremonial and arbitrary regulation, but was based upon sanitary principles.’ Furthermore, the ‘marvelous vitality’ of the Jewish people for thousands of years could be traced to this distinction.

“Probably more familiar to early Adventists were James C. Jackson’s comments on oysters, included along with his other criticisms of flesh foods in an article James and Ellen White reprinted in Health: or How to Live. Jackson objected to the oysters because they were scavengers.” Graybill noted that S. N. Haskell was probably the most explicit in using Leviticus 11 as a clear Biblical prohibition on all unclean meats. He concluded his research with this perspective: “Compared with the amount of material in the [Adventist] literature against pork, however, the objections to oysters and other ‘unclean’ meats is so minuscule as to hardly be noticed.”—Ron Graybill, “The Development in Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats,” available from the Ellen G. White Estate.

53. Review and Herald, Aug. 14, p. 1883.

For Ellen White, the two basic principles in health reform are to “preserve the best health,”55 and “to eat the food which is most nourishing” in any given set of circumstances.56

In applying these principles, she said on many occasions: “In countries where there are fruits, grains, and nuts in abundance, flesh food is not the right food for God’s people.”57

She frequently used the term, “principle,” when stating her views on health reform. She credited her much improved personal health to “the principles of health reform.”58 She noted that her instruction on health reform dwelt “upon general principles.”59

Toward the end of her life, reflecting back on the years since 1863, she penned: “It is reported by some that I have not lived up to the principles of health reform, as I have advocated them with my pen. But I can say that so far as my knowledge goes, I have not departed from those principles.”60

For this reason Ellen White counseled church members “to avoid meat eating, not because it is regarded as a sin to eat meat, [that is, not a principle] but because it is not healthful [but a good policy].”61

She understood clearly the difference between unchangeable principles and the conditionality of policies. Note this wisdom: “Those who understand the laws of health and who are governed by principle, will shun the extremes, both of indulgence and of restrictions. Their diet is chosen, not for the mere gratification of appetite, but for the upbuilding of the body. They seek to preserve every power in the best condition for the highest service to God and man. . . . There is real common sense in dietetic reform. The subject should be studied broadly and deeply, and no one should criticize others because their practice is not, in all things, in harmony with his own. It is impossible [in matters of diet] to make an unvarying rule to regulate everyone’s habits, and no one should think himself a criterion for all.”62

56. Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 163.

57. Ibid., p. 159.

58. Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 482.

59. Ibid., p. 493; Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 372.

60. Ibid., pp. 491, 492.

61. Manuscript 15, 1889, cited in MR, vol. 5, pp. 400, 401; vol. 16, p. 173.

62. The Ministry of Healing, p. 319.