Adventist Online

Extracts from a letter written to a physician from Stanmore, Sydney, N. S. W., July 26, 1896 The perfection of Christian character is attainable. As we approach the close of this earth's history, we will find that the whole world is becoming a lazar house of disease. The transgression of the law of God is bringing the sure result.

I present the word of Lord God of Israel. Because of transgression, the curse of God has come upon the earth itself, upon the cattle and upon all flesh. Human beings are suffering the result of their own course of action in departing from the commandments of God. The beasts also suffer from under the curse.

Meat-eating should not come into the prescriptions for any invalids from any physician from among those who understand these things. Disease in cattle is making meat-eating a dangerous matter. The Lord's curse upon the earth, upon man, upon beasts, upon the fish of the sea; and as transgression becomes almost universal, the curse will be permitted to become as broad and as deep as the transgression. Disease is contracted by the use of meat. The diseased flesh of these dead carcasses is sold in the market places, and disease among men is the sure result.
A Change Must Come


The Lord would bring His people into a position where they will not touch or taste the flesh of dead animals. Then let none of these things be prescribed by any physician who has a knowledge of the truth for this time. There is no safety in the eating of the flesh of the dead animals. . . . Those who take God at His word, and obey His commands with their whole heart, will be blessed. He will be their shield and protection. But the Lord will not be trifled with. Distrust, disobedience and alienation from God's will and way will place the sinner in a position where the Lord

Let Meat Entirely Alone

Again I refer to the diet question. We cannot now do as we have ventured to do in the past in regard to meat-eating. It has always been a curse to the human family, but now it is made particularly so in the curse which God has pronounced upon the herds of the field, because of man's transgression and sins. The disease upon animals is becoming more and more common, and our only safety now is in leaving meat entirely alone. The most aggravated diseases are now prevalent, and the very last thing that physicians who are enlightened should do, is to advise patients to eat meat. It is in eating meat so largely in the country that men and women are becoming demoralized, their blood corrupted. and disease planted in their systems.

Because of meat-eating, many die, and they do not understand the cause.
If the truth were known, it would bear the testimony it was the flesh of animals that passed through death. The thought of feeding upon dead flesh is repulsive, but there is something in meat-eating: we partake of diseased, dead flesh, and this sows it seeds of corruption in the human organism. (Signed) Ellen White.

Views: 403

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Where there oil tankers spilling oil in the the waters in the time of Jesus or EGW? Ellen White said in her writings that as the wickedness of man increases, the quality of flesh meats will decrease. As for clean meats, the way they are processed now makes them UNclean.
Hello my Brother
I will share some factual proof that Flesh eating does more harm than it does good for our body. Sister White was ahead of her time expressing the necessity of refraining from eating Flesh Foods. Now is not the time to assume that all Flesh Foods is O.K. to eat. Flesh foods today are more risky to eat that they were 100 years ago.

Necrotizing Fasciitis (Flesh-Eating Bacteria)

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/necrotizing-fasciitis-flesh-eati...
What causes necrotizing fasciitis?
Necrotizing fasciitis is caused by several kinds of bacteria. Some of these bacteria also cause infections such as strep throat and impetigo. Usually the infections caused by these bacteria are mild. But in rare cases they can cause a more dangerous infection.
You can get necrotizing fasciitis in:
• Wounds that come in contact with ocean water, raw saltwater fish, or raw oysters. You
also can get it though injuries from handling sea animals such as crabs.


Flesh Foods Cause Degenerative Disease

http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/why-we-should-not-eat-meat/flesh-foods-cause-degenerative-disease.html

The habitual and frequent use of large amounts of flesh foods in the diet is actually one of the causes of degenerative disease in a substantial percentage of the population. The decrease in, or elimination of, flesh foods from the diet is one of the important steps toward optimal health.

Anatomical and Physiological Basis for Rejecting Flesh Foods

There is a sound anatomical and physiological basis for the recommendation against the consumption of flesh foods. The human anatomy and digestive system are totally dissimilar from those of carnivores, which have sharp claws and teeth for killing and tearing. Carnivorous animals have short intestinal canals, and strong secretions of hydrochloric acid, so as to quickly digest and expel the waste products of the flesh they consume, before putrefaction can occur.

Flesh-eating animals also have the enzyme uricase, which breaks down uric acid into a harmless substance called allantoin; man does not possess this enzyme. Vegetable proteins, including nuts and seeds, contain enough carbohydrates to render this enzyme unnecessary.

Morbid Results of Eating Flesh Foods

Meat is the most putrefactive of all foods. Flesh, when eaten by humans, tends to undergo a process of decay in the stomach, causing a poisoning of the blood. Putrefaction in meat eaters is evidenced by bad breath, heartburn, eructations, and the foul stool and odorous emissions—absent in vegetarians—and it is probable that the attempts of the body to eliminate these wastes has a profound influence on the shortening of man's life span.

Can You Face The Ugly Truth About Meat?

Meats contain waste products that the animal did not get to eliminate, and toxic hormones and fluids released into the blood stream and tissues at the moment of the death of the terrified animal.An animal's cellular life continues after death. The cells continue to produce waste materials which are trapped in the blood and decaying tissues. The nitrogenous extracts which are trapped in the animal's muscles are partially responsible for the flavor of the cooked meat.

A book on meat processing explains that the flesh becomes more tender and palatable by the process of ripening, hanging and maturing (aging). Vic Sussman, in The Vegetarian Alternative, pp. 149-150, says, "Few meat eaters would like to hear the words putrefaction, rigor mortis, and rotting applied to their sirloin and pot roast. But flesh is flesh, though the euphemisms ripening, toughening and enzymatic action are kinder to the ear."

Trained government inspectors use sight, smell and touch in a constant battle to protect meat eaters from intentional and accidental abuses. But effective regulation of flesh food is enormously difficult. Sussman says (p. 151) "Even the most conscientious inspectors are forced by circumstances and the pressure of time to let suspect carcasses leave the plant."

So far as Fish Inspection is concerned there is no Regulation being used on a daily basis to determine the High Levels of Mercury or other Toxins that have become prevalent in our Fish purchased today & that are caught by Fisherman in all of our Waters today!
So far as eating Vegetables, we are to eat ORGANIC Vegetables as much as possible to avoid being exposed to Chemicals. If you can’t bur ORGANIC Vegetables’ we are to Peel all of skin off of the Vegetables (including Tomatoes) & then wash throughly prior to eating.
Thanx Bro.

As far as I am concerned, as pesco-vegetarian, EGW counsels on diet and food is not a problem on my part. I just want t raise my concern that wether we are vegetarian or not, we cannot be too much confident with what we eat because both green (fruits & vegetables) and flesh foods can threaten our health if not properly chosen and prepared. We cannot be confident that meat eaters are more vulnerable to disease than those vegans and vice versa. My professor in college who was a strict full vegan died of cancer. That can be an isolated case perhaps. But at the end of the day, we will realize that it's how we chose foods (that He allowed us to eat) that fit our system and our pocket!
My Brother
We have to be carful to not denounce the Spirit of Prophesy’s statement about Meat eating being a statement of Obedience based on ones Belief in the Spirit of Prophesy. We are to encourage one self to become vegetarian not to be partakers of Meats & Dairy that does nothing but shorten ones Life span. Granted we can go out & accident can occur but we are Counseled to do our best to refrain from Flesh foods as much as possible.
Any one which has ever been cured through Natural Medical Missionary Healing are Strictly advised to never eat Flesh Foods because of the many un know bacteria in Meats & Dairy that are never killed, even though they are cooked.

We have to remember that Vegetarian eating is a personal choice that one must indulge in, making the Transformation slowly, one step at a time as they are able to do so! It takes a person some time to change there Diet.
Hey
Flesh YES especially chicken but home made by myself.

on the other hand meat is highly ringign to causes of many disease in the world today very true of that.
Hello my Brother
I think we all need to Evaluate ones own self & not try to Stereo type people who are trying to better their Healthy Lifestyles! Remember Vegetarianism is a personal Choice. This Blogs intention is to encourage people to try an alternative way of Living & to be Prepared as we all know that we have been warned about the future of the Meat & Dairy Industry!! My question to you Brother ......Can you tell me why we have a New Virus that started in Mexico called the SWINE FLU......................................OUT

Quoted from your last statement" Has not my intelligence been insulted enough? I have heard of the crude expression used to describe high and mighty elitist people "they think their crap don't stink" - but to witness individuals who actually believe this as biological fact is just too much. Would Em Murr care to submit to a labratory experiment testing this 'theory'? Are you confident enough in the lovely fragrance of your fecal waste to do this? I hardly think so. I don't imagine the scent of lavender and roses is what we will discover."

You are Totally Wrong for Making a Statement Like This!
Thank you Bro. Murr for sharing your thoughts on God's idea of good foods. From what I have been able to ascertain, God never asks us to do something but with it brings a blessing for those who choose to obey. Who am I to question the wisdom of the great God of the universe?! He made us, so undoubtedly He knows best what is necessary for happiness and health.

After the flood, vegetation had been decimated and it would take some time to bring crops to harvest.So it would appear that as an emergency provision, God approved the eating of meats, clearly delineating clean from unclean with regards to consumption. This was not what our first parents ate in the garden. Nothing was killed or consumed of the animals God created there.

Now studies have shown that a non-meat diet does much to promote strength and fitness. Athletes are well acquainted with this fact. That God allowed this does not mean that it is the optimal fare for human fuel. It is a misnomer that we need to get our protein through this source. There are far superior sources through grains and nuts. God has not made this a condition of salvation to my understanding, but He has shown this to be a superior form of nutrition. Additionally, we have been given information of how meats are processed and the fact that we are not designed with mechanisms for assimilating this optimally. So personally, if I had a choice of better or best, there's no question as to what I would choose. My health matters to me and God matters even more so I prefer to opt for the best! sml.

Furthermore, as I have stated elsewhere I do think there is a mind-body connection. And yes I also believe that some things promote clarity and others don't. Besides why would I second guess God's wisdom and look for reasons to do things some other way..... Wouldn't that be a foolish thing to do. sml.

All foods must be carefully evaluated in our day and age given the ingredients added to some both before their demise and after. But all things considered, I still think God knows best and watches over His word to perform it.

" For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing." Duet 14:2,3 The principle remains.
Diet to my knowledge (unless we are eating unclean foods, which are expressly forbidden), is not a condition of salvation. It certainly does make a difference though in our physical, mental, emotional,and spiritual health. If one were to attempt to climb a mountain for e.g. there is a good bit of conditioning that goes on to prepare for the event if you are in fact planning for success. This is true of just about any worthwhile endeavor. Some things are weights that create drag, other things allow breathability, speed and endurance. I would certainly want to have those in my pack. sml.
I believe that had man remained in fellowship with God and continued to live in the garden of Eden then meat would never be a part of man's diet.
The truth is that man do not really need to consume meat to satisfy his dietary needs. There are so many whole foods to choose from that really one can eliminate meats and meat products from the diet.

Meats and meat products contain much harmful elements that the body do not really need or can do with out.
God gave us clean meats and unclean meats, if you read the King James Version in 1 Tim4:1-5. It is the description of False Teachers and it mentions meats. Take a look and use the Word and prayer to understand what God is saying to you.
I see early on in this thread there is one person who seems to insinuate the Ellen White was some kind of a liar sneaking around eating meat after she said no to it. Ellen White needed to grow in her understanding as well. Her later years show she gave up all meat. Meat today is far more diseased than ever before. For me, it is a risk not worth taking. I have had one cold in the 3 years I went vegan, and I never get sick. We need to keep all that EGW says in the right context, allowing also for place and time. For that reason, here is all of it:

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADVENTIST THINKING ON CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS

BY RON GRAYBILL

THE DIETARY DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS, BASED ON LEVITICUS 11 AND DEUTERONOMY 14, IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED AMONG ADVENTISTS TODAY. UNLIKE THE CEREMONIAL LAWS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH POINTED TO CHRIST, OR THE CIVIL LAWS, WHICH GOVERNED THE THEOCRACY, THESE HEALTH LAWS WERE BASED ON NATURAL LAW AND THUS NOT MERELY APPLICABLE TO ONE AGE AND TIME. THUS EVEN AMONG ADVENTISTS WHO EAT MEAT, THESE UNCLEAN MEATS ARE AVOIDED. NINETEENTH-CENTURY ADVENTISTS, HOWEVER, DID NOT GENERALLY ACCEPT THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS BASED ON LEVITICAL LAW, EVEN THOUGH THEY CLEARLY CONDEMNED PORK. {MR852 1.1}
THE PROHIBITION ON PORK WAS THE FIRST TO BE ESTABLISHED, BUT EVEN THAT TOOK TIME. BEFORE THE HEALTH MESSAGE CAME TO ELLEN WHITE IN 1863, SHE AND JAMES WHITE BOTH DISCOURAGED BELIEVERS WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENFORCE A PROHIBITION ON PORK. "WE DO NOT, BY ANY MEANS, BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT ITS [PORK] PROPER USE, IN THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION, IS SINFUL," JAMES WHITE WROTE IN 1850. IN 1858, A BROTHER IN NEW ENGLAND, DOUBTLESS S. N. HASKELL, WAS AGAIN TRYING TO DISCOURAGE THE USE OF PORK, AND WOULD MAKE ITS USE A TEST OF LOYALTY TO GOD'S WORD. MRS. WHITE WROTE HIM SAYING THAT, "If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three." {MR852 1.2}
AFTER THE HEALTH REFORM VISION, OF COURSE, MRS. WHITE DID COME OUT AGAINST THE USE OF PORK, ARGUING THAT IT PRODUCED "SCROFULA, LEPROSY AND CANCEROUS HUMORS." IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT SHE AND OTHER ADVENTISTS WHO WROTE AGAINST THE USE OF PORK UP UNTIL 1866, ARGUED STRICTLY FROM A HEALTH STANDPOINT. IN OTHER WORDS, JUST BECAUSE SOME BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS WERE USED TO REINFORCE THE BAN ON PORK, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT AT THAT POINT ADVENTISTS WERE WELL ON THEIR WAY TO A FULL-BLOWN TEACHING ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS. {MR852 1.3}
D. M. CANRIGHT, IN 1866, DOES ALLUDE TO DEUTERONOMY 14:8, "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 CARCASS." BUT CANRIGHT MAKES NO MENTION OF OTHER UNCLEAN MEATS, AND MAKES NO USE OF THE FURTHER MATERIAL IN DEUTERONOMY 14 ON THE SUBJECT. WHEN HE DOES MENTION OYSTERS, IN AN ARTICLE IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, HE MENTIONS THEIR ALLEGED POWERS TO EXCITE "CERTAIN KINDS OF FEELINGS," AND INTRODUCES NO BIBLICAL ARGUMENT. {MR852 1.4}
IN 1870, W. C. GAGE UNDERTAKES TO REFUTE A RIVAL ADVENT PERIODICAL WHICH TOOK EXCEPTION TO THE "SCRIPTURAL ASSERTION, THAT THE SWINE IS UNCLEAN." BUT GAGE DOES NOT CITE EITHER DEUTERONOMY 14 OR LEVITICUS 11. IN FACT, GAGE REMARKS, "IF THE SCRIPTURES FAIL TO SETTLE THE QUESTION, LET REASON HAVE HER SWAY. EXAMINE THE ANIMAL, AND SEE ITS FILTHY HABITS." HE DOES DISCUSS SOME OF THE BIBLE'S TESTIMONY ON PORK, BUT HIS ARTICLE IS FAR FROM BEING A CONTRIBUTION TO A BROAD UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE'S TEACHING ON CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS, BEING, AS IT IS, HEAVY WITH NATURALISTIC ARGUMENTS AND EXCLUSIVELY INTERESTED IN THE PORK QUESTION. {MR852 1.5}
JAMES WHITE, IN AN 1872 ARTICLE, ON "SWINE'S FLESH," DOES SHOW THE BEGINNINGS OF A WIDER APPLICATION OF LEVITICAL LAW. HE DOES MENTION DEUTERONOMY 14:8 AGAIN, AND HE
2
DOES SEEK TO REFUTE THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE PROHIBITION ON SWINE WAS A MERELY JEWISH ONE, AND THEREFORE NOT BINDING ON CHRISTIANS. HE REMINDS HIS READERS THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE BIBLE LONG BEFORE THE "EXISTENCE OF A SINGLE JEW." STILL, THE WHOLE THRUST OF HIS ARGUMENT IS TO DISCREDIT THE PIG, NOT TO ESTABLISH GENERAL CATEGORIES OF CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS. HE DOES NOT DISCUSS THE BIBLICAL CRITERIA FOR THE DISTINCTION AT ALL. {MR852 1.6}
THE GENERAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS IN ADVENTIST CIRCLES REMAINED UNDEVELOPED THROUGHOUT THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. 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 THAT LAW IS STILL BINDING, WE MUST ACCEPT IT ALL, AND THEN WE SHALL HAVE MORE ON OUR HANDS THAN WE CAN EASILY DISPOSE OF." {MR852 2.1}
FOR ADVENTISTS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY THEN, ALL MEAT-EATING WAS DISCOURAGED, WHILE THE EATING OF PORK WAS VIRTUALLY BANNED. OTHER MEATS WHICH WE WOULD CONSIDER UNCLEAN WERE NOT SEEN, APPARENTLY, IN THE SAME LIGHT AS PORK. {MR852 2.2}
ONCE WHEN ELLEN WHITE WAS ILL, HER SON, W. C. WHITE, REPORTS THAT SHE WAS ENCOURAGED TO DRINK A LITTLE OYSTER BROTH TO SETTLE HER STOMACH. SHE IS SAID TO HAVE TRIED A SPOONFUL OR TWO, BUT THEN REFUSED THE REST. THERE IS HOWEVER, EVIDENCE THAT AT ONE POINT IN HER LIFE MRS. WHITE MOST LIKELY ATE SOME OYSTERS. IN 1882, WHEN SHE WAS LIVING AT HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA, SHE WROTE A LETTER TO HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, MARY KELSEY WHITE, IN OAKLAND, IN WHICH SHE MADE THE FOLLOWING REQUEST: "Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them." {MR852 2.3}
ELLEN WHITE KEPT IT NO SECRET THAT UNDER DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES, AS WHEN SHE TRAVELED OR WHEN SHE WAS ENTERTAINED IN HER TRAVELS, SHE ATE SOME MEAT. THE BOOK, COUNSELS ON DIET AND FOODS, PUBLISHED IN 1938, CARRIES HER ACCOUNT OF HER RELATION TO THE USE OF MEAT AFTER THE HEALTH REFORM VISION WAS GIVEN TO HER AS FOLLOWS: "I at once cut meat out of my bill of fare. After that I was at times placed where I was compelled to eat a little meat." THIS IS IN HARMONY WITH HER EARLIER PUBLISHED STATEMENT WHICH APPEARED IN 1890 IN THE BOOK, CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE AND BIBLE HYGIENE, READING, "When I could not obtain the food I needed, I have sometimes eaten a little meat; but I am becoming more and more afraid of it." {MR852 2.4}
BUT BEYOND THIS THERE IS EVIDENCE OF SOME LAXNESS IN THE 1870'S AND 1880'S WHICH ALLOWED A LITTLE MEAT TO APPEAR ON HER TABLE WHEN IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ESSENTIAL. GIVEN THE DIFFICULTIES OF REFRIGERATING AND TRANSPORTING FOOD IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, IT WAS A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM THEN TO GAIN AN ADEQUATE DIET WITHOUT USING FLESH FOODS. IN THE EARLY 1890'S MRS. WHITE EXPRESSED HER DISTASTE FOR MEAT WHILE EN ROUTE TO AUSTRALIA. SHE WROTE: "They have an abundance of food in the meat line, prepared in different ways; but as I do not enjoy a meat diet, it leaves me rather meager fare." {MR852 2.5}
WHILE IN AUSTRALIA IN EARLY 1894 ELLEN WHITE TOOK HER STAND TO EAT NO MORE MEAT, A POSITION FROM WHICH THERE WAS NO RETREAT THROUGH THE REST OF HER LIFE. SHE WRITES TO IT THUS: {MR852 2.6}
"Since the camp meeting at Brighton [January, 1894] I have absolutely banished meat from my table. It is an understanding that whether I am at home or abroad, nothing of this kind is to be used in my family, or come upon my table. I have had much representation before my mind in the night season on this subject.
3
{MR852 2.7}
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 WAS ALLOWED 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. SIGNIFICANTLY, SHE HAD NOT NOTED THIS ASPECT OF SAMSON'S LIFE IN 1881 WHEN SHE WROTE THE ARTICLES ON WHICH MOST OF THE MATERIAL ON SAMSON IN PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS IS BASED. IN 1905 SHE AGAIN EXPOUNDED FAVORABLY ON THE DISTINCTION AS GIVEN TO THE JEWS, THIS TIME MENTIONING, IN ADDITION TO PORK, "OTHER ANIMALS AND BIRDS WHOSE FLESH WAS PRONOUNCED UNCLEAN." THE PASSAGE GOES ON TO ENUMERATE OTHER ASPECTS OF JEWISH HEALTH LAWS WHICH SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS HAVE NEVER SOUGHT TO ENFORCE, SO THAT IN SUMMARY IT CAN BE SAID THAT MRS. WHITE NEVER EXPLICITLY DECLARED THAT THE GENERAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS WAS ONE WHICH SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS WERE STILL BOUND TO OBSERVE. HER STATEMENTS COMMENDING THE JEWISH PRACTICE CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THAT POSITION, BUT NEVER MAKE IT EXPLICIT. {MR852 3.1}
ADVENTISTS OF TODAY, WITH THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEAT, NEED TO GIVE DUE WEIGHT TO THE GENERAL LACK OF SUCH TEACHING IN THE ADVENTIST CHURCH OF HER TIME. IN 1883 W. H. LITTLEJOHN, IN A QUESTION AND ANSWER COLUMN IN THE REVIEW, SAID HE WAS NOT SURE WHETHER OYSTERS WOULD PROPERLY COME UNDER THE PROHIBITION ON UNCLEAN MEATS FOUND IN LEVITICUS 11. IF THEY DID, HE SAID, IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME NATURAL REASON. IT WAS ALSO JUST AT THIS TIME THAT URIAH SMITH EXPRESSED HIS STRONG DISAVOWAL OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MOSAIC LAW IN THIS MATTER, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. {MR852 3.2}
THE EARLY HEALTH REFORMERS SOMETIMES MENTIONED OYSTERS AS THEY EXPLAINED WHY FLESH FOODS WERE HARMFUL. RUSSELL TRALL, IN HIS 1857 HYDROPATHIC COOKBOOK, SAID ALL MOLLUSCA, INCLUDING OYSTERS, WERE "BAD ALIMENTS." PROBABLY MORE FAMILIAR TO 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. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH SAID ALL SHELLFISH, INCLUDING OYSTERS, WERE OBJECTIONABLE AS THEY CONTAINED VERY LITTLE NUTRITION AND WERE DIFFICULT TO DIGEST. FINALLY, IN 1891, KELLOGG, REACTING ENERGETICALLY TO SOME FAVORABLE COMMENTS ON OYSTERS BY SCIENTISTS, CONDEMNED THE CREATURE AS DIFFICULT TO DIGEST, THE "LOWEST OF SCAVENGERS," AND APT TO CONTAIN A DEADLY POISON, TYROTOXICON. COMPARED WITH THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL IN THE LITERATURE AGAINST PORK, HOWEVER, THE OBJECTIONS TO OYSTERS AND OTHER "UNCLEAN" MEATS IS SO MINISCULE AS TO HARDLY BE NOTICED. {MR852 3.3}
WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE PRACTICES OR UNDERSTANDING OF OUR PIONEERS ON THIS QUESTION, WE SHOULD NEVER BASE OUR OWN DECISIONS CONCERNING HEALTHFUL LIVING ON THE EXAMPLE OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. MRS. WHITE MADE THIS POINT CLEARLY ENOUGH HERSELF IN 1901 DURING AN EXTEMPORANEOUS TALK IN BATTLE CREEK: {MR852 3.4}
[Ellen G. White speaking:] "Sister White has not had meat in her house or cooked it in any line, or any dead flesh, for years and years. And here is the [basis of some people's] health reform: 'Now I have told you Sister White did not eat meat. Now I want you not to eat meat, because Sister White does not eat it.' Well, I would not give--I would not care a farthing for anything like that. If you have not got any better conviction--you won't eat meat because Sister White does not eat any--if I am the authority, I would not give a farthing
4
for your health reform. What I want is that every one of you should stand in your individual dignity before God, in your individual consecration to God, that the soul-temple shall be dedicated to God. 'Whosoever defileth the temple of God, him will God destroy.' Now I want you to think of these things, and do not make any human being your criterion." {MR852 3.5}
NOT SURPRISINGLY, IT APPEARS THAT S. N. HASKELL, WHO WAS AMONG THE FIRST TO URGE THE CHURCH TO ABANDON THE USE OF PORK, WAS ALSO THE FIRST TO ARGUE A CLEAR BIBLICAL PROHIBITION ON ALL UNCLEAN MEATS, MAKING FULL USE OF THE PROHIBITIONS OF LEVITICUS 11. IN MAY, 1903, HE WROTE: {MR852 4.1}
"IN MANY THINGS THE BIBLE LAYS DOWN PRINCIPLES AND WE ARE LEFT TO EXERCISE OUR OWN JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER, WHILE IN MANY OTHER MATTERS A PLAIN COMMAND IS GIVEN. . . . IN HIS INFINITE PLAN [GOD] APPOINTED A PART OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM TO ACT AS SCAVENGERS. . . . IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT KNOW THOSE WHICH FEED UPON CLEAN FOOD. HE PLACED A MARK OR BRAND UPON THEM." {MR852 4.2}
HASKELL THEN QUOTED LEVITICUS 11:1-8: "THE EATING OF THESE THINGS WHICH GOD HAS FORBIDDEN," HASKELL CONCLUDED, "IS VERY GRIEVOUS IN HIS SIGHT."

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service