The Great Controversy

Lorin Friesen, February 2019

Most of the books that I analyze are given to me by someone else. They will tell me that I need to read some book or send me some pdf to read. I will then read the book, analyze it, and write up an essay. This essay is no exception. A friend sent me a copy of The Great Controversy by Ellen G White and asked me to analyze the book from a cognitive perspective. This book was first published in 1858. I will be quoting from the final 1911 edition. Ellen G. White was born in 1827 and died in 1915, one year after World War I began.

Wikipedia says that “Seventh-day Adventists regard The Great Controversy as one of Ellen White’s important works.” And “as of 2010, at least two organizations are mass-mailing this book free of charge to residences in the United States.” Therefore, even though this book is over 100 years old, it is still regarded by many as significant and being given to people to read today.

The pdf that I received has two sets of page numbers, one from the pdf itself and the other from the original book. The page numbers that I will be giving in this essay are from the original book and not from the pdf.

My primary goal in writing this essay is not to critique the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church, though I recognize that analyzing this book will reflect upon SDA thinking, because many SDA doctrines are mentioned in this book. However, I will not be examining present-day SDA doctrine or practice. Instead, I will be focusing upon The Great Controversy and the thinking of Ellen White. I do not know how this book relates to the rest of her writings. But since we will be examining the 1911 edition which she edited four years before she died, one can presume that she ensured that this book is consistent with what she wrote elsewhere.

Wikipedia describes the extensive editing process that happened with the 1911 edition: “Suggestions from around the world were received. These were blended into a group of points to study, first by Ellen’s staff and finally by Ellen herself. While Ellen delegated the details of the work to members of her experienced office staff, she carried the responsibility for changes in the text. She was ultimate judge and final reviewer of the manuscript.”

As I was writing this essay it gradually dawned on me that there are deeper cognitive principles at play here. In brief, I suggest that one should approach this book at four different levels: First, what are the prophecies that motivated White? The Seventh-day Adventist church had its origins in the end time prophecies of Miller. Second, how did White interpret these prophecies? Miller predicted that Jesus would return to Earth in 1843. He did not. In The Great Controversy, White tries to explain why Jesus did not return physically to earth. Third, what type of mindset did White use when writing this book? In order to analyze this, one needs to understand how the mind functions. Fourth, what is God’s plan of history and how do the three previous levels fit into God’s plan? As far as I can tell, God’s plan of history is to lead people and society to mental and spiritual wholeness. Thus, if one knows how the mind reaches mental wholeness, then one can decipher God’s plan of history and place specific situations and eras into this general plan.

A Brief History

We will start by looking at the era in which Ellen White lived. The Great Controversy was written in the late 19^th century before WWI. I have been studying primarily the thinking of the 20^th century including examining the shift in worldview that was caused by the two world wars. The Great Controversy, in contrast, reflects a mindset before these two world wars.

For instance, Godwin’s law suggests, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that “if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.” The Great Controversy was written before the time of Hitler, and before the unprecedented human destruction of World War I. Thus, it illustrates what the 19^th century mind regarded as the epitome of evil.

Looking back at this from the 21^st century, it feels as if The Great Controversy belongs to another era, because so many earthshaking events have happened since then. What Ellen White regarded as the defining experiences of Western civilization have largely been forgotten today, while what she regarded as the epitome of evil is now scarcely noticed.

White refers to revolutionary France as the epitome of godlessness: “‘France is the only nation in the world concerning which the authentic record survives, that as a nation she lifted her hand in open rebellion against the Author of the universe. Plenty of blasphemers, plenty of infidels, there have been, and still continue to be, in England, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere; but France stands apart in the world's history as the single state which, by the decree of her Legislative Assembly, pronounced that there was no God, and of which the entire population of the capital, and a vast majority elsewhere, women as well as men, danced and sang with joy in accepting the announcement.’—Blackwood’s Magazine, November, 1870” (p.270). Notice that White is quoting from an article written in 1870. Communism now provides the epitome of godlessness. For many decades, communist Russia declared officially that there was no God and did its best to wipe out all religious thought.

This is significant to the theme of the book, because Ellen White talks about a major transition happening on earth. Looking at this in more detail, Seventh-day Adventism emerged from the foundation of the Millerites. William Miller preached that Jesus would return to Earth in about 1843-44. This belief eventually turned into a national movement in the United States and spread to many other countries. By May 1844, about 5,000,000 copies of Millerite publications had been distributed. And “by 1844, over 100,000 people were anticipating what Miller had called the ‘Blessed Hope’”. The population of the United States at that time was only about 19,000,000, so 100,000 is a significant number.

When Jesus did not return, this led to what is known as the Great Disappointment. As one could imagine, “After the disappointment of October 22 many of Miller’s followers were left upset and disillusioned. Most ceased to believe in the imminent return of Jesus. Some believed the date was incorrect. A few believed that the date was right but the event expected was wrong. This latter group developed into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

Summarizing, Miller taught that Jesus would return to Earth in about 1843. At least 100,000 people subscribed to this belief. When Jesus did not return physically, then some of these people reinterpreted the physical return of Jesus as a spiritual event that occurred in the heavenly realm. This reinterpretation laid the foundation for the Seventh-day Adventist church, which became guided by the writings of Ellen White.

Quoting from Wikipedia, “The findings published by Crosier, Hahn and Edson led to a new understanding about the sanctuary in heaven. Their paper explained how there was a sanctuary in heaven, that Christ, the High Priest, was to cleanse. The believers understood this cleansing to be what the 2300 days in Daniel was referring to. George Knight wrote, ‘Although originally the smallest of the post-Millerite groups, it came to see itself as the true successor of the once-powerful Millerite movement.’ This view was endorsed by Ellen White.” (I like to quote from Wikipedia not because I regard it as the most authoritative, but rather because it is a well-known, well-written, reasonably authoritative source with a fairly minimal bias.)

Something Did Change in 1843

That brings us to the following curious conclusion. Miller predicted that Jesus would return to earth in 1843. When he didn’t, then this physical return was reinterpreted as a heavenly transition. If one steps back and looks the big picture, one concludes that there was a major transition in human society in around the middle of the 19^th century, because this is when science and technology started to affect the average person. This change has been so fundamental that a book from the 19^th century, such as The Great Controversy, feels like it comes from a different era.

Looking at this cognitively, mental symmetry suggests that heaven is a realm that is governed by Teacher thought. Thus, a transformation in the heavens would correspond to a major paradigm shift in Teacher thought. What started to happen to human society in the 19^th century was not just a paradigm shift but the birth of the very idea that society could be governed by a paradigm in Teacher thought. Thomas Kuhn says that a distinction needs to be made between pre-scientific and scientific thought, because scientific thought is guided by something that is not found in pre-scientific thought, which is the presence of a general theory or paradigm in Teacher thought. 19^th-century society was making a transition to scientific thought.

Going further, a concept of incarnation forms within the mind as one uses technical thought to integrate general theories in Teacher thought with personal experiences in Mercy thought. This concept has been discussed extensively in previous essays. Science uses technical thought, guided by general Teacher theories which describe how the natural world functions, such as Newton’s three laws of physics. (Physics is examined from a cognitive perspective in another essay.) Technology uses technical thought to transform the mathematical equations of physics into real gadgets. Technology started to become widely used during the second half of the 19^th century. Thus, if one compares the thinking of science and technology with how a mental concept of incarnation forms, one concludes that the spread of technology during the 19^th century could be described symbolically as Jesus the Incarnation cleansing the sanctuary in heaven in order to transform the earth.

Thus, at a general level, Miller and the Seventh-day Adventists were actually right. A major transition did happen in the heavenly realm in about the middle of the 19^th century. And this transition was also accompanied by some significant physical events.

In the spring of 1844, the Ottoman Empire issued an Edict of Toleration, which gave some religious freedom to the Christians and Jews who were living in Palestine. This was regarded by many Christian scholars of the time as prophetically significant, though Miller himself was unaware of this edict. White mentions this on page 336.

Turning to the realm of technology, the first long-range telegraphs were constructed in Britain in 1843 by Cooke and Wheatsone, and in America in 1844 by Samuel Morse. This may seem inconsequential, but it had major cognitive implications. Until then speech was limited by physical location. Saying this another way, Teacher words could not physically transcend Mercy experiences. The long-range telegraph allowed words in Teacher thought to break free of the limitations of personal Mercy experiences, because one could use the telegraph to communicate with someone across the country or over the ocean.

It is true that smoke signals have been used for many centuries and the Chinese could use smoke signals to send a message 750 kilometers in just a few hours. Similarly, drums have been used to transmit messages long distances. But the telegraph was the start of something totally new. Today it is quite common for people to be in the same room physically while being mentally far away, each immersed in some distant world through their smart phone. Thus, the telegraph was the very start of creating an alternate world based in Teacher thought which has a different form of space and time than the physical world.

This is cognitively significant because personal transformation uses a general theory in Teacher thought to transform mental networks of personal identity in Mercy thought. (The concept of a mental network is explained here.) Modern technology has used the theories of science in Teacher thought to transform Mercy mental networks of culture. Such a transformation can only happen if Teacher thought is allowed to function independently of Mercy thought, which means acquiring the ability to use abstract thought outside of the box of local culture and physical reality. The long-range telegraph was the first major step that made it possible for people to experience what it means for speech to escape the box of local culture and physical reality.

Turning now to the realm of the physical heavens, the star known as Eta Carinae erupted in 1843 and temporarily became the second brightest star in the sky. As far as I can find, this is the most dramatic visible cosmic event involving a star to have occurred since Kepler’s supernova in 1604. (There is also a curious symbolism behind Kepler’s supernova.) A star is normally destroyed in a supernova. But the eruption of Eta Carinae is known as a supernova impostor, because the star still survives and will ultimately experience a complete supernova. Looking at this symbolically, this implies that something of cosmic significance did happen in about 1843 but it was not the real event.

Prophetic Numbers

We have examined Miller’s prediction that Jesus would return in 1843 and have seen that something really did happen. Let us now look at this prediction in more detail. White explains it this way: “The 2300 days had been found to begin when the commandment of Artaxerxes for the restoration and building of Jerusalem went into effect, in the autumn of 457 B.C. Taking this as the starting point, there was perfect harmony in the application of all the events foretold in the explanation of that period in Daniel 9:25-27. Sixty-nine weeks, the first 483 of the 2300 years, were to reach to the Messiah, the Anointed One; and Christ's baptism and anointing by the Holy Spirit, A.D. 27, exactly fulfilled the specification. In the midst of the seventieth week, Messiah was to be cut off. Three and a half years after His baptism, Christ was crucified, in the spring of A.D. 31. The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were to pertain especially to the Jews. At the expiration of this period the nation sealed its rejection of Christ by the persecution of His disciples, and the apostles turned to the Gentiles, A.D. 34. The first 490 years of the 2300 having then ended, 1810 years would remain. From A.D. 34, 1810 years extend to 1844. ‘Then,’ said the angel, ‘shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ All the preceding specifications of the prophecy had been unquestionably fulfilled at the time appointed” (p.410).

Two passages from Daniel are being combined in this quote. Daniel 9:24-27 mentions 70 weeks, 62 weeks, and 7 weeks. If one assumes that one day corresponds to one year, then this passage predicts when the Messiah would come. As White explains, this chronology did happen and these 62 weeks are generally accepted by theologians as predicting the first coming of Jesus.

Miller’s prediction that Jesus would return in 1843 was based in the number 2300 which comes from Daniel 8:13-14: “‘How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?’ He said to me, ‘For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.’” The word translated properly restored is zadek which means ‘to be just or righteous’. This Hebrew word can be seen in the name Melchizedek, which means ‘king of righteousness’. Biblical prophecy can often be fulfilled in more than one way. This passage probably applies literally to the occupation of the Jewish temple under the Seleucids during the time of the Macabees, but we have seen that society went through a major shift in around 1843 and that this was accompanied by a significant cosmic event.

Miller made another interpretation based upon the number 1260, which he applied to the rise and fall of the Catholic Church. This number 1260 comes from three and a half years, with each year being calculated as 360 days long and each day interpreted as representing one year. 360 x 3 ½ = 1260. Quoting from White, “The periods here mentioned—‘forty and two months,’ and ‘a thousand two hundred and threescore days’—are the same, alike representing the time in which the church of Christ was to suffer oppression from Rome. The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A.D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798. At that time a French army entered Rome and made the pope a prisoner, and he died in exile. Though a new pope was soon afterward elected, the papal hierarchy has never since been able to wield the power which it before possessed” (p.266).

The number 1260 comes from four passages, two in Daniel and two in Revelation: Daniel 7:25 mentions ‘a time, times, and half a time’. Daniel 12:7 also mentions ‘a time, times, and half a time’. Revelation 11:3 mentions 1260 days, while Revelation 13:5 mentions 42 months, which is also 1260 days.

It is plausible to apply 1260 to the oppression of the Catholic Church. I do not know if this is the only correct interpretation or if it is one of several possible interpretations. Instead, I would like to address this question from the most general viewpoint of God’s plan of history.

We will introduce this by quoting from White: “Some were led into the error of repeatedly fixing upon a definite time for the coming of Christ. The light which was now shining on the subject of the sanctuary should have shown them that no prophetic period extends to the second advent; that the exact time of this advent is not foretold. But, turning from the light, they continued to set time after time for the Lord to come, and as often they were disappointed” (p.456). Summarizing, White says that numbers work when dealing with the earthly sanctuary but numbers cannot be used with the heavenly sanctuary. I think that this is correct.

Time versus Sequence

Most current biblical prophecy focuses upon numbers and dates, and I suggest that this is fundamentally mistaken. I have basically ignored numbers in my analysis of the book of Revelation, focusing instead upon stages of cognitive development. And I found that the entire book makes sense as a single extended sequence when viewed from a cognitive perspective. However, it appears that numbers do work when looking at Old Testament prophecy such as the book of Daniel. Putting this together, I suggest that one should not make a direct connection between the two 1260s in Daniel and the two 1260s in Revelation. It is tempting to do so, but it also takes the number-based thinking of the Old Testament and applies it to the number-free thinking of the New Testament.

Looking at this from a cognitive viewpoint, a distinction needs to be made between Teacher thought and Server thought. Teacher thought uses words to come up with general theory; Server thought uses actions to move through physical reality. Righteousness allows actions in Server thought to be guided by an understanding of God in Teacher thought. One can see this relationship illustrated in education. The teacher will talk to the students, hopefully giving them a Teacher understanding. The students will then do homework or carry out a lab, performing Server actions that are guided by this Teacher understanding. As education has learned, these Server actions give mental stability to the Teacher words.

However, it is also possible for the interaction between Teacher thought and Server actions to be driven by Server thought. If some set of actions is repeated by Server thought, then this will lead to an implicit understanding in Teacher thought. This mechanism is used when practicing some skill. Practicing repeats some actions in order to build Server confidence in these actions. Teacher thought then comes up with a non-verbal theory which summarizes the essence of these Server actions. This non-verbal Teacher theory will turn into a Teacher mental network, which will emotionally drive a person to continue repeating these actions. Saying this more simply, a habit will form. This non-verbal Teacher theory will also motivate Server thought to perform the action in a smooth and elegant manner, similar to the way that a verbal Teacher theory motivates Server thought to perform actions in a righteous manner.

That brings us to the question of measuring time. In order to measure time, one must have a clock that habitually repeats some set of Server actions. For instance, a day is based upon the length of time that it takes for the earth to rotate, while a year is based upon the length of time that it takes for the earth to travel around the sun. In order to measure a day or a year, the earth must continue to act in a habitual manner. This principle extends to all measurements of time. For instance, time is now measured using atomic clocks, based upon the length of time that it takes a certain atom to move from one state to another. In this case, the electrons of an atom are carrying out some predictable, habitual action.

Saying this cognitively, a mind that acquires its Teacher theories non-verbally through the repetition of Server actions will think in terms of clocks and time. This is not the situation with a righteous mind that uses words to construct Teacher theories and then allows these verbal Teacher theories to guide Server actions. A righteous mind will think in terms of sequences but it will not think in terms of clocks and times. Sequence means that step A is followed by step B which then leads to step C. But how long each step takes cannot be determined. In contrast, thinking in terms of time means that step A will take 20 minutes, which will then be followed by step B which takes 25 minutes and then step C which takes 15 minutes. (The numbers that I have just used are arbitrary.) Summarizing, Server-based habits will lead to a mind that thinks in terms of specific times and specific dates. In contrast, Teacher-based righteousness will lead to a mind that thinks in terms of sequences but not time. Einstein’s theory of special relativity showed that one cannot use a single clock to measure all events. Instead, every frame of reference is governed by its own clock.

Now let us apply this to religious history. God gave the Jews a system of law that was based primarily in Server habits. Jewish law tells the Jews to perform religious festivals throughout the calendar year, and each festival involves certain rituals. Stated simply, God told the Jews what to do. This is reflected today in the Jewish word for law which is halacha. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, “Halakha is often translated as ‘Jewish Law’, although a more literal translation might be ‘the way to behave’ or ‘the way of walking’. The word derives from the root that means ‘to behave’ (also ‘to go’ or ‘to walk’). Halakha guides not only religious practices and beliefs, but also numerous aspects of day-to-day life.” Notice the focus upon doing and habitual action. God had to reveal himself to the Jewish people at this cognitive level because that is how people thought 3500 years ago.

Applying this to Old Testament prophecy, if God revealed himself to the Jews in a manner that was based upon time and clocks, then it also makes sense to interpret Old Testament prophecy in terms of time and clocks.

But a major cognitive shift happened when Jesus came to earth. Jesus lived as a Jew within the Jewish realm of halacha. But Jesus submitted himself to the will of God the Father (Luke 22:42) and went through death and resurrection in order to expand the tribal religion of Judaism into the more general religion of Christianity which was open to everyone regardless of tribe. As NT Wright points out, Christianity is based in theology, which is a Teacher understanding of the character of God and the nature of salvation. This transition is discussed in the essay on the Gospel of John.

However, Christianity did not immediately make the transition from Server actions to Teacher understanding. Instead, the Catholic Church taught Christianity as an alternative to Judaism with its own festivals and rituals. For the Catholic Church, the primary event is the doing of the Eucharist, in which one re-creates the death of Jesus by carrying out the actions of the mass. Similarly, Catholicism has historically placed a great emphasis upon doing, suggesting that salvation comes through works.

Thus, it is plausible to apply the idea of 1260 years to the supremacy of the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church was still locked mentally within the Server mindset of habits and doing. I do not know if this is the best interpretation because I have not looked in detail at the book of Daniel. However, it is plausible.

I have mentioned that a transition did happen in the mid-19^th century because the average person started to see what it means to be guided by scientific understanding in Teacher thought. Thus, in the same way that God had to reveal himself to the Jewish people at the level of Server habits because that was how people thought at that time, so it became possible for God to start revealing himself at the level of Teacher understanding in the mid-19^th century because that is how the average person was starting to think.

Applying this to the theory of mental symmetry, I have a Master’s degree in engineering. Engineering performs Server actions that are guided by a Teacher understanding of scientific law. Thus, studying engineering taught me how to think in terms of righteousness. Going further, my degree is in electrical engineering, where the Teacher theories are fairly abstract and many of the Server actions are carried out invisibly by electrons moving along wires. In addition, the first personal computers were developed when I went to college. A computer is a form of artificial mind. Thus, studying electrical engineering made it mentally possible for me to analyze Christianity from the Teacher perspective of a general theory, while the development of personal computers led me to think in terms of cognition. Saying this more specifically, the theory of mental symmetry began with my brother Lane analyzing 200 biographies in the light of Romans 12 spiritual gifts. The result of his biographical analysis was seven lists of character traits. I then helped my brother to analyze these character traits by viewing the mind as a kind of computer.

From Habits to Righteousness

One cannot make a transition directly from Server-based habits to Teacher-based righteousness. As we all know, what a person does is often completely unrelated to what that person says. Instead, Perceiver thought has to perform the function of mentally gluing together what I do with what I say. The Perceiver person is naturally sensitive to hypocrisy, in which a person says one thing while doing something else.

Saying this more generally, one must use Perceiver truth to go from Server-based habits to Teacher-based righteousness. However, what typically happens is that Perceiver truth is regarded as the opposite of Server-based habits. Instead of using Perceiver truth to connect Server habits with Teacher understanding, one replaces Server habits with Perceiver truth. This can be seen in Martin Luther’s doctrine of sola fide, which means ‘by faith alone’. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, “Lutheran and Reformed churches have held to sola fide justification in opposition to Roman Catholicism especially, but also in opposition to significant aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy. These Protestant churches exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ, which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict (or pardon) of justification. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the Church stands or falls.” Notice how Luther replaced the Catholic focus upon Server actions with an emphasis upon Perceiver belief that ignores Server actions.

What Luther did was cognitively necessary but it is only one step in a process. Instead, moving from Server-based habit to Teacher-based righteousness actually requires going through several steps:

1) The first step is Luther’s step of moving from Server habit to Perceiver belief. This will probably be seen at the time as an either/or distinction, because the emphasis upon Server actions is so strong.

2) Once Perceiver belief has been established, it then becomes possible to use Perceiver facts to build a general understanding in Teacher thought. Using an analogy, Perceiver facts are like bricks, while a general Teacher theory is like a building that one constructs out of bricks.

3) A general theory feels good in Teacher thought. Therefore, a general theory can provide an emotional foundation for the mind. Thinking about a general theory in Teacher thought will eventually turn that theory into a Teacher mental network. The mind requires core mental networks to exist. A Teacher mental network of general understanding makes it possible to let go emotionally of childish Mercy mental networks of culture and hedonism.

It is not possible to jump directly to step 3, because one must first get non-verbal Teacher theories of habit out of the way in order to clear the way for constructing verbal Teacher theories of understanding. Otherwise understanding will be biased by habits.

4) A sense of sequence then needs to be added to Teacher understanding. When Perceiver facts are used to build a Teacher understanding, then this will produce a static structure composed of static facts. Theology will be viewed as a collection of factual beliefs which one verbally asserts. Server thought needs to be reinstated in order to add a sense of sequence. This means viewing God as a righteous being who works within history one step at a time.

5) Server actions can then be added to the Teacher understanding of a God who acts. In order to act in a righteous manner, one must first construct the mental concept of a God of righteousness in Teacher thought. Righteousness will then emerge naturally because a mental network uses emotional pressure to impose its structure upon the mind. If one builds a mental concept in Teacher thought of a God who acts, and if this concept turns into a Teacher mental network, then one will feel driven to behave in a manner that is consistent with ‘how God acts’.

Summarizing, Teacher understanding is the servant of Server thought with habits and rituals. In contrast, Server thought is the servant of Teacher understanding with righteousness. One cannot move directly from habits to righteousness. Instead, one has to go indirectly through a step-by-step process that involves Perceiver belief.

Applying this to prophecy, habits are regulated by clocks and time. Thus, it makes sense to interpret Old Testament prophecy in terms of clocks and time. Righteousness is guided by general sequences that are independent of clocks and time. Thus, one should not interpret New Testament prophecy in terms of clocks and time.

Now let us apply this to the thinking of Ellen White. She understood the transition from 1) to 2), from Server actions to Perceiver belief. She started making the transition from 2) to 3), using Perceiver belief to construct an understanding in Teacher thought. However, she was prevented from finishing the transition from Perceiver belief to Teacher understanding because of an inadequate concept of Perceiver belief.

Saying this in more detail, White clearly saw the error of salvation-by-works being taught by the Catholic Church: “They saw that under the guidance of pope and priest, multitudes were vainly endeavoring to obtain pardon by afflicting their bodies for the sin of their souls. Taught to trust to their good works to save them, they were ever looking to themselves, their minds dwelling upon their sinful condition, seeing themselves exposed to the wrath of God, afflicting soul and body, yet finding no relief. Thus conscientious souls were bound by the doctrines of Rome. Thousands abandoned friends and kindred, and spent their lives in convent cells. By oft-repeated fasts and cruel scourgings, by midnight vigils, by prostration for weary hours upon the cold, damp stones of their dreary abode, by long pilgrimages, by humiliating penance and fearful torture, thousands vainly sought to obtain peace of conscience. Oppressed with a sense of sin, and haunted with the fear of God’s avenging wrath, many suffered on, until exhausted nature gave way, and without one ray of light or hope they sank into the tomb” (p.73).

And White saw that one needs to replace salvation-by-works with salvation-by-faith: “Luther was one day devoutly climbing these steps, when suddenly a voice like thunder seemed to say to him: ‘The just shall live by faith.’ Romans 1:17. He sprang to his feet and hastened from the place in shame and horror. That text never lost its power upon his soul. From that time he saw more clearly than ever before the fallacy of trusting to human works for salvation, and the necessity of constant faith in the merits of Christ. His eyes had been opened, and were never again to be closed, to the delusions of the papacy. When he turned his face from Rome he had turned away also in heart, and from that time the separation grew wider, until he severed all connection with the papal church” (p.125). Notice that White is viewing Perceiver belief as the opposite of Server actions, and she is also viewing Catholicism as the opposite of true Christianity because of the Catholic emphasis upon salvation through works.

However, White warned against taking the next step of building an understanding in Teacher thought: “Luther saw the danger of exalting human theories above the word of God. He fearlessly attacked the speculative infidelity of the schoolmen and opposed the philosophy and theology which had so long held a controlling influence upon the people. He denounced such studies as not only worthless but pernicious, and sought to turn the minds of his hearers from the sophistries of philosophers and theologians to the eternal truths set forth by prophets and apostles” (p.126).

White’s interpretation of Miller’s prophecy makes sense if one views it as a description of society making the transition from 2) to 3)—from Perceiver truth to Teacher understanding. But White herself became mentally stuck between 2) and 3) because of her inadequate definition of Perceiver truth. White lived at the start of this transition, while we at the beginning of the 21^st century are living at the end of this transition.

One of the implicit byproducts of society learning to think in terms of Teacher understanding is that the nature of the Catholic Church has changed. The Server actions of Catholicism now exist within a general societal context established by the rational Teacher theories of science. This leads to an implicit concept of righteousness, because Catholicism is now performing its Server rituals within a societal context of Teacher understanding. This does not mean that Catholicism has become perfect, because it is still mentally hobbled by its focus upon Server actions. But most intellectual Catholics are now looking for the general Teacher theories that lie behind the Server actions of Catholicism. In contrast, evangelical Christianity tends to be stuck at the level of Perceiver truth and has not constructed the mental concept of a God of righteousness who acts. This is reflected in the way that evangelical Christians tend to quote verses at random from the Bible, instead of viewing biblical books as integrated step-by-step sequences. I have now gone through about 40% of the New Testament from this perspective of integrated sequence, and I have found that it works.

The rest of this essay will focus upon the transition from 2) to 3). In other words, how does one define truth in such a manner that makes it possible to build a general Teacher understanding? In order to work that out, we will take several pages to look at the interaction between Perceiver facts and Mercy emotions. However, even though the transition from 2) to 3) will be the primary topic of the rest of this essay, please remember that this is only one step in a multi-step process of reaching mental wholeness.

In fact, righteousness (which is listed as 5) above) is itself not the final step. Instead, one must go beyond righteousness to a final stage of rebirth in which one lives within the framework that has been constructed using righteousness. In other words, the five steps mentioned above should actually be viewed as sub-steps that occur in the middle of a general three-stage process of personal transformation. These three stages are: building a concept of God in Teacher thought; following this concept of God in righteousness; becoming personally reborn within this system of righteousness. Secular society is just starting to experience what this final stage of rebirth involves. That is because the average person now carries a smart phone that is constantly connected to a worldwide web of information enabled by the physical righteousness of technology. Meanwhile, many fundamentalist Christians are still mentally stuck back at White’s stage of struggling to define and preserve truth.

In order to analyze this struggle, one needs to distinguish between emotional ‘truth’, absolute truth, and universal truth. This is key to understanding The Great Controversy because the mindset that is being used by White within her book is purely a mindset of absolute truth. In contrast, using science and technology requires making a mental transition from absolute truth to universal truth. Both the content and the attitude of The Great Controversy make sense if one understands how a mindset rooted in absolute truth will respond to an environment that is turning from absolute truth to universal truth.

Saying this as simply and as clearly as possible, the Millerites predicted that Jesus would return to earth and do something new. When Jesus did not return physically, then White and others reinterpreted this return as a heavenly transition. A heavenly transition to a new way of thinking actually did start to happen at about this time, and this new way of thinking has been impacting the earth since then. However, White was unable to recognize what God was doing because she was mentally locked into the old way of thinking and incapable of making the transition to the new way of thinking. Thus, she rejected the new way of thinking as the work of Satan. This juxtaposition of predicting that God would do something new while being mentally incapable of recognizing the new thing that God was doing ended up warping her thinking. And when one gets to the end of The Great Controversy, it becomes apparent that ‘warped thinking’ is an accurate description.

This is significant because I suggest that many evangelical Christians today are responding in a similar way to secular society by clinging to absolute truth and rejecting scientific thought as a work of Satan. Thus, analyzing The Great Controversy can teach lessons that apply to current society.

Emotional ‘Truth’

We will start our analysis by looking at emotional ‘truth’. (The quotes around ‘truth’ are deliberate.) Emotional ‘truth’ programs the mind using a specific method, and there are also inevitable byproducts that accompany this method. This topic has been discussed in previous essays, but this essay will add some details which have not been mentioned before. In order to discuss this in the most general way possible, we will first take several pages to examine the distinction between ‘truth’ and truth. We will then turn our attention to absolute truth, which emerges when a mindset of ‘truth’ is applied to some textbook or holy book.

Truth involves an interaction between Mercy thought and Perceiver thought. Mercy thought remembers experiences and assigns an emotional label to each experience. For instance, I have pleasant memories about the winter vacations in Palm Springs, California that our family took when I was a child. Perceiver thought observes Mercy experiences from ‘next-door’ and comes up with facts by looking for connections between experiences. For instance, I know that a table is a flat surface held up by some legs. That is a fact. A table can be made out of many different kinds of material. What defines a table is the way that this material is connected and not the specific material that is used. In other words, Perceiver thought acquires facts by ignoring the Mercy experiences themselves in order to focus upon the connections between these experiences.

Both Mercy thought and Perceiver thought are associative. For Mercy thought this means that thinking about an experience or encountering some new experience will bring to mind related experiences. These related experiences will all have emotional labels; some will feel good and some will feel bad. These emotional labels will determine how Mercy thought feels about the current situation that is being remembered or experienced.

For instance, I feel good about Palm Springs because thinking about Palm Springs brings back to mind many pleasant childish memories. However, when I returned to Palm Springs recently, the motel in which we used to stay was torn down, and the main street was now filled with stores and shops that were just like any other typical North American town. These new experiences now come to mind when I think about Palm Springs, causing me to feel mixed emotions. If I focus upon my childish memories of Palm Springs, then I continue to have warm feelings about the place. But if I focus upon my adult memories of Palm Springs, then it no longer feels special.

Perceiver thought evaluates facts in a similar manner. Each fact is given a label of certainty. Thinking about some fact or encountering some new fact will bring to mind related facts; some of these facts will be known with great certainty while other facts will be less certain. These related facts will determine the label of certainty that Perceiver thought places upon the current fact. For instance, I may believe a fact that I read in an encyclopedia while doubting the same fact when my neighbor tells me this fact. That is because facts from an encyclopedia are more certain in my mind than facts from my neighbor. Facts that are known with the greatest certainty become the truth that determines how other facts are evaluated. Thus, one can define truth as the facts that I know with the greatest certainty.

Perceiver thought can acquire its truth in one of two primary ways: First, Perceiver thought can look for connections that are repeated. For instance, the more tables that I see, the more confident I will become in knowing the fact of a table. When I see a table, I will know that it is a table without experiencing any doubts. I will refer to this method as universal truth, because truth is being based in connections that appear universally. A table is a simple example of truth that is reasonably universal, because I encounter tables wherever I go.

Universal truth is not the same as Christian universalism, which believes that everyone will eventually end up in heaven. Universal truth involves Perceiver thought; one is searching for Perceiver connections that occur everywhere, wherever one looks. Christian Universalism involves Mercy thought. The mind represents people as mental networks within Mercy thought, and Christian Universalism says that every person will go to heaven. This distinction can be seen in the famous equation E=MC² which describes the universal truth that matter and energy are always connected. But this universal truth does not lead to universal personal benefits, because this equation has been used to guide the development of nuclear power plants which benefit people as well as nuclear bombs which destroy people.

Second, Perceiver thought can acquire truth by being overwhelmed by Mercy emotions. Whenever some situation is encountered or comes to mind, then the experiences of that situation will trigger Mercy emotions while the facts of that situation will trigger Perceiver confidence. Logically speaking, Mercy feelings and Perceiver confidence are completely unrelated. For instance, I may love a table or hate a table, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it is a table. However, Mercy feelings and Perceiver confidence are mentally related. Perceiver thought will only be able to believe in some fact if this fact is known with sufficient confidence to withstand the level of Mercy emotions. For instance, a person may know that smoking and cancer are connected. But if the desire to smoke has sufficient emotional intensity, then this emotional intensity will overwhelm Perceiver thought, preventing Perceiver thought from believing that smoking and cancer are connected.

Summarizing, Perceiver labels of certainty (or confidence) interact with Mercy labels of emotion. Perceiver thought will only be able to believe in some fact if that the fact is known with greater certainty than the current intensity of emotions within Mercy thought. If Perceiver confidence in some context becomes overwhelmed by Mercy emotions, then Perceiver facts within this context will fall into doubt.

Going the other way, Perceiver thought will also ‘believe’ that some fact is ‘true’ if the Mercy emotions are strong enough to totally overwhelm Perceiver confidence. Notice that I put both ‘believe’ and ‘true’ in single quotes. That is because Perceiver thought is not deciding what is true by looking for connections that are repeated but rather being overwhelmed by strong emotions into ‘believing’ what is ‘true’. This mechanism for knowing ‘truth’ will only function if Mercy emotions are sufficiently strong. If either the Mercy emotions become less intense or Perceiver confidence starts to grow, then ‘belief’ will also be replaced by doubt.

This means that Perceiver thought has two ways of knowing which are separated by what one could call a threshold of uncertainty. Perceiver thought will ‘know’ that some fact is ‘true’ if that ‘fact’ is associated with sufficiently strong Mercy emotions. And Perceiver thought will know that some fact is true if that fact is repeated sufficient times. Both of these methods of knowing will lead to a similar sense of mental certainty in Perceiver thought. That is why I refer to them both as knowing and truth. However, the source of certainty is quite different. With ‘knowing’, Mercy emotions are overwhelming Perceiver confidence, while with knowing, Perceiver thought has sufficient confidence to withstand Mercy emotions. Moving from ‘knowing’ to knowing or vice versa means going through a period of mental uncertainty in which one experiences doubt and not certainty.

For instance, this transition from ‘knowing’ to knowing can be seen in the cognitive development of a child (as summarized by Piaget’s stages of cognitive development). A young child is surrounded by potent experiences and powerful adults. Therefore, the childish mind will naturally develop a strong sense of ‘knowing’: ‘Daddy is always right because daddy is strong and powerful’. ‘Mommy can solve any problem because she has lived for such a long time’. However, this sense of childish certainty does not last. Every child eventually learns that parents are not omniscient or omnipotent. This is typically experienced as teenage doubt. The childish mind ‘believes’ everything that comes from parents or other authority figures. The teenage mind, in contrast, tends to doubt anything that comes from parents or other authority figures. Teenage doubt is usually a period of transition. Eventually, the teenager grows up to become an adult who is capable of using Perceiver thought to evaluate facts. The ex-teenager will then come to the realization that parents are neither omniscient nor idiots. Instead, all parents have some knowledge.

This illustrates one key characteristic, which is that emotional ‘knowing’ is usually more certain than knowing. When Mercy emotions overwhelm Perceiver thought, then a person will ‘know’ with total certainty. That is because Perceiver thought, the part of the mind that works out certainty, is being overwhelmed. Thus, what the mind experiences as total certainty is usually blissful ignorance. For instance, a young child will not worry about facts because the child ‘knows’ that parents know everything and can solve any problem. In contrast, knowing that is based in Perceiver thought is never 100% certain. Instead, Perceiver thought has to be satisfied with reasonable certainty.

This also means that ‘knowing’ can function instantaneously, while knowing takes time to develop. With ‘knowing’, the strong emotions of some specific event will overwhelm Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ that some specific set of connections is always true. In contrast, Perceiver knowing grows gradually as one continues to see the same connections being repeated over time. For instance, how does one know that one is a Christian? The method of ‘knowing’ will look back at some specific emotional conversion experience: ‘I know that I am a Christian because I knelt to accept Jesus in a revival meeting when I was seven years old. I will never forget the emotions of that experience.’ In contrast, the method of knowing will look for lasting changes in personal character: ‘I know that I am a Christian because I am a different person than I was previously.’

Self-Denial

Emotional ‘knowing’ will only continue to work if two conditions are met: First, the source of ‘truth’ must have an emotional status that is much stronger than the emotional status assigned to personal identity. Saying this more simply, I must feel that I am nothing compared to my source of ‘truth’. If I feel that I am somebody or if I lose respect for my source of ‘truth’, then ‘knowing’ will be replaced by doubt. This means that emotional ‘knowing’ will always be accompanied by an attitude of self-denial. That is because emotional status is relative and not absolute. What matters is not the emotional status given to the source of truth but rather the difference between the emotional status given to the source of ‘truth’ and the emotional status given to personal identity.

This puts an instructor of ‘truth’ into an emotional bind. Suppose that I become a pastor, priest, or professor who teaches ‘truth’ to others. In order to ‘believe’ what I am saying, a listener must regard me as special and different than a normal person. This means that I must allow my followers to represent me within their minds as a special person who has much greater emotional status than anyone in the audience. Otherwise, people will doubt what I am saying. But if I am going to teach emotional ‘truth’ then I must teach that everyone, including me, is nothing compared to the ultimate source of ‘truth’. Thus, I must allow others to regard me as important while at the same time teaching that we are all nobodies.

Going further, allowing others to treat me with emotional respect when I teach ‘truth’ will cause me to feel that I am somebody compared to my source of ‘truth’. Therefore, I will start to have doubts about the ‘truth’ that I am teaching to others. If this continues, then I will start to regard myself as not just a teacher of ‘truth’ but also as a source of ‘truth’, leading to the feeling that I am above the ‘truth’ and that ‘truth’ may apply to my audience but it does not apply to me. This will lead naturally to hypocrisy. I will teach that ‘truth’ is based in some emotional source while actually manipulating ‘truth’ in order to pursue personal goals. I will maintain a public aura of self-denial while secretly satisfying personal desires.

Notice that all of this is based purely in the mindset of emotional ‘truth’ and has nothing to do with the actual content being taught. It is the method of teaching emotional ‘truth’ that leads to these consequences.

Mystery

The second condition that must be met to maintain emotional ‘knowing’ is that Perceiver thought must remain overwhelmed. I must believe that ‘truth’ is too mysterious for me to figure it out on my own. The first condition leads to a doctrine of self-denial. I must feel that I am nobody compared to the source of ‘truth’. This second condition leads to an attitude of mystery. I must think that ‘truth’ is too amazing for me to be able to understand rationally.

This also leads to a dilemma for those who teach emotional ‘truth’. A follower of emotional ‘truth’ must regard ‘truth’ as something mysterious which one is incapable of comprehending. If this attitude is not maintained, then a person will begin to doubt ‘truth’. But we have just seen that a follower of emotional ‘truth’ will view a teacher of ‘truth’ as someone special who has an inside connection with ‘truth’. Therefore, followers of ‘truth’ will ask teachers of ‘truth’ to clarify what they regard as incomprehensible ‘truth’. Summarizing, the laity will think that ‘truth’ is incomprehensible but they will also think that the clergy is capable of explaining incomprehensible ‘truth’ because they feel that the clergy has a special relationship to the source of ‘truth’.

But a teacher of ‘truth’ must himself also regard ‘truth’ as something that is ultimately incomprehensible. Otherwise, the teacher of ‘truth’ will start to doubt the ‘truth’ that he is teaching. Therefore, a teacher of ‘truth’ must be simultaneously an expert to others and an idiot in his own eyes.

What commonly happens is that two forms of ‘truth’ will emerge. There will be simple ‘truth’ which the teachers of ‘truth’ will teach to the common man. But behind this simple ‘truth’ will be a mysterious ‘truth’ which is only taught to the teachers of ‘truth’. This split between open simple ‘truth’ for everyone and hidden mysterious ‘truth’ for the experts will make it possible for the teachers of ‘truth’ to simultaneously maintain an attitude of being an expert to others while an idiot in their own eyes.

This hidden mysterious ‘truth’ will naturally head in the direction of mysticism. Mysticism has been discussed in previous essays. Stated briefly, mysticism combines overgeneralization in Teacher thought with identification in Mercy thought to create the feeling of being one with God. Teacher thought likes to come up with simple explanations that can explain many specific situations. The easiest way to come up with a simple explanation is by making a grand statement that ignores Perceiver facts.

For instance, suppose that I do something stupid. It is emotionally satisfying to respond by saying something like ‘I am such an idiot’. Notice that I have jumped mentally from a specific event of doing something stupid to the universal statement that I am an idiot. This jump from specific to universal ignores all the times when I did not act like an idiot. When one jumps from specific to universal in Teacher thought by ignoring Perceiver facts, then one is overgeneralizing.

The ultimate overgeneralization is the mystical statement that ‘All is One’, because this statement of total universality ignores all Perceiver facts about physical reality. Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity. Teacher thought feels good when everything fits together in a simple manner, while feeling bad when something violates the general pattern. Thus, merely stating that ‘All is One’ does not generate strong Teacher emotions because there is order but not complexity. However, if one struggles within complexity and then suddenly realizes that ‘All is One’, then this will create strong, positive Teacher emotions.

Now let us apply this to the instructor of emotional ‘truth’. Teacher thought works primarily with words. Therefore, anyone who uses words to teach ‘truth’ will be using Teacher thought. (Notice the distinction between the job of teacher and the cognitive module of Teacher thought.) However, if I teach ‘truth’ to followers, then within my mind this will both increase my personal status relative to my source of ‘truth’ as well as build Perceiver confidence in my ability to evaluate ‘truth’. This will cause me a teacher of ‘truth’ to start doubting the ‘truth’ that I am teaching. But in order to continue ‘believing’ in ‘truth’, a teacher of ‘truth’ must feel at a deep emotional level that human thought is ultimately incapable of comprehending ‘truth’.

Putting this together, several factors will coexist within the mind of the instructor of emotional ‘truth’: 1) Teacher thought is being used. 2) Humans cannot comprehend ‘truth’. 3) ‘Truth’ is being doubted. 4) A teacher of ‘truth’ is teaching many insignificant ‘truths’ to followers. If these factors coexist for a long enough time, then the teacher of emotional ‘truth’ will eventually break through to a mystical experience. Teacher thought within the mind of the instructor will be driven by the feeling of mystery push aside the mental constraints of crumbling Perceiver ‘truth’ and come up with the overgeneralization that everything fits together.

The teacher of emotional ‘truth’ has now discovered a hidden mystery which truly cannot be shared with the average follower. One cannot simply tell the average layman the mystical statement that ‘All is One’, because it will mean nothing emotionally. Instead, this statement will only become emotionally meaningful if one goes through a process: First, one must learn many ‘truths’ as a follower of ‘truth’. Second, one must become a teacher of ‘truth’ and start to doubt the ‘truths’ that one is teaching. Third, one must struggle internally in Teacher thought with this contradiction. Fourth, one will eventually break through emotionally to the overgeneralization that ‘All is One’. For instance, for many centuries, the Jewish mysticism of Kabbalah was only taught to experts in Talmud and Jewish law who had reached the age of 40.

Notice again that we have not made any comments about the content of ‘truth’ being taught. The cognitive progression that we have just described will happen naturally to an instructor of emotional ‘truth’, regardless of what ‘truth’ is being taught. Saying this another way, any religion will naturally head in the direction of mysticism when doctrine becomes sufficiently vague. This explains why William James in his famous collection of 1902 lectures was able to find the common element of mysticism in many religions.

Emotional ‘truth’ by its very nature has no way of checking the accuracy of ‘truth’. That is because emotional ‘truth’ is acquired by using emotions to overwhelm Perceiver thought, the part of the mind that evaluates truth. Using an analogy, emotional ‘truth’ is like evaluating the content of a letter by looking at the address on the envelope. If the name on the envelope is important, then the letter will be accepted. If the name on the envelope is insignificant, then the letter will be thrown away without opening it up in order to read the contents.

I am not suggesting that all pastors, priests, and professors are closet Buddhists. However, every religion that I have analyzed so far has a mystical side which is Buddhist-like. And all theologians that I have encountered so far appear to ‘believe’ in their heart of hearts that God is ultimately an incomprehensible mystery. In fact, the more educated a theologian, the greater the probability that this theologian adheres to some version of mysticism. This leads to the common practice in theology of using complicated words to say that one cannot say anything.

This natural cognitive tendency towards mysticism has become especially apparent in today’s post-Christian world, because all sources of ‘truth’ are being emotionally belittled and all emotional ‘truth’ is being questioned. One major result is that many theologians who were practicing mysticism in private have now ‘come out of the closet’ and are openly preaching and practicing a version of Buddhism.

Fervor

We have looked at two conditions that must be met in order to preserve ‘truth’: First, I must feel that I am a nobody compared to the source of ‘truth’. Second, I must believe that I am ultimately incapable of comprehending ‘truth’. Emotional ‘truth’ will also lead naturally to an attitude of fervor. Fervor is the other side of self-denial. Self-denial feels that I should not think about self or regard self as important. Fervor feels that I should focus my attention upon the emotional source of ‘truth’.

Fervor is driven by Exhorter thought. Exhorter thought is the part of the mind that provides drive and motivation for thought and behavior. Exhorter thought finds its motivation in emotional memories within Mercy and/or Teacher thought. Exhorter motivation is not the same as emotion. Emotions can feel good or bad. Feeling good is much better than feeling bad. However, Exhorter thought finds both pain and pleasure equally exciting. Therefore, fervor can be motivated either by love or by fear. What matters is the presence of strong emotions.

Emotional ‘truth’ leads naturally to fervor because it combines strong emotions with overwhelmed Perceiver thought. All emotional ‘truth’ is based in some source of ‘truth’ which has great emotional significance. This emotional significance will attract the attention of Exhorter thought, which will drive the mind to focus upon the emotional source, like a moth drawn to a flame. Fervor is normally limited by Perceiver thought. That is because Perceiver facts subdivide Mercy experiences into categories, and these Perceiver facts will act as mental walls that prevent Exhorter thought from fixating upon the emotional experiences.

For instance, suppose that I see a brand-new car in my neighbor’s driveway. Perceiver thought will look at the visual experience of seeing four wheels attached to a metal body and connect this with many other experiences of seeing four wheels attached to a metal body. Perceiver thought will then know that I am looking at a car. This aspect of Perceiver thought has already been discussed. But Perceiver thought will also function at a higher level by subdividing objects into categories of ownership. Saying this another way, ownership can be viewed as a kind of connection. Owning some object means that it is mentally connected with me and not with some other person. Perceiver facts of ownership will act as mental walls that restrict Exhorter thought. Thus, if I get too excited about my neighbor’s brand-new car, then Perceiver thought will step in and assert that this car does not belong to me.

At a more fundamental level, Perceiver thought also determines what is and is not me. Thus, one can define personal identity as everything that remains connected with me as I go through life. My skills are part of my personal identity because they follow me around wherever I go. My physical body is a part of my personal identity because it also accompanies me wherever I go. Stated simply, personal identity becomes defined by applying the concept of ownership at the most basic level.

This means that a distinction needs to be made between me and my self-image. ‘Me’ is composed primarily of the mental networks within Mercy thought that contain my personal loves and hates. Self-image, in contrast, emerges within Perceiver thought as Perceiver thinking decides what belongs to me and what does not. (There is also another side to identity and self-image which involves Teacher names and Server skills. But that is a secondary definition which usually emerges later on in life. Identity and self-image begin with Mercy and Perceiver thought because humans live in a physical world of objects inhabiting bodies that generate experiences of pain and pleasure.)

Obviously, Perceiver thought can only assert facts of ownership and identity if Perceiver thought is functioning. But emotional ‘truth’ by its very nature prevents Perceiver thought from functioning. Putting this together, emotional ‘truth’ is based in emotional experiences that attract the attention of Exhorter thought, while emotional ‘truth’ lacks the Perceiver thinking that is required to prevent Exhorter thought from fixating upon the source of emotional ‘truth’. The end result is fervor, usually expressed as some form of worship.

This leads again to a natural dilemma for emotional ‘truth’. Self-denial must be practiced in order to preserve emotional ‘truth’. But emotional ‘truth’ will drive the mind to fixate upon the emotional source of ‘truth’ in a manner that ignores personal boundaries.

Walls and Taboos

The standard solution is to focus emotionally upon experiences, people, and situations that are associated with ‘truth’ and then separate these special Mercy experiences from normal Mercy experiences through the use of walls and taboos. Such walls and taboos are essential because they prevent Perceiver thought from building connections between ‘holy’ items and experiences and normal items and experiences.

Isaiah 44 points out the underlying cognitive contradiction: “He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes something for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat as he roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, ‘Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire.’ But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image. He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, ‘Deliver me, for you are my god.’ They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend. No one recalls, nor is there knowledge or understanding to say, ‘I have burned half of it in the fire and also have baked bread over its coals. I roast meat and eat it. Then I make the rest of it into an abomination, I fall down before a block of wood!’” (14-19).

Isaiah is pointing out that the same tree is being used both to roast food and to construct an idol of worship. Using cognitive language, Perceiver thought is noticing that the object of worship is connected with normal existence because they both use wood that comes from the same physical tree. This is logically obvious. But Isaiah also points out that those who practice this are mentally and emotionally incapable of knowing or understanding. Using cognitive language, Perceiver thought, the part of the mind that knows by building connections, is being overwhelmed.

But what would happen mentally if a believer in emotional ‘truth’ did use Perceiver thought to build mental connections between the wood being worshiped and the wood being burned for food? I have mentioned that Mercy thought assigns an emotional label to the current situation guided by the emotional labels that are assigned to related memories that come to mind. Saying this another way, Mercy feelings about the current situation will be guided by the emotional context. This means that holy experiences will only be regarded as far more emotional than normal experiences if these two are placed within separate mental contexts. Holy and secular must be regarded mentally and physically as different, which can done by separating holy items and experiences from normal items and experiences through the use of physical and mental walls.

Now suppose that a wall separating holy from secular is breached. Maybe some person violates a taboo by physically crossing a wall that separates sacred and secular. Or some person may breach a mental wall by using Perceiver thought to notice that the same wood is being used to construct an idol and to cook food. Cognitively speaking, this will cause the strong emotional labels assigned to holy items to become intermingled with the emotional labels associated with normal items. Holy will start to feel common and common will start to feel holy. But emotional ‘truth’ can only survive if holy feels much holier than common.

Using an analogy, what happens if I pour a cup of hot water into a lake of water? The hot water will cool down. If the cup of hot water is to stay hot, it must be kept in a cup and not allowed to mingle with the much cooler lake water. Going further, with emotional ‘truth’, the cup of holiness that holds the hot water and keeps it separate from the colder water is itself constructed out of emotional ‘truth’. This cup will only remain intact if the water in the cup stays sufficiently hot. Thus, if enough cool lake water gets into the hot water, then the water in the cup will cool down, the container holding the hot water will dissolve, and all of the hot water will spill out and become mingled with lake water. Using religious language, the holy will be blasphemed by the common.

Normally, one would keep the cup of hot water far away from the lake of cool water, in order to ensure that none of the colder water spills into the hot water. But fervor prevents this from happening. Continuing with the analogy, the lake is filled with fish, and the fish will be attracted to the heat of the hot water. (Symbolically speaking, a fish represents a human mind that lives immersed within the water of Mercy experiences. Saying this cognitively, this describes a person who lives within concrete thought guided by the physical environment.) And these fish who are being attracted to the hot water will naturally spill lake water into the cup of hot water. Thus, the integrity of the cup has to be protected through taboos. And one of the most fundamental taboos will be a prohibition against crossing the physical wall that surrounds holy items.

The Instructor of Emotional ‘Truth’

Now let us turn our attention to an instructor of emotional ‘truth’. As far as the average person (or fish in the lake) is concerned, an instructor of ‘truth’ is a holy person who lives within the ‘cup of hot water’. But the instructor is also a normal person with a normal mind who lives in a normal body. He too must protect his emotional ‘truth’ by building mental walls between holy experiences and normal life. But how can this be done if one’s normal life involves holy experiences, especially when emotional ‘truth’ naturally weakens mental concepts of ownership and identity?

If mental boundaries are weak, then one must compensate through the use of physical walls and taboos. Therefore, one standard solution is for a holy person to deny self through taboos involving physical pleasure. For instance, a religious person may be expected to be celibate. If a priest refrains from the physical pleasure of sex, then this will create the feeling of self-denial within the mind of the priest that is required to maintain a belief in absolute ‘truth’. A priest may also take some vow of physical poverty, or wear some garment that causes physical discomfort. Such physical methods will work because the physical body programs Mercy thought with emotional experiences based upon physical sensations of pain and pleasure. If an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ experiences physical self-denial and discomfort, then this will emotionally reinforce the feeling of self-denial that is needed to maintain ‘belief’ in emotional ‘truth’.

Using the analogy of the cup of water, a ‘holy’ fish who lives in a cup of hot water will naturally regard the temperature of this cup as normal. The solution is for the ‘fish’ to divide its personal existence into a ‘spiritual’ part and a ‘physical’ part. The spiritual part of the fish will live within the hot water—which the fish will regard as normal temperature, while the physical part of the fish will live in water that has been cooled below normal temperature through a lifestyle of physical self-denial.

Maintaining such a set of contradictions is difficult. The more physical adulation an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ receives, the harder it will be to maintain a life of physical self-denial. And the more that an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ becomes regarded as a source of ‘truth’, the easier it will be for the instructor of ‘truth’ to start to doubt this entire edifice of holiness, self-denial, and taboos. Finally, the more intimately that an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ is associated with religious rituals, the harder it will be to maintain already weakened boundaries of ownership and identity.

Thus, it will be natural for taboos of physical self-denial to become secretly disregarded, leading to priests who publicly preach and portray self-denial while secretly living personal lives of physical pleasure. In other words, when one reads of pastors and priests practicing secret hedonism, one should not be shocked. That is because every instructor of emotional ‘truth’ is being faced with the temptation to head in that direction. This has nothing to do with the content being taught or the personal character of the instructor. Instead, the temptation comes from the system required to maintain emotional ‘truth’. This does not excuse the religious leader who succumbs to such temptation. But it is important to recognize that a system of emotional ‘truth’ will naturally require physical self-denial from its leaders, face them with the temptation of self-gratification, while withholding from them the mental tools required to resist this temptation.

Mysticism makes it easier for an instructor of ‘truth’ to maintain this juxtaposition, because the ecstasy of the mystical experience provides an emotional alternative to physical pleasure. Discovering mysticism requires turning one’s back mentally upon Perceiver facts of physical reality. And when boundaries of ownership and identity are weakened, then it is easier for the mind to feel that ‘I am one with everything’. Saying this more bluntly, mysticism provides a religiously acceptable alternative to sex, and many mystics have used the language of marriage to describe their relationship with God.

This may win the battle, but it loses the war. Being an instructor of ‘truth’ faces the mind with an almost impossible set of moral requirements which will lead to fundamental contradictory urges. These urges will naturally lead the mind in the direction of mysticism, and discovering mysticism will make it possible to emotionally satisfy these contradictory urges. But mysticism is based upon the premise that knowledge is ultimately a mystery which transcends all ‘truth’. Therefore, the instructor of ‘truth’ who discovers mysticism will become an instructor of ‘untruth’—teaching ‘truth’ which he believes is ultimately false. And an instructor of ‘untruth’ will become a strong enemy of anyone who teaches truth, because the mental contradictions of the instructor are being held together emotionally by the practice of mysticism, and the Teacher overgeneralization of mysticism can only survive by suppressing all Perceiver truth. The end result is a mental dog in the manger which sits on truth that cannot be digested while preventing others from feeding on this truth.

Absolute Truth

We have looked so far at emotional ‘truth’ in generic terms. At the start of this discussion, I suggested that absolute ‘truth’ is a version of emotional ‘truth’ which is associated with a holy book or textbook. Saying this in more detail, emotional ‘truth’ can be subdivided into different categories depending upon what is being regarded as the source of ‘truth’. Idolatry regards certain objects and locations as emotional sources of ‘truth’. Because physical objects do not talk, idolatry will naturally remain at the concrete level of worship, physical fences, holy rituals, and physical taboos. A different system of emotional ‘truth’ will emerge when people are regarded as sources of ‘truth’, because people can talk. One could refer to this as authority. Talking is an expression of Teacher thought. Because Teacher thought is being used, there is a higher probability that instructors of emotional ‘truth’ will break through to the discovery of mysticism.

Absolute truth emerges when some book is regarded as the ultimate source of ‘truth’. What typically happens is that some person will be regarded as an authority, the words of this person will be written down in a book, and succeeding generations will regard this book as the source of ‘truth’.

A book has several characteristics which are not found in a living person. A living person can change what he says. In contrast, the words of a book do not change. A real person can only be in one location at a time. A book can be printed making it possible for the same book to exist in many locations. The words of a person will be mentally associated with the mental network within Mercy thought which represents that person. In contrast, a book arranges words into a Teacher structure of order-within-complexity: words are arranged into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, and paragraphs into chapters. Thus, a book by its very nature arranges words into a structure that resembles a general Teacher theory.

Therefore, absolute truth is mentally a superstructure of Teacher thought built upon a foundation of Mercy thought. A book uses words, which are the basic building blocks for Teacher thought. The words of a book do not change, implying Perceiver facts which remain stable over time. And a book can be copied and distributed, implying Perceiver facts which remain stable over space. Finally, a book separates the words of a person from that person, because one can read a book without encountering the author of that book. This implies that a book involves a form of emotions that are different than the Mercy emotions which the mind assigns to people.

However, the world contains many books. Why should one specific book be chosen and not another? One possible reason to choose some book is because it is an accurate description of how things work. For instance, a science textbook is regarded as a source of truth because it accurately describes how the natural world functions. In this case, the book is a description of universal truth. The book helps people to understand ‘how things work’ and it is possible for other textbooks to fulfill a similar function. In other words, truth exists out there, and books are being written to help people to understand the truth that already exists.

A book can also be chosen because it is regarded as the source of ‘truth’. For instance, a holy book is regarded as a source of ‘truth’ because it is believed to be written either by God or by the prophet of God, both of which are represented within Mercy thought as Very Important Persons. In this case, the book is the source of absolute truth. Notice that I am not putting the word truth into single quotes. That is because absolute truth is an intermediate form of knowing which combines some elements of emotional ‘truth’ based in Mercy status with some elements of Teacher understanding.

The relative importance of these two elements can be seen in the way that a holy book is treated. If the Mercy element of emotional ‘truth’ is being emphasized, then the focus will be upon the specialness and uniqueness of that book. People will emphasize how special the book is without actually quoting from the book itself. If the content is discussed, then the words will be interpreted poetically, emphasizing the emotions being conveyed by these words, and the goal of discussing the content will be to increase emotional feelings of fervor associated with this book.

In contrast, if the book is being approached from a Teacher perspective, then the focus will be upon examining the words and their meanings. Instead of looking to experts to reveal the meaning of the book, people will study the book themselves and discuss the book among themselves in order to gain a better understanding of what the book says. Going further, the content of the holy book will be compared with the content of other books, in order to gain a fuller understanding of universal principles that apply everywhere and thus can be potentially discovered by anyone.

Any book can be regarded as a holy book if it is given sufficient emotional respect. Obviously, it is much easier to regard some book as special if very few books exist. For example, the Quran was the first book written in Arabic, being preceded only by various works of poetry. In the words of one Islamic website, “There is, however, another aspect of the Qur’an which has received far less attention than its theological and legislative guidance, namely its linguistic significance, for the Qur’an was undoubtedly the first book to be composed in Arabic… Before the rise of Islam, Arabic was mainly a spoken language with an oral literature of elaborate poetry and, to a lesser extent, prose. Writing had not yet fully developed and memorization was the most common means of preserving the literature. Both poetry and prose in the pre-Islamic era dealt with a rather limited range of topics which included in the case of poetry praise, eulogy (panegyric), defamation, and love, and in the case of prose superstition, legends, parables, and wisdom tales.” Summarizing, the Quran is a unique book because it was the first Arabic book, and it is natural to interpret the content of the Quran from an emotional perspective because written Arabic was primarily a language of poetry.

In contrast, a holy book can only be regarded as a description of Teacher understanding if the content of that book actually describes a Teacher theory of order-within-complexity. In other words, arranging words into the physical structure of a book implies a Teacher theory, while studying a book reveals whether that book actually contains a Teacher theory. For instance, I have now studied about 40% of the New Testament at a verse-by-verse level looking at the original Greek text. I can now say with considerable confidence that the Bible does contain a Teacher theory of cognition which transcends anything that was known by humans in the age when it was written. This is not an emotional statement, a statement of blind faith, or an attitude of religious fervor. Instead, it is a reasonable conclusion based upon extensive analysis.

Byproducts of Absolute Truth

Absolute truth is inherently unstable. That is because it juxtaposes two contradictory modes of thought thinking, each backed up by its own emotional source. On the one hand, emotional status is being given to some specific book in Mercy thought; some book is being viewed as holy or special. This emotional status overwhelms Perceiver thought. But on the other hand, Teacher thought is finding implicit order-within-complexity in the structure of a book—and hopefully also finding explicit order-within-complexity in the content of this book. Comprehending a book means dealing with facts, and Perceiver thought works out facts. Thus, Mercy mental networks of emotional status will attempt to overwhelm Perceiver thought, while a Teacher mental network of understanding will attempt to develop Perceiver thought. This means that Perceiver thought must be simultaneously awake and asleep when dealing with the same holy book. Being both awake and asleep at the same time is inherently unstable.

Looking at this more generally, a holy book will modify the three traits of self-denial, mystery, and fervor that were discussed when looking at emotional ‘truth’. Fervor will express itself as focusing upon the holy book, which can include studying the book, singing about the book, treating the book with respect, preaching from the book, preaching about how special the book is, or imagining what it would be like to live within this book. Self-denial will demand that the book and its contents be viewed as something different from normal life which must be approached by suppressing normal human existence. Finally, core concepts of the book will be regarded as mysteries which cannot be comprehended by humans.

The survival of emotional ‘truth’ requires such a mindset. A holy book must be treated with fervor, because emotional ‘truth’ is based in potent Mercy emotions, and fervor is required to maintain these potent Mercy emotions. That is why studying a holy book is not enough. One must also add Mercy feelings, such as singing about the book, treating the book with respect, and preaching how special the book is. This will often be expressed by waxing poetical, using language that conveys strong emotions without having precise meanings.

A holy book must be also approached with an attitude of self-denial, because belief in emotional ‘truth’ will only survive if the source of ‘truth’ has much greater emotional status in Mercy thought than personal identity. Therefore, the content of the book will be interpreted through the lens of self-denial, regardless of what the book actually says. Words will be twisted and passages taken out of context in order to reinforce this attitude of self-denial. This must be done in order to preserve ‘belief’ in the book. Studying a book will naturally develop Perceiver thought, causing emotional ‘truth’ to fall into doubt. Therefore, if one wishes to study a holy book while maintaining an attitude of emotional ‘truth’, one must study this book with an attitude of self-denial.

Holy Language and Mystery

In a similar vein, a holy book must be regarded as different than other books. We discussed the underlying principle when looking at the analogy of fish in a lake and a cup of hot water. Comparing the holy book with normal books will mix the hot water with the lake water, causing emotional ‘truth’ to fall into doubt. Therefore, a holy book must be regarded as something unique that is different than all other books. One simple way is to give a holy book physical respect which is not given to other books. For example, one might get a leather bound version of the Bible, carry this Bible around reverentially, and make sure that no other book is ever placed on top of the Bible.

A more effective way is to ensure that the words of the holy book are never translated into normal language. For instance, only the original Quran written in Arabic is regarded as holy. The Quran cannot be officially translated into any other language. Wikipedia explains that “According to Islamic theology, the Qur’an is a revelation very specifically in Arabic, and so it should only be recited in Quranic Arabic. Translations into other languages are necessarily the work of humans and so, according to Muslims, no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original.” A similar effect can be achieved by using special words to discuss the holy book which are not used in normal conversation. Many examples can be found in Christian theology, such as sanctification, justification, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, apophatic theology, transcendence, immanence, theodicy, sacrament, liturgy, postlapserian, pre-tribulation rapture, millennial kingdom, etc. One could probably come up with a full page of words that the average person has never encountered which are used to discuss the Bible. Such unique words perform the mental equivalent of a rood screen (another religious word) that separates the holy part of a church from the rest of the church.

The King James only movement is another effective method of building a mental wall between a holy book and normal speech. One can tell that the actual goal is to use special language to discuss the Bible because many fundamentalists are hostile to the New King James Version, which attempts to preserve the text of the King James Version, while replacing ancient words such as ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ with modern equivalents. These ‘thees’ and ‘thous’ are essential for emotional ‘truth’, because they make it possible to discuss the Bible using a different language than normal conversation.

Finally, a holy book must be regarded as only a partial revelation of a topic that is ultimately mysterious and incomprehensible. Peripheral aspects of the book will be analyzed rationally using Teacher theories and Perceiver facts, while central concepts of the book will be accepted blindly based in Mercy status. For instance, I have consistently found when discussing the Bible with people that it is possible to use rational thought to a certain extent. However, one will eventually hit a brick wall where rational thought is no longer permitted and blind faith takes over. The precise boundary between rational thought and blind faith varies from one individual to another, but this wall always seems to be present.

One often notes a similar boundary in theological writings. The author will discuss the biblical text rationally and then suddenly burst out in poetic praise for a few paragraphs before returning to the rational analysis. In a similar manner, the only reason that I can analyze the original Greek text of the New Testament is because biblical scholars have gone to great lengths to carefully define the meanings of the original Greek words. But I have found the commentators to be much less useful when dealing with deeper concepts.

This belief that a holy book is ultimately beyond human comprehension will be asserted regardless of what the holy book actually says about mystery and human comprehension. For instance, Paul talks extensively of mystery in his epistles. But he describes mystery as something that used to be hidden which is now being revealed. Quoting from Colossians 1:25-27: “I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

Paul says the same thing Ephesians 3:3-6: “By revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”

And he says the same thing in Romans 16:25-26: “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, to obedience of faith.”

Notice also the exact nature of the mystery that Paul is revealing. The revelation from God used to be in the form of absolute truth that was revealed to the Jews. But it is now being revealed as universal truth that can be translated into the language of any tribe or culture. In other words, Paul is referring to two aspects of emotional ‘truth’. Emotional ‘truth’ must regard a holy book as separate from other books, which is typically done by using a unique language to discuss this book. And emotional ‘truth’ must also regard a holy book as ultimately incomprehensible. Paul is saying that the idea of divine mystery will come to an end, and that the end of divine mystery will involve translating God’s revelation into all languages.

How does one escape the demands of emotional ‘truth’? By using Teacher thought to build a rational understanding of the revelation of God. Instead of being based upon Mercy mental networks of emotional status, the holy book is then held together by the Teacher mental network of a general understanding. In the words of NT Wright, Paul invented theology. The basic premise of theology is that one can come up with a rational understanding of God and salvation in Teacher thought. Similarly, I have found that the Bible makes rational sense if it is analyzed as a theory of ‘being transformed by the renewing of your mind’.

However, much of the early Christian church ignored Paul’s clear words and instead followed a forgery which emphasized divine mystery, written supposedly by Dionysius the Areopagite. In the words of Wikipedia, “The author pseudonymously identifies himself in the corpus as ‘Dionysios’, portraying himself as the figure of Dionysius the Areopagite, the Athenian convert of Paul the Apostle mentioned in Acts 17:34. This false attribution to the earliest decades of Christianity resulted in the work being given great authority in subsequent theological writing in both East and West. The Dionysian writings and their mystical teaching were universally accepted throughout the East, amongst both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, and also had a strong impact in later medieval western mysticism, most notably Meister Eckhart.”

Thus, when I suggest that emotional ‘truth’ will motivate theologians to interpret the Bible as mystery, regardless of what the Bible itself actually says about mystery, I am not joking. For centuries, Christian doctrine was heavily influenced by a lie propagated by an anonymous author who claimed to be a disciple of Paul while contradicting what Paul wrote.

Absolute Truth and Teacher Understanding

We have examined some of the ways in which absolute truth will view a holy book through the mental eyeglasses of emotional ‘truth’. We will finish this introductory analysis by looking at how the presence of Teacher understanding will interact with the underlying foundation of emotional ‘truth’. The most obvious result is that the holy book will be analyzed rationally. This rational analysis may be limited to the peripheral topics of the holy book, and it may be mentally segregated from the analysis of other books, but there will be rational analysis. In brief, the field of theology will emerge.

When Teacher thought is used, then this leads indirectly in Mercy thought to the formation of Platonic forms. Saying this in more detail, Teacher thought comes up with a general theory by looking for the simple essence that summarizes the essential characteristics of many specific items. This will express itself in Mercy thought as internally generated images which are more perfect, more simple, and more pure than anything in real life. Saying this another way, using Teacher thought to study a holy book will cause a mental image of heavenly perfection to form within Mercy thought.

Platonic forms of ideal perfection will always emerge whenever Teacher thought is used. What normally happens is that Perceiver thought uses facts to organize Mercy experiences, Teacher thought then comes up with general theories that summarize the essence of these facts, these Teacher theories lead in Mercy thought to images of perfection, and these Platonic forms motivate a person to make reality more like Platonic forms.

When one studies a holy book, then this process can be started but it cannot be completed. That is because a holy book is being regarded as a special book that is distinct from all other books. This will lead to Platonic forms of heavenly perfection which are mentally disconnected from imperfect earth. Saying this another way, if one starts by studying a book that has nothing to do with normal reality, then one will end up with mental images of Platonic perfection that also have nothing to do with normal reality.

One will then be driven by fervor to focus upon these heavenly images of unrealizable perfection. And one will be motivated by self-denial to try to become heavenly minded by turning one’s back mentally upon earth. One cannot do this by living within heaven, because mental concepts of heaven are by definition distinct from earthly reality. But one can talk about heaven, sing about heaven, imagine life in heaven, and look forward to living in heaven.

In a related vein, I suggested earlier that the process of personal transformation can be divided into three stages. In the first stage, one uses facts to build a mental concept of God in Teacher thought. The second stage of righteousness allows the resulting TMN of a concept of God to guide personal behavior. The third stage of rebirth then lives personally within the mental structure that was constructed during the first two stages. Absolute truth can follow the first step of constructing a mental concept of God, but this will be interpreted as denying self in order to focus upon God and the holy book. Absolute truth can also follow the second step to some extent, but this will be interpreted as turning one’s back upon normal human existence in order to follow God through some sort of full-time service. Because a book composed of words is being regarded as holy, this will typically be defined as becoming a missionary or a clergy who becomes a teacher of absolute truth. And because self-denial plays such a key role, this will often be combined with helping the down-and-out. However, absolute truth cannot perform the third stage of rebirth. That is because the third stage brings heavenly perfection down to earth, and emotional ‘truth’ can only survive if heavenly perfection remains separate from normal existence. I am not suggesting that it is wrong to be a missionary or bad to help the needy. However, the average person today equates these two traits with Christianity. It is important to realize that these traits are primarily cognitive byproducts of absolute truth and not necessarily based in the content of the Bible.

Going further, absolute truth will look forward to living within a future heavenly perfection, because building a Teacher theory will create Mercy images of Platonic perfection, while at the same time shrinking back from taking any concrete steps to make earth more like heaven, because this violates the implicit principle of self-denial. Instead, future heavenly perfection will be viewed as God mysteriously intervening upon earth and magically transforming everything, because the Platonic forms of divine perfection come from words that are separate from normal life which are ultimately incomprehensible.

I am not suggesting that it is cognitively unhealthy or scripturally inaccurate to believe that Christ will return to earth to transform the physical world. Using rational Teacher thought will naturally lead to such a hope through the formation of Platonic forms of possible perfection. Instead, a distinction needs to be made in the way that God will intervene to transform earth. Teacher understanding based upon universal truth will lead to the belief that God will intervene in a manner that is consistent with rational thought when enough people have followed the required steps of personal transformation. I have found this principle consistently appearing in my analysis of New Testament books. Absolute truth, in contrast, will lead to the belief that God will intervene in a manner that overrules rational thought, either when God chooses sovereignly to intervene, or when enough people are looking forward to this divine intervention with sufficient self-denial and fervor.

As I have already mentioned, when people believe that absolute truth is contained within the words of some special book, then the attributes of emotional ‘truth’ will also express themselves primarily through words. This means that the average person will think that following God means denying self in order to teach others about absolute truth. Thus, fervor will be interpreted primarily as becoming a pastor, priest, Bible teacher, or missionary. I should emphasize that most pastors and missionaries today go far beyond preaching from the Bible. This is largely because pastors and missionaries have learned from psychology and sociology that there are universal cognitive truths which apply to all people. But the core emphasis of preaching from the Bible with an attitude of self-denial still remains, and where this emphasis does not remain, pastors and missionaries have tended to drift into some form of social gospel or some kind of mystical worship which is no different from typical secular thought.

Finally, I have mentioned that studying the Bible will cause Platonic forms of heavenly perfection to emerge within Mercy thought. Absolute truth will naturally regard such Platonic forms as the sign that one is a legitimate Christian. In other words, a Christian will be defined as someone who has experienced ‘new birth’ by inviting Jesus into their heart. Again, I need to emphasize that there is a deep cognitive significance to ‘asking Jesus in your heart’. But this is actually the starting point of a process of personal transformation. Absolute truth can begin this process, but it cannot finish this process. Using theological language, justification should be followed by sanctification. If the ultimate goal of a person is to preach the Bible to others so that they can ask Jesus into their hearts, then this means that Christianity is being reduced to the caricature of Christianity that can be achieved by believing in absolute ‘truth’.

The End of Divine Mystery

Before we continue, we should step back and look briefly at the big picture. We have seen that many Christian doctrines can be explained as byproducts of mental programming. One can go much further with this kind of analysis, and at this point I am not aware of any Christian doctrines that cannot be explained in the light of mental symmetry. Does this explain Christianity away?

It depends upon one’s mental concept of God. If one’s concept of God is based in absolute truth, then using rational thought to analyze Christian doctrine explains this doctrine away, because this wakes up Perceiver thought in the very areas where Perceiver thought must remain overwhelmed in order to maintain emotional ‘belief’ in the Bible. But if one’s concept of God is based in universal truth, then explaining every Christian doctrine rationally will build a Christian concept of God.

In other words, is God ultimately a God of absolute truth, or is God ultimately a God of universal truth? Answering this question is not just an intellectual exercise, because a concept of God is based in powerful mental networks, and these mental networks will react strongly when their existence is questioned. And using a rational theory of cognition to explain Christian doctrine at a comprehensive level will threaten the existence of a concept of God that is based in absolute truth.

However, Revelation 10 predicts that precisely this kind of transition will occur. Verse 1 describes a strong angel coming out of heaven, and heaven represents Teacher thought. Verse 2 says that this angel is carrying an open little book. We have just seen that a book represents a Teacher theory. This angel then puts one foot on the sea and the other foot on the land. Sea represents Mercy experiences while land represents solid Perceiver facts. Standing with one foot on the sea and the other foot on the land represents a mindset that bridges subjective Mercy experiences and objective Perceiver facts.

In verse 6 this angel then “swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it.” This is the only time that this verb swear is used in the entire book of Revelation. Revelation contains many significant statements. If this is the only time in Revelation that a statement is backed up by swearing, then this must be a significant statement. The basis for the swearing is a living, eternal concept of God—a God who created all of the content of the universe. This describes the Teacher mental network of a concept of God that is based in universal truth discovered by examining knowledge that comes from studying creation and not from studying the Bible.

Continuing with verses 6-7, the angel swears that “there will be delay no longer, but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, then the mystery of God is finished, as He preached to His servants the prophets.” The word translated delay is actually chronos which means ‘time in duration in the physical-space world’. It is found 54 times in the New Testament, and this is the only time that the NASB translates it as ‘delay’. Every other translation describes some duration of time. (The KJV translates it accurately as ‘time’). In other words, the angel is actually saying that time and clocks will come to an end. This was discussed earlier when looking at the difference between time and sequence.

The angel also proclaims that ‘the mystery of God is finished’. The word finished means ‘to bring to an end, complete, fulfill’. Thus, divine mystery will have fulfilled its purpose and will now come to an end. The word as is a comparative, which means ‘as, like as, even as’. This tells us that the end of divine mystery will not eliminate the Bible but rather lead to an understanding that is consistent with the content of the Bible, because it will be ‘as He preached to His servants the prophets’.

In verse 8, a voice from heaven tells John to “take the book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the land”. In other words, John, a human being, is being told by Teacher thought to take this Teacher theory that bridges subjective and objective.

In verse 9, John takes the book and is instructed to “Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey.” Saying this cognitively, John is supposed to digest the Teacher theory. This verbal understanding will bring great pleasure to Teacher thought but when one swallows this theory, then the gut-level emotional implications will be unpleasant.

Summarizing, Revelation 10 describes in detail the process of moving from absolute truth to universal truth that has just been just discussed. Thus, when I talk about replacing a concept of God that is based in absolute truth with a concept of God that is based in universal truth, I am describing a transition that is ‘as He preached to His servants the prophets’. And when I claim that it is possible to rationally explain all Christian doctrine, I am actually echoing what the angel swears in verse 7.

Verse 11 finishes the chapter by saying “You must prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and tongues and Kings.” In other words, one must use this new rational concept of God to explain many areas of culture and identity—which is what I have been attempting to do in a series of essays.

The book of Revelation has 22 chapters. White quotes from every chapter in her book except for Chapter 10. Later on in this essay, we will see that White makes some statements which she backs up by swearing by essentially everything that she regards as sacred. However, The Great Controversy does not refer once to the only chapter in Revelation where the biblical statement is backed up by the swearing of a powerful angel. Saying this more simply, White herself swears while ignoring the only chapter in Revelation where an angel swears. This is a curious omission, because we will see that White is either unwilling or unable to make the mental transition from absolute truth to universal truth.

Revelation 11 talks about two witnesses. White suggests that “The two witnesses represent the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament” (p.267). And she takes ten pages (p.265-274) to discuss Revelation 11. To some extent this makes sense, because an open little book was revealed in Revelation 10, and both the old and the new Testaments are books. Going further, the two witnesses are told in 11:1 to “get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it”, and studying the Bible does apply to some degree a measurable standard to the subjective areas of God and worship. The number 1260, discussed earlier, also appears in the guise of months and days in verses 2 and 3. White interprets the killing of the two witnesses in verse 7 as the French Revolution: “‘The beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.’ The atheistical power that ruled in France during the Revolution and the Reign of Terror, did wage such a war against God and His holy word as the world had never witnessed” (p.273).

It is possible that White’s interpretation is a partial fulfillment of this passage. As I mentioned before, biblical passages are often fulfilled in more than one way. But there are also several reasons why there must be a deeper fulfillment which goes beyond what White is saying:

1) White describes the French Revolution as ‘a war against God and his holy word as the world had never witnessed’. This may have been true in the time of White, but since then the Russian and Chinese communist governments have ‘waged a war against God and his holy word’ that is far more intense and has lasted far longer than the French Revolution.

2) Revelation 11 happens right after Revelation 10 in which digesting the little book leads to the end of divine mystery. An attitude of absolute truth is capable of gaining some Teacher understanding of the Bible, but it is still driven by a core sense of mystery. As was mentioned previously, White spends ten pages on Revelation 11 while completely ignoring Revelation 10.

3) The angel in Revelation 10 swears in verse 6 that there will be no more chronological time. White is interpreting the 1260 days and the 42 months in Revelation 11 from a chronological perspective. Even if this is an accurate partial interpretation, there must be a fuller interpretation that does not rely on clocks and time.

4) Chapter 11 begins by saying “Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, ‘Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it’” (v.1). This word ‘temple’ is significant because in Greek it is the same word that White will introduce later when talking about Jesus ‘cleansing the sanctuary’. This will be examined later on in the essay when looking at the day of atonement. The word translated measuring rod means ‘a reed; a reed-pen, reed-staff, measuring rod’. This describes a writing implement, and it also describes a yardstick (a meter stick?). The verb measure means ‘to measure, measure out’, and it is the verb form of a noun that means ‘a measure, and for, about 39.39 liters or 8.75 gallons’.

Putting this together, the angel swore in chapter 10 that clock time would cease to be the standard. One uses clocks to measure time by comparing some duration with some reference oscillation—such as the swinging of a pendulum or the vibrating of electrons in an atom. Space and volume are also measured in a similar manner, by comparing some distance with some reference distance or some reference volume. For instance, for many years a reference meter stick stored in climate-controlled conditions in France was the reference standard for all measurements of distance. Verse 1 is describing precisely this, because a measuring rod is being used to measure by comparing to some reference measure. Saying this cognitively, a new form of technical thought is emerging with a new standard of measurement.

Three things are being measured: The first is ‘the temple of the God’. This represents the nature and character of God. The second is ‘the altar’. The altar refers to ‘the meeting place between God and the true worshiper’. This refers to core doctrines about atonement and salvation. The third is ‘those who worship in it’. The word worship means ‘to do reverence to’. These three aspects describe Christian doctrines which an attitude of absolute truth will regard as mysterious and unmeasurable.

Thus, chapter 11 must be referring to something more than White suggests because a human being in verse 1 is being instructed to apply rational technical thought to core religious topics, something which absolute truth is incapable of doing. (The Great Controversy refers explicitly to 11 of the 19 verses of chapter 11. But it does not mention either verse 1 or the first half of verse 2.) And this measuring indicates a shift in religious authority because the measuring rod in verse 1 is described as ‘like a staff’. The word like is a comparison word that means ‘like, resembling, the same as’. And the word staff means ‘a rod, staff, staff of authority, scepter’. The same Greek word is used in 12:5 to describe the son of the woman, “who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”.

Saying this all in a single statement (which Teacher thought likes to do), Server-based thought is being replaced by Teacher-based thought.

I should emphasize that my primary purpose in discussing this in detail is not to attack Ellen White. Instead, The Great Controversy provides a starting point for examining thinking that is also present today in evangelical Christianity. Ellen White, living at the end of the 19^th century, lacked most of the intellectual tools that are required to go beyond absolute truth to universal truth. We now at the beginning of the 21^st century have these tools. Thanks to fields such as psychology, neurology, computers, and artificial intelligence, we can now approach human thought from a rational scientific perspective. Analyzing The Great Controversy is helpful, because this book illustrates how absolute truth will tend to respond when it comes into contact with universal truth.

The Papacy and Emotional ‘Truth’

Speaking of tools, we now have the tools that are required to analyze The Great Controversy. White starts her book by comparing in detail the authority of the Catholic Church with the absolute truth of Protestant believers. This first section of the book is historical, and White quotes extensively from the historians of her day. The only possible errors that I can find in this historical section involve numbers. In some cases, modern historians have come up with different estimates as to how many people were tortured or how many people died. But I checked White’s stories and they are solidly based in history. Wikipedia explains that many of the chapters of this initial historical section were added in the 1888 edition and that references were added to the 1911 edition. This is important to mention because the second half of the book is primarily about theology and prophecy. In the second half, White will not be quoting from others but rather introducing new concepts.

White’s description of the shortcomings of the Catholic Church illustrates the characteristics and dangers of emotional ‘truth’. We will start our analysis by looking at the attributes of emotional ‘truth’ that are described by White.

One cannot make a gradual transition from idolatry to emotional ‘truth’. When Christianity became the official religion of Rome, “Most of the Christians at last consented to lower their standard, and a union was formed between Christianity and paganism. Although the worshipers of idols professed to be converted, and united with the church, they still clung to their idolatry, only changing the objects of their worship to images of Jesus, and even of Mary and the saints. The foul leaven of idolatry, thus brought into the church, continued its baleful work” (p.43).

Mental walls of holiness can be maintained by conducting religious services in a strange language that is different than normal speech: “A bull was issued forbidding public worship to be conducted in the Bohemian tongue. The pope declared that ‘it was pleasing to the Omnipotent that His worship should be celebrated in an unknown language, and that may evils and heresies had arisen from not observing this rule’” (p.97).

Feelings of holiness will need to be protected from blasphemy by killing offenders: “The French Reformers, eager to see their country keeping pace with Germany and Switzerland, determined to strike a bold blow against the superstitions of Rome, that should arouse the whole nation. Accordingly placards attacking the mass were in one night posted all over France. Instead of advancing the reform, this zealous but illjudged movement brought ruin, not only upon its propagators, but upon the friends of the reformed faith throughout France… Measures were at once taken for the arrest of every Lutheran in Paris… The victims were put to death with cruel torture, it being specially ordered that the fire should be lowered in order to prolong their agony” (p.226).

And blasphemers will typically be killed in a ceremonial manner that heightens religious feelings of holiness. The event described in the previous quote is known as the Affair of Placards. White describes the religious ceremony that followed three months later: “A solemn oath to extirpate heresy was taken in the great cathedral where, nearly three centuries later, the Goddess of Reason was to be enthroned by a nation that had forgotten the living God. Again the procession formed, and the representatives of France set out to begin the work which they had sworn to do. ‘At short distances scaffolds had been erected, on which certain Protestant Christians were to be burned alive, and it was arranged that the fagots should be lighted at the moment the king approached, and that the procession should halt to witness the execution’” (p.229).

Moving on to the next aspect, an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ will naturally become regarded by others as a special person who has an inside connection to ‘truth’. And an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ will naturally become viewed as a source of ‘truth’: “Faith was transferred from Christ, the true foundation, to the pope of Rome. Instead of trusting in the Son of God for forgiveness of sins and for eternal salvation, the people looked to the pope, and to the priests and prelates to whom he delegated authority. They were taught that the pope was their earthly mediator and that none could approach God except through him; and, further, that he stood in the place of God to them and was therefore to be implicitly obeyed” (p.56).

Instructors of emotional ‘truth’ will naturally come to view themselves as being above the law: The papal leaders would not conform their characters to the great standard of God’s law, but erected a standard to suit themselves, and determined to compel all to conform to this because Rome willed it. The most horrible tragedies were enacted. Corrupt and blasphemous priests and popes were doing the work which Satan appointed them” (p.77).

Instructors of emotional ‘truth’ may break through to the discovery of mysticism: “Tausen went to Cologne, which was then, as now, one of the strongholds of Romanism. Here he soon became disgusted with the mysticisms of the schoolmen” (p.241). “The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers” (p.598).

There is a natural tendency for instructors of emotional ‘truth’ to use ‘truth’ as a tool for furthering personal goals: “Full remission of sins, past, present, and future, and release from all the pains and penalties incurred, were promised to all who would enlist in the pontiff’s wars to extend his temporal dominion, to punish his enemies, or to exterminate those who dared deny his spiritual supremacy. The people were also taught that by the payment of money to the church they might free themselves from sin, and also release the souls of their deceased friends who were confined in the tormenting flames” (p.59). Summarizing, the Pope is claiming to be a revealer of ‘truth’ about personal salvation from God, but he is actually trying to collect money in order to fight wars.

However, emotional ‘truth’ will still be taught to the people in a manner that encourages an attitude of self-denial while emphasizing the importance of the role that is played by instructors of emotional ‘truth’: “The teachings of popes and priests had led men to look upon the character of God, and even of Christ, as stern, gloomy, and forbidding. The Saviour was represented as so far devoid of sympathy with man in his fallen state that the mediation of priests and saints must be invoked” (p.73).

Instructors of emotional ‘truth’ will be tempted to live private lives of hedonism while portraying a public persona of self-denial: “Luther was still a true son of the papal church and had no thought that he would ever be anything else. In the providence of God he was led to visit Rome. He pursued his journey on foot, lodging at the monasteries on the way. At a convent in Italy he was filled with wonder at the wealth, magnificence, and luxury that he witnessed. Endowed with a princely revenue, the monks dwelt in splendid apartments, attired themselves in the richest and most costly robes, and feasted at a sumptuous table. With painful misgivings Luther contrasted this scene with the self-denial and hardship of his own life. His mind was becoming perplexed” (p.124).

This corruption will tend to be most severe with the most respected instructors of emotional ‘truth’ within the official center of emotional ‘truth’. This is described in Luther’s visit to Rome: “Everywhere he looked upon scenes that filled him with astonishment and horror. He saw that iniquity existed among all classes of the clergy. He heard indecent jokes from prelates, and was filled with horror at their awful profanity, even during mass. As he mingled with the monks and citizens he met dissipation, debauchery. Turn where he would, in the place of sanctity he found profanation. ‘No one can imagine,’ he wrote, ‘what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, “If there is a hell, Rome is built over it: it is an abyss whence issues every kind of sin.”’” (p.125).

And corrupt instructors of emotional ‘truth’ will use taboos of holiness to further personal aims: “Just at that time an image of the Virgin at the corner of one of the streets, was mutilated. There was great excitement in the city. Crowds of people flocked to the place, with expressions of mourning and indignation. The king also was deeply moved. Here was an advantage which the monks could turn to good account, and they were quick to improve it. ‘These are the fruits of the doctrines of Berquin,’ they cried. ‘All is about to be overthrown—religion, the laws, the throne’ itself—by this Lutheran conspiracy’” (p.217).

Absolute Truth versus Authority

Absolute truth will become viewed as an alternative to authority: “Wycliffe accepted the Holy Scriptures with implicit faith as the inspired revelation of God’s will, a sufficient rule of faith and practice. He had been educated to regard the Church of Rome as the divine, infallible authority, and to accept with unquestioning reverence the established teachings and customs of a thousand years; but he turned away from all these to listen to God’s holy word. This was the authority which he urged the people to acknowledge. Instead of the church speaking through the pope, he declared the only true authority to be the voice of God speaking through His word” (p.93).

The conflict between authority and absolute truth is actually a struggle for emotional dominance within Mercy thought: “In order for Satan to maintain his sway over men, and establish the authority of the papal usurper, he must keep them in ignorance of the Scriptures. The Bible would exalt God and place finite men in their true position; therefore its sacred truths must be concealed and suppressed. This logic was adopted by the Roman Church. For hundreds of years the circulation of the Bible was prohibited” (p.51). Notice that the purpose of the Bible is to ‘exalted God and place finite men in their true position’. Saying this cognitively, both authority and absolute truth are versions of emotional ‘truth’. In this case authority is giving Mercy status to the pope while absolute truth is giving Mercy status to the Bible.

And replacing authority with absolute truth will be experienced internally as an intense struggle within Mercy thought between competing mental networks: “Yet it was not without a terrible struggle with himself that Luther decided upon a final separation from the church. It was about this time that he wrote: ‘I feel more and more every day how difficult it is to lay aside the scruples which one has imbibed in childhood. Oh, how much pain it has caused me, though I had the Scriptures on my side, to justify it to myself that I should dare to make a stand alone against the pope, and hold him forth as antichrist! What have the tribulations of my heart not been! How many times have I not asked myself with bitterness that question which was so frequent on the lips of the papists: “Art thou alone wise? Can everyone else be mistaken?”’” (p.143).

I remember going through a similar mental struggle. In essence, Perceiver thought is struggling to wake up from being overwhelmed by Mercy emotions. I experienced this as ‘Who am I to think that I can think? How can I believe that mental symmetry is true if everyone else is ignoring it?’

Looking at this further, Luther experienced a deeper internal struggle within Mercy thought than most who followed after him, because Luther had to follow this path by himself while those who followed could look to the example of Luther and others. One can see this in the questions ‘Art thou alone wise? Can everyone else be mistaken?’ Saying this more generally, free will becomes maximized when incompatible core mental networks are struggling within the mind. It appears that God can take major steps in his divine plan of history when individuals have to follow God by struggling with core mental networks without being able to rely upon others. Biblical examples include Noah, Job, Abraham, David, Daniel, and Paul.

Developing Perceiver Thought

Luther also describes the way out of this internal struggle: “‘Prove to me from the Holy Writings that I am in error,’ he said, ‘and I will abjure it.’ ‘The Holy Writings!’ exclaimed one of his tempters, ‘is everything then to be judged by them? Who can understand them till the church has interpreted them?’” (p.114). Notice the two different ways in which the Bible is being approached. The authorities are viewing it as a mystery that must be clarified by the instructors of emotional ‘truth’. Luther, in contrast, is viewing the Bible as meaningful content which can be discussed using Perceiver thought and Teacher words. This does not mean that Martin Luther had a complete understanding of the Bible in Teacher thought. He did not. But he did achieve a major breakthrough in starting to use rational thought to analyze the Bible. Perceiver thought did wake up in his mind to some extent.

In contrast, emotional ‘truth’ ultimately uses Mercy emotions to overwhelm Perceiver thought: ““The Reformer showed that his position was sustained by the Scriptures and firmly declared that he could not renounce the truth. The legate, unable to reply to Luther’s arguments, overwhelmed him with a storm of reproaches, gibes, and flattery, interspersed with quotations from tradition and the sayings of the Fathers, granting the Reformer no opportunity to speak” (p.136).

We saw earlier that emotional ‘truth’ protects holiness by using a special language for religious rituals. In contrast, Perceiver thought will try to spread understanding by translating religious language into normal language: “Tyndale’s preaching excited great interest; many accepted the truth. But the priests were on the alert, and no sooner had he left the field than they by their threats and misrepresentations endeavored to destroy his work. Too often they succeeded. ‘What is to be done?’ he exclaimed. ‘While I am sowing in one place, the enemy ravages the field I have just left. I cannot be everywhere. Oh! if Christians possessed the Holy Scriptures in their own tongue, they could of themselves withstand these sophists. Without the Bible it is impossible to establish the laity in the truth.’” (p.246).

Perceiver thought looks for connections that are independent of Mercy status, while emotional ‘truth’ instinctively rejects anything that is not backed up by sufficient Mercy status: “The same arguments are still urged against all who dare to present, in opposition to established errors, the plain and direct teachings of God’s word. ‘Who are these preachers of new doctrines?’ exclaim those who desire a popular religion. ‘They are unlearned, few in numbers, and of the poorer class. Yet they claim to have the truth, and to be the chosen people of God. They are ignorant and deceived. How greatly superior in numbers and influence is our church! How many great and learned men are among us!’” (p.148).

Self-Denial and Fervor as a Positive Influence

I have described self-denial as an impediment to personal transformation which automatically accompanies emotional ‘truth’. This is true when making the transition from absolute truth to universal truth. However, self-denial plays a major positive role when making the transition from authority to absolute truth: “Christ was lifted up before them as above popes, legates, emperors, and kings. Luther made no reference to his own perilous position. He did not seek to make himself the object of thought or sympathy. In the contemplation of Christ he had lost sight of self. He hid behind the Man of Calvary, seeking only to present Jesus as the sinner’s Redeemer” (p.152).

Fervor also plays a major positive role when making the transition from authority to absolute truth: “His words had been free from pride, passion, and misrepresentation. He had lost sight of himself, and the great men surrounding him, and felt only that he was in the presence of One infinitely superior to popes, prelates, kings, and emperors. Christ had spoken through Luther’s testimony with a power and grandeur that for the time inspired both friends and foes with awe and wonder” (p.162).

This needs to be discussed in more detail. The transition from authority to absolute truth is a struggle in Mercy thought between conflicting sources of ‘truth’. Authority ultimately regard some living person in the present, such as the pope, as the source of ‘truth’. Absolute truth ultimately regards some person from the past, such as Jesus, as the source of ‘truth’. The words of this authority from the past have been written down in a book and this book is being regarded as the source of ‘truth’ in the present.(Thus, Jesus had to return to heaven in the ascension rather than remain on earth in order to allow people to make a mental transition from authority to absolute truth.)

We have seen that a book implicitly represents a general Teacher understanding. We have also seen that instructors of emotional ‘truth’ will naturally become hedonistic tyrants who pretend to follow ‘truth’ while being driven by corrupt Mercy mental networks. And we have seen that these instructors will naturally hide any holy book from the people. This will lead to a stark contrast between what the holy book teaches and how the instructors behave. This contrast will become more obvious when those who follow the holy book do so with an attitude of fervor and self-denial. Saying this simply, Luther will look like a saint while the Catholic priests will look like demons. This will motivate many people to turn from authority to absolute truth.

However, those who promote absolute truth are themselves subject to the same corrupting influences that characterize emotional ‘truth’: “Too often religious leaders who are thus praised and reverenced lose sight of their dependence upon God and are led to trust in themselves. As a result they seek to control the minds and consciences of the people, who are disposed to look to them for guidance instead of looking to the word of God. The work of reform is often retarded because of this spirit indulged by its supporters. From this danger, God would guard the cause of the Reformation. He desired that work to receive, not the impress of man, but that of God. The eyes of men had been turned to Luther as the expounder of the truth; he was removed that all eyes might be directed to the eternal Author of truth” (p.170). White is observing that Luther was protected from some of the corrupting influences of being an instructor of absolute truth by being kept out of the public eye away from the acclaim of followers.

Questioning Absolute Truth Without an Alternative

We have looked at the transition from authority to absolute truth. It is not possible to take the next step from absolute truth to universal truth if a Teacher understanding is lacking. For instance, Thomas Munzer “declared that the Reformers, in substituting the authority of Scripture for that of the pope, were only establishing a different form of popery. He himself, he claimed, had been divinely commissioned to introduce the true reform. ‘He who possesses this spirit,’ said Munzer, ‘possesses the true faith, although he should never see the Scriptures in his life.’ The fanatical teachers gave themselves up to be governed by impressions, regarding every thought and impulse as the voice of God; consequently they went to great extremes. Some even burned their Bibles, exclaiming: ‘The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.’ Munzer’s teaching appealed to men’s desire for the marvelous, while it gratified their pride by virtually placing human ideas and opinions above the word of God” (p.191).

Müntzer was technically correct (and Müntzer is the technically correct spelling) in saying that ‘substituting the authority of Scripture for that of the pope’ establishes ‘a different form of popery’, because both absolute truth and authority are forms of emotional ‘truth’ that are based in Mercy status. But Munzer replaced absolute truth with—nothing. Making a transition from absolute truth to universal truth requires the presence of a general theory in Teacher thought, because one is mentally transferring allegiance from Mercy mental networks of emotional status to the Teacher mental network of a concept of God. If one replaces any form of truth with nothing, then this will lead either to dreams and revelations, or to some juxtaposition of mysticism and rebellion.

Müntzer was also technically correct in asserting that ‘the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life’. However, it is imperative to recognize the relationship between ‘the letter’ and ‘the spirit’. I have mentioned several times that Platonic forms of the spirit emerge as an indirect result of rational Teacher understanding. What this means in practice is that walking in the spirit is an intuitive version of following rational Teacher understanding.

One can see what this means by looking at someone who develops a technical skill, such as a musician. The beginning musician often thinks that performing music means ‘following the spirit’, but this will be interpreted as letting go of restraints in order to allow the mind to express itself freely. The result is typically semi-musical trash, accompanied by an attitude of great self-importance: ‘I am a composer. I would like to sing for you one of my original compositions’. Moving on, the student replaces this unskilled expression with technical skills by practicing scales, acquiring technique, and taking music lessons. But the student musician lacks heart. The notes may be there but feeling is not. Saying this another way, the student follows the letter and ‘the letter killeth’. Going further, the expert replaces technical skill with intuitive expertise. The expert lets go emotionally in order to express in an intuitive manner all of the skills that were acquired through study. This illustrates how walking in the spirit is an intuitive version of following rational Teacher understanding. Müntzer was confusing the beginner with the expert.

The Persecuted church

So far, we have looked at the development of absolute truth within an environment of authority. Saying this another way, a Protestant church has emerged which protests against the authority—and corruption—of the Catholic Church by believing in the absolute truth of the Bible. Saying this still another way, a Bible-believing church has grown under persecution. This external pressure is significant because it forces a person to undergo some personal transformation.

Saying this cognitively, lasting personal transformation requires a new set of emotions backed up by sufficient Perceiver confidence. Perceiver confidence grows as one holds on to facts in the midst of emotional pressure. In a persecuted church, this emotional pressure is being provided externally by the oppression of authority. Saying this more simply, I want to change because of how terrible they are and how horribly they are treating me, and I will remain changed because I am trying to be different than them in the midst of emotional pressure.

For instance, one can see this in White’s description of the Waldensians: “By patient, untiring labor, sometimes in the deep, dark caverns of the earth, by the light of torches, the Sacred Scriptures were written out, verse by verse, chapter by chapter. Thus the work went on, the revealed will of God shining out like pure gold; how much brighter, clearer, and more powerful because of the trials undergone for its sake only those could realize who were engaged in the work. Angels from heaven surrounded these faithful workers” (p.69). Notice how ‘the Sacred Scriptures’ are becoming ‘brighter, clear, and more powerful because of the trials undergone for its sake’. This is reflected in the Waldensian motto Lux lucet in tenebris, which means ‘light glows in the darkness’.

This creates a mindset that will naturally view the Bible as a source of truth that applies to personal identity. White compares this to mining precious metals: “As the mine has rich veins of gold and silver hidden beneath the surface, so that all must dig who would discover its precious stores, so the Holy Scriptures have treasures of truth that are revealed only to the earnest, humble, prayerful seeker. God designed the Bible to be a lessonbook to all mankind, in childhood, youth, and manhood, and to be studied through all time” (p.69).

Notice how two different things are happening: First, persecution is creating the mental climate that is needed to benefit from studying the Bible. Second, studying the Bible is then replacing the negative motivation of persecution with the positive motivation of learning about God in Teacher thought and becoming transformed in Mercy thought.

Absolute truth will be viewed as a positive emotional alternative to the negative emotions being generated by authority. White contrasts the emotional bonds of the authority of Rome with the positive emotional message of the Waldensian missionaries: “Conscientious souls were bound by the doctrines of Rome. Thousands abandoned friends and kindred, and spent their lives in convent cells. By oft-repeated fasts and cruel scourgings, by midnight vigils, by prostration for weary hours upon the cold, damp stones of their dreary abode, by long pilgrimages, by humiliating penance and fearful torture, thousands vainly sought to obtain peace of conscience. Oppressed with a sense of sin, and haunted with the fear of God’s avenging wrath, many suffered on, until exhausted nature gave way, and without one ray of light or hope they sank into the tomb. The Waldenses longed to break to these starving souls the bread of life, to open to them the messages of peace in the promises of God, and to point them to Christ as their only hope of salvation. The doctrine that good works can atone for the transgression of God’Dos law they held to be based upon falsehood” (p.73). Notice that the general context is one of intense personal misery generated by submission to authority. Within this emotional context, absolute truth in Perceiver thought is then being taught as an alternative to Server actions.

Absolute Truth without Persecution

But what happens if this persecution and abnegation is no longer present? What happens when Bible believing Christians are no longer persecuted by the Catholic Church? This will naturally lead to a doctrine of antinomianism. White describes this happening in 18^th century England. In the words of White: “The spiritual declension which had been manifest in England just before the time of Wesley was in great degree the result of antinomian teaching. Many affirmed that Christ had abolished the moral law and that Christians are therefore under no obligation to observe it; that a believer is freed from the ‘bondage of good works.’” (p.261).

Antinomianism interprets Luther’s doctrine that one is saved by faith alone as saying that Server actions are irrelevant. Wikipedia explains that “Antinomianism has been a point of doctrinal contention in the history of Christianity, especially in Protestantism, given the Protestant belief in justification through faith alone versus justification on the basis of merit or good works or works of mercy. Most Protestants consider themselves saved without having to keep the commandments of the Mosaic law as a whole; that is, their salvation does not depend upon keeping the Mosaic law.”

Luther himself strongly rejected the doctrine of antinomianism. In fact, it was he who first used this term. In the words of Wikipedia, the term “‘antinomianism’ was coined by Martin Luther during the Reformation, to criticize extreme interpretations of the new Lutheran soteriology. The Lutheran Church benefited from early antinomian controversies by becoming more precise in distinguishing between Law and Gospel and justification and sanctification… In his ‘Introduction to Romans,’ Luther stated that saving faith is, ‘a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly.’”

However, Luther’s rejection of antinomianism happened within the general context of being persecuted by Catholic authority. Luther found it instinctively obvious that ‘faith should work’ because he acquired his faith in an environment of persecution which ensured that faith would work. However, this environment of persecution had lost most of its intensity in 18^th century England. For instance, the Toleration Act of 1689 gave freedom of worship to “Protestants who dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists, Congregationalists or English Presbyterians, but not to Roman Catholics. Nonconformists were allowed their own places of worship and their own schoolteachers, so long as they accepted certain oaths of allegiance.”

Absolute truth regards some book as a holy book that is different than normal books. If one studies such a book, this will naturally lead to a concept of God and salvation which also has nothing to do with normal life. The pressure of persecution will force a person to take these special words and apply them to personal identity, but if the pressure of persecution is insufficient, then ‘salvation by faith alone’ will turn into an abstract doctrine that has nothing to do with normal life and normal behavior.

White describes this change in mindset from truth learned under persecution to abstract doctrine: “Again, as in apostolic days, persecution turned out to the furtherance of the gospel. In a loathsome dungeon crowded with profligates and felons, John Bunyan breathed the very atmosphere of heaven; and there he wrote his wonderful allegory of the pilgrim’s journey from the land of destruction to the celestial city… A hundred years later, in a day of great spiritual darkness, Whitefield and the Wesleys appeared as light bearers for God. Under the rule of the established church the people of England had lapsed into a state of religious declension hardly to be distinguished from heathenism. Natural religion was the favorite study of the clergy, and included most of their theology. The higher classes sneered at piety, and prided themselves on being above what they called its fanaticism. The lower classes were grossly ignorant and abandoned to vice, while the church had no courage or faith any longer to support the downfallen cause of truth” (p.253). Notice how educated people are focusing upon natural religion and theology in Teacher thought while sneering at Mercy emotions of piety and fanaticism. Meanwhile, childish Mercy mental networks are expressing themselves unchecked because Perceiver thought lacks the confidence to apply doctrinal truth to this childish behavior.

This cognitive disconnect between abstract Teacher theories about God based in a special book and personal behavior guided by childish Mercy mental networks was intellectually expressed by the doctrine of antinomianism. Continuing with White’s description of antinomian teaching: “Many affirmed that Christ had abolished the moral law and that Christians are therefore under no obligation to observe it; that a believer is freed from the ‘bondage of good works.’ Others, though admitting the perpetuity of the law, declared that it was unnecessary for ministers to exhort the people to obedience of its precepts, since those whom God had elected to salvation would, ‘by the irresistible impulse of divine grace, be led to the practice of piety and virtue,’ while those who were doomed to eternal reprobation ‘did not have power to obey the divine law’” (p.261).

The idea that ‘faith will naturally lead to works’ is being taught as a verbal theory in Teacher thought. This used to be valid because it was being made true by the Mercy pressure of believing under persecution. But it cannot become true if it is accompanied by the theory that ‘a believer is free from the bondage of good works’ reinforced by an attitude of intellectual snobbery which prevents Teacher theories from expressing themselves through personal Mercy feelings.

Instead, this led in some cases to a verbal concept of God and salvation in Teacher thought that was completely divorced from personal identity in Mercy thought. Continuing with White, “Others, also holding that ‘the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the divine favor,’ arrived at the still more hideous conclusion that ‘the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor to be considered as instances of their violation of the divine law, and that, consequently, they have no occasion either to confess their sins or to break them off by repentance.’ Therefore, they declared that even one of the vilest of sins, ‘considered universally an enormous violation of the divine law, is not a sin in the sight of God,’ if committed by one of the elect, ‘because it is one of the essential and distinctive characteristics of the elect, that they cannot do anything that is either displeasing to God or prohibited by the law’” (p.261). In other words, the attitude that Teacher thought has nothing to do with personal behavior in Mercy thought is now being taught as a general Teacher theory, and this general Teacher theory is creating a concept of God.

Absolute Truth and The Enlightenment

Looking at this more generally, European thought in 18^th century was known as the Age of Enlightenment. Quoting from Wikipedia, “The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state. In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.”

In other words, antinomianism did not emerge in an intellectual vacuum. Instead, the doctrine that God in Teacher thought is independent of human behavior in Mercy thought was formulated within an Age of Enlightenment, which was discovering an understanding of natural law in Teacher thought that was independent of human behavior in Mercy thought. For instance, the law of gravity does not depend upon who I am or how I feel.

Luther and other Protestants turned to the absolute truth of the Bible partially as a reaction to the corruption of the Catholic Church. Catholic leaders were claiming to represent God while behaving in a manner that imposed authority on fellow humans while rejecting the authority of God. Similarly, Wesley and Methodism emerged partially as a reaction to the corruption of the Anglican church. Clergymen were claiming that God is sovereign over human behavior while in practice showing that they regarded human behavior as sovereign over any concept of God. Using cognitive language, they were saying that the Teacher mental network of a concept of God will rule Mercy mental networks of personal identity ‘by the irresistible impulse of divine grace’ while living in an environment where a concept of God in Teacher thought was impotent to change childish Mercy mental networks.

This deep hypocrisy directed the attention of Wesley and others to Mercy thought: “Wesley and his associates were led to see that true religion is seated in the heart, and that God’s law extends to the thoughts as well as to the words and actions. Convinced of the necessity of holiness of heart, as well as correctness of outward deportment, they set out in earnest upon a new life. By the most diligent and prayerful efforts they endeavored to subdue the evils of the natural heart. They lived a life of self-denial, charity, and humiliation, observing with great rigor and exactness every measure which they thought could be helpful to them in obtaining what they most desired—that holiness which could secure the favor of God” (p.254). Notice that the focus is still upon evil in Mercy thought. But the source of this evil is now no longer the external authority and power of the Catholic Church, but rather the internal authority and power of childish Mercy mental networks.

Wesley and his fellows recognized the problem but initially did not have the solution. Continuing with White, “They did not obtain the object which they sought. In vain were their endeavors to free themselves from the condemnation of sin or to break its power. It was the same struggle which Luther had experienced in his cell at Erfurt. It was the same question which had tortured his soul—‘How should man be just before God?’” (p.254).

John and Charles Wesley found the answer when traveling on a ship to America. White explains: “On board the ship was a company of Moravians. Violent storms were encountered on the passage, and John Wesley, brought face to face with death, felt that he had not the assurance of peace with God. The Germans, on the contrary, manifested a calmness and trust to which he was a stranger. ‘I had long before,’ he says, ‘observed the great seriousness of their behavior. Of their humility they had given a continual proof, by performing those servile offices for the other passengers which none of the English would undertake’… In the midst of the psalm wherewith their service began, the sea broke over, split the mainsail in pieces, covered the ship, and poured in between the decks as if the great deep had already swallowed us up. A terrible screaming began among the English. The Germans calmly sang on. I asked one of them afterwards, ‘Were you not afraid?’ He answered, ‘I thank God, no’” (p.255). Wesley initially admired the religious self-denial of the Moravians. But he then experienced something deeper, which was their sense of peace in the midst of physical danger.

Looking at this cognitively, Wesley discovered on his trip to America that the laws of nature do have an impact upon personal identity. If the sea breaks over the ship and splits the main sail into pieces, then the implacable laws of nature will probably cause people to die. But in the midst of this he noticed the peace of the Moravians, guided by their concept of God. Peace is an expression of Teacher thought. Peace is the feeling that I am being guided by a Teacher theory which cannot be threatened. The Moravians had a concept of God in Teacher thought that was not threatened by the physical destruction being wreaked by the storm.

A God who Forgives my Sins

When Wesley arrived in America he spent some time with the Moravians and noticed another characteristic of a general Teacher theory, which is simplicity: “Of one of their religious services, in striking contrast to the lifeless formalism of the Church of England, he wrote: ‘The great simplicity as well as solemnity of the whole almost made me forget the seventeen hundred years between, and imagine myself in one of those assemblies where form and state were not; but Paul, the tentmaker, or Peter, the fisherman, presided; yet with the demonstration of the Spirit and of power’” (p.255). Notice also the Teacher characteristic of generality: Wesley is being emotionally moved beyond the specific situation to a feeling of timelessness that transcends specific Mercy experiences. Finally, notice that a sense of the Holy Spirit is emerging indirectly as an expression of Teacher thought.

Wesley then experienced ‘salvation by faith’ as a general Teacher theory that applies to personal identity: “On his return to England, Wesley, under the instruction of a Moravian preacher, arrived at a clearer understanding of Bible faith. He was convinced that he must renounce all dependence upon his own works for salvation and must trust wholly to ‘the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.’ At a meeting of the Moravian society in London a statement was read from Luther, describing the change which the Spirit of God works in the heart of the believer. As Wesley listened, faith was kindled in his soul. ‘I felt my heart strangely warmed,’ he says. ‘I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation: and an assurance was given me, that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death’” (p.256). Wesley is explicitly acquiring a general Teacher theory because he ‘arrived at a clearer understanding of Bible faith’ ‘under the instruction of a Moravian preacher’. This focus upon verbal Teacher thought can also be seen in ‘the statement read from Luther’. This Teacher understanding had an indirect impact upon Mercy thought because Wesley ‘felt my heart strangely warmed’. This was a strange feeling because Mercy thought was encountering unexpected emotions being generated by Teacher understanding. This strange feeling was then extended to personal identity: ‘he had taken away my sins, even mine’.

Wesley achieved two major breakthroughs: First, he recognized that the fundamental problem is childish identity in Mercy thought. Second, he recognized that the solution can be found through a personal encounter with a concept of God in Teacher thought.

Wesley formalized these breakthroughs with the doctrine that law leads to grace: “To those who urged that ‘the preaching of the gospel answers all the ends of the law,’ Wesley replied: ‘This we utterly deny. It does not answer the very first end of the law, namely, the convincing men of sin, the awakening those who are still asleep on the brink of hell.’ The apostle Paul declares that ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin;’ ‘and not until man is convicted of sin, will he truly feel his need of the atoning blood of Christ. . . . “They that be whole,” as our Lord Himself observes, “need not a physician, but they that are sick.”’ It is absurd, therefore, to offer a physician to them that are whole, or that at least imagine themselves so to be. You are first to convince them that they are sick; otherwise they will not thank you for your labor. It is equally absurd to offer Christ to them whose heart is whole, having never yet been broken” (p.264).

Wesley is explicitly recognizing the principle that was being implicitly followed by Luther. Luther preached salvation by faith alone within the implicit context of the evil Catholic church. Wesley is preaching salvation by faith alone within the explicit context of a sense of personal evil.

However, this is still happening within a mindset of emotional ‘truth’. Wesley’s attitude of religious self-denial continued unchanged: “He continued his strict and self-denying life, not now as the ground, but the result of faith; not the root, but the fruit of holiness. The grace of God in Christ is the foundation of the Christian’s hope, and that grace will be manifested in obedience. Wesley’s life was devoted to the preaching of the great truths which he had received—justification through faith in the atoning blood of Christ, and the renewing power of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, bringing forth fruit in a life conformed to the example of Christ” (p.256).

And White finishes her chapter on Wesley by hoping, “Would that the faith and humility, the untiring zeal, self-sacrifice, and devotion of this servant of Christ might be reflected in the churches of today!” Notice her emphasis upon self-denial and fervor.

Summarizing, Wesley is teaching the following cognitive steps: 1) One recognizes that personal identity in Mercy thought is inadequate and that no Server actions can solve this problem. 2) One uses words to construct a concept of a God of grace and forgiveness in Teacher thought. 3) One submits personal identity in Mercy thought to this concept of God in Teacher thought. 4) This will cause a concept of the Holy Spirit to be birthed within Mercy thought. 5) This Mercy concept of God’s perfection will provide the motivation to follow God in self-denial.

Summarizing So Far

At the beginning of this essay, I described five substages that lead from Server-controlled habit to Teacher-controlled righteousness. The first three steps were 1) Replace Server habit with Perceiver belief. 2) Use Perceiver facts to build a general understanding in Teacher thought. 3) Let go emotionally of childish Mercy mental networks of culture and hedonism by holding to a Teacher mental network of general understanding.

Luther taught the first step with his doctrine of salvation by faith alone. The second step happened during the age of Enlightenment. This second step was performed primarily by science and not by theology. Many scientists during this period did believe in God but not all the science of that time was religiously motivated. Wesley taught the third step. But how fully did Wesley teach this third step of letting go of Mercy identity in order to hold on to a concept of God in Teacher thought? The fourth and fifth steps involved righteousness. Therefore, one can answer this question by examining Wesley’s concept of righteousness.

White describes Wesley’s concept of law, grace, and righteousness: “Wesley declared the perfect harmony of the law and the gospel. ‘There is, therefore, the closest connection that can be conceived, between the law and the gospel. On the one hand, the law continually makes way for, and points us to, the gospel; on the other, the gospel continually leads us to a more exact fulfilling of the law. The law, for instance, requires us to love God, to love our neighbor, to be meek, humble, or holy. We feel that we are not sufficient for these things; yea, that ‘with man this is impossible;’ but we see a promise of God to give us that love, and to make us humble, meek, and holy: we lay hold of this gospel, of these glad tidings; it is done unto us according to our faith; and ‘the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us,’ through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (p.263).

We have already discussed the path from law to grace. Law leads to the feeling in Mercy thought that ‘I am a sinner’. This is solved by creating a concept of a God of grace in Teacher thought who rules over Mercy thought by forgiving sin. Going further, Wesley uses the word ‘righteousness’ to describe the path back from grace to law, and he portrays this as being guided by God to do things that are humanly impossible. This accurately describes what it feels like emotionally to be driven by righteousness. But what content does Wesley associate with righteousness? The content of self-denial combined with fervor: ‘The law, for instance, requires us to love God, to love our neighbor, to be meek, humble, or holy’.

I mentioned earlier that absolute truth can start a person on the path of personal transformation. We see here more clearly what this means. Wesley is starting with the assumption that ‘I am a sinner and God is holy’, creating the emotional contrast between the source of ‘truth’ and me which is required to believe in emotional ‘truth’. This is then combined with the Teacher concept of a God who forgives sin. I may be a worm and God may be holy but God has forgiven me. This feeling of forgiveness then creates a motivation to deny self and follow God with fervor.

There is fundamental truth to this mindset. Everyone who grows up in a physical body becomes motivated by childish Mercy mental networks which are fatally flawed. These childish Mercy mental networks need to be transformed by a concept of God in Teacher thought. And the first step in that transformation is to believe that God in Teacher thought will respond with forgiveness if personal identity in Mercy thought submits to Teacher thought.

Explaining justification and sanctification in more detail requires an understanding of technical thought, and we have avoided looking at technical thought in detail in this essay. (This topic is covered in previous essays.) Stated most simply, one could compare becoming a Christian to enrolling in a God’s school of character development. Jesus set up this school by dying on the cross. God in Teacher thought views unregenerate personal identity in Mercy thoughts as chaotic, ignorant, and savage. Enrolling in God’s school changes one’s official status from ignorant child to student. Justification describes this changing of official status, because God is declaring a person as righteous. A student in the school then becomes righteous by taking and passing the classes of the school. This process of becoming righteous is known as sanctification.

One can use this analogy of enrolling in a school to analyze Wesley’s concept of law leading to grace. In essence, Wesley is saying that one of the purposes of education is to make those who are not enrolled in school feel really dumb. A person who feels sufficiently stupid will want to enroll in the school, and they will be so grateful at acquiring the official status of being a student that they will willingly do all the classes. This does happen and it does work—to some extent. But this is not the only motivation. There is also the joy of learning. Teacher thought can find pleasure in gaining understanding. Instructors love it when the light goes on in the mind of a student and the student has an ‘aha’ moment. There are also the benefits of learning. If the student gains a Teacher understanding of ‘how things work’, then this understanding can guide behavior in a righteous manner, helping the student to avoid problems and find success.

A student may enter school guided primarily by the desire to stop being an idiot, but eventually this negative motivation of ‘being justified from sin’ should be replaced by the positive emotion of ‘following God in righteousness’. But a student can only make this transition mentally if the school system allows students to make such a transition. If a school system has emphasized rote learning for generations, then changing the school system to emphasize righteousness will involve a major transformation. Curriculum will have to be revamped. Textbooks will have to be rewritten. Teachers will have to be retrained.

Cleansing the Heavenly Sanctuary

And that brings us to White’s concept of Jesus ‘cleansing the sanctuary in heaven’. As I mentioned before, the word translated ‘cleansing’ in Daniel 8:14 actually means ‘to make righteous’ in Hebrew. Cleansing is motivated by Mercy thought, because one is eliminating what Mercy thought regards as ‘dirt’. Righteousness, in contrast, is motivated by Teacher thought, because is using an understanding in Teacher thought to organize thought and behavior.

Our analysis of Protestant church history puts White’s doctrine of the return of Jesus into a historical and cognitive framework. Jesus is not just deciding to return at some arbitrary date determined several centuries earlier. That is Server-based, clock-based, old covenant thinking. Instead, Jesus is deciding to return when the necessary cognitive steps have been taken. One of the characteristics of a Teacher-based school curriculum is that all classes have prerequisites. For instance, one must study algebra before taking precalculus, and precalculus is a prerequisite for taking calculus. That is because each class builds upon previous classes. Similarly, human society had to take many prerequisites before it became possible for Jesus to ‘cleanse the heavenly temple’. And we have taken a number of pages to examine the immediate prerequisites to show how God was laying the foundation for Jesus to cleanse the temple.

Galatians 4:3-4 describes this kind of transition: “So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son...” The word so means ‘in this way, thus’ and tells us that a general pattern is being described. The word children means ‘an infant, a simple-minded or immature person’. Elemental means ‘fundamentals, like with the basic components of a philosophy, structure, etc.’ And world is the word kosmos, which means ‘the world, universe’. Finally, bondage means ‘to enslave, bring under subjection’. Putting this together, Paul is describing minds that are ruled by childish Mercy mental networks acquired from growing up in a physical body within the physical world.

This initial period of childish world-based thought came to an end ‘when the fullness of time came’. The word time is chronos, which refers to clock time. But God is not just sitting around waiting for the calendar to reach some specific date. Instead, the fullness of the time is coming. Fullness means ‘sum total, fullness’ and comes from a root that ‘expresses totality and implies full quantity’. This implies that all the prerequisites have been met. When the fullness of time came, ‘then God sent forth His Son’. The word send forth combines ‘out from’ with ‘commission, send forth’. In other words, God in Teacher thought is commissioning Jesus.

Obviously, Paul is talking about Jesus being physically born on earth, but he is also describing a general pattern, because he begins these two verses by saying ‘in this way, thus’. The various components of this pattern sound like White’s idea of Jesus cleansing the temple at a specific time in history. But notice how this is being described. The backdrop is a childish mindset of bondage acquired from the physical environment. The transition is happening in the fullness of time. And Jesus is being ‘commissioned out from’ God the Father.

The Absolute Truth of Ellen White

We have taken several pages to work our way up to the time of Ellen White. We have seen that God has been following a plan of leading people and society to greater mental wholeness. We have also seen that this plan was not a straight line. Instead each step involved going too far in some direction in order to ensure that the step was taken. And each step emerges naturally as a correction to the previous step. White said something similar about Protestant church history: “God permitted great light to shine upon the minds of these chosen men, revealing to them many of the errors of Rome; but they did not receive all the light that was to be given to the world. Through these, His servants, God was leading the people out of the darkness of Romanism; but there were many and great obstacles for them to meet, and He led them on, step by step, as they could bear it. They were not prepared to receive all the light at once. Like the full glory of the noontide sun to those who have long dwelt in darkness, it would, if presented, have caused them to turn away. Therefore He revealed it to the leaders little by little, as it could be received by the people. From century to century, other faithful workers were to follow, to lead the people on still further in the path of reform” (p.103).

Cognitive theory predicts that the next stage will be a transition from Mercy-guided thought to Teacher-guided thought. Galatians 4:3-4 talks about this kind of transition. And a cognitive analysis of Protestant church history as described by Ellen White shows that the Protestant church has taken the prerequisite steps that are required to make such a transition.

We will now turn our attention to the thinking promoted by Ellen White herself. What type of thinking does she use? In brief, we will see that White emphasized the preeminence of absolute truth. On the one hand, she extended Wesley’s emphasis upon Teacher thought. But on the other hand, she still held on to the underlying foundation of emotional ‘truth’.

Looking at this in more detail, White says that absolute truth will protect people from error: “The people of God are directed to the Scriptures as their safeguard against the influence of false teachers and the delusive power of spirits of darkness. Satan employs every possible device to prevent men from obtaining a knowledge of the Bible; for its plain utterances reveal his deceptions” (p.593).

Absolute truth needs to be combined with an attitude of self-denial: “In many of the revivals which have occurred during the last half century, the same influences have been at work, to a greater or less degree, that will be manifest in the more extensive movements of the future. There is an emotional excitement, a mingling of the true with the false, that is well adapted to mislead. Yet none need be deceived. In the light of God’s word it is not difficult to determine the nature of these movements. Wherever men neglect the testimony of the Bible, turning away from those plain, soul-testing truths which require self-denial and renunciation of the world, there we may be sure that God’s blessing is not bestowed” (p.464).

One should focus with fervor upon studying the Bible. Anything that distracts from this focus upon absolute truth should be rejected as a temptation of Satan: “Satan invents unnumbered schemes to occupy our minds, that they may not dwell upon the very work with which we ought to be best acquainted. The archdeceiver hates the great truths that bring to view an atoning sacrifice and an all-powerful mediator. He knows that with him everything depends on his diverting minds from Jesus and His truth. Those who would share the benefits of the Saviour’s mediation should permit nothing to interfere with their duty to perfect holiness in the fear of God. The precious hours, instead of being given to pleasure, to display, or to gain seeking, should be devoted to an earnest, prayerful study of the word of truth” (p.488).

The final struggle of human history will be a conflict between authority and absolute truth: “None but those who have fortified the mind with the truths of the Bible will stand through the last great conflict. To every soul will come the searching test: Shall I obey God rather than men? The decisive hour is even now at hand. Are our feet planted on the rock of God’s immutable word?” (p.593).

Absolute truth is more important than physical evidence from the senses: “Only those who have been diligent students of the Scriptures and who have received the love of the truth will be shielded from the powerful delusion that takes the world captive. By the Bible testimony these will detect the deceiver in his disguise. To all the testing time will come. By the sifting of temptation the genuine Christian will be revealed. Are the people of God now so firmly established upon His word that they would not yield to the evidence of their senses? Would they, in such a crisis, cling to the Bible and the Bible only?” (p.625). Notice that last phrase: “cling to the Bible and the Bible only”.

Using too much rational thought can lead to doubt in the Bible: “God designed that man’s intellectual powers should be held as a gift from his Maker and should be employed in the service of truth and righteousness; but when pride and ambition are cherished, and men exalt their own theories above the word of God, then intelligence can accomplish greater harm than ignorance” (p.573).

Modern rational thought is causing people to doubt the absolute truths of the Bible. They are belittling its emotional significance and they are also using rational thought to explain away its content: “God’s holy word, which has been handed down to us at such a cost of suffering and blood, is but little valued. The Bible is within the reach of all, but there are few who really accept it as the guide of life. Infidelity prevails to an alarming extent, not in the world merely, but in the church. Many have come to deny doctrines which are the very pillars of the Christian faith. The great facts of creation as presented by the inspired writers, the fall of man, the atonement, and the perpetuity of the law of God, are practically rejected, either wholly or in part, by a large share of the professedly Christian world. Thousands who pride themselves upon their wisdom and independence regard it as an evidence of weakness to place implicit confidence in the Bible; they think it a proof of superior talent and learning to cavil at the Scriptures and to spiritualize and explain away their most important truths. Many ministers are teaching their people, and many professors and teachers are instructing their students, that the law of God has been changed or abrogated; and those who regard its requirements as still valid, to be literally obeyed, are thought to be deserving only of ridicule or contempt” (p.583).

Summarizing these quotes, White believes that absolute truth should be used to test Perceiver facts. One should study the Bible with fervor accompanied by an attitude of self-denial. The final struggle of history will be between absolute truth and authority. Absolute truth should be followed even if it contradicts Perceiver facts from the physical world. Some rational thought is good, but using too much rational thought will cause absolute truth to fall into doubt. The modern spread of rational thought is causing people to lose emotional respect for absolute truth and to replace belief in the Bible with scientific skepticism.

White’s focus upon only the Bible and nothing else can be seen in the following quote: “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support” (p.596). Notice that the Bible is not being regarded as more accurate than other descriptions of truth. Instead, it is being regarded as the only source of absolute truth which overrules all other apparent sources of truth.

Compare this with what the angel says in Revelation 10. Verse 6 says that he “swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it”. The angel is not swearing by the Bible. Instead the angel is swearing by all of creation. However, verse 7 explains that this will be “as He preached to His servants the prophets”. The starting point will be universal truth discovered from studying God’s creation, but the conclusions will be consistent with the Bible. The angel then finishes in verse 11 by telling John that “You must prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and tongues and kings”. Thus, even if the content of absolute truth is correct, it still needs to be translated into the language of a general understanding—an open little book—and preached again.

Part of the problem is that White is equating two forms of thinking in the previous quote which are not the same. Looking at this in more detail, emotional ‘truth’ is based in Mercy mental networks of personal status. What matters is who says the ‘truth’. Absolute truth is ultimately a version of emotional ‘truth’. Universal truth is based in Perceiver repetition. What matters is what one observes. Universal truth is discovered and not created, because one learns about universal truth by observing how things work. For instance, the law of gravity is true not because it is written in a textbook, but rather because it accurately describes how objects behave when they fall. The law of gravity is an example of universal truth because it describes connections that are universally true.

If the Bible is viewed as absolute truth, then this means that the words of the Bible override all other possible sources of truth. This summarizes what White said in the previous quote. If the Bible is viewed as universal truth, this means that the words of the Bible are an accurate description of ‘how things work’. Science is a study of ‘how the natural world works’. The Bible does not focus upon describing how the natural world works. But the Bible does appear to be a an accurate description of ‘how the mind works’.

In the light of this distinction, notice the forms of thinking that are being lumped together by White: ‘the opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils... the voice of the majority’. ‘The opinions of learned men’ is based in Mercy mental networks of personal status. ‘Ecclesiastical councils’ increase this Mercy status by combining the opinions of many respected experts. Similarly, ‘the voice of the majority’ is based in Mercy mental networks of culture, which encapsulates the personal opinions of many people. In contrast, ‘the deductions of science’ are not based in Mercy status. Personal status can and does twist the thinking of scientists, but the deductions of science are ultimately based in universal truth that has been discovered by observing the universe.

Saying this another way, White is correct in stating that absolute truth should take precedence over authority, because God has been leading society from authority to absolute truth. But I suggest that White is incorrect in stating that absolute truth should take precedence over universal truth, because the next step of God’s plan is to replace absolute truth with universal truth, as described in Revelation 10.

I have found that modern deconstructionism makes a similar error. Deconstructionism basically says there is no such thing as truth. Instead, it believes that all apparent truth is merely ‘truth’ based in personal opinion, and it concludes those who have emotional status should stop imposing their ‘truth’ upon others. I have read several books on deconstructionism and in all cases the authors lack scientific training. A person who is not trained to think scientifically will mistakenly view science as a form of ‘truth’ that is being spoken by important scientists. And many scientists now view science mistakenly as a description of how a group of scientists behave.

Jumping from Specific to Universal

Looking at this from a different perspective, any statement of truth by its very nature must jump from specific to general. Humans are finite creatures with limited experiences. Truth is a universal statement. If something is true, it applies to me, to you, to her, and to them, as well as over there and back then.

Universal truth tries to test universal statements by examining me, you, her, them, over there, and back then. If the same fact can be observed in all of these situations, then one has probably discovered a universal truth. This is known as inductive reasoning. In the words of Wikipedia, “Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion (in contrast to deductive reasoning). While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.” As was mentioned at the beginning of this essay, inductive reasoning is never totally certain, but it can be come more certain by examining more situations. Saying this another way, universal truth tries to minimize the jump from specific to general by looking at many different specific situations before taking the leap to making a general statement.

Absolute truth, in contrast, jumps directly from specific to general. It leaps from the words of a specific book to universal pronouncement with total certainty based upon the emotional status given to this book. This leaping from specific to general can be seen in White’s statement that the Bible overrules all other evidence. In other words, the Mercy mental network backing up the Bible is being regarded as ‘right’ while all other sources of ‘truth’ in Mercy thought are being regarded as ‘wrong’. The possibility of inductive thought based in Perceiver repetition will not be considered, because Perceiver thought is being overwhelmed by emotional sources of ‘truth’ in Mercy thought.

Absolute truth is not wrong. Instead, it is the normal starting point for learning. Absolute truth makes it possible for one generation to pass its knowledge on to the next generation. Most education starts with some form of absolute truth: ‘Here is your textbook. What the textbook says is true.’ But how does one eliminate errors? How does one respond when a textbook or holy book is questioned? Absolute truth will point to the textbook and pronounce in a confident tone that ‘If there is any discrepancy between what this book says and what others say, then this book is right and everything else is wrong’. Universal truth, in contrast, will tell the questioning student: ‘Check it out for yourself. See if this book is accurate. Do not take my word for it. Examine the evidence for yourself.’ White is taking the attitude of absolute truth: ‘If there is any discrepancy, then the Bible is right. Do not compare it with other books because all other sources are ultimately wrong. Do not check it out for yourself because you cannot trust your senses. Study the Bible. Do not waste your time studying anything else.’

This illustrates that absolute truth is a transitional form of thought. It goes beyond authority because it uses Mercy status to exalt some book rather than some person or experience. But it stays away from universal truth because it uses the words of some specific book to come up with general Teacher theories.

Saying this more generally, absolute truth will naturally approach truth from an adversarial perspective: This book is ‘right’; other books are ‘wrong’. This book teaches ‘truth’. Other books teach ‘error’. In each case there is a struggle between the Bible and some other source. It is always the Bible versus something else.

This adversarial perspective will become dominant if absolute truth uses absolute truth to defend itself from questioning. This adversarial perspective will not be apparent when one is initially teaching absolute truth. Instead, it will become a dominant feature if one responds to questioning by maintaining an attitude of absolute truth.

Summarizing, White is explicitly using an adversarial method to jump from a specific holy book in Mercy thought to universal statements about God and truth in Teacher thought. That is because she is not just using absolute truth as a starting point. Instead, she is continuing to use absolute truth when faced with questioning, she is insisting that absolute truth overrides all other ways of determining truth, and she is saying that the ultimate struggle in human history will be a struggle to hold on to absolute truth.

An Adversarial Mindset

Mental symmetry suggests that a concept of God emerges when a general theory in Teacher thought applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. One of the implications is that names are of great significance when dealing with God and salvation, because a name is a word in Teacher thought that applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. For instance, in Acts 4:12, Peter defends the name of Jesus by saying that “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” Similarly, Philippians 2:9-10 says about Jesus that “God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Notice the emphasis upon names and salvation. Notice also that Jesus is being given a name that is above every other name.

This idea of one name being above another name is an expression of Teacher thought, because Teacher thought thinks in terms of generality. For instance, the name of ‘president of the United States’ is more general than the name of ‘governor of the state’. This does not automatically make the governor ‘wrong’ and the president ‘right’. Instead, it means that a governor makes more specific decisions guided by the general decisions that are made by the president.

We have seen that holding on to absolute truth in the face of opposition leads to an adversarial approach to ‘truth’. We have also seen that names are significant. The name Satan comes from the Greek word Satanas which means ‘the adversary’, which itself comes from the Hebrew word Satan that also means ‘adversary’.

White warns that taking an adversarial approach is actually behaving in a satanic manner: “Satan is ‘the accuser of the brethren,’ and it is his spirit that inspires men to watch for the errors and defects of the Lord’s people, and to hold them up to notice, while their good deeds are passed by without a mention. He is always active when God is at work for the salvation of souls. When the sons of God come to present themselves before the Lord, Satan comes also among them. In every revival he is ready to bring in those who are unsanctified in heart and unbalanced in mind. When these have accepted some points of truth, and gained a place with believers, he works through them to introduce theories that will deceive the unwary” (p.397).

And White warns that whenever God is working, then some people will respond in a satanic adversarial manner: “There has ever been a class professing godliness, who, instead of following on to know the truth, make it their religion to seek some fault of character or error of faith in those with whom they do not agree. Such are Satan’s right-hand helpers. Accusers of the brethren are not few, and they are always active when God is at work and His servants are rendering Him true homage. They will put a false coloring upon the words and acts of those who love and obey the truth” (p.519).

Applying this to White herself, we have just seen that White is using an adversarial approach to defend the Bible as the source of absolute truth. It is the Bible versus everything and everyone else. This means that White herself is using a satanic method of defending ‘truth’.

A focus upon Satan can also be seen in the number of times that the word Satan is used in The Great Controversy. ‘God’ appears 2134 times, ‘Christ’ is used 1083 times, ‘Satan’ appears 383 times, while ‘Jesus’ is used 227 times. Thus, White actually talks more about Satan than she does about Jesus. I am not suggesting that what White says should automatically be rejected as coming from Satan. That would be an adversarial conclusion based in competing Mercy mental networks of personal status. It would also be an inaccurate statement, because most of the statements that White makes about God, Jesus, and Satan are accurate.

Instead, one is dealing here with a matter of emotional importance. Whenever a mental network is triggered, then it will use emotional pressure to impose its structure upon competing mental networks. Which mental network is being discussed most frequently by White and which mental network is imposing its structure upon other mental networks? This demonstrates at a cognitive level which mental network is actually in charge. Saying this another way, what really matters is not the God that one claims to follow but rather the mental networks that one ultimately worships and obeys, because those mental networks will create an implicit concept of God which is often different than the explicit concept of God that one claims to worship and obey.

An adversarial approach can also be seen in the title The Great Controversy. Since Satan means ‘adversary’, this title could also be written as The Great Satan. Going further, the primary sin of Satan was that he attempted as a finite person to take on the role of God. Absolute truth that is defended with an adversarial mindset does something similar, because it takes the words of a specific finite book and imposes these words upon everything in a godlike manner, declaring everything else to be ‘wrong’ and ‘false’. A controversy is an abstract form of conflict that occurs within the realm of Teacher thought. If God resides within Teacher thought, then ‘the great controversy’ takes the adversarial thinking of Satan and lifts it to the level of God in heaven.

I am not saying that fundamentalist Christians are servants of Satan, or that it is satanic to view the Bible as a holy book. Absolute truth is the normal starting point for acquiring knowledge. It turns satanic if one insists upon clinging to an attitude of absolute truth when faced with opposition. In addition, one really can state with considerable confidence that the Bible is a holy book from God. But such a statement can be made from a purely Teacher perspective of universal understanding without having to adopt any satanic methods of ‘I am right and you are wrong’.

The short book of Jude warns again trying to attack Satan using an adversarial method: “But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (v.9). This passage uses the word devil rather than Satan. Devil means ‘slanderous, accusing falsely’. This describes an adversarial mindset that is functioning at the level of words. One is using words to attack some enemy.

Looking at this passage in more detail, The word translated railing means ‘to bring upon or against’. The word dare means ‘to show daring courage necessary for a valid risk’. Thus, Michael did not approach Satan in an adversarial method because that would be risky. It might not succeed.

Going further, the word translated disputed actually means ‘to distinguish, to judge… to separate throughout or wholly’. Similarly, the word translated argued actually means ‘giving and receiving information with someone to reach deeper understanding’. The word ‘disputed’ which the NASB uses puts an adversarial slant on the interaction between Michael and the devil which is not reflected in the original Greek word.

Similarly, the NASB translates what Michael says as ‘The Lord rebuke you!’ The word translated rebuke means ‘assigning value as is fitting the situation’. It ‘can mean rebuke but its fundamental sense is warning to prevent something from going wrong’. In other words, Michael is asking God to put the struggle with the devil into the proper perspective. This is quite different than attacking the devil as an enemy.

This danger of adopting the wrong perspective can be seen in the word judgment. The Greek word is the root of the English word ‘blaspheme’ and means ‘slander’; it ‘switches right for wrong (wrong for right), i.e. calls what God disapproves, “right” which “exchanges the truth of God for a lie”’. Michael did not want to address the devil using an approach that ‘switches right from wrong by calling what God disapproves right’. When one fights Satan using satanic methods, then one is ‘switching right from wrong and calling what God disapproves right’.

This explains why we began this essay by taking an extensive theoretical look at the cognitive mechanisms of emotional ‘truth’ and absolute truth. I wanted to start with the Teacher mental network of a general understanding rather than starting from the foundation of competing Mercy mental networks. Using religious language, I did not want to fight a satanic method by using a satanic method.

Looking at this more generally, heaven appears to be a Teacher realm governed by names. When one follows an adversarial method, then one is implicitly calling upon the name of Satan. Obviously, one cannot defeat Satan using a method that implicitly calls on the name of Satan. Unfortunately, such a methodology is actually self-reinforcing. Looking at this in more detail, resisting Satan with a satanic methodology will inevitably fail, and one will find oneself losing to one’s adversary. This will increase the feeling that one is being opposed by a strong force, leading to a stronger sense of adversarialism. One will then oppose the enemy with even greater force, implicitly calling with greater intensity upon the name of Satan. This will lead inevitably to further failure. The end result is a persecution complex.

Focusing Upon Satan

The focus which The Great Controversy places upon Satan goes beyond the number of times that this name is mentioned and the title of the book. It goes beyond holding on to absolute truth in an adversarial manner. The Great Controversy also refers frequently to the character and methods of Satan. This will be illustrated by quoting from the book.

Satan has great power in the world and this power is being restrained by God: “By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan’s vindictive power over those who yield to his control. We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan” (p.36). Notice how Satan is the active agent who is being limited by God.

Satan secretly controls the papacy, while the angel of God merely stands by passively recording events: “The prince of darkness wrought with the leaders of the papal hierarchy. In their secret councils Satan and his angels controlled the minds of evil men, while unseen in the midst stood an angel of God, taking the fearful record of their iniquitous decrees and writing the history of deeds too horrible to appear to human eyes” (p.59).

Satan has more methods at his disposal than God: “In His dealing with sin, God could employ only righteousness and truth. Satan could use what God could not—flattery and deceit. He had sought to falsify the word of God and had misrepresented His plan of government before the angels, claiming that God was not just in laying laws and rules upon the inhabitants of heaven; that in requiring submission and obedience from His creatures, He was seeking merely the exaltation of Himself” (p.498). This views divine law as something that inhibits human behavior. God is being inhibited by divine law. But science and technology have taught us that following the law of God is a great enabler. Following the law of God may initially appear restrictive but it eventually opens up a whole new world of possibilities. This principle is obvious today, but it was only starting to become apparent during the time of White. Going further, developing technology requires honesty, and those who practice flattery and deceit cannot experience the benefits of following God’s laws of the universe.

The truth of God spreads as Satan carries out his plans of persecution and torture: “In vain both ecclesiastical and civil authorities were invoked to crush the heresy. In vain they resorted to imprisonment, torture, fire, and sword. Thousands of believers sealed their faith with their blood, and yet the work went on. Persecution served only to extend the truth, and the fanaticism which Satan endeavored to unite with it resulted in making more clear the contrast between the work of Satan and the work of God” (p.196). It is true that Christianity has historically grown when the church is persecuted. But is this the way that things should be?

That appears to be what Ellen White believes: “Persecution in its varied forms is the development of a principle which will exist as long as Satan exists and Christianity has vital power. No man can serve God without enlisting against himself the opposition of the hosts of darkness. Evil angels will assail him, alarmed that his influence is taking the prey from their hands. Evil men, rebuked by his example, will unite with them in seeking to separate him from God by alluring temptations. When these do not succeed, then a compelling power is employed to force the conscience” (p.610). Notice how Satan is the active agent who is persecuting the Christian, while Christians are responding passively to these attacks of Satan. According to White, the Christian church will always suffer persecution.

However, I suggest that Satan will only have the upper hand as long as Christianity is based upon absolute truth. That is because absolute truth is a version of emotional ‘truth’, and emotional ‘truth’ requires an adversarial relationship between me and my source of ‘truth’. Looking at the details, following God will implu denying myself. Devoting to myself to God will mean following God with fervor while ignoring my own personal desires. Obeying God will mean submitting to instructions which I must not try to understand. Learning to think for myself will cause me to doubt the absolute truth of God. In every case, the relationship is a zero-sum relationship in which one side grows at the expense of the other. This adversarial mindset will usually be reinforced by various walls of holiness which keep me away from my source of ‘truth’. Thus, absolute truth by its very nature is implicitly satanic, and the more one clings to an attitude of absolute truth the more explicit this satanic nature becomes.

God and Human Freedom

In contrast, it is possible to follow a concept of God in Teacher thought while simultaneously pursuing self-interest in Mercy thought. First, God lives in generality while humans inhabit specifics. God’s laws are expressed as general principles which can be applied in many different specific ways. If God’s laws can be obeyed in many different specific ways, then this leaves substantial room for human personal freedom. For instance, this is like a parent telling a child to ‘clean your room’. The child still has substantial freedom in deciding how the room will be cleaned. Similarly, we have seen in our examination of Protestant church history that God appears to be following a general plan which could have been fulfilled in a number of different ways.

Second, God deals with sequences while humans live within experiences. Righteousness guides how a person thinks and behaves, but it doesn’t tell a person what to think and do. Looking at this more specifically, God appears to be leading individuals and society to mental and spiritual wholeness. This is also an expression of Teacher thought. For instance, Teacher thought feels good when all the parts of some machine function together in a harmonious manner. Similarly, Teacher thought feels good when all the parts of the human mind function together in a harmonious manner. But this still leaves substantial room for human freedom.

For instance, suppose that I receive a car and I am told that I must drive this car in a manner that preserves the wholeness of the car. This will restrict my behavior. I will have to avoid behavior such as flooring the accelerator while simultaneously slamming on the brakes. I will have to steer away from oncoming cars. And I will not be permitted to drive the car over a cliff. But I still have substantial freedom because I can drive the car almost anywhere I choose. And the restrictions that are being placed on me are actually preventing me from experiencing pain in Mercy thought.

These two points sound trivial when applied to driving a car. But they are revolutionary when applied to the relationship between God and humans. I do not have to deny myself in order to follow God, because I can pursue my own personal goals in Mercy thought while still behaving in a godly, righteous manner. I do not have to focus upon God with fervor, because it pleases God when I add specific details to his general laws. And I do not have to regard God’s truth as ultimately incomprehensible, because God’s plan is for my mind to be whole, and wholeness includes rational understanding.

But it is only possible to apply these points to a concept of God if one replaces absolute truth with universal truth. First, absolute truth does not really recognize that God is an infinite, universal being. Instead of trying to understand the character of universal being by looking for universal truth, it jumps from specific to universal by imposing the specific words of a specific book upon everyone. This leads naturally to the idea that God also imposes his specific words upon everyone. Second, absolute truth is ultimately based in Mercy status. It may talk about the ‘path of righteousness’ or discuss the ‘ways of God’, but it is discussing theological concepts that are ultimately backed up by the Mercy status of the Bible. This makes it impossible to believe at a deep emotional level that God really occupies a different dimension than human experience. Third, absolute truth requires a mental split. Sacred must be kept separate from secular by walls of holiness in order to ensure that the emotional status assigned to the source of ‘truth’ remains much greater than the emotional status assigned to personal identity. And a wall is the opposite of mental wholeness.

Is Persecution Necessary?

White asks why God an all-powerful God would allow persecution to continue and concludes that this is a divine mystery which should not be explored: “The mysterious providence which permits the righteous to suffer persecution at the hand of the wicked has been a cause of great perplexity to many who are weak in faith. Some are even ready to cast away their confidence in God because He suffers the basest of men to prosper, while the best and purest are afflicted and tormented by their cruel power. How, it is asked, can One who is just and merciful, and who is also infinite in power, tolerate such injustice and oppression? This is a question with which we have nothing to do. God has given us sufficient evidence of His love, and we are not to doubt His goodness because we cannot understand the workings of His providence” (p.48). Thus, instead of recognizing that absolute truth itself enables satanic persecution, White uses this persecution to reinforce the feeling of divine mystery that is required by absolute truth. (I will suggest later that God cannot deal with the problem of human suffering as long as people approach God with an attitude of mystery.)

Going further, I mentioned that there is no direct path from emotional ‘truth’ to rational truth. Instead, these two are separated by a threshold of confusion. This means that discovering universal truth will be preceded by doubting absolute truth.

Unfortunately, White interprets doubting absolute truth as submitting to human authority: “When error in one garb has been detected, Satan only masks it in a different disguise, and multitudes receive it as eagerly as at the first. When the people found Romanism to be a deception, and he could not through this agency lead them to transgression of God’s law, he urged them to regard all religion as a cheat, and the Bible as a fable; and, casting aside the divine statutes, they gave themselves up to unbridled iniquity” (p.285). Notice that White is actually fighting two different enemies: authority and doubt.

Looking at the first enemy, authorities do not like their authority to be questioned. Therefore, if a person tries to follow the Bible rather than submit to authorities, then the authorities will naturally respond by using physical force to impose their authority. Using cognitive language, they will reinforce their emotional status by imposing painful experiences upon Mercy thought.

When absolute truth stands up against authority, then the primary weapon is conscience. People will see the injustice being perpetrated upon those who submit to absolute truth, they will view how the believers in absolute truth are responding to this injustice, and this will motivate additional people to embrace the truth. Saying this more simply, the church will grow under persecution.

Turning now to the second enemy of doubt, emotional ‘truth’ will naturally fall into doubt whenever one no longer feels that the source of emotional ‘truth’ is far more important than personal identity. Making the transition from absolute truth to universal truth requires going through a period of doubt, as Perceiver thought stops being overwhelmed and learns how to think. Rational understanding lies on the other side of this, and rational understanding can provide a positive alternative to authority. For instance, science has transformed the world through technology. Therefore, when a scientist speaks, most politicians will listen. (Doubt does not lead automatically to rational understanding, but going from absolute truth to rational understanding requires going through a period of doubt.)

This provides a better way of triggering conscience. The suffering church has to respond correctly to persecution in order to trigger conscience. In contrast, science can trigger conscience by applying itself through technology. I know that one does not ordinarily connect conscience with science and technology. But that is because modern science and technology are objective and deal only with the physical world. However, modern science and technology do influence others through the power of conscience—in the areas where they are functioning. This illustrates another aspect of the threshold of confusion which separates ‘truth’ from truth. It is easiest for Perceiver thought to start functioning in objective areas where the facts are clear and the emotions are less intense. It is then possible to extend Perceiver thought to include increasingly emotional topics.

But White regards secular thought as a work of Satan. Repeating an earlier quote: “Satan invents unnumbered schemes to occupy our minds, that they may not dwell upon the very work with which we ought to be best acquainted. The archdeceiver hates the great truths that bring to view an atoning sacrifice and an all-powerful mediator. He knows that with him everything depends on his diverting minds from Jesus and His truth” (p.488). Thus, instead of allowing Perceiver thought to learn how to function in objective realms, White uses fervor to maintain an attitude of emotional ‘truth’.

Going the other way, White extends an adversarial attitude of emotional ‘truth’ to core Christian doctrine, interpreting the work of Jesus from an adversarial satanic viewpoint: “It is the grace that Christ implants in the soul which creates in man enmity against Satan. Without this converting grace and renewing power, man would continue the captive of Satan, a servant ever ready to do his bidding. But the new principle in the soul creates conflict where hitherto had been peace. The power which Christ imparts enables man to resist the tyrant and usurper. Whoever is seen to abhor sin instead of loving it, whoever resists and conquers those passions that have held sway within, displays the operation of a principle wholly from above.” (p.506). Notice that the goal is not to love God but to hate sin. Notice also that following God is being interpreted as suppressing personal desires. It is true that human free will becomes maximized when the mind contains opposing mental networks, but does Christ merely impart a power which enables man to resist the tyrant and usurper? Does he only cause us to abhor sin? This describes an adversarial attitude that requires an enemy to fight.

Compare this with James 4:7-8: “Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” The word submit means ‘to place or rank under’. Thus, the starting point is placing oneself under a concept of God in Teacher thought, similar to the way that one places oneself under some system of law. This is then followed by resist, which means ‘take a complete stand against’. The devil will then flee, which means ‘flee, escape, shun’. In other words, God has the system and not Satan. One opposes Satan not by attacking Satan but rather by standing within the system of God. The end result is not that the Christian flees from Satan but rather that Satan runs away from those who stand within the system of God. And the goal is not to fight Satan and sin but to draw near to God.

Continuing with this passage, the word translated cleanse means ‘make pure or clean, removing all admixture’. Similarly, the word translated purified means ‘to purify, cleanse from defilement’. One becomes clean and pure in order to stop being double-minded, a word which means ‘literally of two souls, of two selves’. A person who resists and abhors sin is by definition of two souls, because the one soul of personal identity is opposing the other soul of a sin nature. In contrast, a person who is pure no longer thinks in terms of sin.

White defines following God in a double-souled manner as resisting Satan: “Why are the soldiers of Christ so sleepy and indifferent? Because they have so little real connection with Christ; because they are so destitute of His Spirit. Sin is not to them repulsive and abhorrent, as it was to their Master. They do not meet it, as did Christ, with decisive and determined resistance. They do not realize the exceeding evil and malignity of sin, and they are blinded both to the character and the power of the prince of darkness. There is little enmity against Satan and his works, because there is so great ignorance concerning his power and malice, and the vast extent of his warfare against Christ and His church. Multitudes are deluded here. They do not know that their enemy is a mighty general who controls the minds of evil angels, and that with well-matured plans and skillful movements he is warring against Christ to prevent the salvation of souls” (p.508). It is sometimes necessary to fight sin. But if one remains within this attitude then one is ultimately using satanic methods to fight Satan.

And White describes mental wholeness as a goal which Satan is attempting to achieve: “Through defects in the character, Satan works to gain control of the whole mind, and he knows that if these defects are cherished, he will succeed. Therefore he is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with his fatal sophistry that it is impossible for them to overcome. But Jesus pleads in their behalf His wounded hands, His bruised body; and He declares to all who would follow Him: ‘My grace is sufficient for thee’” (p.489).

It is true that one achieves mental wholeness by ‘dying to self’. The mind must die to emotional ‘truth’ with its Mercy mental networks of personal status in order to be guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought. However, this is not the end. Instead, mental networks of personal identity and culture eventually become reborn in a form that is consistent with the nature of God. This three-stage process of personal transformation is illustrated by Israel leaving Egypt, spending time with God in the wilderness, and then entering the promised land.

Going further, how can ‘Satan work to gain control of the whole mind’? Evil is not whole. Evil is always fragmented. Mental wholeness can only be achieved by submitting the mind to a general Teacher theory that applies to all of the mind. For instance, the theory of mental symmetry has ‘eaten up my mind’ by explaining all of my personal behavior. The result is mental wholeness, imposed by a general theory that has gained control of my whole mind. But what is a general theory that applies to all of the mind? It is a concept of God. Thus, by clinging to absolute truth in the midst of growing scientific thought, White is actually regarding the birth of a valid concept of God as the work of Satan.

This is ironic, because when Jesus failed to return physically in 1843, White reinterpreted this as Jesus cleansing the sanctuary in heaven based upon Daniel 8:14. Quoting from the KJV, “And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

Making the Temple Righteous

I mentioned earlier that the Hebrew word translated cleansed actually means ‘to be just or righteous’. And the word sanctuary is the Hebrew word for ‘holy’ which means ‘apartness, sacredness’. Righteousness describes behavior that is consistent with the character of God. Therefore, if ‘the sanctuary is being cleansed’, then this means taking the part of life that is separate from normal existence and connected with God and making it consistent with the character of God.

Before we go further, I would like to look briefly at this word ‘cleansed’. White does not seem to realize that the word ‘cleansed’ in Daniel 8:14 actually means ‘to be righteous”. This can be seen in the passage where she discusses the cleansing of the sanctuary: “But the most important question remains to be answered: What is the cleansing of the sanctuary? That there was such a service in connection with the earthly sanctuary is stated in the Old Testament Scriptures. But can there be anything in heaven to be cleansed? In Hebrews 9 the cleansing of both the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary is plainly taught. ‘Almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these [the blood of animals]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these’ (Hebrews 9:22, 23), even the precious blood of Christ. The cleansing, both in the typical and in the real service, must be accomplished with blood” (p.418).

If one looks at Hebrews 9 in the KJV, neither ‘clean’ nor ‘cleansed’ appear anywhere in the chapter. This can also be seen in White’s quotation of 9:22-23 in the previous paragraph: The words ‘purged’, ‘shedding’, and ‘purified’ occur, but not ‘cleansed’. Going further, the Greek word that means ‘righteous’ also does not appear anywhere in Hebrews 9 in either the KJV or the original Greek. This may seem like minor quibbling, but it becomes an important detail when one is building an entire church denomination upon the concept of Jesus ‘cleansing the sanctuary’. And even if White herself was not aware of the original text, the editors of the 1911 edition were aware of the original Greek and Hebrew, because they pointed out on page 658 that the same Greek word is being used in the Septuagint as in the book of Revelation.

Returning to the general topic, my guess is that White is relating Daniel 8:14 with Hebrews 9:22-23 because they both talk about fixing up the temple. That kind of connection may be good enough for a Bible study but one should build a denomination upon a more extensive exegesis.

Returning now to White’s concept of Jesus starting to cleanse the sanctuary in 1844, why would God want to make the temple righteous? I have mentioned that a general Teacher theory is capable of ‘eating up the mind’—and I know from personal experience with this feels like. Saying this another way, there is a natural drive to make an existing general Teacher theory more universal by using it to explain more situations. And once a general Teacher theory takes over, then there is also a strong emotional drive to eliminate any exceptions to the general rule. Thus, righteousness is an important stepping stone on the path to wholeness and purity. Saying this in terms of the three stages of personal transformation, the first stage constructs a concept of God in Teacher thought, the second stage follows this concept of God through righteousness, and the third stage becomes reborn into the purity of living totally within this concept of God.

Wesley taught that personal identity should submit to a concept of God in Teacher thought. The next stage is to extend this Teacher concept of God so that it applies to more aspects of personal identity. This idea that a Teacher theory can apply to more aspects of personal identity was starting to emerge in the mid-19^th century. In a very real sense, Jesus began ‘cleansing the sanctuary’ by starting to replace inadequate Mercy-based concepts of God with a righteous Teacher-based concept of God. Does Daniel 7:14 really refer to 1843? I do not know. But if one looks back at history, one can see that a major shift started happening at about that time which can accurately be described as making the heavenly temple righteous.

However, instead of describing God’s eternal plan as heading through righteousness to wholeness and purity, White describes God’s eternal plan as being double-souled and impure: “For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages Satan must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might forever be placed beyond all question. Satan’s rebellion was to be a lesson to the universe through all coming ages, a perpetual testimony to the nature and terrible results of sin. The working out of Satan’s rule, its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority. It would testify that with the existence of God’s government and His law is bound up the well-being of all the creatures He has made. Thus the history of this terrible experiment of rebellion was to be perpetual safeguard to all holy intelligences, to prevent them from being deceived as to the nature of transgression, to save them from committing sin and suffering its punishments” (p.499). Sin does have painful consequences. That is what makes it sin. But is God’s eternal plan nothing more than showing creation how evil Satan is? This means that Satan is the real mover and God is responding passively to Satan.

The Great Satan?

If Satan is the real mover in God’s eternal plan, then this indicates a sanctuary that is not righteous, because righteousness means being guided by the character of God and not by the character of Satan. Thus, White may have accurately predicted what God was starting to do in the mid-19^th century, but by clinging to absolute truth she ensured that she herself could not participate in this cleansing. Something similar is happening today. Many evangelical Christians are looking forward to the second coming of Jesus. But by clinging to absolute truth, I suggest that they also are ensuring that they will not participate in the benefits of this second coming.

In fact, White claims that God will forever remain double-souled and impure: “And the years of eternity, as they roll, will bring richer and still more glorious revelations of God and of Christ. As knowledge is progressive, so will love, reverence, and happiness increase. The more men learn of God, the greater will be their admiration of His character. As Jesus opens before them the riches of redemption and the amazing achievements in the great controversy with Satan, the hearts of the ransomed thrill with more fervent devotion, and with more rapturous joy they sweep the harps of gold; and ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of voices unite to swell the mighty chorus of praise” (p.678). How will people learn more about God in eternity? By studying about God’s ‘great controversy with Satan’. And how will people respond? Through the self-denial and fervor of worship. Surely the creator of the universe has some positive plans to implement throughout eternity. Surely the creator of the universe does not have to look back at the rebellion of Satan in order to teach his creatures. Saying this another way, If Jesus is sharing ‘the amazing achievements in the great controversy with Satan’, then Jesus is actually lifting up the name of Satan, because Satan means ‘adversary’ and a ‘great controversy with Satan’ is by definition adversarial. But if Jesus is lifting up the name of Satan, then God has not actually lifted up the name of Jesus to be over every other name.

Compare this with 1 Corinthians 2:9-10: “But just as it is written, ‘Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him.’ For to us God revealed them through the Spirit.” God does not want followers who hate Satan. God does not have to look back at the rebellion of Satan. The word prepared means ‘make ready, prepare’. God has prepared many good things for those who love him.

However, one does not learn about God’s future plans through what one sees or what one hears. Instead one learns about this internally through the spirit. The NIV translates the next phrase as ‘what no human mind has conceived’, consistent with the idea of divine mystery. But the original Greek word is kardia, which refers to ‘the affective center of our being’. Cognitively speaking, the heart describes Mercy thought. Paul is saying that Mercy thought is an inadequate mental foundation for learning about the things of God. White illustrates the truth of this principle. She bases her doctrine upon the Mercy foundation of absolute truth and she concludes that God has to figure out what to do in eternity by looking back at Satan’s rebellion. In contrast, I have found that if one approaches the New Testament from the Teacher perspective of a general theory of mental wholeness (or purity), then an entire step-by-step rational plan of God for the future becomes apparent. Similarly, we have seen that White’s description of Protestant church history can also be explained from a Teacher perspective as a step-by-step rational plan of God.

In contrast, White views prophecy from the perspective of Satan carrying out his plan of rebellion that he has prepared over the millennia: “Satan has long been preparing for his final effort to deceive the world. The foundation of his work was laid by the assurance given to Eve in Eden: ‘Ye shall not surely die.’ ‘In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Genesis 3:4, 5. Little by little he has prepared the way for his masterpiece of deception in the development of spiritualism. He has not yet reached the full accomplishment of his designs; but it will be reached in the last remnant of time” (p.561).

In a similar vein, White says that when Jesus came to earth the first time, then Satan had all the plans and all the clever words while the angels of God stood back in silent horror: “It was Satan that prompted the world’s rejection of Christ. The prince of evil exerted all his power and cunning to destroy Jesus; for he saw that the Saviour’s mercy and love, His compassion and pitying tenderness, were representing to the world the character of God. Satan contested every claim put forth by the Son of God and employed men as his agents to fill the Saviours life with suffering and sorrow. The sophistry and falsehood by which he had sought to hinder the work of Jesus, the hatred manifested through the children of disobedience, his cruel accusations against Him whose life was one of unexampled goodness, all sprang from deep-seated revenge. The pent-up fires of envy and malice, hatred and revenge, burst forth on Calvary against the Son of God, while all heaven gazed upon the scene in silent horror” (p.501).

It is true that God uses the ignorance and shortsightedness of human leaders to carry out his plan of redemption through Jesus. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:7-8: “we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” But it is also possible to interpret the life and death of Jesus from the Teacher perspective of God implementing out a plan rather than Satan carrying out a plan and heaven recoiling in horror. This is not just a hypothetical statement, because the entire Gospel of John has been analyzed from a Teacher perspective in another essay. (Deciphering the trial and crucifixion of Jesus was not trivial. Instead, I initially gave up, went through the book of Hebrews, and then found that I could tackle the final chapters.)

Is Science Satanic?

Turning now to the larger question, why would White regard Satan as the clever person with all the plans? I suggest that it is because White is clinging to the transitional thinking of absolute truth while the real God is moving on to universal truth and a righteous sanctuary. Scientific thought is officially godless, and it is vehemently opposed to emotional ‘truth’. But scientific thought also develops the rational Teacher-based thinking that is required to construct an adequate concept of God. White saw that scientific thought was officially godless, and she also noticed that scientific inquiry naturally causes a person to doubt emotional ‘truth’. She concluded that scientific thought is satanic. Many fundamentalist Christians have come to a similar conclusion today.

But the Teacher-based rational thinking of science has transformed the physical world through technology, and this transformation was starting to impact the average person during the time of White. For instance, the first railroad in America opened its first section in 1830. The railroad arrived in Portland, Maine where Ellen White was living in 1842, when Ellen was 15 years old. This is also the year that “she was baptized by John Hobart in Casco Bay in Portland, Maine, and eagerly awaited Jesus to come again.”

We saw the role of science earlier when looking at the path from Luther to Wesley. Luther performed the first sub-step of replacing Server actions with Perceiver belief. Wesley carried out the third sub-step of applying the concept of God in Teacher thought to personal identity in Mercy thought. However, the intervening second sub-step of using Perceiver thought to develop a Teacher understanding was applied primarily by the secular, scientific ‘age of enlightment’ and not by Christianity. Saying this more generally, God’s eternal plan of history is bigger than me, it is bigger than my church, and it is even bigger than the church. That is because God is bigger than me, he is bigger than my church, and he is bigger than my holy book. I am not suggesting that all scientists go to heaven. If I myself want to be saved, then I must apply truth to my personal identity, and objective science tries very hard not to apply truth to personal identity. But science has been very effective at using Teacher thought to understand how God created the world to function.

Similarly, absolute truth may be a transitional form of thinking, but it is also a necessary form of thought because it performs an intervening step of bridging two incompatible ways of thinking. One cannot jump directly from authority to universal truth and rational understanding. This is too great a leap. Absolute truth takes the content of rational understanding and teaches it in a manner that is compatible with a mindset of authority; it teaches a rational general theory as ‘truth’ which is being revealed by some important person. The student will initially accept this theory because it is based in emotional status. Thinking about this theory will then develop rational thought, making it possible to replace the original foundation of Mercy status with a Teacher foundation of general understanding.

As I have mentioned before, one sees this (hopefully) in education. A primary student thinks in terms of authority. Using the language of Piaget, a primary student uses concrete operational thought. Primary education teaches rote learning based in the Mercy status of the instructor and the textbook. Secondary education teaches critical thinking, replacing the original foundation of Mercy status with Teacher understanding. Using the language of Piaget, a secondary student uses formal operational thought. Moving from rote learning to critical thinking means going through a period of doubt, as illustrated by the typical teenager. Saying this cognitively, ‘truth’ is separated from truth by a threshold of uncertainty.

However, White interprets this period of doubt as the work of Satan: “There is nothing that he desires more than to destroy confidence in God and in His word. Satan stands at the head of the great army of doubters, and he works to the utmost of his power to beguile souls into his ranks. It is becoming fashionable to doubt. There is a large class by whom the word of God is looked upon with distrust for the same reason as was its Author—because it reproves and condemns sin” (p.526).

There is some truth to this statement. As I have mentioned, objective science will naturally attack all emotional ‘truth’ as invalid, because science is trying to use Perceiver thought, while emotional ‘truth’ by its very nature overwhelms Perceiver thought. Going further, it is easiest to use Perceiver thought in areas that are not emotional. Therefore, science will naturally become objective in order to avoid being overwhelmed by subjective Mercy emotions. The end result is that objective science will attack emotional ‘truth’ as superstition without providing an alternative. Therefore, it will appear in the short term as if scientific doubt is the work of Satan.

But the long-term plan of God is larger than any work of Satan, and scientific doubt carries out an essential step in ‘cleansing the sanctuary’. That is because scientific thought replaces emotional ‘truth’ with righteousness. The righteousness of science may be limited to physical reality, but it is a valid form of righteousness. Saying this in more detail, science is based in the fundamental principle that general theories in Teacher thought must be consistent with ‘how the world behaves’. Similarly, scientific education and technology are based in the fundamental principle that ‘how I behave’ must be guided by a general Teacher understanding of ‘how the world behaves’. This has been discussed in previous essays.

However, White disregards any apparent righteousness as the work of Satan which needs to be opposed by absolute truth: “Satan is constantly seeking to deceive men and lead them to call sin righteousness, and righteousness sin. How successful has been his work! How often censure and reproach are cast upon God’s faithful servants because they will stand fearlessly in defense of the truth! Men who are but agents of Satan are praised and flattered, and even looked upon as martyrs, while those who should be respected and sustained for their fidelity to God, are left to stand alone, under suspicion and distrust” (p.193).

And White rejects scientific questioning as a ‘masterpiece of Satan’ because it violates the mindset of absolute truth which believes that the ways of God must remain a mystery: “It is a masterpiece of Satan’s deceptions to keep the minds of men searching and conjecturing in regard to that which God has not made known and which He does not intend that we shall understand. It was thus that Lucifer lost his place in heaven. He became dissatisfied because all the secrets of God’s purposes were not confided to him, and he entirely disregarded that which was revealed concerning his own work in the lofty position assigned him. By arousing the same discontent in the angels under his command, he caused their fall. Now he seeks to imbue the minds of men with the same spirit and to lead them also to disregard the direct commands of God” (p.523).

White says in this quote that the fall of Satan was caused by a desire for knowledge. But I am not sure where one can find this in the Bible. Isaiah 14:3-21 is normally interpreted as describing the fall of Satan, but the reason given there is the sin of pride, not a thirst for knowledge. Ezekiel 28:11-19 is also viewed as a description of the fall of Satan, but the sin mentioned there is unrighteousness combined with pride. Finally, Satan promised Eve in Genesis 3:5 that her eyes would be opened and that she would be like God, knowing good and evil. But the emphasis there is not upon knowing everything but rather upon pursuing knowledge in a manner that ignores categories of good and evil.

For instance, I am using the theory of mental symmetry in Teacher thought to gain an understanding of many topics, including topics which White and others would regard as secrets of God. But I am also trying to do this in a manner that pursues what is good in Mercy thought while staying away from what is bad. We will see this combination later when looking at the day of atonement.

A Fascination with Evil

In contrast, White seems to have an unhealthy fascination with the evil machinations of Satan. She speculates about the rebellion of Satan, adding many details which are not found in Scripture: “Satan had represented that he was wrongly judged, that his position was not respected, and that his liberty was to be abridged. From misrepresentation of the words of Christ he passed to prevarication and direct falsehood, accusing the Son of God of a design to humiliate him before the inhabitants of heaven. He sought also to make a false issue between himself and the loyal angels. All whom he could not subvert and bring fully to his side he accused of indifference to the interests of heavenly beings. The very work which he himself was doing he charged upon those who remained true to God. And to sustain his charge of God’s injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation of the words and acts of the Creator. It was his policy to perplex the angels with subtle arguments concerning the purposes of God. Everything that was simple he shrouded in mystery, and by artful perversion cast doubt upon the plainest statements of Jehovah. His high position, in such close connection with the divine administration, gave greater force to his representations, and many were induced to unite with him in rebellion against Heaven’s authority. God in His wisdom permitted Satan to carry forward his work” (p.497).

How does she know all of this? And why is she coming up with so many details about Satan’s rebellion from God? Again, this illustrates a mindset of being double-souled, in which one claims to follow God with all of one’s heart while finding excitement in the rebellion of Satan against God.

However, if one digs a little deeper into this quote, it actually describes the response that absolute truth will get from emerging scientific thought. Remember that we are looking back at a time when scientific thought was just starting to become popular within a general context of absolute truth, as opposed to today when absolute truth is trying to survive in a general context of scientific questioning. Science will say that it is being judged wrongly: ‘he was wrongly judged’. Science will question the mindset of self-denial: ‘his position was not respected’. Science will question the limiting mindset of religious fervor: ‘his liberty was to be abridged’. Science will say that it is searching for God and that it is being misrepresented by absolute truth: ‘accusing the Son of God of a design to humiliate him before the inhabitants of heaven’. Science will claim that absolute truth does not care about personal well-being: ‘accused of indifference to the interests of heavenly beings’. Science will encourage others to use scientific thought: ‘The very work which he himself was doing he charged upon those who remained true to God’. Science will reinterpret the content of absolute truth from a different perspective: ‘he resorted to misrepresentation of the words and acts of the Creator’. Science will ask probing questions about core doctrines: ‘It was his policy to perplex the angels with subtle arguments concerning the purposes of God’. Science will use technical thought with precise definitions to analyze the topics of absolute truth: ‘Everything that was simple he shrouded in mystery, and by artful perversion cast doubt upon the plainest statements of Jehovah’. And science will rebel against the very idea of submitting to authority in Mercy thought: ‘many were induced to unite with him in rebellion against Heaven’s authority’.

Summarizing, White’s description of the rebellion of Satan is consistent with my suggestion that she is responding to the development of scientific thought by rejecting it as satanic.

I suggest that a fascination with evil will naturally emerge when one is clinging to emotional ‘truth’ in an environment that is discovering science and technology. That is because Exhorter thought finds excitement in novelty. Anything that remains the same will eventually become boring. Absolute truth, by definition, remains the same, because one is clinging to the specific words of some specific book which must not be altered. Universal truth, in contrast, describes truth at a general level, which makes variation possible. For instance, the mathematical laws of physics can be satisfied in many different specific ways. Because there are so many different specific possibilities, Exhorter thought will not get bored. If one attributes universal truth and rational thought to Satan, and absolute truth to God, then one will inevitably become bored with God and excited by Satan. One can see this with Ellen White preaching absolute truth while finding her excitement in the work of Satan.

A similar fascination with evil can be seen in many fundamentalist Christians today. For instance, the Left Behind series of novels about the kingdom of the Antichrist have sold over 63,000,000 copies. That is an awful lot of fascination with evil.

Going further, her version of history ends not with a universal concept of God in Teacher thought, but with a universal abhorrence of Satan: “The aim of the great rebel has ever been to justify himself and to prove the divine government responsible for the rebellion. To this end he has bent all the power of his giant intellect. He has worked deliberately and systematically, and with marvelous success, leading vast multitudes to accept his version of the great controversy which has been so long in progress. For thousands of years this chief of conspiracy has palmed off falsehood for truth. But the time has now come when the rebellion is to be finally defeated and the history and character of Satan disclosed. In his last great effort to dethrone Christ, destroy His people, and take possession of the City of God, the archdeceiver has been fully unmasked. Those who have united with him see the total failure of his cause. Christ’s followers and the loyal angels behold the full extent of his machinations against the government of God. He is the object of universal abhorrence” (p.670). We began this essay by describing God’s plan of history, illustrating from White’s description of Protestant church history how God has been working deliberately and systematically for thousands of years. White, in contrast, concludes her book by describing how Satan has ‘worked deliberately and systematically’ ‘for thousands of years’.

In other words, White’s fascination with the plan of Satan illustrates my earlier suggestion that clinging to absolute truth in the face of opposition leads to a satanic mindset. One can now make an even stronger statement: Clinging to absolute truth in the face of emerging scientific truth will lead to a satanic mindset and it will also lead to a fascination with the plan of Satan.

An Incomplete Plan of God

White does not just talk about the plan of Satan. She also talks about the plan of God. Let us examine briefly what she says.

Repeating an earlier quote, White says that God is carrying out a plan of gradual revelation: “God permitted great light to shine upon the minds of these chosen men, revealing to them many of the errors of Rome; but they did not receive all the light that was to be given to the world. Through these, His servants, God was leading the people out of the darkness of Romanism; but there were many and great obstacles for them to meet, and He led them on, step by step, as they could bear it. They were not prepared to receive all the light at once. Like the full glory of the noontide sun to those who have long dwelt in darkness, it would, if presented, have caused them to turn away. Therefore He revealed it to the leaders little by little, as it could be received by the people. From century to century, other faithful workers were to follow, to lead the people on still further in the path of reform” (p.103).

However, notice that this plan of God leads from authority to absolute truth. God is leading people step-by-step away from submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church to submitting to the absolute truth of the Bible. This plan does not say anything about the next step from absolute truth to universal truth. But if one compares White’s statement about Jesus cleansing the sanctuary in heaven with the history of the 20^th century, one sees that Jesus has been making the heavenly sanctuary righteous by moving the world from absolute truth to universal truth. However, instead of viewing this transition as the hand of God, White rejects it as the work of Satan.

I am not suggesting that the transition from absolute truth to universal truth has been godly. Many of the elements of this transition have been deeply destructive, painful, and satanic. But the goal of this transition is teach people to use Teacher thought to construct a more adequate concept of God based in Perceiver connections that apply everywhere. White claims that Satan is carrying out a careful plan of rebellion which God is limiting. In contrast, I suggest that God is carrying out a plan of constructing a more adequate concept of God and that Satan is playing a God-ordained, limited role in this divine plan. Looking at this cognitively, everything revolves around Satan in the first alternative, while everything centers upon God in the second alternative.

Emotional Language

Moving from authority to absolute truth was a major societal mental transition. And many people paid a high price in order to take this step. White describes this transition in the first 275 pages of her book and we have analyzed these pages from a cognitive perspective. I would now like to look briefly at the emotional flavor of these first 275 pages. If one reads these pages from an emotional perspective, what becomes most apparent is White’s loathing of the Catholic Church. (Wikipedia says that in the 1911 edition, “Truth was more kindly expressed to not repel the Catholic and the skeptical reader.” If this is the kinder and gentler version, I am not sure that I would want to read the original version.)

She regards the Catholic Church as evil: “The Holy Scriptures were almost unknown, not only to the people, but to the priests. Like the Pharisees of old, the papal leaders hated the light which would reveal their sins. God’s law, the standard of righteousness, having been removed, they exercised power without limit, and practiced vice without restraint. Fraud, avarice, and profligacy prevailed. Men shrank from no crime by which they could gain wealth or position. The palaces of popes and prelates were scenes of the vilest debauchery. Some of the reigning pontiffs were guilty of crimes so revolting that secular rulers endeavored to depose these dignitaries of the church as monsters too vile to be tolerated. For centuries Europe had made no progress in learning, arts, or civilization. A moral and intellectual paralysis had fallen upon Christendom” (p.60).

This is not normal language. Instead, it is the kind of language that one reads in propaganda posters in the midst of a war. For instance, in World War I the British portrayed the Germans as as “militarised, inhuman monsters, who were involved in torturing innocent civilians, cutting off children’s hands and women’s breasts”, while the Russians portrayed Germans “soldiers as violent, militarist savages, as well as pigs, bloodsuckers and henchmen”. Similarly, the Catholic Church is not just being labeled as evil. Instead, it is filled with ‘scenes of the vilest debauchery’ being carried out by ‘monsters too vile to be tolerated’.

I am not trying to minimize either the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church or the horrors of World War I. Instead, I am focusing upon the use of propaganda, which uses inflammatory language in order to overwhelm Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ that the enemy is evil. White says that this evil was a result of the Catholic Church suppressing the absolute truth of the Bible. I think that this is an accurate statement. But authority, absolute truth, and propaganda all suffer from the same underlying cognitive flaw of being versions of emotional ‘truth’. One of the characteristics of emotional ‘truth’ is that it overrides conscience. Conscience is related to empathy; Perceiver thought points out that the emotional experiences of one person are similar to those of another. Propaganda tries to dehumanize the opponent, breaking any Perceiver connections of similarity between me and my enemy: I am human but my enemy is an animal, and because he is an animal he needs to be hunted down and exterminated.

White says that the Catholic Church did try to hunt down and exterminate those who attempted to follow the Bible: “The very existence of this people, holding the faith of the ancient church, was a constant testimony to Rome’s apostasy, and therefore excited the most bitter hatred and persecution. Their refusal to surrender the Scriptures was also an offense that Rome could not tolerate. She determined to blot them from the earth. Now began the most terrible crusades against God’s people in their mountain homes. Inquisitors were put upon their track, and the scene of innocent Abel falling before the murderous Cain was often repeated” (p.76). Again, I am not questioning her facts. The Catholic Church really did go to extreme lengths to eliminate any opponents. But when White uses inflammatory language to describe this behavior, then she is reinforcing the same mindset that the Catholic Church used to demonize its opponents.

One might respond that it was normal to use such inflammatory words when writing in the 19^th century, while such emotional speech is not normally used today. That may be true. But this illustrates that the world was starting to move away from emotional ‘truth’ based in Mercy feelings to universal truth guided by Teacher understanding. By using inflammatory language, White is illustrating that she herself was not participating in the cleansing of the temple that she was proclaiming.

White adds that the Catholic Church did everything in its power to suppress belief in the Bible: “The priests were alarmed at the thought that the common people would now be able to discuss with them the precepts of God’s word, and that their own ignorance would thus be exposed. The weapons of their carnal reasoning were powerless against the sword of the Spirit. Rome summoned all her authority to prevent the circulation of the Scriptures; but decrees, anathemas, and tortures were alike in vain. The more she condemned and prohibited the Bible, the greater was the anxiety of the people to know what it really taught. All who could read were eager to study the word of God for themselves” (p.194). Looking at this cognitively, any strategy that is based emotional ‘truth’ will try to preserve itself by preventing Perceiver thought from waking up and starting to think. The Bible was a threat to the Catholic Church because it woke up Perceiver thought in the readers and taught them how to think. But how did White respond to the scientific thinking of her day that was trying to wake up Perceiver thought and get it to think? Like the Catholic Church before her, she regarded it as evil.

Going further, the Catholic Church responded to the Protestant Reformation by creating an order of priests dedicated to restoring the authority of the church at any cost: “The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power. The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume” (p.234). I too have major concerns about the Jesuits, especially their current focus upon liberation theology.

But it is interesting to compare the behavior of the Jesuits with that of White. She also is responding to ‘the first triumphs’ of scientific thought by ‘summoning new forces’ of absolute truth, ‘hoping to accomplish its destruction’. She too says that one should follow absolute truth fully and be ‘cut off from earthly ties and human interests’. She also says that one should follow God with self-denial, ‘dead to the claims of natural affection’. And White recognizes at the end of this quote that both persecuted Christians and devoted Jesuits are being driven by similar feelings of fervor and self-denial.

When one is making the transition from authority to absolute truth, then the primary struggle is over whom one will serve within Mercy thought. But the underlying premise that one must serve someone in Mercy thought will not be challenged. A similar mindset can be seen in many liberation struggles of the past. For instance, “When Belgium became independent in 1830 the National Congress chose a constitutional monarchy as the form of government.” The Belgians did not want to be ruled by an autocratic monarch. But they still thought that a government requires the presence of some important person in Mercy thought. Therefore, the new Belgian government first invited the son of the French king to be their monarch before offering the crown to Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. In contrast, when one is making the transition from absolute truth to universal truth, then the very concept of Mercy authority will be questioned, because submitting to a person in Mercy thought is being replaced by submitting to an understanding in Teacher thought. White did not understand this concept, because she interpreted submitting to an understanding in Teacher thought as submitting to the person of Satan in Mercy thought.

Repeating a passage quoted earlier, White describes the hypocrisy that Luther encountered when he visited Rome: “He entered the city, visited the churches, listened to the marvelous tales repeated by priests and monks, and performed all the ceremonies required. Everywhere he looked upon scenes that filled him with astonishment and horror. He saw that iniquity existed among all classes of the clergy. He heard indecent jokes from prelates, and was filled with horror at their awful profanity, even during mass. As he mingled with the monks and citizens he met dissipation, debauchery. Turn where he would, in the place of sanctity he found profanation. ‘No one can imagine,’ he wrote, ‘what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, “If there is a hell, Rome is built over it: it is an abyss whence issues every kind of sin”’” (p.125). We looked at this quote previously from a cognitive perspective, noting that being an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ will naturally lead to corruption and that this corruption will tend to be most intense with the instructors who have the greatest emotional status. But is White describing this hypocrisy in order to understand what is happening or is she using emotional language in order to overwhelm Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ that the Catholic Church is evil?

This use of emotional language to portray the Catholic church as Evil Incarnate can be seen in White’s description of the suppression of Protestants in France during the Saint Bartholomew’s Massacre. This event was especially brutal. In the words of Wikipedia, “Lasting several weeks, the massacre expanded outward to other urban centres and the countryside. Modern estimates for the number of dead across France vary widely, from 5,000 to 30,000… Though by no means unique, it ‘was the worst of the century’s religious massacres.’ Throughout Europe, it ‘printed on Protestant minds the indelible conviction that Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion.’”

But White’s description of this horrific event is over the top emotionally: “For seven days the massacre was continued in Paris, the first three with inconceivable fury. And it was not confined to the city itself, but by special order of the king was extended to all the provinces and towns where Protestants were found. Neither age nor sex was respected. Neither the innocent babe nor the man of gray hairs was spared. Noble and peasant, old and young, mother and child, were cut down together. Throughout France the butchery continued for two months. Seventy thousand of the very flower of the nation perished. ‘When the news of the massacre reached Rome, the exultation among the clergy knew no bounds. The cardinal of Lorraine rewarded the messenger with a thousand crowns; the cannon of St. Angelo thundered forth a joyous salute; and bells rang out from every steeple; bonfires turned night into day; and Gregory XIII, attended by the cardinals and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, went in long procession to the church of St. Louis, where the cardinal of Lorraine chanted a Te Deum . . . . A medal was struck to commemorate the massacre, and in the Vatican may still be seen three frescoes of Vasari, describing the attack upon the admiral, the king in council plotting the massacre, and the massacre itself” (p.273). Notice in passing that White’s statement that 70,000 were killed is much greater than modern estimates of 5,000 to 30,000 dying. But even if all of White’s statements are 100% accurate, the language that White uses will have the emotional impact of overwhelming Perceiver thought into ‘believing’ that they are inhumanly evil. After all, only subhuman animals would conduct church services, strike medals, and paint frescoes to commemorate the butchery of innocent babes, gray-haired men, and mothers and children. I agree that such behavior is inhuman butchery. But such inhuman behavior becomes enabled when one uses emotional ‘truth’ to ‘know’ that the enemy is evil and needs to be destroyed. White’s description of this horror is actually reinforcing the same kind of thinking that enabled this horror to happen in the first place.

Summarizing, when I read through the first part of The Great Controversy, I found myself reacting at an emotional level. My emotional response could be described as 1) The Catholic Church is desperately, horribly, unspeakably evil. 2) Believers in the Bible were cruelly persecuted by the Catholic Church. 3) Absolute truth based in the Bible is morally far superior to the authority of the church. Putting this all together, I sensed a feeling of bitterness against the Catholic Church emerging within Mercy thought.

That is why we began this essay by analyzing the relationship between authority, absolute truth, and universal truth from a cognitive perspective, guided by a theory in Teacher thought. I wanted to replace this Mercy feeling of bitterness against the enemy with a Teacher feeling of understanding the underlying mindset. I also have a personal reason for doing this. I grew up in a fairly strict Mennonite household which regarded much of the secular world with suspicion. This was balanced by my father taking our family on many trips and my mother teaching me to understand evil rather than condemn it, but the general mindset was still one of absolute truth under siege from secular thought. Therefore, when I am analyzing The Great Controversy and the absolute truth of White, I am also analyzing my own childish mind and the absolute truth of my Mennonite upbringing. That is helpful.

Saying this another way, we have seen that White accuses the Catholic Church of using a flawed form of thinking, but we have also seen that White attacks the Catholic Church in a manner that uses the same flawed form of thinking. I do not want to commit the same error. Looking at this more generally, I have found over the years that one of the great strengths of the theory of mental symmetry is that it is capable of explaining itself. Most theories fall apart when they are applied to themselves or to their founders. Using psychological language, most theories deconstruct themselves. Mental symmetry can be applied to itself and survive. But this is not just a theoretical statement which one can describe as an abstract concept. Instead, one must continually use mental symmetry as both a tool of analysis and as a mirror. This means repeatedly asking myself if I am using the same kind of inadequate thought that I am accusing an author of using.

Emotional ‘Error’

We have talked about emotional ‘truth’. I would now like to focus upon the concept of emotional ‘error’. Emotional ‘truth’ uses strong Mercy feelings to overwhelm Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is ‘true’. These strong feelings can be either positive or negative. One can learn from good experiences what is ‘true’, and one can also learn from evil experiences what is ‘false’. White’s description of the Protestant Reformation uses extreme language to emotionally convey the ‘falseness’ of the Catholic Church and its focus upon authority. Thus, ‘truth’ is actually being defined implicitly as the opposite of ‘error’ and the real absolute is ‘error’ and not ‘truth’. This focus upon absolute ‘error’ was also seen in White’s description of God’s ultimate plan. People throughout eternity will ‘know’ that God is ‘right’ because of the extreme pain and failure associated with the ‘error’ of Satan. This is a parasitic version of ‘truth’ in which God needs the devil to define ‘truth’.

One can see a similar mental strategy being used by many evangelical Christians today. Their sense of ‘truth’ is actually based in an emotional knowledge of ‘error’: The world is persecuting the absolute truth of Christian morality. Therefore, the world is ‘wrong’. We will stand up for the opposite of ‘wrong’. This kind of thinking guides many supporters of President Trump.

But one can also view these same facts of history from a Teacher perspective as an illustration of the dangers of becoming an instructor of emotional ‘truth’. For instance, we looked theoretically at how being an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ naturally leads to a lifestyle of hidden hedonism. We also examined how an instructor of emotional ‘truth’ will naturally regard himself as a source of ‘truth’ who is above the law. The history of the Catholic Church demonstrates that these are not just theoretical statements. Millions have suffered and died because of these principles. But this kind of thinking is not just limited to the Catholic Church. Instead, it naturally emerges whenever one becomes an instructor of emotional ‘truth’.

Looking at this more generally, in the same way that we made a distinction between ‘truth’ and truth, so one can make a distinction between ‘error’ and error. One can—and should—learn from the mistakes of others. Error recognizes that following a certain path will lead to undesirable results. For instance, the emotional ‘truth’ of the Catholic Church decayed into authority that maintained a corrupt lifestyle through extortion and persecution. One does not want to follow such a path. ‘Error’, in contrast, emphasizes how evil a group is in order to overwhelm Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ that anything associated with this group is ‘false’. ‘Error’ can be a starting point for learning. For instance, for a short while after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Russians eagerly embraced anything that had been suppressed by the Communist Party. The biggest problem with ‘error’ is that it is parasitic upon evil. Evil must remain emotionally intense in order to ‘know’ what is ‘false’. One must continually have an enemy to fight, and one must continually portray that enemy as utterly evil.

The difference between ‘error’ and error becomes apparent when some formerly evil regime or person mends their ways and starts to become less evil. Error will allow this evil person to change, while ‘error’ will reject any change as hypocritical and insist that the evil person or group really remains intrinsically evil.

White addresses this issue in her book. “Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed! The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments” (p.563). Summarizing, the Catholic Church was evil but it is not acting evil now.

How does this affect the thinking of White? Will she still regard the Catholic Church as the ultimate emotional source of ‘error’? That appears to be the case: “The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution” (p.564). Thus, White concludes that the Catholic Church is still fundamentally evil and that it is only pretending to be good because it does not currently have the freedom to express its fundamental evil nature.

Consistent with this, the papacy plays a fundamental role in White’s eschatology. She predicts that “The influence of Rome in the countries that once acknowledged her dominion is still far from being destroyed. And prophecy foretells a restoration of her power. ‘I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.’ Verse 3. The infliction of the deadly wound points to the downfall of the papacy in 1798. After this, says the prophet, ‘his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.’ Paul states plainly that the ‘man of sin’ will continue until the second advent. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8. To the very close of time he will carry forward the work of deception. And the revelator declares, also referring to the papacy: ‘All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life." Revelation 13:8” (p.579). In other words, the Roman Catholic Church may appear docile now but it will become the beast of prophecy in the future.

Cognitively speaking, this indicates a fixation upon ‘error’. It also indicates a mindset of bitterness and a lack of forgiveness. One of the main things that I learned from my mother is that bitterness will always lead to a dead-end. That is because bitterness builds the mind upon the painful Mercy mental networks of what someone else has done to me. Bitterness cannot let go of evil because that evil provides the emotional foundation for the mind. Bitterness insists that painful mental networks must not change. Forgiveness, in contrast, lets go of painful Mercy mental networks and allows them to change. White appears to be emotionally incapable of letting go of ‘the evil Catholic Church’. In her mind, the Catholic Church is the beast and it is the representative of Satan and that will never change.

When the mind is based upon some potent mental network, then Exhorter thought within the mind will be naturally attracted to that mental network, even if that mental network is regarded as the epitome of evil. That is because Exhorter thought is attracted to strong emotions and finds evil and good equally exciting.

White admits that she finds the Catholic church emotionally attractive: “Many Protestants suppose that the Catholic religion is unattractive and that its worship is a dull, meaningless round of ceremony. Here they mistake. While Romanism is based upon deception, it is not a coarse and clumsy imposture. The religious service of the Roman Church is a most impressive ceremonial. Its gorgeous display and solemn rites fascinate the senses of the people and silence the voice of reason and of conscience. The eye is charmed. Magnificent churches, imposing processions, golden altars, jeweled shrines, choice paintings, and exquisite sculpture appeal to the love of beauty. The ear also is captivated. The music is unsurpassed. The rich notes of the deeptoned organ, blending with the melody of many voices as it swells through the lofty domes and pillared aisles of her grand cathedrals, cannot fail to impress the mind with awe and reverence” (p.566).

White’s 19^th century emotional fascination with the evil Catholic Church is difficult to comprehend when reading her book in the 21^st century. When we think of evil today, we think of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. We do not think of the Catholic Church. Instead, the Catholic Church really has changed in character, especially since Vatican II. I am not suggesting that every doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church is correct, and I have examined Catholic doctrine in a previous essay. However, modern science and technology really have changed the landscape for both Catholicism and Protestant belief.

More Light?

I mentioned before that science and technology combine Teacher understanding with Server actions. Science is the study of how the natural world behaves: one learns science by doing, and technology takes advantage of natural processes in order to build machines that perform actions. Protestant Christianity emphasizes Perceiver truth. This emphasis is important when attempting to escape mentally from Mercy status. Catholicism, in contrast, emphasizes Server rituals. The primary cognitive problem with Catholicism is that it equates these Server actions with what these Server actions represent. For instance, the bread and wine are regarded as the body and blood of Jesus and not just as symbols that represent the body and blood. Protestant Christianity is currently facing the struggle of moving beyond absolute truth to universal truth, and we have seen what is involved in that struggle. Catholicism, in contrast, needs to move beyond ‘physical is spiritual’ to ‘physical represents spiritual’. Saying this another way, Catholicism needs to move beyond the Server-based thinking of habits and rituals to the Teacher-based thinking of righteousness. Such a transition will naturally happen in today’s modern technological society because most Server actions today have become expressions of the general Teacher theories of science.

Looking at this more generally, instead of declaring categorically that some group will always remain evil, or assuming that some group will always remain good, the potential response of each group needs to be reevaluated when societal forces change. Saying this more personally, instead of responding to society the way that my ancestors did, I need to ask myself what choices I am facing today. God is probably asking me to take a different step than the step that he asked my ancestors to take.

White recognizes this principle: “There are many at the present day thus clinging to the customs and traditions of their fathers. When the Lord sends them additional light, they refuse to accept it, because, not having been granted to their fathers, it was not received by them. We are not placed where our fathers were; consequently our duties and responsibilities are not the same as theirs. We shall not be approved of God in looking to the example of our fathers to determine our duty instead of searching the word of truth for ourselves. Our responsibility is greater than was that of our ancestors. We are accountable for the light which they received, and which was handed down as an inheritance for us, and we are accountable also for the additional light which is now shining upon us from the word of God” (p.164). This is a significant principle. God will not be satisfied with me if I only hold on to the light that my ancestors had. Instead, God expects me to hold on to the light that I have and to go further than my ancestors because I have more light than my ancestors did.

And White says that her generation now has far more light than her ancestors did: “To many, scientific research has become a curse. God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world in discoveries in science and art; but even the greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to investigate the relations of science and revelation. Human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect; therefore many are unable to harmonize their views of science with Scripture statements” (p.522). White recognizes that there has been a flood of new scientific knowledge. And she realizes that it is a challenge to integrate this new scientific understanding with the absolute truth of the Bible. But what does White do with all this scientific light? She concludes that ‘to many, scientific research has become a curse’.

Going further, she thinks that God has revealed all the light that is necessary to wrap up his eternal plan for the world: “If all who had labored unitedly in the work in 1844, had received the third angel’s message and proclaimed it in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Lord would have wrought mightily with their efforts. A flood of light would have been shed upon the world. Years ago the inhabitants of the earth would have been warned, the closing work completed, and Christ would have come for the redemption of His people” (p.458). This brings to mind the infamous words of Lord Kelvin, the famous Scottish physicist who lived during the time of Ellen White. He is “known for an address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the advancement of Science in 1900 in which he stated, ‘There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.’ A similar statement is attributed to the American physicist Albert Michelson.” Five years later, Einstein turned the world of physics upside-down by publishing four earthshaking papers in one year, now known as the Annus Mirabilis papers.

White was certain that in many areas there will never, ever be any more light: “Human philosophy has attempted to search out and explain mysteries which will never be revealed through the eternal ages. If men would but search and understand what God had made known of Himself and His purposes, they would obtain such a view of the glory, majesty, and power of Jehovah that they would realize their own littleness and would be content with that which has been revealed for themselves and their children” (p.523). Notice the strong statement: ‘mysteries which will never be revealed through the eternal ages’. In contrast, I suggest that it is important ‘to search and understand what God has made known of himself and His purposes’. I have been trying to do this for several decades. But my goal is not to intensify feelings of divine mystery and personal inadequacy in order to reinforce a mindset of absolute truth. Instead, my goal is to construct a more adequate concept of God in Teacher thought.

Putting this together, White describes in detail God’s eternal plan that leads from authority to absolute truth. But she regards the next step from absolute truth to universal truth as a curse. She is convinced that God does not need to take any further steps beyond absolute truth. And she predicts that God will never take any further steps beyond absolute truth.

And yet, White’s fundamental premise is that God has started ‘cleansing the sanctuary’. Looking back from the 21^st century, we can see what has happened. We now live in a post-Christian era in which scientific skepticism has caused essentially all absolute truth and all emotional ‘truth’ to become belittled and rejected. We are now facing a similar crisis to the dilemma faced by White and the Millerites. They expected Jesus to return and save them based upon absolute truth. But he did not. We also expect Jesus to return—but he has not. The evangelical Christian has been looking forward to the rapture, while the secular consumer expected science and technology to solve all human problems. Neither has happened. Will we cling to the past or will we make the shift to what God is doing for the future?

It is interesting that in both these times a populist president was elected upon the agenda of attacking the establishment in favor of the common man. Many American Christians today support Trump because he is attacking the establishment of entrenched liberal thought. There are a number of parallels between President Trump and Andrew Jackson, who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. An article in the New York Times explores the similarities between President Trump and President Jackson: “Seeking to portray Donald J. Trump as a man of the people, some of his closest advisers have said he is the natural successor to President Andrew Jackson, America’s architect of political populism… Biographers, historians and Mr. Trump’s own confidants have not been shy about drawing parallels. Rudolph W. Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and Stephen K. Bannon have all compared the president-elect closest to Jackson. It is a comparison Mr. Trump himself seems to enjoy. Speaking at a dinner held on Wednesday night to honor his running mate, Mike Pence, Mr. Trump said that admirers had told him, ‘There hasn’t been anything like this since Andrew Jackson.’ Through a spokeswoman this week, Mr. Trump expressed admiration for Jackson — ‘an amazing figure in American history — very unique so many ways’ — and said he admired his predecessor’s ‘ability to never give up.’”

One of the parallels between Trump and Jackson is a focus upon removing outsiders with different cultures and different skin colors. For instance, President Trump just shut down the American government for 35 days in order to try to force Congress to build a border wall that would keep out the Mexicans. Similarly, “Jackson’s presidency marked a new era in Indian-Anglo American relations initiating a policy of Indian removal. Jackson himself sometimes participated in the treaty negotiating process with various Indian tribes, though other times he left the negotiations to his subordinates… Previous presidents had at times supported removal or attempts to ‘civilize’ the Indians, but generally let the problem play itself out with minimal intervention. There had developed a growing popular and political movement to deal with the issue, and out of this policy to relocate certain Indian populations. Jackson, never known for timidity, became an advocate for this relocation policy in what many historians consider the most controversial aspect of his presidency.” A policy of removing those who look and act different is consistent with a mindset that is being guided by emotional ‘error’.

Thus, it is psychologically valid to look for parallels between the absolute truth advocated by White and the mindset of the typical American Christian fundamentalist believer today, because similar societal forces are at work. And these principles probably apply to much of the rest of the current world as well, because one is seeing a similar rise of right wing religious fundamentalism in many countries.

Guidelines for Novel Doctrines

We have focused so far on the mental networks that motivate White. Whenever I analyze some book or author, I find it helpful to start by determining the underlying mental networks that are guiding this system or person. This is still the case even when a system uses technical thought and rigorous logic. That is because technical thinking always happens within the framework of some set of implicit or explicit assumptions. Using the language of Thomas Kuhn, all normal science is ultimately guided by the mental network of some paradigm.

Christian doctrine is a form of technical thought. When a person makes some unusual doctrinal statement, then one commonly responds in a technical manner by quoting verses and making logical arguments. But I have found that this is usually counterproductive, because these logical arguments are always being made within the framework of underlying implicit mental networks. This is especially true when discussing theological topics that impact culture and identity in major ways. We have now worked out some of the mental networks that guide the thinking of Ellen White. We will now examine the doctrines of White in the light of these mental networks.

White describes several doctrines which are not held by most evangelical Christianity. This does not make them automatically wrong. I also believe in some doctrines which are not held by most evangelical Christianity. However, one must be very careful when introducing any unusual doctrine.

Any novel doctrine that I have introduced can be backed up in three ways:

1) It is consistent with the original Greek text of the Bible within the context of the passage. And by context, I mean looking at least at several verses and hopefully at the entire book. Building a doctrine upon a single Greek word taken out of context is insufficient.

2) It is consistent with how the mind works. This is where the theory of mental symmetry comes into play. Any new doctrine must be consistent with cognitive mechanisms. In other words, the doctrine must make sense within the general context of God programming the mind in the direction of greater wholeness. As far as I can tell, God never steps in randomly out of the blue, but always intervenes in a manner that is cognitively appropriate. We used this approach when looking at White’s description of Protestant church history.

3) It is consistent with reality. One can look at history and see illustrations of this doctrine in the patterns of society. In other words, God is not stepping into society in order to introduce something alien, but rather expanding upon something that already exists. We followed this principle as well when analyzing White’s description of church history.

For instance, I suggest an interpretation of ‘the rapture’ which is different than what I have read elsewhere. In brief, I suggest that the rapture will be preceded by the development of an integrated rational Teacher understanding that bridges objective and subjective, as portrayed in Revelation 10 by John eating a little book given to him from an angel who stands with one foot on the ‘earth’ of objective facts and the other foot on the ‘sea’ of subjective experience. This rational Teacher understanding will then become empowered in a supernatural manner by God the Father and Christ the Incarnation through some sort of major event that corresponds to the rapture, which I refer to as ‘the theoretical return of Jesus’. (This is mentioned at the end of Revelation 11.) This empowering will then express itself through a form of supernatural activity which I refer to as spiritual technology. This will lead to great blessing for those who follow God with personal integrity, while leading to great condemnation and to guilt for those who lack personal integrity. This will result in a polarization of society which culminates in the kingdom of the beast led by the antichrist. (This is described in Revelation 13). This backlash from the kingdom of the beast will force those who are using spiritual technology to follow God and Incarnation fully in order to stay alive. Eventually, the kingdom of the beast will be overthrown. (This is described in Revelation 14.)

Looking at this in the light of the three requirements:

1) This sequence appears in several books of the New Testament when they are examined in the original Greek as a single connected sequence of events. So far, I have found it described in Revelation, 1 John, Hebrews, Matthew, John, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Corinthians. This goes far beyond quoting a few verses out of context.

Looking very briefly at two of these books, the theoretical return of Jesus is described in Hebrews 1. Hebrews 2:3-5 describes the spiritual technology that follows. Hebrews 2:5-8 describes the initial period of blessing while 2:9-18 describes the backlash that follows. Turning to 2 Corinthians, chapter 1 describes the process of moving beyond absolute truth to universal truth. The theoretical return of Jesus can be seen in 2:14. Chapter 3 describes the initial period of blessing, while chapter 4 describes the backlash that follows. Notice that in both cases, a doctrine is being formulated by looking at a general sequence that occurs over several chapters. Details have then been added to this general sequence by going step-by-step through each verse looking at the original Greek text.

2) Every step in the sequence of prophecy that is portrayed in these New Testament books makes cognitive sense. Saying this more specifically, the ‘theoretical return of Jesus’ corresponds cognitively to the second step in the three-stage process of personal transformation. The first step constructs a concept of God in Teacher thought. This first step comes to an end when an adequate concept of God has been formulated, as depicted in Revelation 10. The second step of righteousness starts with the theoretical return of Jesus which is then followed by the spread of spiritual technology. The backlash from the kingdom of the beast then forces believers to go through the third step of personal rebirth. Summarizing, this interpretation of the rapture is consistent with the process of personal transformation which every person has to go through mentally in order to achieve mental wholeness.

3) These same three stages have happened historically in the physical realm, and they have transformed the physical world. During the scientific revolution, researchers such as Kepler, Galileo, and Newton developed a rational Teacher understanding of the laws of physics which applied to both the physical earth and the physical heavens. During the industrial revolution, this Teacher understanding was applied in righteousness by using an understanding of the laws of physics to construct machines. Finally, human society has been totally reborn at a technological level during the consumer revolution, which began in about 1880. White lived during the end of the industrial revolution and the beginning of the consumer revolution. It was during this time that the average person started to realize that science and technology was going to descend from the ‘heaven’ of Teacher thought and totally transform normal human existence. My interpretation of the rapture suggests that the same kind of three-stage process that has transformed the physical world will also lead to a transformation of the subjective and the spiritual. Stated simply, I am proposing that the process that has utterly transformed the entire physical globe will be extended by God to include the subjective.

This illustrates another principle that must be followed when introducing any new doctrine. Significance has to be preserved. Anything that is fundamental must be connected with what is fundamental. What is fundamental must not be connected with what is trivial.

For instance, I am not studying the rapture by scouring the Internet for obscure events of history. Instead, I am studying the rapture by comparing it with the biggest transformation that has happened within Western civilization, as well as the biggest transformation that occurs within the mind. This connects big transformations with big transformations. Saying this cognitively, this compares one general Teacher theory with another general Teacher theory, rather than connecting general theories with trivial concepts.

Going further, the general flavor of the traditional interpretation of the rapture is being maintained. The rapture is viewed by evangelicals as God stepping in to human society through an outpouring of supernatural power in order to bless those who follow him and judge those who reject him. This is then followed by a backlash in which the antichrist attempts to create a counterfeit supernatural kingdom which rejects God and morality. The interpretation that I propose maintains this general flavor.

Finally, one must be very, very cautious when suggesting anything new that applies to core doctrines of the nature of God and personal salvation. I have found over the years that mental symmetry keeps reinforcing basic Christian doctrines. Therefore, my goal is to provide a biblically consistent cognitive explanation for doctrines and divine attributes that are currently regarded as incomprehensible mysteries that need to be accepted by blind faith as absolute truth.

Visions and Spirituality

White also says that one must follow a standard when introducing new doctrine. One must not follow one’s own imagination but rather follow the absolute truth of the Bible: “All who exalt their own opinions above divine revelation, all who would change the plain meaning of Scripture to suit their own convenience, or for the sake of conforming to the world, are taking upon themselves a fearful responsibility. The written word, the law of God, will measure the character of every man and condemn all whom this unerring test shall declare wanting” (p.268).

But does The Great Controversy follow this standard? Ellen White received many visions during her life. And her son said that she received much of the prophetic content of The Great Controversy through visions: “Many things are presented to her in picture and in figure. Some of you will remember that beautiful chapter in the last of The Great Controversy in which is described the experience of God’s people who have been in dungeons and hiding places, and as they come, a voice sounds forth, ‘They come! they come! Holy, harmless, and undefiled.’ When Mother was writing the last chapters of The Great Controversy she was heard three times in the night uttering these words as the scene was presented to her over and over. One morning she said, ‘Now I have got it. I know where to place it. I have found its relation.’”

It is possible that Ellen White had legitimate spiritual insight. But why would she emphasize studying the Bible so strongly if she received many of her ideas through visions? Her visions are mentioned in the introduction to the book, but nothing is said about visions in the book itself. Instead, the emphasis is upon studying the Bible. Is this a case of ‘me thinks the lady doth protest too much’? Using cognitive language, is her insistent repetition of ‘study only the Bible’ an attempt to overwhelm Perceiver thought in her mind into ‘knowing’ that her visions are biblical?

The person who asked me to analyze The Great Controversy suggested that Ellen White probably had the cognitive style of Exhorter. This is plausible, because the Exhorter person finds excitement in extreme statements and uses intuition to come up with new ideas. Exhorter thought combines Mercy thought with Teacher thought. Therefore, the Exhorter person lives in a mental world of strong emotions. However, the Exhorter person is not aware of Perceiver thought and does not have conscious control over Perceiver thought. (These relationships can be seen in the diagram of mental symmetry, which summarizes traits that were originally discovered by Lane Friesen through an analysis of 200 biographies.) Thus, an Exhorter person would instinctively use strong emotions to try to overwhelm Perceiver thought, because Exhorter thought is attracted to strong emotions and has no direct control over Perceiver thought.

Looking at the topic of spirituality more generally, my hypothesis is that the spiritual realm interacts with the mind through mental networks. In other words, a person who opens himself up to the spiritual realm will naturally connect with spirits that resonate with his core mental networks, and these spirits will then inhabit these mental networks and empower them. (The spiritual realm appears to be distinct from the angelic supernatural realm. The New Testament talks often about spirits and demons inhabiting and empowering people. But it never talks about an angel inhabiting or empowering a person.) Thus, if one wants to understand the prophetic visions of Ellen White, one must begin by determining the core mental networks that motivated White, which we have just finished doing. Saying this psychologically, intuition never works in a mental vacuum. Instead, intuition travels along the mental pathways that have been established by the content of mental networks.

Looking at these visions from a psychological perspective, spiritual awareness often seems to be a consequence of a near-death experience. This applies to Ellen White: “In 1836, while nine-year-old Ellen was walking with a group of schoolmates, an older girl followed them with childish threats. Just as Ellen turned, the older girl threw a rock that smashed Ellen’s face, knocking her unconscious and causing her to bleed profusely. For the next three weeks after the attack, young Ellen White lay in a virtual coma. The significant blood loss had also adversely affected her respiratory system, an ailment that would burden her for the rest of her life.” Thus, it is quite possible that White acquired an awareness of the spiritual realm as a result of her brush with death. But even if this is the case, the spiritual realm still appears to interact with humans through mental networks. Thus, even if White did have real visions from the spiritual world, these visions still would have been shaped by her mental networks.

Saying this more simply, contacting the spiritual realm appears to be a two-way street. Spirits will empower human bodies and enlighten human minds, but the content of the interaction will flow primarily in the other direction from human to spirit. Spirits will amplify the content that is already present within the mind of the human making the spiritual contact.

Doctrine of Annihilation

The first doctrine that we will examine is White’s teaching that there is no eternal hell. Instead, she says that those who reject God will eventually be annihilated and cease to exist.

White explains why she holds this doctrine: “How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live. Yet this doctrine has been widely taught and is still embodied in many of the creeds of Christendom” (p.536). In other words, White rejects the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell because it is ‘repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy’.

But we just quoted White as saying that “All who exalt their own opinions above divine revelation, all who would change the plain meaning of Scripture to suit their own convenience, or for the sake of conforming to the world, are taking upon themselves a fearful responsibility. The written word, the law of God, will measure the character of every man and condemn all whom this unerring test shall declare wanting” (p.268). Thus, when it comes to eternal punishment, it appears that White is ‘exalting her own opinion’. This illustrates that absolute truth is ultimately based in Mercy emotions, because White is using her personal emotions to decide how God will ultimately treat the sinner.

White adds, “What would be gained to God should we admit that He delights in witnessing unceasing tortures; that He is regaled with the groans and shrieks and imprecations of the suffering creatures whom He holds in the flames of hell? Can these horrid sounds be music in the ear of Infinite Love? It is urged that the infliction of endless misery upon the wicked would show God’s hatred of sin as an evil which is ruinous to the peace and order of the universe. Oh, dreadful blasphemy! As if God’s hatred of sin is the reason why it is perpetuated. For, according to the teachings of these theologians, continued torture without hope of mercy maddens its wretched victims, and as they pour out their rage in curses and blasphemy, they are forever augmenting their load of guilt. God’s glory is not enhanced by thus perpetuating continually increasing sin through ceaseless ages. It is beyond the power of the human mind to estimate the evil which has been wrought by the heresy of eternal torment. The religion of the Bible, full of love and goodness, and abounding in compassion, is darkened by superstition and clothed with terror” (p.536).

I think that White is cognitively and scripturally correct in asserting that God does not find pleasure in the death or torture of sinners. But why would White even think that God ‘delights in witnessing unceasing tortures’? Part of the reason is mentioned in another book, where White describes hearing sermons as a child which portrayed God delighting in witnessing the unceasing torture of sinners in hell. White is rightly trying to escape this sort of sadistic mindset. But she only partially succeeded, because one finds in The Great Controversy the same kind of perverse delight in evil that White herself is trying to escape. Ultimately, White is implicitly assuming that God will view evil humanity the way that she views evil humans in her book, and she learned to view evil humans in that manner from the sadistic sermons that she heard as a child. This is another example of an instructor of absolute truth becoming a source of ‘truth’ while claiming to accurately portray the character of God.

Going further, notice the strong emotional language in this quote: ‘groans and shrieks and imprecations’, ‘dreadful blasphemy’, ‘maddens its wretched victims’. This implies that White is actual using emotional ‘error’ to try to convince herself. She is using emotional words to try to overwhelm Perceiver thought in her mind into ‘knowing’ that an eternal hell is evil. She then defines the character of God as the opposite of this evil. But a mind that builds its concept of God upon the opposite of emotional ‘error’ is mentally incapable of letting evil die, because it needs intense evil to define ‘error’.

That leads us to pose the following question: Is White teaching her doctrine of the annihilation of evil because it is in the Bible or because White is trying to convince herself that God does not take a perverse delight in evil?

A passage from the last page of the book which was quoted earlier provides a possible answer to this question. Quoting this passage again, “The more men learn of God, the greater will be their admiration of His character. As Jesus opens before them the riches of redemption and the amazing achievements in the great controversy with Satan, the hearts of the ransomed thrill with more fervent devotion, and with more rapturous joy they sweep the harps of gold” (p.678). If God will annihilate all the sinners so that people in heaven do not have to hear their screams, then why will Jesus continually be reminding everyone throughout eternity about his ‘great controversy with Satan’? If the subjects will not be resurrected, then why will Jesus continually resurrect the subject? One gains the impression that White herself needs to be continually reminded of evil in order to reinforce her ‘belief’ in emotional ‘error’.

Existence and Hyper-Emotion

Looking at this topic more generally, I suggest that God will not decide arbitrarily to condemn people to hell. Instead, people who build their lives upon evil mental networks will choose of their own free will to live in a hell of their own making apart from the presence of God. An eternal hell gives these people the freedom to continue existing within the sort of environment that they themselves have created. Saying this cognitively, the spiritual realm is ruled by mental networks. When a person dies, then his disembodied soul/spirit will be driven to exist within an environment that resonates with core mental networks. This is consistent with the suggestion that spiritual interaction is a two-way street: the power comes from the spiritual realm but the content is provided by human mental networks.

Looking at this even more generally, I suggest that it is only possible to answer the question of ‘why does God allow evil in the world’ by recognizing that there is something that is more basic than good and evil, which is existence itself. (The centrality of existence is discussed in Hebrews 7.) One can see what this means cognitively by looking at the behavior of a mental network. A mental network can be composed of pleasant memories or of painful memories. For instance, a mental network of pleasant memories can be a source of ‘truth’ while ‘error’ is emotionally enforced by a mental network composed of painful memories. If a mental network continually experiences input that is inconsistent with its structure, it will eventually start to fall apart and generate hyper-emotions that are more intense than normal feelings of pain and pleasure. Saying this another way, there is a hyper-emotion of existence that is more fundamental than normal emotions of pain and pleasure. Death involves hyper-emotions of fragmentation, while sex and worship trigger hyper-emotions of integration.

Thus, I suggest that God must first deal with the problem of existence by ensuring that creation and created beings continue to exist independently of him. Once the problem of existence has been dealt with, then it is possible for God to deal with the problem of good and evil. Saying this in terms of mental networks, before one tries to create mental networks out of good experiences rather than bad experiences, one must first ensure that mental networks continue to exist. That is because the mind appears to be held together at its very core by mental networks. If these core mental networks fall apart, then the mind itself fragments, and this type of existential problem is even deeper than any problem of good and evil. I am not trying to trivialize the question of evil. Rather, I am pointing out that there is an even deeper problem which must be dealt with first. This topic is discussed in the essay on physics.

Normal emotion is felt all the time, but hyper-emotion only becomes apparent when mental networks start to fall apart or come together in a major new way. If some mental network is experiencing consistent input, one is usually not even aware that this mental network exists. Instead, one simply feels that one is behaving normally. But if this mental network faces fragmentation, then it will generate a deep pain that goes beyond normal pain. If some mental network has never faced fragmentation, then one will naturally think that losing that mental network is not a big issue. But if this mental network ever does face fragmentation, then one’s viewpoint will totally change.

For instance, I have often heard about older people breaking their hips, and I have tried to grasp what this means by extrapolating from my experiences of normal pain. This changed when my mother broke her hip a few years before she passed away. I was there when she was lying on the floor. She was literally screaming hellfire and brimstone, pleading with God to kill her, and begging the paramedics to call on Jesus so that he would save them from eternal hellfire. This is not an exaggeration. She was familiar with normal pain, and often complained that her back was hurting. But one of the major bones of her body had now fragmented, and she was now experiencing a deeper level of physical hyper-pain. I personally did not experience my mother’s hyper-pain. But I did experience personally what happens when someone does experience physically induced hyper-pain. It swallows you up. It consumes you.

Ellen White describes this kind of hyper-pain being caused by sermons about eternal hellfire: “Satan was represented as eager to seize upon his prey, and bear us to the lowest depths of anguish, there to exult over our sufferings in the horrors of an eternally burning hell, where, after the tortures of thousands upon thousands of years, the fiery billows would roll to the surface the writhing victims, who would shriek, ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’ Then the answer would thunder down the abyss, ‘Through all eternity!’ Again the molten waves would engulf the lost, carrying them down into the depths of an ever restless sea of fire. While listening to these terrible descriptions, my imagination would be so wrought upon that the perspiration would start, and it was difficult to suppress a cry of anguish, for I seemed already to feel the pains of perdition” (Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, p.30)

“When the thought took possession of my mind that God delighted in the torture of His creatures, who were formed in His image, a wall of darkness seemed to separate me from Him. When I reflected that the Creator of the universe would plunge the wicked into hell, there to burn through the ceaseless rounds of eternity, my heart sank with fear, and I despaired that so cruel and tyrannical a being would ever condescend to save me from the doom of sin. I thought that the fate of the condemned sinner would be mine,—to endure the flames of hell forever, even as long as God Himself existed. Almost total darkness settled upon me, and there seemed no way out of the shadows” (Ibid, p.31).

However, Ellen White lived in a time when the idea of global annihilation was still a theoretical concept. The first globally-reported global event was the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. As one website explains, “The events at Krakatoa were also significant because it was one of the first times that detailed descriptions of a colossal news event traveled around the world quickly, carried by undersea telegraph wires. Readers of daily newspapers in Europe and North America were able to follow current reports of the disaster and its enormous implications.” This was also the first global scientific event, because “Every recording barograph in the world documented the passage of the atmospheric pressure wave, some as many as 7 times as the wave bounced back and forth between the eruption site and its antipodes for 5 days after the explosion.”

White lived through the American Civil War, which was a major event. But it was still an American event. The first world war was the First World War. This war, combined with the Spanish flu that followed, wiped out most of an entire generation—around the world. 40 million people died in the war and another 50 to 100 million in the Spanish flu. Both the war and the Spanish flu killed primarily healthy young men, which is why I say that most of an entire generation was wiped out. Like me watching my mother with her broken hip, the idea that all human life on earth could die moved from the theoretical to the real and the horrific. Going further, the development of the atomic bomb in World War II brought this awareness to everyone. For the first time, it became possible for people to wipe out essentially all life on earth. All that would remain would be cockroaches along with some other insects.

Now let us apply this to White’s doctrine of annihilation. White ‘knew’ at the level of personal fragmentation what it would feel like to be tormented by God in hell. And I put the word ‘know’ in quotes because this was a form of emotional ‘knowing’. But White only knew at an intellectual level what it would feel like for God to annihilate human life at a global level. Therefore, she concluded that a doctrine of annihilation was less painful than a doctrine of suffering in hell. But the question of existence really is more basic than the question of pain and suffering, regardless of how Ellen White herself felt.

Doctrine of Soul Sleep

Related to the doctrine of eternal annihilation of sinners is White’s teaching that Christians do not go to heaven when they die but rather sleep until woken by the final resurrection. This doctrine is described in the following quotes: “We have seen by the scriptures just given that when the Son of man comes, the dead are raised incorruptible and the living are changed. By this great change they are prepared to receive the kingdom; for Paul says: ‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.’ 1 Corinthians 15:50. Man in his present state is mortal, corruptible; but the kingdom of God will be incorruptible, enduring forever. Therefore man in his present state cannot enter into the kingdom of God. But when Jesus comes, He confers immortality upon His people; and then He calls them to inherit the kingdom of which they have hitherto been only heirs” (p.323).

White’s primary argument is that ‘man in his present state is mortal, corruptible; but the kingdom of God will be incorruptible, enduring forever. Therefore man in his present state cannot enter into the kingdom of God’. This is a valid principle. However, how does the corruptible put on the incorruptible? Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 that mortal and immortal bodies are related through a process that is like sowing and reaping. Going from seed to plant is a form of death and resurrection, but there are also many intervening steps of growth, some hidden and some visible.

I mentioned earlier that emotional ‘truth’ acquires its certainty instantly by being overwhelmed by an emotional experience. Universal truth, in contrast, has to gain its confidence step-by-step. Thus, a mindset of absolute truth will naturally think that God imparts life instantaneously, while universal truth will recognize that there are many intervening steps of growth, some hidden and some visible. Looking at the scripturally, God did not create life instantaneously. Instead, Genesis 1 describes a process in which God performed a number of creative steps over a span of several days. Regardless of how one interprets Genesis 1, the creation of life is still being portrayed as a step-by-step process.

This idea of intervening steps of growth also provides an explanation for the rapture passage of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. This passage does talk about a major divine intervention, which I interpret as the theoretical return of Jesus. But the emphasis is not upon the sleeping but rather upon the order of events. Verse 14 refers to those who have ‘fallen asleep through Jesus’. Jesus refers to the human side of incarnation. A person who has fallen asleep through Jesus is someone who thinks of incarnation in terms of the historical Jesus who lived on earth in Roman times. This would describe a Christian who follows the absolute truth of the Bible, without having a general understanding of God in Teacher thought.

Putting this into context, the previous chapters of 1 Thessalonians have talked about following God from a more intelligent perspective. This leads to the worry that the Christian who believes in absolute truth and dies will be left behind. Paul answers in verse 14 that if the historical Jesus went through death and resurrection, then God can also bring along the Christians who believe in absolute truth. Verses 15-16 add that God’s plan starts with heaven and then extends down to earth. And it will affect those who are ‘dead in Christ’ before those who are ‘alive and remain’. Christ refers to the abstract side of incarnation. Someone who is ‘dead in Christ’ has a Teacher-based concept of incarnation rooted in universal truth. These three groups will then come together ‘in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air’.

One primary reason why I refer to this as a theoretical return of Jesus is that everything is happening within the ‘air’ of Teacher thought: ‘descend from heaven with a shout’, ‘voice’, ‘trumpet’, ‘in the clouds’, ‘in the air’. Similarly, everything in Matthew 24:29:31 also happens in the air and the sky: “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” The only thing that is happening on the earth of human existence in this passage is that the ‘tribes of the earth’ are seeing the Son of Man and they are being affected emotionally. But the word translated see in this passage actually means ‘see, often with metaphorical meaning: to see with the mind’. Thus, these two passages describe a powerful and transformative event, but it is happening primarily in the abstract realm of Teacher thought and involves mental sight. Hence, a theoretical return of Jesus.

On page 322, right before the passage that was just quoted, White quotes 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 and then jumps directly to quoting 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. These two passages cannot be referring to the same event because in 1 Corinthians 15 everything happens in a ‘twinkling of an eye’ while 1 Thessalonians 4 describes in detail a sequence of events with one thing following after another, with the primary emphasis being that things are not happening in a twinkling of an eye but rather in a series of steps.

Going further, White says that “Nowhere in the Sacred Scriptures is found the statement that the righteous go to their reward or the wicked to their punishment at death. The patriarchs and prophets have left no such assurance. Christ and His apostles have given no hint of it. The Bible clearly teaches that the dead do not go immediately to heaven. They are represented as sleeping until the resurrection. I Thessalonians 4:14; Job 14:10-12” (p.550).

I suggest that White is equating two events which need to be regarded as distinct. Going to heaven when one dies is not the same as the resurrection. Heaven is currently a spiritual realm populated by angels and disembodied soul/spirits. As White suggests, these disembodied souls will receive their resurrection bodies in the future, as described in 1 Corinthians 15.

One can understand what is happening in terms of the three stages of personal transformation. The first stage constructs a concept of God in Teacher thought that sheds the light of understanding upon inadequate personal identity. The second stage follows this concept of God in righteousness. The third stage of rebirth then lives as a transformed person within this realm of righteousness. These three stages appear to describe a general process. For instance, one can see this three-stage process at a corporate level in Israel leaving Egypt, learning about God in the wilderness, and then entering the promised land. One can also see this three-stage process at a personal level with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham left Ur to follow God, Isaac lived as a stranger in Canaan, while Jacob wrestled with the angel for his birthright. One can tell that this is a general sequence and not just coincidence because God refers to himself in Exodus 3 as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This term is repeated by Peter in Acts 3:13.

Applying this now to heaven, a human being needs to perform the first stage before dying physically, which means coming to God in honesty and recognizing that one is a sinner. When a person dies, then their disembodied soul is forced to face God with personal honesty. Those who took the first step when they were alive can live as disembodied souls with God in a spiritual heaven, while those who avoided the first step live as disembodied souls apart from God in Hades. Neither of these are physical and neither these are the final stage. Instead, there will be a final stage of rebirth in which everyone receives a resurrected body. This will happen in the future as described in Revelation 20. At that point, both death and Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire (20:14).

I have mentioned that absolute truth can start this three-stage process but is incapable of finishing it. One of the theological implications is that heaven will be viewed by absolute truth as the final stage: One follows God on earth by denying self and after death one goes to heaven and worships God forever with fervor. But heaven will eventually descend to a transformed earth, as portrayed in Revelation 21 by the New Jerusalem descending from heaven to earth in a new heavens and earth.

Returning now to the first quote, White says that “man in his present state is mortal, corruptible; but the kingdom of God will be incorruptible, enduring forever. Therefore man in his present state cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (p.323).

How does man change from his present state to become capable of entering into the kingdom of God? We have seen that emotional ‘truth’ is incapable of entering into the kingdom of God, because ‘truth’ requires an emotional source that remains much more important than personal identity. Living within ‘truth’ will lead naturally to corruption and doubt, which will destroy any kingdom of God. This does not mean that a Christian who believes in absolute truth is incapable of entering heaven after death. But it does mean that heaven must focus upon worshiping God, as depicted in Revelation 4. Advancing from this state requires replacing the Mercy foundation of emotional ‘truth’ with a Teacher understanding of universal truth. Notice that this is a cognitive problem based in the structure of the mind. If this is already a major problem when the mind is encased within a mortal body on earth, it would be a huge problem for disembodied minds in heaven. (I am using ‘mind’ as a synonym for ‘soul’, because both refer to the nonphysical aspect of being a human.)

But how could a disembodied mind replace Mercy-based thought with Teacher-based understanding? By moving from a physical realm based upon Mercy experiences of pain and pleasure to a heavenly realm populated by Teacher-based angels. Living among angels would teach dead humans how to use Teacher thought. Notice that there actually three related requirements. Heaven is a spiritual realm populated by disembodied human soul/spirits. In order to enter heaven one has to become reconciled with God through spiritual rebirth. The atonement of Jesus opened up this pathway. In order to survive living in heaven in the presence of God, one has to learn how to view God in terms of Teacher thought—otherwise one will be stuck in a mindset of endless worship. And in order for heaven itself to survive this endless worship, heaven has to be guided by the Teacher-based thinking of angels.

Learning in Heaven

Saying this more generally, it is imperative for heaven to be a spiritual environment in which disembodied human souls can develop and grow. This process of cognitive development in heaven can be seen clearly in the book of Revelation, because this book contains a series of vignettes from heaven, with each one being more advanced cognitively than the previous vignette.

White emphasizes that the book of Revelation is not a mystery beyond the reach of human understanding: “In view of the testimony of Inspiration, how dare men teach that the Revelation is a mystery beyond the reach of human understanding? It is a mystery revealed, a book opened” (p.341).

Looking very briefly at these heavenly vignettes, John’s vision of heaven opens in Revelation 4 with the scene of endless worship. But in Revelation 5:9, the living creatures and the elders sing a new song when the Lamb appears before the throne. In Revelation 7:9-17 a great multitude which has come out of the great tribulation stands before the throne. In Revelation 12, the great sign of a woman appears in heaven. In Revelation 13:6, the first beast is given authority to blaspheme those who dwell in heaven. In Revelation 14:3 a group sings a new song before the throne which no one else can sing. In Revelation 15:3, those who are victorious over the beast sing the song of Moses. In Revelation 19:1-6 those who are in heaven say Hallelujah because of the fall of Babylon. This is then followed by the marriage supper of the Lamb. All of these events happen in heaven before the coming of Christ to earth in Revelation 19:11, and in many of these events it specifically states that humans are present.

A doctrine of soul sleep makes all of this cognitive development in heaven impossible, because people who are asleep do not learn. How does Ellen White treat this process of growth being depicted in Revelation? In the words of Wikipedia, White ignores the concept of sequence and quotes randomly from the book: “The themes of Revelation are heavily grounded in the Old Testament, so Adventist scholarship first looks to this background before attempting interpretation. The context and overall literary structure are important for interpretation. For instance Revelation is not always chronological (e.g. Jesus’ death in Revelation 12:10,11 cannot follow 11:15 where He reigns; and Babylon’s activities in chapter 17 cannot follow its destruction in chapter 16), but many visions are parallel, and progressively illuminate themes.”

A mindset of absolute truth will naturally ignore sequences, because it is ultimately based in Mercy thought, and Mercy thought does not think in terms of sequences. But Teacher thought does think in terms of sequences, which means that absolute truth will naturally ignore the sequences that are naturally present in a holy book. After all, a book by its very nature is a sequence of words, in which one word follows another. them verbal truth will Absolute to this take sequences tend mangle such as and. (Absolute truth will tend to take verbal sequences such as this and mangle them.) Ellen White, with her mindset of absolute truth, mangles the sequences in the book of Revelation.

Going further, she describes the resurrection of Adam as if no time has passed and no learning has occurred: “The Son of God redeemed man’s failure and fall; and now, through the work of the atonement, Adam is reinstated in his first dominion. Transported with joy, he beholds the trees that were once his delight—the very trees whose fruit he himself had gathered in the days of his innocence and joy. He sees the vines that his own hands have trained, the very flowers that he once loved to care for. His mind grasps the reality of the scene; he comprehends that this is indeed Eden restored, more lovely now than when he was banished from it” (p.648).

In other words, while Satan has been spending millennia carrying out a plan of corruption with humanity on earth, God has been spending the same millennia doing absolutely nothing with humans in heaven. This is a rather stark statement, but we have been seeing this emphasis throughout the book. Satan is consistently portrayed as the clever partner with all the plans in the satanic controversy between God and Satan.

White says essentially this in the following quote: “With the earliest history of man, Satan began his efforts to deceive our race. He who had incited rebellion in heaven desired to bring the inhabitants of the earth to unite with him in his warfare against the government of God. Adam and Eve had been perfectly happy in obedience to the law of God, and this fact was a constant testimony against the claim which Satan had urged in heaven, that God’s law was oppressive and opposed to the good of His creatures” (p.531).

I suggest that such a mindset is a natural byproduct of absolute truth trying to survive in an atmosphere of growing scientific doubt. Absolute truth is based in some special book that was revealed in the past. If one starts to doubt this book, then the solution is to focus more thoroughly upon the past, and to repent more fully to the experts of the past. A similar response is occurring today, because many evangelical Christians who doubt the Bible are trying to restore their faith by studying the early church fathers. The underlying assumption is that those who are closest to the source of ‘truth’ have the purest version of this ‘truth’. As a result, many evangelical Christians have converted to Orthodox Christianity, because it claims to have preserved Christianity in its original form.

In other words, absolute truth believes in restoration. This can be seen in White’s description of the resurrection: “All come forth from their graves the same in stature as when they entered the tomb. Adam, who stands among the risen throng, is of lofty height and majestic form, in stature but little below the Son of God. He presents a marked contrast to the people of later generations; in this one respect is shown the great degeneracy of the race. But all arise with the freshness and vigor of eternal youth. In the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not only in character, but in form and feature. Sin defaced and almost obliterated the divine image; but Christ came to restore that which had been lost. He will change our vile bodies and fashion them like unto His glorious body. The mortal, corruptible form, devoid of comeliness, once polluted with sin, becomes perfect, beautiful, and immortal. All blemishes and deformities are left in the grave. Restored to the tree of life in the long-lost Eden, the redeemed will ‘grow up’ (Malachi 4:2) to the full stature of the race in its primeval glory’” (p.645).

Notice that White uses the word ‘restore’ twice but does not use the word ‘resurrection’. Adam is described as taller than the succeeding generations, which conveys the idea that those who are closest to the source of absolute truth have the purest version of ‘truth’. Like absolute truth, creation starts with the perfection of some ‘divine image’ which is then ‘defaced and almost obliterated’ by sin. Christ is described as the restorer who brings back the ‘freshness and vigor of eternal youth’.

But the name Jesus does not mean ‘restoration’. It means ‘salvation’. And God has declared that the name of Jesus is above every other name. And Philippians 2 explains that God lifted up the name of Jesus because Jesus achieved eternal salvation through death and rebirth.

This principle of salvation through death-and-rebirth rather than restoration applies also to studying the Bible—which White keeps emphasizing in her book. I just mentioned that many evangelical Christians today are responding to their doubt in the Bible by studying the early church fathers in an attempt to restore the original faith of Christianity. But the early church fathers were emotionally mesmerized by the brightness of having encountered God in human form. Thus, what one finds primarily in the early church fathers is mysticism. Similarly, Orthodox Christianity, which claims to preserve the earliest version of Christianity, is basically mysticism in Christian garb. If this sounds like an overstatement, please read the essay on Orthodox Christianity.

If one wishes to understand the Bible, one must die to the method of emotional ‘truth’ and be reborn to Teacher understanding. The best way to learn how to use Teacher thought today is by studying science and technology. This does not mean that one should believe everything that science says about God, the origins of life, and the creation of the world. Much of it is flawed. (In the essay on physics, I have done my best to try to distinguish between what is solid in physics and what is based upon assumptions.) But if one learns from science how to use Teacher thought and then uses Teacher thought to analyze the Bible from the perspective of ‘being transformed by the renewing of the mind’, then the Bible will make sense. And not just normal sense, but mind-blowing sense. It will then become obvious that the Bible is a special book that is too clever to have been written by human authors—or fully understood by the church fathers. I am not stating this as a conjecture, but rather as a reasonable conclusion based upon extensive study of the Bible.

Sending Thoughts of Heaven to Sleep

Why would White teach a doctrine of soul sleep? I would like to suggest two possible psychological reasons. First, White teaches that Christians who die go to sleep and not to heaven because that is what White did with her thoughts about heaven. She sent them to sleep.

Like the other Millerites, she prepared for the second coming of Jesus. She describes the intensity of this preparation: “Those who accepted the advent doctrine were roused to the necessity of repentance and humiliation before God. Many had long been halting between Christ and the world; now they felt that it was time to take a stand. ‘The things of eternity assumed to them an unwonted reality. Heaven was brought near, and they felt themselves guilty before God.’ Christians were quickened to new spiritual life. They were made to feel that time was short, that what they had to do for their fellow men must be done quickly. Earth receded, eternity seemed to open before them, and the soul, with all that pertained to its immortal weal or woe, was felt to eclipse every temporal object” (p.340).

When the second coming did not happen, the result was deep doubt and disappointment: “Like the first disciples, William Miller and his associates did not, themselves, fully comprehend the import of the message which they bore. Errors that had been long established in the church prevented them from arriving at a correct interpretation of an important point in the prophecy. Therefore, though they proclaimed the message which God had committed to them to be given to the world, yet through a misapprehension of its meaning they suffered disappointment” (p.352).

She responded to this doubt by emotionally revitalizing the Mercy feelings supporting emotional ‘truth’: “The disappointment also, though the result of their own misapprehension of the message which they gave, was to be overruled for good. It would test the hearts of those who had professed to receive the warning. In the face of their disappointment would they rashly give up their experience and cast away their confidence in God’s word? or would they, in prayer and humility, seek to discern where they had failed to comprehend the significance of the prophecy? How many had moved from fear, or from impulse and excitement? How many were halfhearted and unbelieving? Multitudes professed to love the appearing of the Lord. When called to endure the scoffs and reproach of the world, and the test of delay and disappointment, would they renounce the faith? Because they did not immediately understand the dealings of God with them, would they cast aside truths sustained by the clearest testimony of His word?” (p.354). Notice all the emotional language in the previous quote: ‘test the hearts’, ‘rashly give up their experience’, ‘prayer and humility’, ‘fear, impulse and excitement’, ‘halfhearted’, ‘love the appearing’, ‘endure the scoffs and reproach’. Notice also that this emotional intensity is being directed towards the absolute truth of the Bible: ‘their confidence in God’s word’, ‘the clearest testimony of His word’.

And she repented back to the Bible, focusing more fully upon the absolute truth of the Bible: “To the children of faith the perplexity and sorrow resulting from their error would work the needed correction. They would be led to a closer study of the prophetic word. They would be taught to examine more carefully the foundation of their faith, and to reject everything, however widely accepted by the Christian world, that was not founded upon the Scriptures of truth” (p.354).

But what is one doing cognitively when one uses emotional intensity to restore ‘belief’ in absolute truth? One is using Mercy emotions to overwhelm Perceiver thought; one is sending Perceiver thought back to sleep. And one is also sending back to sleep all one’s thoughts about heaven. Repeating part of an earlier quote, those who were waiting for Jesus to return felt that: “Earth receded, eternity seemed to open before them, and the soul, with all that pertained to its immortal weal or woe, was felt to eclipse every temporal object” (p.340). Because White and her fellow Millerites used emotional intensity to put thoughts about heaven to sleep, White finds it natural to believe that God will treat real humans in the real heaven the same way.

This same cognitive principle can be used to analyze John Darby’s teaching on the pre-tribulation rapture. If one compares Darby’s doctrine about the rapture with the way that Darby treated fellow humans when forming the closed brethren church, one can see that Darby is preaching that God will treat humanity the same way that Darby himself treated his fellow humans.

Emotions are also present when universal truth is being tested, because Perceiver (or Server) confidence makes it possible to hold on to facts (or sequences) in the middle of emotions. However, the response to these emotions will be different. First, instead of returning to a specific book, one will examine many different situations in order to gain a more accurate knowledge of the facts. Second, feeling will eventually become distinct from knowing. Using the illustration given at the beginning of this essay, one will look at the chair and realize that the fact that it is a chair has nothing to do with how one feels about that chair. One will then laugh at how silly one was to doubt, and the emotional trauma will be replaced by a sense of peace, emotionally indicating the presence of a Teacher understanding. This probably will happen several times, because confidence grows step-by-step as truth successfully survives emotional testing. This will not remove the Mercy feelings or solve the problem, but it will place the Mercy feelings within a context of Teacher understanding, and it will give the mind the clarity that is needed to think about the problem.

Spiritism?

The second possible psychological reason for White’s doctrine of soul sleep can be found in spiritism. White devotes a chapter (chapter 34) to the topic of spiritism. She opens the chapter by explaining how she connects spiritism with the doctrine of soul sleep: “The doctrine of man’s consciousness in death, especially the belief that spirits of the dead return to minister to the living, has prepared the way for modern spiritualism. If the dead are admitted to the presence of God and holy angels, and privileged with knowledge far exceeding what they before possessed, why should they not return to the earth to enlighten and instruct the living?” (p.551). Thus, a doctrine of soul sleep is required to protect people from being deceived by human spirits.

White fears that Satan might use human spirits to make some true predictions and then deceive humans through these spirits: “When they have been led to believe that the dead actually return to communicate with them, Satan causes those to appear who went into the grave unprepared. They claim to be happy in heaven and even to occupy exalted positions there, and thus the error is widely taught that no difference is made between the righteous and the wicked. The pretended visitants from the world of spirits sometimes utter cautions and warnings which prove to be correct. Then, as confidence is gained, they present doctrines that directly undermine faith in the Scriptures. With an appearance of deep interest in the well-being of their friends on earth, they insinuate the most dangerous errors. The fact that they state some truths, and are able at times to foretell future events, gives to their statements an appearance of reliability; and their false teachings are accepted by the multitudes as readily, and believed as implicitly, as if they were the most sacred truths of the Bible. The law of God is set aside, the Spirit of grace despised, the blood of the covenant counted an unholy thing. The spirits deny the deity of Christ and place even the Creator on a level with themselves. Thus under a new disguise the great rebel still carries on his warfare against God, begun in heaven and for nearly six thousand years continued upon the earth” (p.553).

This is a fairly long quote because it contains several significant concepts. First, as usual, White is ascribing intelligence and power to Satan: ‘Satan might use’, ‘Satan causes those’, ‘the great rebels still carries on his warfare’. Second, the purpose of Satan is to attack belief in the Bible: ‘directly undermine faith in the Scriptures’, ‘the most sacred truths of the Bible’, ‘the law of God is set aside’. Third, Satan is minimizing the fundamental division between ‘truth’ and ‘error’: ‘No differences made between the righteous and the wicked’. Fourth, emotional ‘truth’ is being acquired from the wrong source: ‘their false teachings are accepted by the multitude as readily, and believed as implicitly, as if they were the most sacred truths of the Bible’.

White’s focus upon the power of Satan can also be seen in the following quote: “These persons overlook the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the wonders wrought by Satan and his agents. It was by satanic aid that Pharaoh’s magicians were enabled to counterfeit the work of God. Paul testifies that before the second advent of Christ there will be similar manifestations of satanic power. The coming of the Lord is to be preceded by ‘the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness’” (p.553).

But why does White believe that Satan has all the spiritual power? I suggest that this is because the spiritual realm interacts with the human mind through mental networks. We have seen that White focuses emotionally upon the work, plan, intelligence, and power of Satan. Anyone with such a mental fixation who opens themselves up to the spiritual realm will attract spirits that resonate with such a mindset. And what is one doing when one waits with all of one’s being for Christ to return from heaven to earth? One is opening oneself up to the spiritual realm.

White recognizes this principle: “There are few who have any just conception of the deceptive power of spiritualism and the danger of coming under its influence. Many tamper with it merely to gratify their curiosity. They have no real faith in it and would be filled with horror at the thought of yielding themselves to the spirits’ control. But they venture upon the forbidden ground, and the mighty destroyer exercises his power upon them against their will. Let them once be induced to submit their minds to his direction, and he holds them captive. It is impossible, in their own strength, to break away from the bewitching, alluring spell. Nothing but the power of God, granted in answer to the earnest prayer of faith, can deliver these ensnared souls. All who indulge sinful traits of character, or willfully cherish a known sin, are inviting the temptations of Satan” (p.558). Notice the final sentence: ‘All who indulge sinful traits of character, or willfully cherish a known sin, are inviting the temptations of Satan’. White is indulging herself with the fascination of evil, and she is willfully cherishing the cleverness and effectiveness of Satan, even though she knows that this is sin. Even if this is happening unwittingly as a result of all the sermons that she heard as a child, she is still willfully cherishing the cleverness and effectiveness of Satan to the extent of writing and publicizing a book on the subject.

Going further, why is White so concerned about spiritism? Why is she so worried about getting wrong information from spirits? Because White’s visions are a form of spiritism. But how does White know that she is not being deceived through the visions of her spiritism?

She answers this question in the following quote: “Many will be confronted by the spirits of devils personating beloved relatives or friends and declaring the most dangerous heresies. These visitants will appeal to our tenderest sympathies and will work miracles to sustain their pretensions. We must be prepared to withstand them with the Bible truth that the dead know not anything and that they who thus appear are the spirits of devils” (p.560). In other words, White knows that she is not deceived because of the doctrine of soul sleep. She has defined the problem away.

Using an analogy, this is like having a warning light go on when one is driving the car. The warning light indicates potential danger. But one can eliminate the feeling of danger by believing that the engine is just an illusion. If an imaginary engine turns on a warning light, then one can ignore this warning light. One may think and feel that one has defined the problem away. But the problem is still there. What one has really defined away is one’s awareness of the problem. Similarly, White has merely lulled herself into believing that she cannot be misled by evil spirits.

And that is a fundamental problem with emotional ‘truth’. Using strong emotions to overwhelm Perceiver thought will lead to the certainty of ‘knowing’. But this sense of ‘knowing’ has nothing to do with reality. Universal truth, in contrast, builds confidence by observing reality for connections that are repeated. This form of certainty may still contain residual doubt, but it is a real certainty that has been gained by examining the facts. Repeating another analogy, emotional ‘truth’ evaluates the content of a letter by looking at the name on the envelope. If this name is an important person, then the contents of the letter will be trusted. But the letter itself has not been read. The confidence in the letter has nothing to do with the content of the letter. Universal truth, in contrast, opens up the letter and reads the contents.

White says in the introduction that her visions are being guided by the Spirit of God: “As the Spirit of God has opened to my mind the great truths of His word, and the scenes of the past and the future, I have been bidden to make known to others that which has thus been revealed” (p.xi).

But let us open up this letter and look at what is written inside. What kind of content does White say that she has received from the Holy Spirit? “Through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the scenes of the long-continued conflict between good and evil have been opened to the writer of these pages. From time to time I have been permitted to behold the working, in different ages, of the great controversy between Christ, the Prince of life, the Author of our salvation, and Satan, the prince of evil, the author of sin, the first transgressor of God’s holy law. Satan’s enmity against Christ has been manifested against His followers. The same hatred of the principles of God’s law, the same policy of deception, by which error is made to appear as truth, by which human laws are substituted for the law of God, and men are led to worship the creature rather than the Creator, may be traced in all the history of the past. Satan’s efforts to misrepresent the character of God, to cause men to cherish a false conception of the Creator, and thus to regard Him with fear and hate rather than with love; his endeavors to set aside the divine law, leading the people to think themselves free from its requirements; and his persecution of those who dare to resist his deceptions, have been steadfastly pursued in all ages” (p.x).

The letter is all about Satan: ‘the great controversy’, ‘enmity against Christ’, ‘hatred of the principles’, ‘ policy of deception’, ‘human laws are substituted’, ‘worship the creature’, ‘misrepresent the character’, ‘cherish a false conception’, ‘regard him with fear and hate’, ‘set aside the divine law’, ‘free from its requirements’, ‘persecution’, ‘deceptions’. The word holy means set apart to God. Why would a Holy Spirit fixate on rebellion from God? Why would a Spirit of God keep talking about Satan?

In contrast, Paul says in Philippians 4:8: “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” This does not mean that one ignores evil, but rather that one places everything within a context of good. White is placing everything within a context of evil.

I am not suggesting that everything that White says comes from an evil spirit. There is a lot of truth in what she says. But there is also an underlying fixation with Satan and evil. And such a fixation will have spiritual repercussions if one opens oneself up to the spiritual world. And White did open herself up to the spiritual world, first inadvertently through her childhood injury, second consciously by waiting for Jesus to return physically, and third deliberately by following her many visions.

I also am opening up myself to the spiritual realm. I am waiting for a theoretical return of Jesus, and I also have a gut suspicion that spirits are helping me come up with ideas. That is one reason why I am doing everything in my power to focus in a positive manner upon the power, intelligence, and plan of God in Teacher thought. I want to attract spirits who love God and not spirits who have a hidden fascination with Satan. That is because I have a deep suspicion that interaction with the spiritual realm is a two-way street. I as a human am responsible for providing the content of this interaction. That is why it is so important ‘to be transformed by the renewing of the mind’ before one dies physically and is forced to enter the spiritual realm as a disembodied mind.

Books and Words

Going further, the Millerites went to great efforts to publicize their message. I suggest that this is a natural byproduct of focusing in Teacher thought upon the absolute truth of some book. This is a significant point which has already been discussed to some extent, but it is especially significant when one is waiting for Jesus to return.

The generality of a Teacher theory depends upon how many specific situations can be explained by a simple verbal explanation, similar to the way that the grandeur of a monarch depends upon the number of subjects that are ruled by this monarch. One way to expand the generality of a Teacher theory is by living within that theory; the experiences of living within the theory add to the generality of that theory. But how can one live in a theory that is composed of words, especially if that theory is based upon emotional ‘truth’ that crumbles if it comes into extended contact with personal identity?

Another way of expanding the generality of the Teacher theory is by studying that theory. But how far can one go with studying a theory when one is limited to studying the words of some specific holy book? If one tries to compare this book with other books, then this comparing will cause the holy book to lose its uniqueness and its specialness, leading again to the crumbling of emotional ‘truth’.

The primary option that remains is to talk about the theory more and to get more people to talk about the theory. Thus, one will be driven by Teacher thought to publicize one’s message.

In contrast, I can expand the Teacher generality of mental symmetry by using it to analyze new books and new theories. That is because it is based upon universal cognitive truths that apply everywhere and can be discovered everywhere. This also means that I do not have to turn my back upon reality in order to focus more fully upon mental symmetry, because the theory of mental symmetry becomes more general as I study my surrounding reality. In contrast, studying a theory that is based upon emotional ‘truth’ requires turning one’s back upon secular reality in order to focus with greater fervor upon ‘truth’.

And because mental symmetry appears to describe how God has created things to work, my primary goal is to break through to a new spiritually enhanced reality where I can enjoy more fully how God has created things to work. This is an important point that needs repeating. A theory that is based in special words cannot descend to reality, because it is based in words that are not connected with reality. All one can do is talk about the words, sing about the words, imagine living in the words, and get more people to talk about the words. In contrast, a theory that is based in an understanding of ‘how things work’ can descend to reality because it is based in an understanding of reality. For instance, suppose that some inventor comes up with an idea for a new gadget. The inventor does not have to despair if no one listens to his idea. Instead, he can focus more fully upon building the new gadget. Similarly, if people do not listen to the theory of mental symmetry I do not have to despair. Instead, I can focus more fully upon applying mental symmetry in order to become more mentally whole so that I become capable of living within a spiritually enhanced reality.

Day of Atonement

The next doctrine that we will examine involves the day of atonement and the scapegoat. This ceremony is described in Leviticus 16 and discussed by White starting on page 419. She concludes her initial description by saying that “The whole ceremony was designed to impress the Israelites with the holiness of God and His abhorrence of sin; and, further, to show them that they could not come in contact with sin without becoming polluted. Every man was required to afflict his soul while this work of atonement was going forward. All business was to be laid aside, and the whole congregation of Israel were to spend the day in solemn humiliation before God, with prayer, fasting, and deep searching of heart” (p.420). Notice again the byproducts of emotional ‘truth’: Humanity needs to recognize that personal identity is sinful and needs to be denied. The response to sin should be fervor. The emotional distinction between holy God and sinful man must be maintained.

Looking at this from a historical perspective, the Jews in the wilderness probably felt this way, because God was using emotional experiences to impose ‘truth’ upon minds that were driven by tribal mental networks within Mercy thought. However, I have found that one can also find Teacher structure in rituals such as the day of atonement and the scapegoat. (Most of this analysis can be found in the essay on the book of Hebrews.)

White also recognizes that there is both a physical and a symbolic side to the day of atonement, and she relates this distinction to the ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’: “For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ’s work for the redemption of men is completed there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work—to cleanse the sanctuary” (p.421). Summarizing, White uses the day of atonement to explain what Jesus started doing in heaven in 1844.

However, as I mentioned earlier in the essay, the sanctuary actually shows up several times in the book of Revelation and not just once. The Greek word is naos, which refers to ‘that part of the temple where God himself resides’. (Hebrews uses the word ‘tabernacle’ to refer to this sanctuary.) This word is used in Revelation 11:19 to describe the holy of holies, where the ark of the covenant resided: “And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.” This is the only time that the ark of the covenant is mentioned in Revelation. My hypothesis is that the end of Revelation 11 describes the theoretical return of Jesus. On the one hand, God is being unveiled in a new way, because the temple of God in heaven is being opened and the ark of the covenant is being seen. However, the word translated appeared means ‘see, often with a metaphorical meaning; to see with the mind’. This is consistent with the idea of a theoretical return rather than a physical return. Going further, most of the results are appearing in the air of Teacher thought: ‘flashes of lightning’, ‘ sounds and peals of thunder’, and ‘a great hailstorm’. The only earthly result is an earthquake, but this is not described as a great earthquake.

Looking at the other references to the temple in Revelation 4-22, 7:14-15 says that those “who come out of the great tribulation” will “serve Him day and night in His temple”. In 11:1, a measuring rod is used to “measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it”. The next reference is 11:19, which we have already discussed. 14:15-17 talks about two angels coming out of the temple in heaven in order to reap the harvest from the earth. In 15:5-16:1, seven angels come out of the temple in order to deliver the seven bowls ofomparing will cause the holy book to lose its uniqueness and its specialness, leading again to the crumbling of emotional ‘truth’.

The primary option that remains is to talk about the theory more and to get more people to talk about the theory. Thus, one will be driven by Teacher thought to publicize one’s message.

In contrast, I can expand the Teacher generality of mental symmetry by using it to analyze new books and new theories. That is because it is based upon universal cognitive truths that apply everywhere and can be discovered everywhere. This also means that I do not have to turn my back upon reality in order to focus more fully upon mental symmetry, because the theory of mental symmetry becomes more general as I study my surrounding reality. In contrast, studying a theory that is based upon emotional ‘truth’ requires turning one’s back upon secular reality in order to focus with greater fervor upon ‘truth’.

And because mental symmetry appears to describe how God has created things to work, my primary goal is to break through to a new spiritually enhanced reality where I can enjoy more fully how God has created things to work. This is an important point that needs repeating. A theory that is based in special words cannot descend to reality, because it is based in words that are not connected with reality. All one can do is talk about the words, sing about the words, imagine living in the words, and get more people to talk about the words. In contrast, a theory that is based in an understanding of ‘how things work’ can descend to reality because it is based in an understanding of reality. For instance, suppose that some inventor comes up with an idea for a new gadget. The inventor does not have to despair if no one listens to his idea. Instead, he can focus more fully upon building the new gadget. Similarly, if people do not listen to the theory of mental symmetry I do not have to despair. Instead, I can focus more fully upon applying mental symmetry in order to become more mentally whole so that I become capable of living within a spiritually enhanced reality.

Day of Atonement

The next doctrine that we will examine involves the day of atonement and the scapegoat. This ceremony is described in Leviticus 16 and discussed by White starting on page 419. She concludes her initial description by saying that “The whole ceremony was designed to impress the Israelites with the holiness of God and His abhorrence of sin; and, further, to show them that they could not come in contact with sin without becoming polluted. Every man was required to afflict his soul while this work of atonement was going forward. All business was to be laid aside, and the whole congregation of Israel were to spend the day in solemn humiliation before God, with prayer, fasting, and deep searching of heart” (p.420). Notice again the byproducts of emotional ‘truth’: Humanity needs to recognize that personal identity is sinful and needs to be denied. The response to sin should be fervor. The emotional distinction between holy God and sinful man must be maintained.

Looking at this from a historical perspective, the Jews in the wilderness probably felt this way, because God was using emotional experiences to impose ‘truth’ upon minds that were driven by tribal mental networks within Mercy thought. However, I have found that one can also find Teacher structure in rituals such as the day of atonement and the scapegoat. (Most of this analysis can be found in the essay on the book of Hebrews.)

White also recognizes that there is both a physical and a symbolic side to the day of atonement, and she relates this distinction to the ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’: “For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ’s work for the redemption of men is completed there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work—to cleanse the sanctuary” (p.421). Summarizing, White uses the day of atonement to explain what Jesus started doing in heaven in 1844.

However, as I mentioned earlier in the essay, the sanctuary actually shows up several times in the book of Revelation and not just once. The Greek word is naos, which refers to ‘that part of the temple where God himself resides’. (Hebrews uses the word ‘tabernacle’ to refer to this sanctuary.) This word is used in Revelation 11:19 to describe the holy of holies, where the ark of the covenant resided: “And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.” This is the only time that the ark of the covenant is mentioned in Revelation. My hypothesis is that the end of Revelation 11 describes the theoretical return of Jesus. On the one hand, God is being unveiled in a new way, because the temple of God in heaven is being opened and the ark of the covenant is being seen. However, the word translated appeared means ‘see, often with a metaphorical meaning; to see with the mind’. This is consistent with the idea of a theoretical return rather than a physical return. Going further, most of the results are appearing in the air of Teacher thought: ‘flashes of lightning’, ‘ sounds and peals of thunder’, and ‘a great hailstorm’. The only earthly result is an earthquake, but this is not described as a great earthquake.

Looking at the other references to the temple in Revelation 4-22, 7:14-15 says that those “who come out of the great tribulation” will “serve Him day and night in His temple”. In 11:1, a measuring rod is used to “measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it”. The next reference is 11:19, which we have already discussed. 14:15-17 talks about two angels coming out of the temple in heaven in order to reap the harvest from the earth. In 15:5-16:1, seven angels come out of the temple in order to deliver the seven bowls of wrath, and the temple is so full of the power and glory of God that no one can enter the temple until the bowls are finished. In 16:7, “a loud voice came out of the temple from the throne, saying, ‘it is done’”. This is followed in verse 18 by ‘flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder’. In this case the accompanying earthquake is described as ‘a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth’. The temple is mentioned once more in 21:22. Looking at the New Jerusalem in the new heavens and earth, John says that “I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.”

Summarizing, these references describe a progression with several steps rather than a simple ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ followed by a ‘close of probation’. Looking at this cognitively, I have mentioned that righteousness means allowing Server actions to be guided by a concept of God in Teacher thought. Righteousness inherently involves steps and sequences—it is a path of righteousness. That is because both Server and Teacher thought think in terms of steps, sequences, and paths. Thus, one sees several steps being carried out in Revelation involving the sanctuary. Absolute truth, in contrast, does not naturally think in terms of sequences because it is based in Perceiver ‘truth’ imposed by Mercy thought, and both Perceiver and Mercy thought think spatially rather than sequentially. Thus, absolute truth will naturally view the cleansing of the sanctuary as some sort of event or experience which starts and then is finished, with no concept of a process being followed. As we shall see in a moment, White’s prediction of future judgment does contain some sequence, but this sequence is provided primarily by Satan. This makes cognitive sense, because White is ascribing the Teacher and Server thinking of science to the work of Satan.

The day of atonement is discussed in the essay on Hebrews. We will add some more details here and suggest how they fit into the theory of mental symmetry. The background story is described in Leviticus 10:1-3: “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘It is what the Lord spoke, saying, “By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.”’” Summarizing, the sons of Aaron offer strange incense to God, they are consumed by fire, and Moses reminds Aaron that God must be treated as holy. Incense represents mental networks, because smell will trigger mental networks in the mind. (Neurologically speaking, there is a direct connection from the odor receptors in the nose to the orbitofrontal cortex, the central location for mental networks.)

The day of atonement is described in Leviticus 16. Leviticus 16:1 refers back to the event of Leviticus 10: “Now the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they had approached the presence of the Lord and died.” Thus, the purpose for the day of atonement is to make sure that one does not worship God with strange mental networks. Verse 2 starts by saying that Aaron the priest can no longer enter the sanctuary any time he chooses, or else he will die. Instead, he must now go through an elaborate ceremony, and verse 29 says that this ceremony should be carried out once a year as a day of atonement. The ceremony begins in verses 3-6 with Aaron making a sin offering for himself and his family. Similarly, in verses 11-14 Aaron enters the holy-of-holies and makes a sin offering for himself and his family so that he will not die.

This personal and family atonement is then followed by an atonement for the nation. In verse 15 one of two goats is offered as a sin offering ‘for the people’. Verse 16 adds that “He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel”. Similarly, the altar is cleansed from national impurity in verse 19: “he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and from the impurities of the sons of Israel consecrate it.”

This is when the scapegoat—the second of the two goats—plays its role: “Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness” (v.20-22). Notice that the scapegoat is not killed. Instead, verse 10 says that it should be ‘presented alive before the Lord’: “the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the Lord.” Before the scapegoat is sent out, Aaron puts his hands on the head of the live goat and confesses the sins of the nation. Nothing is mentioned here about individual sin. This word scapegoat is only used in this chapter of the Bible, and it means ‘entire removal’.

Putting this all together, the underlying problem is worshipping God with strange mental networks. In order to address this problem, the priest first has to take care of his own personal mental networks in order to approach God. The rest of the ceremony involves national sin—the mental networks of society and culture. There is a Mercy and a Teacher side to dealing with this problem. The Mercy side happens within the holy-of-holies and involves death, which implies that Mercy mental networks are falling apart in the presence of God. Once the Mercy side is finished, then the Teacher side takes place: “When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat” (v.20). One can tell that this side is related to Teacher thought because it is the only time in the chapter where Aaron is told to speak. The word translated confess in verse 21 means ‘to throw, cast’ and is usually translated in other passages as ‘confess’ or ‘give thanks’. Thus, the Teacher side involves letting go and giving it to God. This is emphasized by the word scapegoat, which means ‘entire removal’, the word confess which means ‘to throw, cast’, the action of taking the scapegoat out into the wilderness and releasing it alive, and the instruction in verse 10 that the scapegoat should literally ‘stand alive before God’.

Looking at this cognitively, a concept of God in Teacher thought is based upon universal understanding, while personal identity in Mercy thought is composed of specific experiences. When one makes a major error, one must die to the specific experiences in Mercy thought. But one should not kill the understanding in Teacher thought. Instead, one should release the situation in Teacher thought, allowing the offending mental networks to continue living apart from personal identity so that they can add to the understanding of God in Teacher thought. (The word translated wilderness refers to uninhabited land, or tracts of land used for the pasturage of flocks and herds. It does not mean a place of suffering.)

Saying this more generally, the day of atonement appears to be describing a paradigm shift within society. Society as a whole is going through a major shift in order to be more compatible with the character of God. This interpretation fits the references to the temple in the book of Revelation. In each case, a major shift is happening within society. In chapter 7, this shift is from being squeezed by the great tribulation of technical specialization to serving God in the temple, which means adding subjective thought to the impersonal squeezing of objective science and technology. (The word tribulation means ‘squeezing’, and the word tribulation is only used once in Revelation 4-22). In 11:1, this shift involves measuring the temple, which has previously been treated as an unmeasurable mystery. This was discussed earlier in the essay. In chapter 14, the wine of existing culture is being subjected to the wrath of God. In chapter 15, the throne of the beast is being destroyed by the seven bowls. In 16:7, the wrath of God is finished. In each of these cases, God is imposing a major corrective shift upon society.

That brings us to Hebrews 9:12, where Christ enters ‘the greater and more perfect tabernacle’ ‘once for all, having obtained eternal redemption’. This is often connected with the death of Jesus on the cross. But Hebrews 9 talks about Christ and not Jesus, and refers to the heavenly tabernacle and not the earthly temple. The historical death of Jesus was a once-for-all event that does not have to be repeated. But Hebrews 9 is describing something much bigger involving Christ, the divine side of incarnation. We currently live within a physical universe in which matter rules over mind. My general hypothesis is that God will ultimately replace this with a new heavens and earth in which mind rules over matter. Hebrews 9 is describing this kind of cosmic shift in which matter-over-mind is replaced by mind-over-matter. (This concept of mind-over-matter versus matter-over-mind is discussed in much more detail in the essays on Hebrews and 2 Corinthians.) A cosmic transition from matter-over-mind to mind-over-matter would be the ultimate corrective shift in which the physical creation itself would be brought into harmony with the character of God.

The idea of a tabernacle or sanctuary is itself an expression of existing matter-over-mind, because a holy building is a structure that exists independent of the mind of God. The final reference to the temple in Revelation 21:22 explains that there is no temple in the New Jerusalem “for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple”. This replacement of the structure of the temple with the person of God and Incarnation is consistent with the idea of matter-over-mind being replaced by mind-over-matter. That is because matter is used to build structures, while people have minds.

White’s Scapegoat

Now that we have examined the sanctuary (or temple), the day of atonement, and the scapegoat, let us see what White says about these topics.

White interprets the scapegoat as Satan: “Thus those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming. It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed” (p.422). Not only does White say that the scapegoat represents Satan, but she appears to be saying that Satan is playing an atoning role: ‘upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed’.

And she also seems to be saying that Satan the scapegoat will die for peoples’ sins: “As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away ‘unto a land not inhabited’ (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil” (p.486).

Paul does talk about “filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” in Colossians 1:24, but he says this within the context of explaining his role as an apostle of God. An apostle extends the message of God in some new and significant way, and Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 9 the personal cost of being an apostle. But White is saying something quite different: Satan is ‘the originator and instigator of sin’. The ‘sins of the truly repentant’ are being placed upon Satan. Satan is ‘suffering the full penalty of sin’. And ‘the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment’ in the suffering and death of Satan. Throughout her book, White has been focusing upon the intelligence and power of Satan. Now she is assigning a significant portion of the redemptive plan of Jesus to Satan.

I suggested earlier that one must be very, very cautious when suggesting any new doctrine that applies to core doctrines of the nature of God and personal salvation. White’s doctrine of the redemptive role of Satan is a new doctrine of personal salvation. I have tried very hard over the years to follow the theory of mental symmetry wherever it leads, regardless of the theological implications. After several decades of research, I have found that mental symmetry always leads to conclusions that are consistent with core Christian doctrines.

However, if one thinks in terms of absolute truth, then there is some logic to what White is proposing. Absolute truth views anything apart from the Bible as ultimately satanic. A major paradigm shift started to happen in White’s day, which was a shift from Mercy-based society to Teacher-based society. This paradigm shift involved the spread of science and technology.

There is an extensive cognitive relationship between the thinking of science and technology and a mental concept of incarnation. Summarizing very briefly what is mentioned in previous essays, science uses abstract technical thought while technology uses concrete technical thought. Science manipulates the Teacher words of mathematical equations while technology builds gadgets and machines that perform Server actions. In a similar manner, John 1 describes Jesus the Incarnation as ‘the word who was with God and who is God’ becoming flesh. Saying this analogically, Jesus-the-man was the ‘technological expression’ of the ‘science’ of Jesus-the-God. Science and technology are only a partial expression of ‘the Word made flesh’. That is because science and technology avoid Mercy feelings by remaining objective and they avoid Teacher feelings by specializing. Incarnation goes beyond science by expressing the full nature of God in Teacher thought and not just the Teacher theory of some limited technical paradigm. Similarly, Incarnation goes beyond technology by saving people in Mercy thought and not just creating laborsaving gadgets.

Thus, when White rejected emerging scientific thought as the work of Satan, she was actually rejecting an aspect of Jesus Christ the incarnation of God. Unfortunately, a mindset of absolute truth will naturally regard science and technology with suspicion: Using science to understand the universe violates the idea of mystery. Using technology to improve life violates self-denial. And taking one’s eyes off the Bible in order to understand the physical universe violates the principle of fervor.

Going further, because modern science and technology ignore both God and people, it is easy for them to become hijacked by godlike dictators who will use science and technology to rule over people. This started to happen in the American Civil War and became fully apparent in World War I. Because emotional ‘truth’ uses strong Mercy emotions to overwhelm Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is ‘true’ and what is ‘false’, these horrific experiences of technologically enhanced war will ‘prove’ to emotional ‘truth’ that technology is ‘false’.

But the science and technology that White was rejecting as the work of Satan was actually the first baby step of society learning how to view God and creation from a Teacher perspective. It was actually Jesus-the-incarnation starting to make the heavenly sanctuary righteous.

Needing a Day of Atonement

When a person is following such a systemic error, then this is a kind of ‘national’ sin that requires a day of atonement. A day of atonement has a Mercy side and a Teacher side. The sinful mental networks in Mercy thought need to die. In the case of White, these sinful mental networks were all of the mental networks of emotional status that were supporting emotional ‘truth’. Teacher thought then needs to be set free from personal and societal control. In the case of White, this meant releasing Teacher thought from the mental straitjacket of only studying the Bible within the cultural context of the Millerites.

However, instead of dying to emotional ‘truth’ in Mercy thought, White interpreted her struggle in terms of emotional ‘truth’, by saying that there is a controversy between those who use emotional ‘truth’ to believe in the Bible and those who use emotional ‘truth’ to support the authority of the Catholic Church, and that behind this human controversy lies ‘the great controversy’ between Jesus and Satan.

Saying this another way, emotional ‘truth’ will naturally divide Mercy experiences into ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Sin will then be defined as becoming personally associated with Mercy mental networks that are ‘evil’. For instance, I was taught as a child that a movie theater is a bad place. Therefore, I should not go to a movie theater. What was being shown in the movie theater was of secondary importance. Instead, what mattered was people seeing me in a movie theater. However, sin actually means ‘to shoot at a target and miss’. White was shooting at the target of comprehending the return of Jesus, but her mindset of emotional ‘truth’ caused her to miss the target.

And instead of giving freedom to Teacher thought, White limited it to thinking about the Bible within the context of the return of Jesus. Using Teacher thought to come up with a rational understanding was rejected as a temptation of Satan which would eventually be stopped by God. Using the language of the scapegoat, instead of setting the scapegoat free before God, White labeled the scapegoat as satanic and declared that God would ultimately judge and kill the scapegoat. Thus, White’s doctrine about the scapegoat is actually an expression of the way that she herself mentally violated the day of atonement. Again we see the general principle that it is natural for a person to form a concept of God in their own image. (In later life, White did extend her thinking to education, physical health and diet. But that is not mentioned in this book.)

A similar logic applies to the secular practice of using technology to build weapons of war. This too is a national sin that requires a day of atonement. What needs to die in Mercy thought is the idea of nationalism—the idea that being born and raised in some physical location by some group of people automatically makes me special. In Teacher thought, research needs to be set free from military control.

But what happened instead is that international relations became defined as a controversy between my nation and other nations. Everything became interpreted in terms of the great controversy between national allies and national enemies. And instead of setting Teacher thought free of military control, nationalistic control of science and technology became formalized in the military-industrial complex.

This type of thinking has been rejected by much of the world as a result of the horrors of World War II. However, it still struggles to live on in the United States, partially because none of the destruction of recent wars has occurred within the country the United States. Most American citizens have not personally experienced the hell-on-earth that is created by technologically enhanced nationalism.

The primary national sin today is consumerism, which uses science and technology to feed childish Mercy mental networks with a continual flow of cheap toys and vapid entertainment. How has the typical evangelical church responded to consumerism? Instead of dying in Mercy thought to the infantile desires that feed consumerism, the typical evangelical church tries to replace secular consumerism with religious consumerism, leading to a great controversy between Christian fun and secular fun. And instead of setting Teacher thought free to understand the ways of God, Teacher thought has become the servant of religious consumerism: How can be Christian theology and doctrine be modified so that they will attract people to the church? Meanwhile, secular Teacher thought tends to be rejected as the satanic work of secular humanism, and many evangelical Christians are looking forward to Jesus judging secular thought with the cataclysms of The Tribulation.

I know that there are many exceptions to the sweeping statements being made in the previous paragraphs. However, one can also see that in each case there is a systemic problem that affects a group of people. And such a systemic problem requires a day of atonement. In each case, inadequate Mercy mental networks need to die, and Teacher thought needs to be set free of the control of these inadequate Mercy mental networks. But in each case, the tendency is to define the problem in terms of competing Mercy mental networks and then harness Teacher thought to ensure that ‘good’ Mercy mental networks win over ‘bad’ Mercy mental networks.

Doctrine of the Millennium

That brings us to the next related doctrine, which is the millennium. White explains why Miller changed his doctrine of the millennium: “Angels of heaven were guiding his mind and opening the Scriptures to his understanding. Taking the manner in which the prophecies had been fulfilled in the past as a criterion by which to judge of the fulfillment of those which were still future, he became satisfied that the popular view of the spiritual reign of Christ—a temporal millennium before the end of the world—was not sustained by the word of God. This doctrine, pointing to a thousand years of righteousness and peace before the personal coming of the Lord, put far off the terrors of the day of God. But, pleasing though it may be, it is contrary to the teachings of Christ and His apostles, who declared that the wheat and the tares and to grow together until the harvest, the end of the world; that ‘evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse;’ that ‘in the last days perilous times shall come;’ and that the kingdom of darkness shall continue until the advent of the Lord and shall be consumed with the spirit of His mouth and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming” (p.321).

Summarizing this quote, Miller (and White following after Miller) started by viewing the millennium as ‘a thousand years of righteousness and peace before the personal coming of the Lord’. But this bothered her because it ‘put far off the terrors of the day of God’. In other words, people need to be scared of God. If there is righteousness and peace, then people will no longer fear God. Instead, people need to keep in mind that evil will ultimately ‘be consumed with the spirit of His mouth and be destroyed with the brightness of His coming’. A similar concern is often expressed today, because many Christians feel that people will reject morality if they stop viewing God as the Ultimate Person in Mercy thought.

But there is also a form of morality that is based in Teacher thought, which one can see illustrated to some extent by professional behavior. A profession is a set of skills and knowledge that is held together by some system of understanding in Teacher thought and summarized by some name in Teacher thought. For instance, in order to be called a physician, one must possess a certain set of skills and knowledge about medicine. A professional will be motivated by Teacher thought to behave in a professional manner. Professionalism is a form of righteousness, because it describes behavior that is motivated by the Teacher mental network of some specialization. The righteousness of professionalism tends to be incomplete, because it is the result of objective science, which ignores the subjective and avoids a concept of God. For instance, a professional soldier will follow the immoral goal of killing people in a professional and righteous manner.

If God is a universal person who uses Teacher thought, then morality should actually be viewed as an extension of professionalism: One thinks and behaves in a professional manner in order to uphold the Teacher order and structure of that profession. Similarly, one thinks and behaves in a righteous manner in order to uphold the Teacher order and structure of ‘how things work’, because God has created things to work in a righteous manner that reflects his character.

Summarizing, absolute truth ultimately bases the words of a holy book in Mercy feelings of status and importance. Similarly, absolute truth will believe that the morality of God ultimately needs to be backed up by Mercy feelings of divine status and importance. However, it is also possible for a book to be emotionally supported by the Teacher mental network of a general understanding. Similarly, it is also possible for morality to be emotionally supported by the Teacher mental network of a concept of God.

Parable of the Wheat and Tares

Moving on, White stated in the previous quote that a millennium of paradise ‘is contrary to the teachings of Christ and His apostles, who declared that the wheat and the tares and to grow together until the harvest, the end of the world; that evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.’

Let us look at this parable to see if it lines up with White’s interpretation. The parable of the wheat and the tares is found in Matthew 13:24-30. Jesus explains in verse 39 that “the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.” This harvest by the angels is described in Revelation 14:14-20. However, there actually two different gatherings in Revelation 14. Revelation 14:14-16 describes an angel reaping the harvest of the earth, using the same Greek word for harvest that is used in Matthew 13. This word ‘harvest’ only appears in the book of Revelation in these three verses, and it appears once as a noun and three times as a verb. Thus, one can be reasonably certain that Revelation 14 and Matthew 13 are referring to the same event.

This is followed by a second angelic gathering in 14:17-20. The word ‘harvest’ is not used to describe this second gathering. Instead, an angel uses a sickle to ‘gather the clusters from the vine of the earth’.

My general hypothesis is that bread represents intellectual food for Teacher thought while grapes represent Mercy mental networks of culture. For instance, the connection between wheat and Teacher thought can be seen in the parable of the sower, which immediately precedes the parable of the wheat and the tares. Jesus explains in this parable that the seed represents the word, and he has just talked in verses 13-14 about the distinction between hearing and understanding. The parable of the wheat and the tares then describes the seed as wheat.

Applying this to Revelation 14, the first gathering involves Teacher understanding because wheat is being harvested. The second gathering involves Mercy culture because grapes are being gathered. These two gatherings are described quite differently. With the first harvest, a sickle is used to reap the earth and nothing more is said. There is no mention about the wrath of God. With the second gathering, the grapes are thrown into ‘the great wine press of the wrath of God’. This winepress is trodden outside the city, and extensive blood comes out from the winepress. Blood represents Mercy mental networks of personal identity. (This second gathering is discussed further in the essay on Revelation. I suggest that this passage is not describing a massive physical bloodbath.) Thus, similar to the day of atonement, the wrath of God leads to extensive death within Mercy thought while there is only harvesting within Teacher thought. The connection with the day of atonement is appropriate, because the angels come out of the temple in heaven in order to carry out the harvest.

Applying this now to White’s interpretation, if the wheat and the tares coexist until being judged by God, this does not mean that good and evil are supposed to coexist in Mercy thought. Instead it means that righteous and unrighteous thinking should be allowed to coexist in Teacher thought. This connection with righteousness is found in both Matthew and Revelation. Jesus finishes his explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13:43 by saying “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.” This final statement about ears and hearing emphasizes that Jesus is focusing upon words and Teacher thought. Similarly, the description of the angelic gathering in Revelation 14 is immediately followed by the appearance of a new group of people before the throne of God who sing a song that describes the righteousness of God: “Great and marvelous are Your works, O Lord God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Your ways” (Revelation 15:3).

Fearing Complacency

Moving on, White mentions another concern that she has regarding the idea of a millennium of paradise: “The doctrine of the world’s conversion and the spiritual reign of Christ was not held by the apostolic church. It was not generally accepted by Christians until about the beginning of the eighteenth century. Like every other error, its results were evil. It taught men to look far in the future for the coming of the Lord and prevented them from giving heed to the signs heralding His approach. It induced a feeling of confidence and security that was not well founded and led many to neglect the preparation necessary in order to meet their Lord” (p.321).

Looking at this historically, it was commonly thought during the Victorian era that the world would gradually get better and better until culminating in the millennial kingdom of God. Modern liberalism teaches a similar myth, believing that rational Teacher thought will eventually culminate in a perfect society. White thinks that this attitude ‘induced a feeling of confidence and security that was not well founded and led many to neglect the preparation necessary in order to meet their Lord’.

White’s concern is well-founded, but I suggest that her conclusions are being misguided by her focus upon emotional ‘truth’. The problem with liberal thought is that it follows Teacher thought without recognizing that inadequate Mercy mental networks need to fall apart and die. Pursuing education—which is good, is being combined with accepting everyone just the way that they are—which is bad. Looking at this further, I suggest that a distinction needs to be made between Teacher generalization and Teacher overgeneralization. Education is based upon Teacher generalization; Perceiver facts are being used to construct general theories within Teacher thought. Unconditional acceptance, in contrast, is based upon Teacher overgeneralization; general theories within Teacher thought are being formed through sweeping statements that ignore Perceiver facts.

Saying this another way, I have mentioned that scientific thought tries to be objective and it tends to specialize. I have also mentioned that scientific thought attacks the attitude of emotional ‘truth’. That is because scientific thought uses Perceiver thought while emotional ‘truth’ overwhelms Perceiver thought. This combination leaves a vacuum within the subjective. Because science uses Teacher thought, this emotional vacuum will typically be filled with Teacher overgeneralization: We are all one; just accept everyone regardless of their differences. This Teacher overgeneralization will often be expressed religiously as some form of mysticism. However, a tactic of ignoring the facts will leave childish Mercy mental networks intact under the surface, waiting to be triggered. Using the language of White, liberal education will ‘induce a feeling of confidence and security that is not well founded and lead many to neglect the preparation necessary in order to meet their Lord’. But the real problem is not that the liberal is using rational Teacher thought but rather that the liberal is not repenting of childish Mercy mental networks.

Saying this most succinctly, both the secular liberal and the conservative Christian are misapplying the day of atonement. The secular liberal is setting Teacher thought free without dying to childish Mercy mental networks. The conservative Christian is trying to suppress childish Mercy mental networks without setting Teacher thought free. The secular liberal is being misguided by the Teacher error of overgeneralization, while the conservative Christian is being misguided by the Mercy error of emotional ‘truth’.

Satan and the Millennium

We have looked at the scapegoat in the context of the day of atonement. Now let us move forward to the scapegoat in the context of the millennium. White states that Satan will suffer for 1000 years as the scapegoat on a desolate earth during the millennium: “The whole earth appears like a desolate wilderness. The ruins of cities and villages destroyed by the earthquake, uprooted trees, ragged rocks thrown out by the sea or torn out of the earth itself, are scattered over its surface, while vast caverns mark the spot where the mountains have been rent from their foundations. Now the event takes place foreshadowed in the last solemn service of the Day of Atonement… When the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed, then in the presence of God and heavenly angels and the hosts of the redeemed the sins of God’s people will be placed upon Satan; he will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit. And as the scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, so Satan will be banished to the desolate earth, an uninhabited and dreary wilderness. The revelator foretells the banishment of Satan and the condition of chaos and desolation to which the earth is to be reduced, and he declares that this condition will exist for a thousand years” (p.658). Notice that the earth is utterly destroyed: ‘The whole earth appears like a desolate wilderness’. Notice also that all the sins of Christians are being placed upon Satan: ‘in the presence of God and heavenly angels and the hosts of the redeemed the sins of God’s people will be placed upon Satan; he will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit’. Thus, White is ascribing a significant portion of the atoning work of Jesus to Satan.

Continuing with White’s interpretation, Satan’s time on earth will be a period of intense suffering, while Christians will observe from heaven with gladness: “For a thousand years, Satan will wander to and fro in the desolate earth to behold the results of his rebellion against the law of God. During this time his sufferings are intense. Since his fall his life of unceasing activity has banished reflection; but he is now deprived of his power and left to contemplate the part which he has acted since first he rebelled against the government of heaven, and to look forward with trembling and terror to the dreadful future when he must suffer for all the evil that he has done and be punished for the sins that he has caused to be committed. To God’s people the captivity of Satan will bring gladness and rejoicing” (p.660).

I have mentioned that emotional ‘truth’ cannot survive personal contact with the source of ‘truth’. The emotional source of ‘truth’ must be regarded as far more important than personal identity. We saw this cognitive problem at the beginning of the essay when looking at the cognitive contradictions faced by an instructor of absolute truth. This means that emotional ‘truth’ can look forward to living in heaven with God but it cannot actually live in heaven with God. Revelation 4 appears to describe a temporary solution to this problem by having angels in charge of heaven who then create an atmosphere of continual worship which maintains human feelings of emotional ‘truth’.

White maintains this required emotional distinction between the source of ‘truth’ and personal identity by having Satan suffer for the sins of people on earth while humans rejoice with God in heaven. This explains cognitively why the sins of the people have to be laid upon Satan. He represents all of their inadequate personal identities, which they are denying by living in heaven. This also explains why ‘to God’s people the captivity of Satan will bring gladness and rejoicing’. Because all of their sins have been placed upon Satan, they can vicariously perform the self-denial that is required to make it possible for them to enjoy heaven.

Emotional ‘truth’ requires an emotional contrast between myself and the source of ‘truth’. One can see this being portrayed by the continual worship in Revelation 4. But White is maintaining this emotional contrast through the use of emotional ‘error’. She says that Satan will suffer intensely during the millennium on a physical earth that exists in a state of utter destruction. The emotional intensity of seeing Satan suffer on a desolate earth will overwhelm Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is ‘false’, allowing heaven to exist as the opposite of satanic, desolate earth. A physical division between holy and secular needs to be preserved by taboos; people must be forbidden from crossing the wall that separates holy from secular. A similar taboo can be seen in White’s millennium because all the living humans will be in heaven while earth will be devoid of life.

I have mentioned that emotional ‘truth’ can look forward to meeting the source of ‘truth’ but it cannot survive living with the source of ‘truth’. White has solved this problem by replacing the emotional ‘truth’ of Jesus with the emotional ‘error’ of Satan. White enhances this emotional ‘error’ by having Satan “look forward with trembling and terror to the dreadful future when he must suffer for all the evil that he has done and be punished for the sins that he has caused to be committed” (p.660).

One can tell that the mind is being ruled by the emotional ‘error’ of Satan suffering on earth because White does not say anything on these pages (p.656-661) about the pleasures of heaven. Instead, the entire focus is upon the suffering of sinners. The only mention of joy is the schadenfreude that Christians in heaven experience at the suffering of Satan: “To God’s people the captivity of Satan will bring gladness and rejoicing.”

And she says that the focus of Christians in heaven will be upon judging evil: “During the thousand years between the first and the second resurrection the judgment of the wicked takes place… In union with Christ they judge the wicked, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Bible, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then the portion which the wicked must suffer is meted out, according to their works; and it is recorded against their names in the book of death. Satan also and evil angels are judged by Christ and His people” (p.661). This reinforces the suggestion that the emotional ‘error’ of evil will make it possible for Christians to live with God in heaven.

I do not know how much of this was worked out consciously by White, how much of it was implied to her implicitly by her mental framework of absolute truth, and how much of it was suggested to her by spirits who showed her visions guided by the content of White’s core mental networks. In addition, she probably got some of her focus upon Satan and evil from the hellfire sermons that she listened to as a child. (Why were so many preachers preaching hellfire? Part of the reason is that White grew up in a Methodist Church, and we saw earlier that Wesley taught that a person has to recognize that he is a sinner in order to be saved by the grace of God. A hellfire sermon uses emotional ‘error’ to help a person to ‘know’ that he is a sinner.)

Examining this now from a cognitive perspective, White’s description of the millennium would it make it possible for a mind that is based upon emotional ‘error’ to live with God in heaven. For, in the same way that humans living on earth are ultimately governed by ‘how the natural world works’, so disembodied minds living in heaven would ultimately be governed by ‘how the mind works’.

Parasitic Upon Emotional ‘Error’

The idea that the emotional ‘error’ of evil makes it possible for Christians to live with God in heaven sets the theme for the next 14 pages of the book (p.662-675). The chapter opens on page 662 by describing the end of the millenium: “At the close of the thousand years, Christ again returns to the earth. He is accompanied by the host of the redeemed and attended by a retinue of angels. As He descends in terrific majesty He bids the wicked dead arise to receive their doom. They come forth, a mighty host, numberless as the sands of the sea.”

This is quite different than what is described in Revelation 20:7-10. “When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

White says that ‘Christ again returns to earth’, but this is not mentioned in Revelation. Revelation says that ‘Satan is released from his prison’, but this is not mentioned by White. White says that Jesus ‘is accompanied by the host of the redeemed and attended by a retinue of angels’. But that is mentioned in Revelation 19:14 and not here. White says that Jesus ‘bids the wicked dead arise to receive their doom’, but that happens in verse 12 after this battle is over. In fact, the only two phrases in common are ‘at the close of the thousand years’ and ‘numberless as the sands of the sea’. The point I am trying to make is that the biblical text has to be mangled in order to support the idea of Satan suffering alone on earth during the millennium.

Revelation describes the resulting battle in one phrase: “and fire came down from heaven and devoured them” (v.9). White takes a page and a half to describe the battle (p.663-664) but she does not mention either the word ‘fire’ or the word ‘heaven’. Instead, she describes in detail Satan marshaling his evil forces and implementing his nefarious plans.

Page 665 describes the followers of Christ who are defending themselves against Satan’s hordes. However, following Christ is described as the opposite of ‘error’: “Nearest the throne are those who were once zealous in the cause of Satan, but who, plucked as brands from the burning, have followed their Saviour with deep, intense devotion. Next are those who perfected Christian characters in the midst of falsehood and infidelity, those who honored the law of God when the Christian world declared it void, and the millions, of all ages, who were martyred for their faith” (p.665). Notice how a close follower of Christ is being defined as an un-follower of Satan. This defines a mindset based in emotional ‘error’. And these followers of Christ exhibit total self-denial: “In all that shining throng there are none to ascribe salvation to themselves, as if they had prevailed by their own power and goodness. Nothing is said of what they have done or suffered; but the burden of every song, the keynote of every anthem, is: Salvation to our God and unto the Lamb” (p.665).

In contrast, Revelation 20:9 describes this group using a single Greek word which means ‘holy ones’. The Bible dictionary explains that ‘In the New Testament, holy has the technical meaning different from the world because like the Lord’. This emphasizes being like God rather than being unlike Satan.

Pages 666-669 describe the Great White Throne, which is mentioned in Revelation 20:11-15. It begins by describing the physical life of Jesus as a life of self-denial. Two sentences out of the next three pages are devoted to the followers of Jesus: “The redeemed cast their crowns at the Saviour’s feet, exclaiming: ‘He died for me!’ Amid the ransomed throng are the apostles of Christ, the heroic Paul, the ardent Peter, the loved and loving John, and their truehearted brethren, and with them the vast host of martyrs” (p.667). The rest of the three pages (pp.667-669) focuses upon sinners, their sin, and their despair.

Pages 669-670 describe Satan reliving his life of rebellion against God. Page 670 points out that the purpose of this reliving is to reinforce emotional ‘error’: “Christs followers and the loyal angels behold the full extent of his machinations against the government of God. He is the object of universal abhorrence… The results of rebellion, the fruits of setting aside the divine statutes, have been laid open to the view of all created intelligences. The working out of Satan’s rule in contrast with the government of God has been presented to the whole universe.” This is problematic for three reasons: First, it indicates a fixation with Satan. Second, it uses the emotional ‘error’ of Satan to define the character of God. Third, it violates the chronology of the biblical text because the devil is thrown into the lake of fire in verse 10 before the Great White Throne begins in verse 11. Therefore, Satan could not appear before the Great White Throne. But emotional ‘error’ requires the presence of evil.

On page 671, the joy of Jesus is described: “He looks upon the redeemed, renewed in His own image, every heart bearing the perfect impress of the divine, every face reflecting the likeness of their King. He beholds in them the result of the travail of His soul, and He is satisfied” (p.671). Notice that this joy comes from fervor. Jesus loves his followers because all he sees in them is the fervor that they have for him. Looking at this further, White’s description leaves the impression that this is a crowd of clones, each with a likeness that is an identical copy or ‘perfect impress’ of Jesus. This describes the fundamental nature of absolute truth, because absolute truth goes to great lengths to ensure that every copy of a holy book is identical to every other book and a faithful replication of the original. In contrast, a concept of incarnation that is based in universal truth will lead to harmony rather than unison. Followers of Jesus will be singing the same song in harmony, but they will not be singing the same notes in unison. They will be similar, but they will not be identical.

This positive description of the joy of Jesus is followed by another two pages that describe Satan’s last attempt at rebellion. But according to the book of Revelation the devil was thrown into the lake of fire back in Revelation 20:10 and there is no mention of any final battle at the end of Revelation 20. However, if one’s mind is based upon emotional ‘error’, then good must always be preceded by some rebellion and destruction that defines ‘evil’, making it possible for good to emerge as the opposite of ‘evil’. And what White describes is the ultimate expression of rebellion and destruction. A number of passages of fiery judgment from the Old Testament are quoted. The earth itself turns to fire: “The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth’s surface seems one molten mass—a vast, seething lake of fire” (p.672).

Revelation 20 does talk about a lake of fire, but it does not say that the earth is turned into a lake of fire. Instead, in verse 14 death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, while in verse 15 those whose names are not found written in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. A lake is by definition a small body of water surrounded by land, and the Greek word translated lake is related to the Greek word that means ‘a harbor, a haven’. In other words, solid earth is the normality while the lake of fire is the exception to the solid earth. Saying this another way, the kingdom of God defines the normality while Satan resides in the lake of fire which is an exception to this normality.

In contrast, White describes the Holy City as the abnormality residing in the midst of a totality of fire: “While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield” (p.673). Even here, good is being described as the opposite of evil, rather than regarding evil as an aberration of good.

Page 674 then mentions the new heaven and the new earth. Presumably, White’s lengthy description of the entire earth turning into a sea of fire is the old earth passing away. But Revelation 21:1 simply states that “the first heaven and the first earth passed away”, and the verb translated passed away is a very normal verb that means ‘to go away, go after’. In other words, the old earth goes away with a whimper and not with a bang. But emotional ‘error’ needs evil bangs.

White adds that “every trace of the curse is swept away”. And yet, in the next paragraph, White still sets the scene by describing the suffering of Jesus. And the new heavens and earth are described primarily as undoing the work of Satan: “The earth originally given to man as his kingdom, betrayed by him into the hands of Satan, and so long held by the mighty foe, has been brought back by the great plan of redemption. All that was lost by sin has been restored. ‘Thus saith the Lord . . . that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited.’ Isaiah 45:18. God’s original purpose in the creation of the earth is fulfilled as it is made the eternal abode of the redeemed” (p.674). Looking at this cognitively, absolute truth views truth as something that has been revealed fully in the past. Any attempt to go beyond these limited words of the holy book will be rejected as the work of Satan. And one follows God by returning back to the absolute truth that has been revealed in the past. Similarly, the new heaven and the new earth is described as a restoration of the original creation which eliminates any deviations introduced by Satan.

White then takes the last three pages of the book to describe the wonders of the new heaven and earth. But how can she talk about God and goodness and paradise for three whole pages without mentioning evil and Satan? She introduces this section by appealing to mystery: “Those who accept the teachings of God’s word will not be wholly ignorant concerning the heavenly abode. And yet, ‘eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.’ 1 Corinthians 2:9. Human language is inadequate to describe the reward of the righteous. It will be known only to those who behold it. No finite mind can comprehend the glory of the Paradise of God” (p.675). Notice the final phrases: ‘human language is inadequate’, ‘no finite mind can comprehend’.

White quotes 1 Corinthians 2:9 to back up her statement. However, we saw earlier in the essay that she is actually misreading the verse. It does not say that ‘no finite mind can comprehend’. Instead, it says that one does not learn about what God has prepared externally through the senses of hearing and seeing. And it says that this has not entered into the heart of man. And the word translated heart is kardia which means ‘heart’. This verse is really saying that emotional ‘truth’ is incapable of comprehending what God has prepared, because emotional ‘truth’ is based in the Mercy mental networks of human heart.

We have seen that White takes a lot of creative license when interpreting Revelation 20. White warns against this kind of thinking earlier in the book: “In order to sustain erroneous doctrines or unchristian practices, some will seize upon passages of Scripture separated from the context, perhaps quoting half of a single verse as proving their point, when the remaining portion would show the meaning to be quite the opposite. With the cunning of the serpent they entrench themselves behind disconnected utterances construed to suit their carnal desires. Thus do many willfully pervert the word of God. Others, who have an active imagination, seize upon the figures and symbols of Holy Writ, interpret them to suit their fancy, with little regard to the testimony of Scripture” (p.521).

Bottomless Pit?

We will finish our look at prophecy by looking at White’s scriptural basis for suggesting that Satan spends the millennium suffering alone on earth. Revelation 20:1-3 actually says that Satan is bound for a thousand years and cast into a bottomless pit. White explains why she interprets this bottomless pit as an uninhabited, destroyed Earth: “That the expression ‘bottomless pit’ represents the earth in a state of confusion and darkness is evident from other scriptures. Concerning the condition of the earth ‘in the beginning,’ the Bible record says that it ‘was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.’ [* THE HEBREW WORD HERE TRANSLATED ‘DEEP’ IS RENDERED IN THE SEPTUAGINT (GREEK) TRANSLATION OF THE HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT BY THE SAME WORD RENDERED ‘BOTTOMLESS PIT’ IN REVELATION 20:1-3.]” (p.658). The capitalized words are in the original text.

Summarizing, Genesis 1:1 says that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. This is followed by verse 2 which says that “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep.” The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word ‘deep’ into the same Greek word that is used for ‘bottomless pit’ in Revelation. Because the earth is described as formless and void in Genesis 1:2 and associated with the word ‘deep’, White concludes that it is legitimate to describe the earth as formless and void in Revelation 20 and associate it with the word ‘deep’.

This reminds me of how my aging mother would often introduce me to others. She would say, ‘This is Lorin. He was a three pound infant.’ Whenever she said that, I would think ‘Have I done nothing memorable since being born? Have you forgotten about my entire life?’ Similarly, one could ask White, ‘Has God done nothing memorable with creation since Genesis 1:2? Has the entire history of the universe been forgotten?’ Focusing upon the very beginning while ignoring everything that has happened after is consistent with a mindset of absolute truth, because absolute truth also believes that ‘truth’ was revealed in complete form at some event in the past and that everything that has happened after that is ultimately inconsequential.

Looking at the exegesis of White in more detail, if the Greek word that is translated ‘abyss’ in Revelation 20:1-3 refers to the entire earth, then how does one interpret the other times that this word is used? (The NASB translates this word as ‘abyss’ or ‘bottomless pit’, while the KJV translates it as as ‘deep’ or ‘bottomless pit’.) In Revelation 9:1-3 this same word ‘bottomless pit’ is used, but in verses 2-3 locusts come out of the bottomless pit onto the earth, telling us that the bottomless pit is a different location than the earth: “He opened the bottomless pit, and smoke went up out of the pit, like the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by the smoke of the pit. Then out of the smoke came locusts upon the earth, and power was given them, as the scorpions of the earth have power.” Similarly, in Revelation 11:7-10 a beast “comes up out of the abyss” and kills the two witnesses. Their bodies then lie “in the street of the great city” and “those who dwell on the earth rejoice over them and celebrate”. Again, the abyss is described as a location that is different than the earth. Likewise, Revelation 17:8 also describes the beast as coming up out of the abyss to the earth: “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast.”

This word abyss is also used two more times in the New Testament. In Luke 8:30-32 demons implore Jesus not to command them to go away into the abyss, and so Jesus gives them permission to enter a herd of swine instead. Again, one gains the clear impression that the abyss is a different location than the physical earth, because the demons want to stay on earth rather than go into the abyss. Finally, Paul uses the word abyss in Romans 10:6-8 to describe a realm of the dead that is different than heaven and different than the realm of normal human existence—which is presumably earth. “‘DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, “WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?” (that is, to bring Christ down), or “WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).’ But what does it say? ‘THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART.’”

Summarizing, every occurrence of the word abyss in the New Testament refers to it as a location that is different than the earth and talks about moving between the earth and the abyss. Thus, one concludes that it is incorrect for White to say that the abyss is the earth. If the abyss is a location that is different than the earth, then this means that Satan is not on the earth during the millennium. (I am not suggesting that the abyss is a physical location in the physical universe. Instead, it must exist somewhere in the spiritual or angelic realms. Romans 10 associates it with the dead, while in the other passages demons and angels are moving in and out of the abyss.)

An Intense Theory of a Day

The final doctrine of White that we will discuss does not make sense if one approaches this topic directly. Instead, we have to set the scene by understanding what was happening emotionally within the minds of the Millerites. They were studying, preaching, and following a general theory in Teacher thought that pointed towards some specific day. They believed that Jesus would return on that day and that everything would be different.

White describes Miller’s focus upon constructing a general theory in Teacher thought: “William Miller possessed strong mental powers, disciplined by thought and study; and he added to these the wisdom of heaven by connecting himself with the Source of wisdom. He was a man of sterling worth, who could not but command respect and esteem wherever integrity of character and moral excellence were valued. Uniting true kindness of heart with Christian humility and the power of self-control, he was attentive and affable to all, ready to listen to the opinions of others and to weigh their arguments. Without passion or excitement he tested all theories and doctrines by the word of God, and his sound reasoning and thorough knowledge of the Scriptures enabled him to refute error and expose falsehood” (p.335).

The moral character of a researcher is seldom considered in current academia, because scientific thought tries to remain rational by ignoring personal emotions in an objective manner. However, when one is studying a topic that inherently involves subjective emotions, such as religion or the mind, then one must behave in a moral manner by applying personally the message that one understands intellectually.

Miller’s Teacher theory of the return of Jesus became a general theory that was accepted and embraced by many people: “The writings of Miller and his associates were carried to distant lands. Wherever missionaries had penetrated in all the world, were sent the glad tidings of Christ’s speedy return. Far and wide spread the message of the everlasting gospel: ‘Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come.’ The testimony of the prophecies which seemed to point to the coming of Christ in the spring of 1844 took deep hold of the minds of the people. As the message went from state to state, there was everywhere awakened widespread interest” (p.368).

Preaching about the imminent return of Jesus was intensely emotional: “The presence of holy angels was felt in these assemblies, and many were daily added to the believers. As the evidences of Christ’s soon coming were repeated, vast crowds listened in breathless silence to the solemn words. Heaven and earth seemed to approach each other. The power of God was felt upon old and young and middle-aged. Men sought their homes with praises upon their lips, and the glad sound rang out upon the still night air. None who attended those meetings can ever forget those scenes of deepest interest” (p.370). Notice the final sentence: ‘None who attended those meetings can ever forget the scenes of deepest interest’.

The essence of Miller’s theory was that Jesus would return upon a certain day. Wikipedia explains that Miller originally taught that Jesus would return between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. When this did not happen, then a new date of April 18, 1844 was set. When this passed then the final date of October 22, 1844 was set. When nothing changed—again—on this date, then the Great Disappointment followed. Miller himself may have focused upon a certain period of time rather than a specific day, but specific days were set, and there was a great disappointment when the final date of October 22, 1844 passed and nothing happened.

In order to put these pieces together cognitively, we need to know one more fact about how Teacher thought functions. Teacher thought uses emotions to evaluate generality. The more general a theory, the better it feels. But Mercy emotion feels the same as Teacher emotion. Therefore, when a Teacher theory is discussed in an emotional environment, then these Mercy emotions will make the Teacher theory feel more general. This cognitive mechanism is often used to increase the apparent significance of words. For instance, a movie will usually use music to add emotional intensity to the dialogue. Similarly, many altar calls in churches have been accompanied by the organ playing several verses of Just As I Am.

Putting these pieces together, Miller developed a Teacher theory about the significance of some specific day. This was not primarily a theory of theology, a theory of society, a theory of science, or a theory of character development. Instead, it was the general theory that everything would change on some specific day. Miller himself may have focused upon a specific year, but claims were made about specific days and everybody knew when these specific days had passed. Going further, this Teacher theory about a day was given great emotional significance, which reinforced the feeling within Teacher thought that this theory about some specific day was a general theory.

But the specific day passed and nothing happened. There was no visible difference. However, White did not abandon this theory about a specific day. Instead, she reformulated the theory to say that this day had been special. Even though nothing physical had changed, it was still a Very Important Day.

White knew that this had been a special day because of the intense feelings that she had during this time: “Of all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles, none have been more free from human imperfection and the wiles of Satan than was that of the autumn of 1844. Even now, after the lapse of many years, all who shared in that movement and who have stood firm upon the platform of truth still feel the holy influence of that blessed work and bear witness that it was of God” (p.401). Those are strong words. She is comparing 1844 with ‘all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles’ and declaring that ‘none have been more free from human imperfection and the wiles of Satan’. ‘None’ and ‘all’ are universal statements and Teacher thought loves to make universal statements. However, notice again the implicit focus upon Satan. She is not saying that this religious movement felt closest to God. Instead, she is saying that it felt furthest from Satan.

One can understand cognitively why she would feel this way by looking at emotional ‘truth’. We have seen that emotional ‘truth’ leads naturally to self-denial and fervor. Emotional ‘truth’ is incapable of actually living with the source of ‘truth’, because bringing personal identity into close contact with the source of ‘truth’ will cause ‘truth’ to fall into doubt, causing everything to unravel. Therefore, the closest that one can get is feeling that one is on the verge of encountering the source of ‘truth’. On the one hand, getting close will lead to intense feelings of self-denial and fervor, while on the other hand ‘truth’ will still be solid because one has not yet encountered the source of ‘truth’.

A Spiritual Breakthrough

In fact, I am currently feeling some spiritual vibrations as I write this paragraph.

Looking at this idea of spiritual vibrations a little further, it is possible that the Millerites did achieve some sort of spiritual breakthrough by their intense waiting for Jesus. Spiritual groups today often try to achieve breakthroughs by corporately calling on the spiritual realm. However, one can also state with certainty that absolute truth may be capable of banging on the door to the spiritual realm and even opening this door a crack, but it is incapable of walking through the door. It is curious that the star Eta Carinae partially blew as a supernova impostor during this period of time in what is known as the Great Eruption, becoming for a time the second-brightest star in the sky. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, “Observations at the Cape of Good Hope indicated it peaked in brightness, surpassing Canopus, over March 11 to 14, 1843 before beginning to fade, then brightened to between the brightness of Alpha Centauri and Canopus between March 24 and 28 before fading once again.” These two peaks in brightness span Miller’s initial date of March 21, 1843.

I too have experienced episodes where I have felt that the door to the spiritual realm has opened a crack. Visibly speaking, nothing has happened. But looking back I have seen that things did change—in the spiritual realm. However, I have also seen in retrospect that I was unable to go beyond cracking open the door because my thinking and my attitude were inadequate. Looking back, it also seems that the spiritual changes which happened as a result of opening the door a crack gave me the ability to continue working and waiting. And even more importantly, they enabled me to take the steps of personal transformation that are required to open the door further.

I cannot prove any of this. Instead, it is based upon a combination of gut feeling and spiritual vibrations, interpreted by the theory of mental symmetry. Thus, part of my motivation for analyzing The Great Controversy is to try to understand what happens when a mindset that is based in absolute truth attempts to wait for the return of Jesus, because I think that current society is in a similar situation, and I want to learn from the errors of the past and not repeat them.

But White did not have a general Teacher theory of Christianity to guide her. Instead, all she had was a general theory of Jesus returning on some day, emotionally inflated by the intensity of pursuing this theory. And when this day passed and nothing changed, she continued to hold on to this theory: “Thus those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming” (p. 422).

And she insisted that everything had changed—invisibly—on the predicted day: “The mistake had not been in the reckoning of the prophetic periods, but in the event to take place at the end of the 2300 days. Through this error the believers had suffered disappointment, yet all that was foretold by the prophecy, and all that they had any Scripture warrant to expect, had been accomplished. At the very time when they were lamenting the failure of their hopes, the event had taken place which was foretold by the message, and which must be fulfilled before the Lord could appear to give reward to His servants” (p.424).

The Ultimate Heresy?

White succeeded in rescuing her Teacher theory. But she did so at the cost of mental sanity. Her theory of Jesus appearing invisibly on a certain day combined with her hatred of the Catholic Church and her fixation with the struggle between God and Satan combined to produce a doctrine that can only be described as mentally imbalanced.

One can see this mental imbalance in the following quote. The context is Satan himself appearing in bodily form during the kingdom of the beast as a false return of Christ: “As the crowning act in the great drama of deception, Satan himself will personate Christ. The church has long professed to look to the Saviour’s advent as the consummation of her hopes. Now the great deceiver will make it appear that Christ has come. In different parts of the earth, Satan will manifest himself among men as a majestic being of dazzling brightness, resembling the description of the Son of God given by John in the Revelation. Revelation 1:13-15. The glory that surrounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyes have yet beheld. The shout of triumph rings out upon the air: ‘Christ has come! Christ has come!’ The people prostrate themselves in adoration before him, while he lifts up his hands and pronounces a blessing upon them, as Christ blessed His disciples when He was upon the earth. His voice is soft and subdued, yet full of melody. In gentle, compassionate tones he presents some of the same gracious, heavenly truths which the Saviour uttered; he heals the diseases of the people, and then, in his assumed character of Christ...” (p.624).

As far as Christian eschatology is concerned, this passage pulls out all the stops. It is ‘the crowning act in the great drama of deception’. Satan himself is impersonating Christ. And what is Satan doing? He is pretending to do what White has longed for: he is ‘making it appear that Christ has come’. Satan is manifesting himself ‘as a majestic being of dazzling brightness’, and ‘the glory that surrounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyes have yet beheld’. If the goal is to use personal status in Mercy thought to overwhelm Perceiver thought, then this paragraph approaches the ultimate, because all of the prophetic hot buttons are being triggered in order to describe someone whose appearance would utterly overwhelm Perceiver thought.

I ended this quote with an ellipsis. That is because Satan ‘in his assumed character of Christ’ is about to make a statement. If this statement requires an introduction that utterly outclasses all other previous introductions, then what Satan is about to say must be some horrific heresy! Some monstrous blasphemy!!

We will now finish this quote to see what Satan says: “...and then, in his assumed character of Christ, he claims to have changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and commands all to hallow the day which he has blessed. He declares that those who persist in keeping holy the seventh day are blaspheming his name by refusing to listen to his angels sent to them with light and truth” (p.624).

Say what? The monstrous heresy is going to church on Sunday rather than on Saturday? Huh? Is that it? White is not emphasizing whether or not one celebrates the Sabbath, or how one celebrates the Sabbath. Instead, the key issue appears to be the day of the week (as well as focusing again upon the power of Satan).

And White adds to this emotional intensity by using political hot buttons to reinforce this question of Sunday versus Saturday: “The dignitaries of church and state will unite to bribe, persuade, or compel all classes to honor the Sunday. The lack of divine authority will be supplied by oppressive enactments. Political corruption is destroying love of justice and regard for truth; and even in free America, rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance. Liberty of conscience, which has cost so great a sacrifice, will no longer be respected. In the soon-coming conflict we shall see exemplified the prophet’s words: ‘The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ Revelation 12:17” (p.592). Notice the traditional conservative American hot buttons: ‘love of justice, ‘regard for truth’, ‘even in free America’, ‘so great a sacrifice’. To this is added the struggle between the dragon and the woman portrayed in Revelation 12.

White really seems to be teaching that serving God versus serving the beast can be reduced to the single question of whether one regards Saturday or Sunday as the day to devote to thinking about God.

In her words, “The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not. While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God’s law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God” (p.605).

And she regards meeting on Sunday rather than Saturday as one of the two great errors: “Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome” (p.588).

It is important to have a Sabbath rest one day of the week. One can also make a good case for celebrating the Sabbath on Saturday in a Jewish fashion, because this is described in the Bible. But White is not talking here about how one celebrates the Sabbath or whether one celebrates the Sabbath. Instead, meeting on a Saturday versus meeting on a Sunday is being elevated to the level of eternal salvation and damnation by appealing emotionally to the most intense religious and political hot buttons.

Going further, the Sabbath rest is a major scriptural concept with cosmic significance, which is discussed in Hebrews 4:1-13. White quotes extensively from the book of Hebrews, and she mentions Hebrews 4:15 twice, but she ignores 4:1-13. If the Sabbath is such a significant topic, and if studying the Bible is so important, then why would The Great Controversy ignore the longest passage in the New Testament that talks about the Sabbath?

Existence and Possibility

Instead of quoting verses and getting into an argument, I would like to examine this doctrine in the light of two general principles. The first general principle is that if some issue is to be raised to eternal significance, then it must be a fundamental issue. But meeting on Saturday versus meeting on Sunday is by its very nature not a fundamental issue. That is because the existence of something is always more fundamental than the nature of something. We discussed this when looking at the doctrine of annihilation. Many people focus upon the problem of good and evil: How can a good God create a world that contains evil? But there is an even more basic question involving existence itself: How can God create a world that continues to exist independently of himself? Similarly, meeting on Saturday versus meeting on Sunday is not the most basic question. Instead, the existence of a Sabbath rest is more basic. And that is the question which is being faced today. For instance, should stores be open all the time or should they close one day of the week?

Thus, even if Sabbath were a significant issue, then the real issue would be does one celebrate a Sabbath rather than when does one celebrate a Sabbath. This is not a trivial issue because White is using religious and political superlatives to elevate the topic of Sabbath to the level of utmost importance. White probably did not recognize this principle because the existence of the Sabbath was not a question during her day. Everyone in her part of the world celebrated the Sabbath. Some celebrated Sabbath on one day while others celebrated it on another day. Today, most people do not celebrate any Sabbath.

The second general principle is that some standard can only be applied to everyone if it is possible to apply that standard to everyone. The problem with using the Sabbath day as a standard that applies to everyone is that it is not even possible to make the statement ‘It is Saturday’ and apply this to everyone. That is because of time zones and the international dateline. If I make the statement ‘It is Saturday’ and try to apply this to the whole world, then this will only work one hour out of 24. The rest of the time, some people in the world will either respond ‘It is Friday’ or they will say ‘It is Sunday’. Again we have come up with a problem of existence, but this time applied to words. In order to make the definitive statement that ‘Saturday is the right day’, one must first be able to make the definitive statement ‘It is Saturday’. If one cannot say ‘It is Saturday’ and apply this statement to everyone, then it is linguistically impossible to say ‘Saturday is the right day’ and apply this to everyone.

Modern telecommunications have made the problem of time zones more obvious. Suppose that some Seventh-day Adventist church broadcasts a Saturday church service live on television and that some viewer watches this church program from a time zone where it is already Sunday. Is this television viewer committing a sin? Going the other way, suppose that some Sunday church program being broadcast live is being watched from a time zone where it is still Saturday. Does this make the Sunday church service correct?

Going further, when one accesses some site on the Internet, one literally does not know what day it is on the site that one is accessing because one could be accessing a computer located anywhere in the world. Therefore, when I am chatting with someone on the Internet, I cannot state categorically that ‘It is Saturday’ because this may or may not be true for the person with whom I am chatting.

Going still further, SpaceX is currently constructing a rocket that will take colonists to Mars. A Martian day is 37 minutes longer than an Earth day. Colonists on Mars could apply the biblical concept of resting one day in seven and they could also celebrate the Sabbath in a Jewish fashion. But it would be impossible for someone on Mars to meet on Saturday rather than Sunday, because the days on Mars do not line up with the days on earth. This principle already applies to scientists on earth who work with Martian probes, because they wear special wristwatches that are calibrated in Martian time and start work 40 minutes later each day.

Ellen White lived before the Internet, before television, and before radio (but not before the telegraph). Therefore, she did not personally encounter times zones. However, she did personally experience the international dateline because she lived in Australia for nine years, and one must cross the international date line when traveling from America to Australia.

Wikipedia describes the dilemma created by the international dateline for Seventh-day Adventist believers in the Pacific island of Samoa: “Christians in Samoa, immediately west of the Date Line, will celebrate the holiday a day before Christians in American Samoa, which is immediately east of the Date Line. A problem with the general rule above arises in certain Christian churches that solemnly observe a Sabbath day as a particular day of the week, when those churches are located in countries near the Date Line. Notwithstanding the difference in dates, the same sunrise happened over American Samoa as happens over Samoa a few minutes later, and the same sunset happens over Samoa as happened over American Samoa a few minutes earlier. In other words, the secular days are legally different but they are physically the same; and that causes questions to arise under religious law.”

And because of historical controversy over the precise location of the international dateline, Seventh-day Adventists in Tonga actually go to church on Sunday. Continuing with Wikipedia: “In Tonga, Seventh Day Adventists (who usually observe Saturday, the seventh-day Sabbath) observe Sunday due to their understanding of the International Date Line, as Tonga lies east of the 180° meridian. Sunday as observed in Tonga (as with Kiribati, Samoa, and parts of Fiji and Tuvalu) is considered by the Seventh-day Adventist Church to be the same day as Saturday observed in most other places.”

And to make things even more confusing, when Samoa switched to the other side of the international date line in December 2011, some Seventh-day Adventist churches decided to stick with the same day while others chose to move to the new Saturday: “Most Seventh Day Adventists in Samoa planned to observe Sabbath on Sunday after Samoa’s crossing the date line in December 2011, but SDA groups in Samatau village and other places (approx. 300 members) decided to accept the IDL adjustment and observe the Sabbath on Saturday. Debate continues within the Seventh-day Adventist community in the Pacific as to which day is really the seventh-day Sabbath.”

Ellen White was specifically asked about the problem of the international date line but did not give a definitive answer. Wikipedia explains: “The tract by Adventist John N. Andrews entitled The Definitive Seventh Day (1871) recommended using a Bering Strait date line. If this was accepted, the Tonga Adventists were celebrating the Sabbath on the wrong day. However, an international conference in 1884 established the International Date Line (IDL) at 180° while allowing for local adjustments. The Tonga missionaries sent letters to church leaders in Tahiti, Australia and the U.S. asking for advice, and even asked Ellen G. White for her opinion. Replies were contradictory. It was not until 1901 that White sent a letter to Kellogg but her reply did not answer the question, it simply stated it was not his task to solve the problem of the dayline.”

Obviously, I am not the first to raise this issue. But it is significant in the light of what White says in her book regarding this issue. Repeating part of an earlier quote, “The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not. While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God’s law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator” (p.605).

The Samoan government moved from one side of the international date line to the other in 2011. Some of the Samoan Adventist believers ‘are now observing a false Sabbath in compliance with the law of the state’. A ‘line of distinction must be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve him not’. And ‘the Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty’. Therefore, if White is an accurate prophetess of God, then some of the Samoan Adventist believers will be damned by God. And this is not an overstatement because White predicts that Satan will come to earth in bodily form and pretend to be the returning Christ in order to tell people to meet on Sunday instead of Saturday.

A Special Day

So why would White be so adamant about the day of the week? I suggest that it is because she kept clinging in Teacher thought to the theory of Jesus returning on some specific day, even when there was no visible difference between this day and any other day. As a result, she became insane in the area of days. This insanity about days then combined in her mind with her obsession with Satan and her hatred of the Catholic Church.

This is a significant concept that needs to be repeated. White was motivated at a deep emotional level by the general Teacher theory that Jesus would return to Earth on a specific day and change everything. That day came and nothing changed physically. White responded by defending her general Teacher theory, insisting that everything had changed, even though there was no visible difference. And she defended her theory by appealing to the absolute truth of the Bible and backing up this belief with strong religious emotions.

And then things did start to change through the development of science and technology. White experienced firsthand the power of modern technology in the American Civil War, an exceptionally bloody conflict in which about 700,000 people died. Quoting from Scientific American, “Any Civil War buff is familiar with the technological advances of that era: the carnage caused when tactics failed to accommodate breech-loading rifled muskets and artillery pieces, the truly revolutionary introduction of armored ships and railroad networks, and the merely tantalizing deployment of submerged warships and reconnaissance balloons. Historians still argue about the extent to which the Civil War was the first ‘modern’ war, but it is impossible to deny that the technology with which it was fought foretold the ways in which future wars would become bigger, bloodier and more devastating.”

But the Civil War is not mentioned once in The Great Controversy. Imagine, White’s country was convulsed by a great controversy, a controversy in which the use of technology made it clear that all future controversies would be Great Controversies, and this does not even get mentioned once in her book on The Great Controversy?

Instead, White takes a theory about one special day versus another special day—even though these two days are physically identical, and turns this distinction between two physically identical days into the ultimate issue. And then she backs up her theory by overloading it with religious and political emotions—while ignoring the physical evidence that engulfed her nation. That is mentally imbalanced.

This also illustrates how Teacher thought functions. Teacher thought comes up with a theory by taking some seemingly insignificant concept and magnifying it into a universal theory, precisely what White did by taking the seemingly insignificant concept of a day and magnifying it into a universal theory. I referred to this in my first book as ‘interpreting the elephant in the light of the gnat’. Teacher thought naturally does this. That is why it is imperative to check Teacher theories with logic and common sense. But absolute truth does not believe in common sense. Saying this more simply, absolute truth does not really believe that God created the universe.

Unfortunately, theories that are based in emotional ‘truth’ can become self-reinforcing. The stronger the emotions, the more general the theory will feel to Teacher thought, and the more strongly Perceiver thought will ‘know’ that this theory is ‘true’. Opposition from others then becomes more fuel for the fire. If others say ‘you are crazy’, then that ‘proves’ beyond a shadow of a doubt that you must be ‘right’.

Meanwhile, the violence of the American Civil War was demonstrating to White that everything was starting to change and that a completely new kind of power was starting to emerge. But acknowledging this change would mean letting go of absolute truth and starting to look for universal truth. White responded by totally ignoring the Civil War in her book and preaching with renewed emotional fervor the primacy of absolute truth, condemning science as the work of Satan. (She also disregarded the increasing physical annihilation that developing technology made possible by continuing to regard a doctrine of physical annihilation as emotionally comforting.) But she could not subconsciously ignore the fact that everything really was starting to change as a result of science and technology. Thus, her concept of Satan grew in power and intelligence.

My goal is not to condemn Ellen White. Instead, I suggest that White illustrates the danger of tackling deep topics with an attitude of absolute truth. That is why I mentioned earlier the importance of making sure that one compares what is fundamental with what is fundamental. This will help to prevent Teacher thought from taking the inconsequential and magnifying it emotionally into the monumental. This is especially important when dealing with topics that have strong Mercy emotions, because these Mercy feelings will instinctively be interpreted by Teacher thought as generality.

Why would God create a mind with such an obvious instability? Because personal transformation becomes emotionally bearable if one can play Teacher emotion against Mercy emotion. And this is only possible because Teacher emotion feels like Mercy emotion. The personal honesty that is required to construct an accurate concept of God hurts deeply within Mercy thought. But this Mercy pain can be counter-balanced by the Teacher joy of gaining a Teacher understanding of the character of God. Going further, as one gradually becomes mental whole, one will increasingly realize that both Teacher thought and Mercy thought are being driven emotionally to reach similar goals. Eventually, one sees that these two forms of emotion are actually two sides to the same coin of mental wholeness.

The Fourth Commandment

White’s mental imbalance can also be seen in her analysis of the Sabbath. Suppose that one runs in a race and comes fourth place. One does not go around shouting, ‘I am in fourth place. I am the winner.’ But that is what White does with the Ten Commandments.

She regards the fourth commandment as the primary commandment: “The seal of God’s law is found in the fourth commandment. This only, of all the ten, brings to view both the name and the title of the Lawgiver. It declares Him to be the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and thus shows His claim to reverence and worship above all others. Aside from this precept, there is nothing in the Decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given. When the Sabbath was changed by the papal power, the seal was taken from the law. The disciples of Jesus are called upon to restore it by exalting the Sabbath of the fourth commandment to its rightful position as the Creator’s memorial and the sign of His authority” (p.452).

Looking at this quote more detail, the fourth commandment ‘declares Him to be the creator of the heavens and the earth, and thus shows his claim to reverence and worship above all others’. Saying this cognitively, the fourth commandment says that God has an emotional status that is much greater than the status of anyone else. In contrast, the other commandments do not give Mercy status to God as the source of ‘truth’: ‘Aside from this precept, there is nothing in the Decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given’. When the pope changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, the pope replaced the absolute truth of the Bible with the authority of the pope: ‘When the Sabbath was changed by the papal power, the seal was taken from the law’. The fourth commandment needs to be given emotional status: ‘restored by exalting the Sabbath’. This will replace the authority of the pope with the authority of God: ‘to its rightful position as the Creator’s memorial and the sign of his authority’.

Summarizing, White says that the fourth commandment is the most important because it reinforces the concept of emotional ‘truth’. I suggested at the beginning of this essay that a mindset of absolute truth will interpret the Bible in the light of emotional ‘truth’. White is exalting the fourth commandment to first place because it resonates with her mindset of emotional ‘truth’.

Going further, White says that following the fourth commandment is the key to the opening of the sanctuary in heaven: “None could fail to see that if the earthly sanctuary was a figure or pattern of the heavenly, the law deposited in the ark on earth was an exact transcript of the law in the ark in heaven; and that an acceptance of the truth concerning the heavenly sanctuary involved an acknowledgment of the claims of God’s law and the obligation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Here was the secret of the bitter and determined opposition to the harmonious exposition of the Scriptures that revealed the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary... Christ had opened the door, or ministration, of the most holy place, light was shining from that open door of the sanctuary in heaven, and the fourth commandment was shown to be included in the law which is there enshrined; what God had established, no man could overthrow” (p.435).

Looking at this quote in more detail, absolute truth believes that the holy book is the source of ‘truth’ to man from God. Similarly, White says that ‘the law deposited in the ark on earth was an exact transcript of the law in the ark in heaven’. White then uses this idea of absolute truth to view the relationship between the earthly sanctuary and the heavenly sanctuary as well as ‘the obligation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment’. In other words, White is using the concept of emotional ‘truth’ to interpret the fourth commandment, which is consistent with what we concluded from the previous quote. However, there is a struggle in Mercy thought between authority and absolute truth: ‘The bitter and determined opposition to the harmonious exposition of the Scriptures’. The fourth commandment is part of the light ‘shining from that open door the sanctuary in heaven’, because the fourth commandment reinforces the idea of emotional ‘truth’. No human authority will be able to question the absolute truth of God: ‘what God has established, no man could overthrow’.

When one reads these passages from the 21^st century, it feels as if White is speaking a foreign language. And she is speaking a different language, the language of absolute truth, which is a dialect of emotional-‘truth’-ese. In order to comprehend what she is trying to say, one has to translate from this language into modern speech.

However, the fourth commandment actually teaches something slightly different than maintaining the emotional contrast between God and humanity that is required by emotional ‘truth’. Instead, it teaches that one should alternate between following personal goals and focusing on God: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work...” (Exodus 20:9-10). Saying this cognitively, one should normally follow Mercy mental networks of culture and identity. But one should regularly stop following Mercy thought in order to build Teacher thought. Saying this another way, one should normally live in the secular world, but one should regularly turn one’s mind completely away from the secular in order to focus upon God.

Looking at this personally, I have discovered that it is very important to study both the Bible and secular thought. That is because secular thinking gives me the tools that are needed to interpret the Bible. If one focuses only upon the Bible, then one will approach it with an attitude of absolute truth and misinterpret what it says. But if one focuses only upon secular thinking, then one will ignore the fundamental topics that are discussed in the Bible. Therefore, it is essential to alternate between religious and secular thought. However, this will only work if it is guided by the foundation that is laid by the first three commandments.

Examining this in more detail, universal truth views the Bible as an accurate description of principles that are universal because they can be found everywhere. Universal truth builds a concept of God that rules over every other theory in Teacher thought. Using cognitive language, a concept of God is a meta-theory within which one can place more specific theories.

This approach of using Teacher thought to universalize the words of the Bible is summarized by the first three of the Ten Commandments. These are described in Exodus 20:1-7: “Then God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.”

The passage begins with God revealing himself through the use of words in Teacher thought. God then describes himself as someone who brings people out of bondage to Mercy mental networks of culture and idolatry. (Egypt is a symbol of the world, the Egyptians regarded their leaders as gods, and the Egyptians enslaved the Jews.) The phrase ‘you shall have no other gods before me’ indicates that a concept of God should rule over other general concepts in Teacher thought. The prohibition against idolatry states that one should not use anything in Mercy thought to represent a concept of God. More specifically, one should not submit to any physical object or representation of God.

The third commandment says that a concept of God in Teacher thought should not be emotionally belittled. (The word translated vain means ‘emptiness, vanity’.) The word ‘unpunished’ gives the impression that God will zap those who swear. But the original Hebrew actually means ‘to be empty or clean’. Thus, this verse actually says that God will not ‘empty or clean’ those who regard his name in Teacher thought as empty vanity. Saying this cognitively, divine forgiveness uses a concept of God in Teacher thought to override feelings of personal guilt and inadequacy in Mercy thought. This mechanism will stop working if a concept of God in Teacher thought loses emotional intensity.

Using the analogy of a school mentioned earlier, divine forgiveness—or justification—is like enrolling in God’s school of character transformation. When one enrolls in a school, then one’s personal status changes from ‘ignorant person’ to ‘student enrolled in school’. The student who has just enrolled in school is still an ignorant person, but his official status has changed. And the student can now regard himself in Mercy thought as a student in God’s school rather than an ignorant sinner. But this mechanism will stop working if one loses respect for the school and its founder. Enrolling in the school will then be viewed as merely another form of ignorance.

Summarizing, the first three commandments describe a process of leaving childish Mercy thought in order to construct an adequate concept of God in Teacher thought. Absolute truth will think that all of this is unnecessary. It is convinced that it already has the complete revelation of God in the form of a holy book. And it bases its ‘truth’ in Mercy emotions rather than leaving Mercy thought in order to pursue Teacher thought. Instead, it will naturally be attracted to the fourth commandment because this emphasizes the emotional status of God that is required to maintain emotional ‘truth’. In the words of White, the fourth commandment ‘brings to view both the name and the title of the Lawgiver. It declares Him to be the Creator of the heavens and the earth.’

White says on page 640 that “The enemies of God’s law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God. Too late they see the true nature of their spurious sabbath and the sandy foundation upon which they have been building. They find that they have been fighting against God.” Notice again the focus upon authority in Mercy thought. The ‘enemies of God’s law’ are building on a ‘sandy foundation’. They are ‘fighting against God’.

White says here that ‘The Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God’. However, a concept of God that is based in absolute truth is ultimately a dead God, because it is based in a fixed set of words spoken in the past which must not be altered. In contrast, a concept of God that is based in a general Teacher understanding is a living God. Looking at this purely from a cognitive perspective, a concept of God that is based in a general Teacher understanding will turn into a Teacher mental network which will behave like a living person in one’s mind by analyzing everything and exerting its domain over every thought, practice, and theory. I speak here from personal experience.

Going further, Exodus 20:10 goes to great lengths to say that no personal work should be done on the Sabbath. Cognitively speaking, this engages the principle of righteousness that Jesus describes in Matthew 6:1-4: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” The basic principle here is that righteousness will only be rewarded by God if it is not rewarded by man.

Looking at this cognitively, all behavior is motivated by some mental network. Human behavior is normally motivated by Mercy mental networks of personal desire, status, and culture. Righteousness is action that is being guided by the Teacher mental network of a concept of God. Because the default is for behavior to be motivated by Mercy mental networks, an action will only become motivated by a Teacher mental network of God if no Mercy mental networks are present that could motivate this action.

The first three commandments construct a concept of God in Teacher thought. The fourth commandment leads implicitly to righteousness because it decrees that on the Sabbath one should do no work that is motivated by Mercy mental networks. This combination of having a concept of God in Teacher thought and not being motivated by Mercy mental networks will lead to righteousness. Thus, in a sense ‘the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God’, because it ensures that human behavior will gain the ‘seal of the living God’ by being guided by the Teacher mental network of a living concept of God—a concept of God that was constructed by following the first three commandments.

The Parable of the Ten Virgins

We will finish this essay by looking at the parable of the ten virgins. White discusses this parable on pages 393-394 and interprets this parable within the context of the coming of Jesus. This makes sense, because the parable of the ten virgins is in the beginning of Matthew 25, right after the ‘rapture’ in Matthew 24. Matthew 24 has been examined in a previous essay, as well as the parable of the talents which just follows in Matthew 25.

One can interpret the idea of a virgin by examining the relationship between male and female thought. Male thought emphasizes technical thinking with its facts and skills. Female thought, in contrast, emphasizes emotions, intuition, and mental networks. Modern science and technology are heavily biased toward male thought. Absolute truth, in contrast, emphasizes the mental networks, emotions, and intuition of female thought. For instance, one can see this focus upon mental networks and intuition in the writing of Ellen White. Cognitively speaking, a virgin is a person who mentally holds to female thought without committing themselves to male thought. Cognitively speaking, Ellen White was a virgin because she held to the emotional foundation of absolute truth while rejecting the male thinking of science and technology.

Light represents Teacher understanding. A sun is a general Teacher theory that illuminates the entire earth of human existence. A lamp is a small Teacher theory that gives some light to the immediate surroundings. In the parable, the virgins all have lamps and the bridegroom arrives in the middle of the night. White says that these lamps represent the Bible: “All had taken their lamps, the Bible, and by its light had gone forth to meet the Bridegroom” (p.394). Similarly, White was also waiting for Jesus to come, guided by the lamp of the Bible. The bridegroom is described as delaying, a Greek word which means ‘to spend or take time, delay’. Similarly, the Millerites found that Jesus did not return on the expected day.

When the bridegroom finally returns, then the foolish virgins discover that they do not have enough oil to keep their lamps burning. White relates oil to the Holy Spirit. This is the standard interpretation of oil which I also use: “the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. The latter class had received the grace of God, the regenerating, enlightening power of the Holy Spirit, which renders His word a lamp to the feet and a light to the path” (p.394). The foolish virgins ask the wise virgins for some of their oil because their lights are going out. Similarly, White relates that “in the night of trial the latter seemed to lose, to some extent, their zeal and devotion. The halfhearted and superficial could no longer lean upon the faith of their brethren. Each must stand or fall for himself” (p.395).

So far, White’s interpretation makes sense. But then her story diverges from the parable: “About this time, fanaticism began to appear. Some who had professed to be zealous believers in the message rejected the word of God as the one infallible guide and, claiming to be led by the Spirit, gave themselves up to the control of their own feelings, impressions, and imaginations. There were some who manifested a blind and bigoted zeal, denouncing all who would not sanction their course. Their fanatical ideas and exercises met with no sympathy from the great body of Adventists; yet they served to bring reproach upon the cause of truth. Satan was seeking by this means to oppose and destroy the work of God.” (p.395).

However, the parable does not say anything about either fanaticism or the work of Satan. Instead, in verse 9 “the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you [too]; go instead to the dealers and buy [some] for yourselves.’” (‘Too’ and ‘some’ are not in the original Greek.) The word go means ‘to go or depart, emphasizing the personal meaning which is attached to reaching the particular destination’. In other words, they are supposed to go on some sort of journey that has personal implications. The word dealer comes from a verb which means ‘to exchange or barter, to sell’. And the word buy means ‘to buy in the marketplace, purchase’. Looking at this cognitively, one form of possession needs to be exchanged for another. This is not done by searching within the Bible but rather by going to the marketplace where ideas are being exchanged. The NASB adds the word ‘some’ which gives the impression that the focus is on getting more oil. But the original Greek simply talks about going to the marketplace, which implies the more general meaning of replacing absolute truth with universal truth. This idea of exchanging one form of knowledge for another is elaborated in the next parable of the ten talents, which is discussed in the essay on 2 Corinthians.

Verse 10 says that while the foolish virgins are going to the marketplace, the bridegroom comes, the wise virgins go into the wedding feast, and the foolish virgins are locked out. The foolish virgins eventually return and say ‘Lord, lord open up for us’ (v.11). But the response is ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you’. The word translated know here means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. The parable does not end with the virgins being ‘thrown into outer darkness’ (which is how the next parable ends). Instead, they are left outside unable to enter the wedding feast, and the parable ends with the warning ‘stay awake’.

Two fallacies are being discussed here. One occurs before the bridegroom returns and the other happens after. Stated simply, the lamp of absolute truth is not enough when one is waiting for Jesus to return. Simply believing the Bible is not sufficient. Instead, one also needs the oil of the Holy Spirit. Cognitively speaking, I have mentioned that Teacher understanding leads indirectly to the formation of Platonic forms within Mercy thought. A concept of the Holy Spirit emerges when many Platonic forms come together to create what Plato called a form of the Good.

Looking at this scripturally, Jesus says in John 16 that “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you” (v.12-15). Notice the eye-opening and mind-expanding role of the Holy Spirit. Jesus can only tell his disciples some things. In contrast, ‘the Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth’. The Holy Spirit will not do this on his own initiative, but rather as an expression of God the Father in Teacher thought. Applying this to the parable, relying upon the lamp of the Bible will not be enough. Instead, one must allow Mercy feelings of emotional ‘truth’ to be supplemented by internal visions of possible perfection. (Again one sees the concept of the spiritual realm expanding upon existing content.)

Saying this more bluntly, one must not perform mental abortion. And I choose this term deliberately because I suggest that it is especially applicable to those who are waiting for Jesus to return today. I will try to walk through the process as clearly as possible. Reading, studying, and obeying the Bible will build moral character, and one will start to see internally how much better society would be if people had this moral character. This internal vision of ‘how much better society would be if people had moral character’ is an aspect of a concept of the Holy Spirit mentioned earlier. Historically speaking, Christians have been led by the Holy Spirit to build hospitals, improve prisons, build schools, and even save the environment. But the natural tendency is for absolute truth to reject this type of thinking as ‘social gospel’. Instead, absolute truth is convinced that a real Christian must turn his back upon the physical world through self-denial in order to focus with fervor upon heaven. Besides, the very idea of improving the world in some rational manner goes against the idea that God’s plan is ultimately incomprehensible. Thus, these mental networks of the Holy Spirit will be internally aborted—killed as soon as they come to life in order to make sure they do not grow and develop. That is because a mental network can be killed fairly easily if it is nipped in the bud and suppressed as soon as it comes into being.

Going the other way, those who do embrace a social gospel tend to doubt the Bible, ignore heaven, and focus fully upon physical earth. This suffers from the same fundamental cognitive flaw, because it also assumes that heaven has nothing to do with earth. It too is performing a form of mental abortion by trying to make physical earth more heavenly while killing any mental concepts of a real heaven.

I am not trying to minimize the problem of physical abortion. It is wrong—deeply wrong. But someone who is performing continual mental abortions will not be able to think clearly about tackling the problem of physical abortions. Instead, it will tend to fixate upon the topic in an imbalanced manner. And a mindset of absolute truth that lives within an environment of growing science and technology will naturally be driven to perform repeated mental abortions.

Returning to the parable, when society is making the transition from absolute truth to universal truth, then the lamp of the absolute truth of the Bible may go out. However, ‘virgins’ who are ‘keeping themselves for Jesus’ will make it through this transition if they hang on to the idea in Mercy thought that a good God is still revealing himself through many aspects of society. Otherwise, one will tend to follow the path of White and focus upon the work of Satan, and that is not healthy. This must be done ahead of time, because once Jesus does appear and the transition happens, then it is too late to stop clinging to absolute truth and start embracing goodness.

And I do not mean saying in an overgeneralized manner that ‘God loves everyone and accepts everyone just the way they are’. He does not. There is good and there is evil. Instead, one needs to recognize that there is good and evil, and then choose to focus upon the good and recognize that this good is in some way an expression of God in heaven. God created the earth, not Satan. God has the clever plan and intelligence, not Satan. Saying this another way, one must choose to eat from the tree of life rather than from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. One should always be asking ‘What life is God growing?’ while at the same time letting go of evil and holding on to good. Saying this still another way, one should practice a personal version of the day of atonement, by allowing mental networks to grow freely in the presence of God in Teacher thought while at the same time dying to mental networks of evil in Mercy thought.

Moving on, the second fallacy happens after Jesus returns. My guess is that this involves participating in spiritual technology. Jesus tells the foolish virgins, ‘I do not know you’, and the Greek word that is used here describes empirical knowledge: ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. In the same way that technology makes science visible, so I suggest that spiritual technology will make the theoretical return of Jesus visible. The return may happen in the air of Teacher thought, just as science lives within the air of Teacher thought, but science has very visible results.

The danger is that those who focus upon the absolute truth of the Bible without allowing Mercy thought to be warmed by the Holy Spirit will generate the wrong kind of physical evidence—because they are being motivated by the wrong kind of spirit. The real Jesus will look at what is being produced and conclude, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you’.

The current state of American evangelical Christianity makes it clear that this is not an exaggeration. President Trump exhibits essentially no Christian virtues. His personal character utterly violates the standards of Christianity. Despite this, he continues to be supported strongly by evangelical Christians. Why? Because many Christians are being driven ultimately by emotional ‘error’. ‘Truth’ has becomes defined for them as the opposite of what a liberal believes. This is similar to the way that White defined ‘truth’ primarily as resisting the plan of Satan. In both cases, the ultimate foundation appears to be emotional ‘error’.

Spiritual technology would add a spiritual component to technology. I am not sure exactly what this means, but it is based upon the idea that technology will be modified by power that is being transmitted through a person’s spirit, consistent with the idea of the spiritual realm empowering content from the human realm. An evangelical Christian who claims to believe in the Bible but is driven internally by a spirit of hating liberalism would generate spiritual technology that would have nothing to do with the character of Jesus. Jesus would look at the physical evidence and respond ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you’.

As I mentioned before, this parable does not end with any negative threat. It does not finish by condemning the foolish virgins to outer darkness. Instead, it finishes with the lack of a positive benefit. The foolish virgins are unable to enter the wedding feast. They have been waiting for Christ to return and they have been keeping themselves from the world as virgins in order to be ready for the return of Christ. But when Christ does finally return they are locked out because they lack the oil of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

We will conclude this essay with a quote from White: “No truth is more clearly taught in the Bible than that God by His Holy Spirit especially directs His servants on earth in the great movements for the carrying forward of the work of salvation. Men are instruments in the hand of God, employed by Him to accomplish His purposes of grace and mercy. Each has his part to act; to each is granted a measure of light, adapted to the necessities of his time, and sufficient to enable him to perform the work which God has given him to do. But no man, however honored of Heaven, has ever attained to a full understanding of the great plan of redemption, or even to a perfect appreciation of the divine purpose in the work for his own time. Men do not fully understand what God would accomplish by the work which He gives them to do; they do not comprehend, in all its bearings, the message which they utter in His name” (p.343).

White says that ‘no truth is more clearly taught in the Bible’, and I would agree that this is a fundamental principle. She applies this principle to two groups: First, the disciples of Jesus did not fully understand what Jesus was trying to accomplish. Even after he rose from the dead, they thought that he was going to set up a physical kingdom. Instead, Jesus set up what White calls ‘a kingdom of grace and a kingdom of glory’. Second, the followers of Miller thought that Jesus was going to return physically. But “as the disciples were mistaken in regard to the kingdom to be set up at the end of the seventy weeks, so Adventists were mistaken in regard to the event to take place at the expiration of the 2300 days” (p.353).

We have seen in this essay that the same principle applies to White herself. Looking back, we can see that a major shift in human society did start to happen in the mid-19^th century which one could interpret as Jesus starting to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary. However, White ‘did not comprehend, in all its bearings, the message which she uttered in His name’.

Instead of pursuing Teacher understanding based in universal truth, White proclaimed the absolute truth of the Bible, while rejecting growing secular Teacher understanding as the work of Satan. But even though White preached incessantly about holding to the absolute truth of the Bible, in practice she acquired many of her ideas from visions.

If one examines White’s ideas from a cognitive perspective, one observes that they are not random. Instead, they can be explained as a natural byproduct of holding on to absolute truth in the midst of a society that is developing Teacher understanding.

White thought that she was avoiding being influenced by rational Teacher understanding by preaching absolute truth and rejecting secular Teacher understanding as the work of Satan. But her thinking was actually being guided by the structure of her mind, which this essay has explained using a cognitive theory of ‘how the mind works’. Going further, by clinging to the absolute truth of the Bible so fervently and rejecting secular thought so dogmatically, she actually magnified the cognitive byproducts of absolute truth, making it easier to use a cognitive theory to explain her thinking. The more she claimed to follow the Bible and the more she rejected secular thought, the more her thinking became bound by the presuppositions of absolute truth.

This leads to the ironic conclusion that White actually did make an implicit transition to Teacher-guided thought. Looking back, one can see that White’s interpretation of ‘Jesus returning to cleanse the temple’ can be interpreted as a societal transition from Mercy-guided thought to Teacher-guided thought. And looking back, one can also see that White’s insistent clinging to her interpretation of Jesus’ return caused her mind to be a clearer illustration of the Teacher theory of mental symmetry. She did not make an explicit transition to Teacher-guided thought. But her mind did make an implicit transition to Teacher-guided thought.

Saying this another way, when one is using Perceiver thought to look for repeated connections, one is actually organizing Mercy experiences into explicit categories with distinct boundaries. For instance, ‘The red marbles belong together in this container, and the blue marbles belong together in that container.’ The more explicit the categories and the more distinct the boundaries between one category and another in Perceiver thought, the easier it is for Teacher thought to come up with a general theory. White’s persistence in following her interpretation of the return of Jesus made the categories and boundaries in her mind more explicit and distinct, making it easier to apply a general Teacher theory of cognition to her thinking.

This does not mean that persistence gets one to heaven. Instead, it means that persistence makes it easier for the heaven of Teacher thought to shine light upon one’s thinking. The question then becomes, what sort of mental networks rule the mind? Are they Satanic mental networks of evil, death, pain, and torture, or are they Godly mental networks of goodness, life, happiness, and blessing? Is one submitting to Jesus’ plan of salvation, or is one being driven by the rebellion of Satan? Is one’s name written in the book of life or not?