should not imitate. ‘Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.’”

After an initial letter to, and response from, the Estate, I asked for clarification. “Are you really saying that because homosexuality is so widely thought of in connection with Sodom that the White Estate can take the liberty of using the term ‘homosexuality’ just because the word ‘Sodom’ appears in the paragraph which the heading is supposed to describe? The paragraph itself does not mention homosexuality nor describe or refer to it! And the Ezekiel text lists four sins (not a ‘particular’ sin as your heading states), none of them being a sexual sin, much less homosexuality. In a recent Spectrum article [“In Defense of Compilations,” Vol. 16, #3], Arthur White went to great lengths specifically to emphasize that extreme care is taken to avoid any bias in putting together Ellen White compilations. I am trying to see how that care was exercised in this instance.”

The Undersecretary of the Estate responded by arguing that “the term ‘sodomy’ has become synonymous with the city of Sodom in the thinking of most people.... The secular world obviously agrees with the Bible that sodomy and Sodom and such practices are synonymous.... In conclusion, I would say again that though Ellen White does not use the word ‘homosexuality,’ it is quite clear both to the religious and the secular mind that Sodom and its wickedness is associated with homosexual practices.”

In his next letter, the Undersecretary added, “Whether the caption is correct or not, the practice of homosexuality is quite clearly condemned in Scripture elsewhere. It is an alternate lifestyle that is quite definitely not in harmony with God’s original plan for the human family.”

I then wrote to the director of the Estate, arguing that “headings in EGW compilations MUST closely reflect what is contained in the material they describe (and should not introduce any extraneous theological points). ...The only issue, then would seem to be whether the heading in question does or does not do it’s job correctly.  ...I am most distressed that [the Undersecretary] thinks it doesn’t matter ‘whether the caption is correct or not,’ as long as it is supportable elsewhere, i.e., outside the material it captions.... I hope that taking such liberties does not represent the kind of responsibility that the Estate sees as sufficient for creating compilations [of Ellen White writings].”

The director took the matter to the full board of the Estate in January, 1987, which voted to remove homosexuality from the heading.

This would have the effect of correcting two false implications, that Sodom had a “particular” sin and that that sin was homosexuality, or anything sexual at all.

Incredibly, though, the context into which the Estate inserts the EGW paragraph, in the compilation, still defies Arthur White’s assertion that great care is used to assure that Ellen White is not quoted out of context in compilations. In her original article, on the education of Adventist youth, it is overtly obvious that she is talking about teaching youth “to cultivate habits of self-denial and a love to do good to others.” Being idle and not helping the “poor and needy” is what led to dissolute morals, her second paragraph says. “Morals” includes far more than sexuality, EGW often illustrates, as in this article.

But the White Estate lifts only the middle paragraph and puts it in a compilation under a chapter titled, “Love and Sexuality in the Human Experience.” The newly-designated heading will read, “Sodom’s Dissolute Morals.” This misrepresentation is nothing short of blatant in that Ellen White is saying nothing whatsoever about love or sexuality in either the excerpted paragraph or the “Proper Education” article itself! If you want to get technical, she doesn’t even discuss the “dissolute morals” that “the prophet has here specified [as] the particular evils” which led to them.

I’ll settle for having cleared up the “homosexuality” issue in this specific instance and leave the remaining problem to others who have long criticized EGW compilations for misrepresentations.