Leaderboard

Some of the old timers here, like me, can remember a time when their grandparents were alive. Mine lived with our family when I was about 6-10 years old for my mother's side, and from around 19-23 for my father's side. My mother's parents were amazing by today's standard. He was a former supervisor at GM, throughout the great depression. He taught me things and was very smart. His vocabulary was extensive. Using words I never heard of. He was born around 1890 I believe. He was alert right up to his death in his 80's. I never saw him drink or smoke. My fathers, father, was interested in baseball. Every week he would receive a small publication of the game from the previous weeks. He knew the statistics of every player. His children would test him, and he always had the answer. He knew the "at bats", RBI's, everything. On hundreds of players. This was in the 60's and 70's. This was before television. He lived to be 94. Smoked occasional cigars until in his eighty's. I never saw him drink. I don't remember any of them taking any medicine. There was no Alzheimer's then. But today, we have videos converted from film, of life in the 1960's and 1970's . There are not many candid interviews of ordinary people back then, but enough that we can understand the culture. Ordinary people from this time were smarter and more knowledgeable than people in their age group today. Few ordinary people went to college in the 60's and 70's . Yet they had a great understanding of social dynamic, life skills and very different values. People were thin back then. The people have changed so much in my lifetime. They have changed so much in the last 50 years. There is even a big change in the last 10 years.

* The word of God is always true. Sometime, it is partial and incomplete. In addition, we may not correctly understand it. * God used Ellen White in the development of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. * God used Ellene White to urge people to turn to what we commonly call the Bible as the source of ultimate authority as to what God wanted us to know. * Ellen White, in her humanity was imperfect. Her spirituality grew, and changed, over the years of her life. She probably never fully understood what God was communicating to her. * It is clear to me that that modern Adventists of today, often misunderstand what she said, and often mis-use her writings. * Her writings were often sensitive to the time, culture and the circumstances of the person to whom she was writing. With that in mind, one cannot always apply what she said to one person in that same manner to someone today. None of this detracts from her leadership and the value of her ministry to us in our development.

What if: * We have nothing to fear related to the judgment, as our salvation is assured, and we may trust in that? * The judgment is actually related to God, and His justice in granting we sinners salvation? * In this judgment, so to speak, Saten says Ralph is a sinner, you have the record, and you cannot fairly grant salvation to Ralph, and condemn me. * God says yes, here is the record. through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and the ministry of Christ, all sin has been removed from Ralph. He is free from rebellion and rebellion will never rise again in Ralph. * Therefore, I am fair in granting eternal life to Ralph and to admit him into that life in close association with me/

Medical Aid In dying (MAID): is an issue that troubles some people. The Seventh-day Adventist Research Institute has published the following article that addresses this issue. https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/Reflections-89-January-March-2025.pdf#page=2 NOTE: I have not formulated an opinion on every aspect of the above article. I list it because I suggest it is helpful in understanding and considering this current issue.

Failure: Recent news stories have reported on apparent failures in Adventism. The following article exams that perspective and suggests that life is often a cycle of beginning, success and ending. One interesting aspect of this relates to her example of a marriage that was successful, as she put oit, yet finally came to an end. https://atoday.org/its-been-a-success-and-now-its-ended/

Gustave: Yep. Such happens.

I think a bunch of it has to do with popular fashions, it became progressive and hip for clergy to dump their clerical garb in favor of more casual or secular clothing. The other obvious reason is that clergy (like everyone else) likes to go about their free time without everyone knowing what it is that they do for work. Perhaps sometimes clergy would want to do something or go somewhere that would be frowned upon by their employer [insert name of Church here] - or participate in an activity that goes against the Christian Faith - therefore it would be of advantage for those folks to dress like a typical used car salesman or attorney - both of which cause no stir or scandal when they patronize a bar or strip club!

Generally the clerical collars were shunned by theologically liberal Churches. By liberal I mean those faith traditions that didn't retain the beliefs of where they came from. Lutherans (at least the Ms and Wis synods) are very conservative and still wear collars, as do many other faith traditions. Jehovah's witnesses are extremely liberal and so they do not. Years ago I remember looking at the history of Lutheran's in the US and other groups and was surprised to see many pictures of SDA Clergy wearing clerical garb - couldn't really tell the difference at all. It used to be common and I'm not sure why they moved away from this. Probably started getting more money and thus could afford more expensive suits.

Luther Warren is an interesting early SDA leader. He was born in 1864 and died in 1940. The following article is taken from the SDA Encyclopedia, and the photograph in that article shows him wearing a clerical collar. https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=7AD1

Do you understand why they are being ordained? They are being ordained because the Constitution of the Union Conferences gives the Unions the right to determine who should be ordained. IOW, in those Conferences the General Conference does not have the right to tell them that they cannot ordain women. From that perspective, they are not in rebellion. Rather it is the General Conference that is in rebellion.

* For a number of years, Ellen White carried the SDA credentials of an Ordained Minister. People today argue as to whether or not she was ordained, but she had the credentials and was so listed in official SDA records. Is that a problem in SE Asia? Where was God in this? * Presently, SDA Women are being ordained in some areas of the world. Is that a problem in SE Asia? * Some believe that the real Biblical issue is spiritual leadership and not ordination. IOW, should women pastor SDA congregations. Well, they do. Is that a problem in SE Asia? * In some places female pastors are Commissioned, rather than Ordained. Does that minor word change make a difference to the issue of female leadership. * During WW II, in one country, all male SDA pastors were removed from their congregation, with one exception of an elderly pastor, and placed in government service. Two females led out in evangelism in that nation, and brought many hundreds of people into SDA membership. Was their spiritual leadership a violation of the Word of God? * OK, so some SDAs feel that what we may want to do is offensive to the Word of God, are they willing to forgo practices that we may find to be offensive?

Beautiful!

I have posted the following comment to the article on Ted Wilson:

Allison Barr is a scholar who has written two books on the role of women in Christianity. A book on Biblical Womanhood in 2021 and another book on Becoming the Pastors' Wife in 2025. This second book has been reviewed in the following article by the wife of a SDA pastor, which may be read from the following link: https://spectrummagazine.org/culture/books-film/the-pastors-whore-a-review-of-barrs-becoming-the-pastors-wife/

The first step is to try (if possible) to see how the prophecy would have had a local application, at least not too far into the future. Second (and sadly often we have to start with this step) is to see how the prophecy has been applied over history by the church. Third, look at the principles. Fourth, besure we are using the principles of historism and not some new idea such as dispensationalism. From this we can grow and continue as we learn more. Before I look at the horn in Daniel 8, let me get to an excellent book in the Bible that answers the question of this thread. The book of Amos. Now, yes, I know that some of our General Conference leaders are pushing for a hermanutic that avoids editing and even teaches that while there is evidence that editing occured, that we should treat the text as if the final version IS the ORIGINAL version. Ok, we can debate this, but one place where this principle hurts Adventism is in the book of Amos. According to linguists, there are two very, very different writing styles in the book; althought translators try to smooth it over. If you divide up the two styles, one style does not list Judah in the going in cycles around the area, and the seventh-nation to be criticized is Israel. The entire writing style is focused on what Israel was about to face with Assyria if they did not repent (and the rejection by a priest made the "if" a lot less probable.) The second writing style breaks the traditional stucture by making it against 8 nations than the routine structure of focusing on the number 7. It places Israel in #8 and places Judah in the 7th position. The whole writing style applies the principles of the first style from talking about Israel with Assyria to Judah with Babylon and events that were occuring about a hundred years after Amos went to Israel. The one writing style is the immediate context, the second writing style is someone using the method of historism to apply the living word of God over history through historical analogy. Now, let's look at the horn of Daniel 8. The above posts gives a good question noticing that it seems to leapfrog so how can it be the same little horn as in Daniel 7. So far, so good. However, this interpretation misses step 1, the local application; but jumps to an application over history (that whether we know it or not) comes out of the original setting. The ancient world thought in forms of cycles. For example, to ancient Egypt a day was equivalant to the cycle of the sun, or the annual flooding of the Nile. If we lived in ancient Egypt and I borrowed money from you and said that I'd pay you back the next day, you would expect the money within 24 hours, or within the year from the flooding of the Nile and you would be fine. The Hebrew cycles are given in Leviticus 23, 25 and here and there in Deuteronomy. Leviticus talks about the Hebrew weekly cycles of 6 days and the Sabbath, 6 months and Passover/Yom Kippur, 6 years and the Sabbatical year and 6 Sabbatical years and the Jubilee. Now Deuteronomy does not have the Jubilee and all that is done in the Jubilee in Leviticus is done in the Sabbatical year in Deuteronomy. Thus the Hebrew day cycle = a literal day, a month, a year, and in Leviticus but NOT Deuteronomy, a Sabbatical year. In Christian history, St. Augustine replaced historism with some other ways of understanding prophecy. Also, in the early centuries of Christianity historism began to decrease, especially by people prefering allogory. Eventually Histroical analogy/historism had been lost. Also, much of the original context had also been lost. Then came Joachin of Fiore, who restored the church to use historism. Sadly, he was pressured to push for a crucade that he really had no light on but wanted to help the church leaders. It was a disaster, and when he got home he started to focus more on where he believed he did have light and now to spread the gospel in his day and how the Lord could have come soon after his time. However, one thing that he picked up in the crucade was the eastern cyclic thought, but he only learned about the day=year connection (not the entire day=day=month=year and in Leviticus=Sabbatical year.) But the day=year was the one that the church at and after his time needed and from which we get 1844. 1844 was the LAST date (since Daniel is based on Deuteronomy) to fulfill the prophecy. What our pioneers did not know was that 2300 literal days from Daniel getting the vision would bring us to the year (we are not told what day within the third year of Belshazzar the vision was given) where Medio-Persia was at Babylon's gate, Belshazzar's feast, and the start of the Medio-Persia Empire at the fall of Babylon. Getting with the more original setting, we have Medio-Persia, Greece with the one horn, breaks into 4 horns going to the four winds of heaven. Then we have Daniel 8th little horn comeing, yes, from the North, but NOT ONLY from the North but specifically North-West of Israel, traveling to the south east. This is just what ROME did. While Daniel 7 has different parts of Rome, of which the little horn is only a part of; in Daniel 8 the little horn is the entirety of Rome, from pagan to papal through out history to the second coming, including Satan's counterfeit of Jesus coming. I hope this helps.

Jesus Himself said that everything said about Him in the Law & the Prophets (The Old Testament) "HAD TO BE FULFILLED" Luke 22, 37 / Luke 24, 44 & many other places & all those things said about Jesus exclude the possibility of failure - this isn't my taking indecent liberty with those texts - the texts explicitly say this in the most blunt terms available in language. In addition to the mass of Old Testament Scripture which rebuts the argument of a hypothetical case of Jesus sinning is the teaching of the New Testament itself - what the Gospel is and what the primary AKA most important truth of the Gospel is. 1st Corinthians 15: Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: What St. Paul is here saying is that Jesus died for our sins AND THAT HIS DEATH WAS, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (aka -absolutely was going to / would happen and did happen). Many, if not most Christians, when asked what the Gospel is, will readily say 'Jesus died for our sins' but omit by ignorance that this act was "according to the Scriptures" - that there was zero possibility of any of it not happening. I shouldn't have to remind anyone what instructions Paul left for Christians when someone tried to share with them a gospel which differed from the one he preached - affirming Jesus could have sinned is a significantly different gospel. This is why what St. Paul said in 1st Corinthians is embedded in the Nicene Creed word for word & why its affirmed at each and every Mass. The Eastern Orthodox Church says the Nicene at every Divine Liturgy - it really is of 1st importance according to the Bible. I'd say its important to note that the primary reason for holding the Council of Nicaea was to combat Arianism - and Arius was adamant that Christ COULD HAVE SINNED AND LOST HIS SALVATION. It's right there in the Canons. I wanted to dig into the question phkrause asked of me about why would God would have allowed Jesus to be tempted if Jesus could not sin? The answer to this is very simple - because Scripture is explicit that Jesus couldn't sin and this sinlessness was one of the things said about The Christ, it's right in there with the virgin birth, being of the line of David, being called out of Egypt, raising the dead, healing the sick and making the deaf hear and lame walk. The Christ had to fulfill all of those things (and all the others) - had Jesus failed on 1 thing it would have simply meant HE WASN'T THE CHRIST to begin with. Imagine having a Doctrine where a hypothetical situation existed that it was possible that The Christ would have been called out of China instead of Egypt or perhaps a hypothetical of Christ being born of a Roman or Greek prostitute who had slept with thousands of men. Imagine claiming that if when Jesus was walking between towns if it wasn't possible for Him to be killed and eaten by a bear or lion, maybe be bitten by a cobra and being killed than Jesus' ministry would be a farce and a mockery - does this pass the logic test? Of course not. There are literally 160 plus explicit references of the impossibility of Jesus sinning in the Scriptures - if SDA's are Sola Scriptura, they must accept this as a Biblical fact.

For the same reason that every other prophecy Christ fulfilled is detailed in the Gospels - from being born from a virgin to being called out of Egypt. Scripture said The Christ had to be blameless, without fault and perfectly holy - what better way to demonstrate that than have the Holy Spirit drive Jesus into the wild to be tempted by the father and founder of lies himself? Jesus was forthright when He said that His Words would never pass away Matthew 24, 35 - Apostolic Christianity really banked on Jesus' words and literally took Him at His word when He said things such as these: Matthew 7, 22 - Many will say to me on that day. Matthew 19, 28 - Promises to His Apostles Matthew 24, 30 - Jesus will come in the clouds Matthew 25, 31 - When the Son of Man comes in His glory & scores upon scores of other words from Jesus about what will happen - all of which would have been a mockery if He had sinned, lost His salvation and been eternally smitten by Father God for messing up. When Jesus says what He did in Matthew 24, 35 this would have been a jaw dropping thing for a devout Jew to hear - they would have immediately recalled Isaiah 55, 11 which unequivocally says that God's word does not return to Him void and here Jesus is saying He is God Almighty. The other thing here that should be mentioned about Jesus' words NOT passing away are the words He spoke prior to His being tempted by or of Lucifer in john 14, 30. Jesus told His Apostles that they were not to worry because Lucifer had NOTHING in Him. If Jesus' words will not return void what does this mean in the hypothetical that Jesus "could have sinned", "could have lost His salvation" and 'rotted in the tomb'? I have now collected 160 explicit references that assert the impossibility of Christ failing to do what the Law & the Prophets said He would do and how this truth is embedded in the Council of Nicaea and is repeated each and every day at Catholic Mass and all Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. I appreciate the question phkrause, I hope to explore this matter much deeper with you or any Seventh-day Adventist that would be willing to discuss it. "

Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma is a relatively rare form of blood cancer. It exists id multiple forms that can afflict various groups of people, including children and adults. The BIA-ALCL form generally occurs in people who have had textured breast implants, either the silicone or saline type. Surgical removal fo the implant typically cures this type. For more information on this type of cancer, see: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24029-anaplastic-large-cell-lymphoma

Verse 30: * While King David is not normally called a prophet in the Bible, Gustave may be considered correct in suggesting the in Verse 30, it is King David that is identified as a prophet. * Gustave has cited the verse from the KJV. The textual evidence for the KJV reading, which mentions Christ directly, is lacking. More modern versions, such as the NIV, read similar to: " . . . God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on hl\is throne, . . ." Verse 31: * In both the KJV and versions such as the NIV, Christ is clearly cited. Again, Gustave is not in error in suggesting the Christ is the focus of the statement. * The KJV tells us that the soul of Christ was not left in hell, while versions such as the NIV state that Christ was not left in the Grave. My purpose has not been to comment on the fundamental understanding of the passage that Gustave has stated. I will leave it to you to consider his understanding. Rather, my purpose has been simply to suggest slight changes in wording that are reflected in more modern translations of the Bible.

There was a time, when we had three major English publishers of Adventist material. Of those three, Southern Publishing Association sometimes published cutting edge material. That probably had some role in its close. Now the two that are left publish the accepted norm for Adventist literature. Yes, Adventist Today and Spectrum publish insightful material. But they are not alone and two other organizational publishers have arisen. Avondale Press, is owned by our SDA School in Australia. It regularly publishes cutting edge material such as: Biblical and Theological Studies on the Trinity, 251 pages in 2014 and The Biblical Flood, 238 pages in 2020. Oak and Acorn is the publishing arm of the Pacific Union Conference. It contracts with Amazon to print its material. One example is the 456 page, 2022 book, Ostriches and Canaries: "Coping With Change in Adventism 1966-1979. The short story is that the voice of an independent Adventism cannot be quieted.

Good points in the article, but it is also missing some points. I sadly know that our schools have become too expensive. There are strong and weak points. I know that we need a wider, affordable, outreach for teaching our young people. But there are other roles that these schools do or may play. Local academies/colleges give a focus place for church life all around the area. A begining and reuniting places for life long friendships and contact with the church, a highlight for other events throughout the year and throughout people's lives, even for those who never attended the schools. This secondary role maybe even more important than their primary role. There may also be additional points; such as Atlantic Union College, the campus saved many of the historical buildings and is full of history, historical events that took place there, and not only Seventh-day Adventist history. The closing of this school looses so much more than a place to study. Yes, some of the history will probably be saved, but how much will be lost. Sadly, Andrews did not hold to this sense of history. It was a constant destroying old and building new buildings and as you read about the history that took place on the campus and wanting to visit where they took place, I kept getting the answer "It happened here someplace." Being Scandinavian, I am heartbroken with our Dainish school closing down. Some religions would have one main college that would just regurgatate the same old same old ideas. Mrs. White set us up in a way of growing ideas. Independent publishing houses, multiple schools. Leaders hated that she did this. There was the attempt to have the Review take over the Pacific Press. She put a stop to this. However, since she died, especially with the 2022 General Conference, there have been voices to make us more homogenis than heterogenis. We have been in a fight between growth and control, to be thinkers and to reflect only certen men's ideas, we say we want to grow, but freekout unless these specific ideas are repeated. Yes, we keep the letter of the law and allow the Review and Pacific Press to be "independent" of each other, but I have a sneeking suspcician that we have been trying to make the staff members clones of each other and interchangeable. How many of our pastors come from other colleges than Southern? Yes, the major issues are the fianancing of these schools, the distance of travel from home for people so young, and how we can reach out to and teach our young people with these issues. But this is just the tip of the iceburg that we need to think about, pray and discuss.

The above quote is taken from the March 27k 2025 edition of Northern Lights, which is a publication of the Northern California Conference of Seventklhllllllllll-day Adventists. For more information on this competition, see: https://tangytuesday.com/tournament

SDA Clerical Collar: The following is an interesting article on SDA clergy who wear a clerilcal collar. https://spectrummagazine.org/news/reports/the-clerical-collar-among-ukrainian-adventists-a-challenge-or-a-missionary-tool/ While it is probably little known, a minority of SDA clergy wore the clerical collar into the early 1940s. Luther Warren wore the clerical collar forever, and I do not believe that any photograph of him exists in which he is not wearing such. On a personal basis, I wore a clerical collar in the 1980s, including wearing it to SDA Conference meetings. I was never questioned about doing so, not even once.

The following article cites SDA clergy wearing a clerical collar. https://h0bbes.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/clothing-the-sda-clergy/

Yes, it's true. Red meat is very expensive here. Most people eat 1/10 of the red meat they do in the USA.

O. K. Now I understand you.

In a theological context those who depart more from apostolic / historic Christianity are liberal whereas those who are less departed are considered more conservative. This is not to be confused with liberal / conservative in a political context. Lutherans (Wisconsin & Missouri synods) are considered conservative compared to Jehovah's Witnesses - because Lutherans "conserved" or kept more of apostolic Christianity than did Jehovah's Witnesses. Based off what I've seen of Mr. Veith he appears to be radically liberal.

Cancer in Asia is much lower than North America. I wonder why that is.

Women in Adventist History is discussed in the following article: https://www.nadadventist.org/news/they-also-served-podcast-uncovers-lost-stories-women-adventist-history

The early leaders of what became the SDA Church were clearly not Biblical scholars. They were not trained in the Biblical languages. They came from differing religious backgrounds. Ellen White came from a Methodist background. James White came, as did several others, from what is commonly called the Christian Connection (CC). That group is not well known today and has ceased to exist as an organized group. The CC held to non-orthodox positions on the Trinity and is largely the reason why a number of early leaders in what became the SDA Church also held non=orthodox positions on the Trinity. The earliest of the leaders did not intend to form a new denomination. They were united in the belief that the Second Advent was near. The differing doctrinal differences were considered to be of little importance. It was only with the failure of Christ to com as expected and fact that many of them had been expelled from their previous denominations that they began a series of so-called Bible-Conferences in an attempt to determine the extent of the doctrines on which they could agree. That resulted in the formal organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1863. That event laid the foundation for future agreements on doctrinal and administrative issues which continue to today. In addition that background laid the foundation for the diversity in Biblical understandings that exist in the SDA Church today. Some SDAs wish for increased unity of spiritual issues, while others, such as me, favor the present status of diversity.. While agreeing that God leads and we may still benefit from increased understandings of Biblical doctrines.

Some of the differences in the Seventh-day Adventist Chruch: Deaconesses: Historically these have been women who were not ordained and provided services related to the Church that were generally not of a spiritual nature. But, they have a place in preparing to celebrate the Lor's Supper. Presently, some SDA congregations ordain them. However, their services have generally not changed. They are not considered to be clergy. Deacons: Historically these have been males who were ordained and provided services related to the Church that were generally not of a spiritual nature. But, they have had a place in conducting the Lord's Supper. Presently, some SDA congregations allow women to become a Deacon. Seventh-day Adventists do not consider Deacons to be clergy. Local Elder: Major differences exist between how Local Elders are used in the United States and in other nations in the World. They are always ordained, but in general are not considered to be SDA Clergy. As an exception to this, SDA pastors spend several years in pastoral relationships prior to being fully ordained as a SDA pastor. In that situation they are ordained as a Local Elder. Most Local Elders will never become a fully ordained SDA pastor. However, they may be in charge of the local congregation in the absence of the SDA pastor. In that role, the Conference President may allow them to perform certain functions related to the function of an SDA pastor. Again, this is more common in places where A SDA pastor may serve 13 congregations, which in not true for the United States. SDA Pastor: In the United States, the SDA pastor, with occasional exceptions, will have a degree in theology/religion beyond the college level, will have spent 3-5 years in pastoral ministry prior to being fully ordained as a SDA pastor. The SDA Church in the United States is divided on the role of women as pastors. In some places in the United States, women are fully ordained as clergy. In other places they are not so ordained and are Commissioned. This is considered to be a lower level that is Ordination. In any case, women who are Commissioned serve as SDA Congregational pastors. However, in some places Commissioned women are not allowed/recognized to service in higher positions of leadership. However, in some places, ordained women are so elected to positions of leadership, but not recognized by others in high positions of leadership. The SDA congregation that I attend, has a woman who has been ordained. That ordination is not recognized in some parts of the United States. NOTE: The above comments were focused on the United States and may not be accurate in other places in the world.

God's Judgment: In the following article, an attorney comments on a common SDA teaching on God's judgment of people. It is a long article, but worth reading. https://religiousliberty.tv/heavens-courtroom-the-sanctuary-and-the-question-of-heavenly-due-process/ NOTE: The above attorney has also written a second article on this subject, which I would have preferred to post. I am unable to do so at this time. If I am able to post it at a later time, I will do so. NOTE: Stan has posted on this subject, in the Religious Liberty section.