Can the Remnant Church Fail?

[Nic Samojluk]

doug yowell wrote:

“Because the issue has been voided by church leaders it's virtually impossible to determine whether any SDA hospitals continue to perform elective abortions unless they volunteer the information themselves.”

When Ted Wilson was in Redlands a year ago, I told him I was on the verge of publishing my book and I needed more recent statistics. He advised me to write to Dr. Handysides at the General Conference. I wrote to him twice. He never responded nor did his secretary have the courtesy of acknowledging my letters. I followed this with a letter to Wilson. A year has gone by and I wm still waiting for a response!

I wrote to George Gainer about this, and he told me that following the publication of the two articles he authored where he documented the Adventist participation in elective abortions, the church made it practicably impossible for anyone to find out what our hospitals are doing regarding abortion. It would take a whistle blower to accomplish this. Of course, Adventist employees will dare to jeopardize their employment and their retirement for the sake of the unborn.

I did secure a limited amount of statistics from a non-Adventist public source for free, but they normally charge a hefty fee for their services. If someone were to help finance the procurement of additional statistics, we could have more recent solid evidence.

Nevertheless, the past behavior of the church is based on solid evidence, and the church needs to publicly acknowledge this and seek God’s forgiveness for this terrible sin against the Creator who told us not to shed the blood of innocent human beings

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“I have seen studies that show that 80% or MORE of Adventist hospitals follow the guidelines of the G.C. and a high percentage of them do MORE than the guidelines to limit abortions.”

Following the Adventist guidelines on abortion is not the best recommendation in my view. Our guidelines justify what the Bible condemns: the killing of innocent unborn children under a variety of circumstances, including when the woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and her mental condition is affected; which means that all the woman needs to say to her doctor is:

“I feel depressed and can’t sleep nor study,” and bingo—another innocent baby is sacrificed on the altar of convenience. What is of higher moral value: The woman’s lifestyle or the life of an innocent human being?

“I do believe the percentage would be higher except some Adventist hospitals do not offer abortions at all and thus cannot be considered among the 80% that do follow the guidelines.”

True! It is also true that among the 20 percent are those who totally disregard even the liberal guidelines of the church which permit abortions under such a large number of circumstances which makes God’s prohibition meaningless.

Designing exceptions for what the Lord ordained is condemned in Scripture. A good example is what King Saul did. He was told by God’s prophet to kill the Amalekites and their animals. He decided that saving some of the Amalekites animals in order to offer them as a Sacrifice to the Lord was a reasonable exception to God’s order. Here is an inspired record of how God sees a deviation from his will:

19Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?”

20“But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.

21The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal.”

22But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

[color:#FF6666]23For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”

24Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the LORD’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the people and so I gave in to them.

25Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD.”

26But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!”

Notice the reason Saul was rejected by the Lord! He redefined God’s order and allowed what seemed to him a minor exception to what the Lord had ordered. He thought that saving some animals from the slaughter was reasonable, because they would be used for sacrifices in honor of God.

This is what the church did to God’s Commandment forbidding the killing of innocent human beings. We provided for a large number of exceptions to God’s will. Unless the church repents of this evil, my opinion is that the Lord will reject our church as God’s Remnant with the last message of hope for the world and he will choose other people to do his will.

“It is not surprising Adventist hospitals no longer offer specific numbers and detailed information. Patient privacy and all that. As well as the hornets nest that would inevitably result, no matter what the data says. It places the hospital in an impossible position.”

This explanation seems reasonable; nevertheless, the motive is questionable. George Gainer told me that following his two articles detailing the historical circumstances under which our church allowed our hospitals to offer elective abortions—which was published by “Ministry” and “Spectrum”—the new reporting protocol regarding abortions by our hospitals was modified which made it impossible for anybody to discover the number of such procedures performed in our medical institutions.

“So what are we to conclude from this missing data? I see it in the same way I see Sister White, at times, refusing to comment on an issue. People would inevitably take that to mean she DID support their view. Others would take it to mean she DIDN'T support that view. The fact is, she had "no comment", period, end of story. It means exactly what it says, "no comment". I think this is what the hospitals are doing. What each of us will decide they are "really doing" from a "no comment" position is up to the individual. No doubt, like a Sister White "no comment", many will ascribe it to mean it supports their position, whatever position they have.”

Perhaps King Saul should have given such an answer to Prophet Samuel: “No comment.” Would this have gotten him off the hook?

“I cannot support the idea that the G.C. has or should issue a blanket policy that denies abortions under all circumstances. Therefore, the best we can hope for is reasonable "guidelines".”

Deviating from God’s will should not be considered as “reasonable.” King Saul tried that tactic and failed! Let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can be smarter than the Lord!

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“I have no intention of reading a book filled with gossip and rumor by an author who is clearly so biased on the subject there is no hope of reason.”

You have no need to read my book! You have the Bible which is clear about this issue. It says: “You shall not murder.” My dictionary defines murder as the killing of an innocent human being.

I have in my book almost 100 quotations from our official “Ministry” magazine. I have taken the material in my book from Adventist publications. You call this “gossip”? Let the reader decide!

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“I cannot support the idea that the G.C. has or should issue a blanket policy that denies abortions under all circumstances. Therefore, the best we can hope for is reasonable "guidelines".”

How can killing the innocent be reasonable? Perhaps we should also have reasonable guidelines about rape, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children! Is it reasonable to value the lifestyle of a woman over the life of an innocent unborn baby? Should we perhaps ask the unborn whether it is reasonable to dismember the poor creature by pulling its extremities and head of its body and without anesthesia?

Do you think that the unborn would agree that such a solution is reasonable? Reasonable for whom: the abortionists who profits from the murder or the poor baby who is killed without mercy? Have you tried to place yourself in the baby’s place? We routinely let the rapist live, but kill the innocent, and you think this is reasonable.

Jesus left the lifestyle of heaven that we might live, but women can’t forego their lifestyle for nine months that their own baby might enjoy life. You think that this is reasonable? It is definitely unreasonable for me.

King Saul thought that saving a few animals from the war with the Amalekites was reasonable, since he was planning to use said animals as a sacrificial offering to the Lord. The Lord rejected him and chose David instead in spite of the reasonableness of Saul's thinking. The Lord wants obedience instead of our own policies regarding the sacredness of human life.

[doug yowell]

doug yowell wrote:

[color:#3366FF]“Because the issue has been voided by church leaders it's virtually impossible to determine whether any SDA hospitals continue to perform elective abortions unless they volunteer the information themselves.When Ted Wilson was in Redlands a year ago, I told him I was on the verge of publishing my book and I needed more recent statistics. He advised me to write to Dr. Handysides at the General Conference. I wrote to him twice. He never responded nor did his secretary have the courtesy of acknowledging my letters. I followed this with a letter to Wilson. A year has gone by and I wm still waiting for a response!

I wrote to George Gainer about this, and he told me that following the publication of the two articles he authored where he documented the Adventist participation in elective abortions, the church made it practicably impossible for anyone to find out what our hospitals are doing regarding abortion. It would take a whistle blower to accomplish this. Of course, Adventist employees will dare to jeopardize their employment and their retirement for the sake of the unborn.

I did secure a limited amount of statistics from a non-Adventist public source for free, but they normally charge a hefty fee for their services. If someone were to help finance the procurement of additional statistics, we could have more recent solid evidence.

It is this very type of stonewalling and lack of openness that fosters the suspicions and criticisms of those who are concerned with the church's involvement in the abortion business.A few pro-life stragglers within the ranks need no response but a media expose' of outside criticism or an internal uprising usually warrants an certain immediacy of importance. It is my own personal belief that if the church continues this don't ask don't tell policy it will never receive the grace (power) to make it thru the really tough times that still lie ahead, particularly if it is willingly turning a blind eye to what it's right arm is doing.

[doug yowell]

Nevertheless, the past behavior of the church is based on solid evidence, and the church needs to publicly acknowledge this and seek God’s forgiveness for this terrible sin against the Creator who told us not to shed the blood of innocent human beings

This is one area of the equation that so many pass off as an insignificant blip on the historical radar screen. The fact that church owned institutions were providing elective abortions (the kind that the guidelines say are not "condoned")apparently requires no need of repentence. Let's just move on and pretend that this never existed without taking serious steps to ensure that it doesn't occur again? It would be like the "reformers" in Judah saying that because they suggested that worshippers not attend meetings at the high places it should be assumed that everyone would comply.

[doug yowell]

It is this very type of stonewalling and lack of openness that fosters the suspicions and criticisms of those who are concerned with the church's involvement in the abortion business

This is like the once unfaithful, now "reformed" husband who still stays out late,refuses to answer his wife's calls to his cell phone, and when confronted at the door angrily responds with; "What's the matter, don't you trust me?"

[doug yowell]

I wrote to George Gainer about this, and he told me that following the publication of the two articles he authored where he documented the Adventist participation in elective abortions, the church made it practicably impossible for anyone to find out what our hospitals are doing regarding abortion.

For those who's prejudice towards you pushes them towards believing that George Gainer is also a church critic, it might be helpful to point out his present relationship to the church and the impartionality of his research. It also struck me that the title of this thread is about church failure which may or may not be fatal. All depends on the response to God's corrections and it's willingness to risk it's all for Christ.

[Nic Samojluk]

doug yowell wrote:

“This is one area of the equation that so many pass off as an insignificant blip on the historical radar screen. The fact that church owned institutions were providing elective abortions (the kind that the guidelines say are not "condoned")apparently requires no need of repentance. Let's just move on and pretend that this never existed without taking serious steps to ensure that it doesn't occur again?”

Amen, brother! Private sins must be confessed directly to the Lord, but public sins must be publicly acknowledged and repented off. A few years ago, our German and Austrian SDA leaders publicly confessed our Adventist cooperation with the Hitler’s regime and compromised on the issue of Sabbath keeping and killing during war time. They thus set an example for what the Adventist church needs to do today regarding our moral compromise over abortions on demand which marred our Remnant of God image.

[Nic Samojluk]

doug yowell wrote:

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

“I wrote to George Gainer about this, and he told me that following the publication of the two articles he authored where he documented the Adventist participation in elective abortions, the church made it practicably impossible for anyone to find out what our hospitals are doing regarding abortion.”

Yes. And there is more: When George Gainer did his research, one of his publicly available sources for what our Adventists were doing was the encyclopedic volume of the “American Hospital Association” which allowed him to locate the specific names of 12 Adventist hospitals that actively participated in the lucrative abortion business. Here is the list of said hospitals:

“Castle Medical Center, Hadley Memorial Hospital, Hanford Community Hospital, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Porter Memorial Hospital, Portland Adventist Medical Center, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Sierra Vista Hospital, Walla Walla General Hospital, Washington Adventist Hospital, and White Memorial Medical Center.” [“The American Hospital Association Guide to the Health Care Field,” 1986]

I attempted to secure a more recent copy of said book. The price for the 2011 copy was over $300 dollars, but I located a used copy through the Internet for less than ten dollars and ordered it. I discovered that the reporting system no longer listed abortions in a separate category but was probably lumped with the list of births, other special care, or else women’s health services.

Only those in charge of reporting these statistics would know the answer to this mystery, but they will not talk. I have written to the Washington Adventist Hospital [WAH], to several LLU leading experts in the Ethics department, and to the General Conference more than once. No one has taken the time to even acknowledge my letters.

I know of a public source for abortion statistics for the State of Maryland where our WAH is located which had provided such information in the past to me and to another researcher, but they charge a hefty fee for this kind of services. Unfortunately, my financial ability is limited, but I hope that one day I will be able to secure the needed information.

In the mean time, we need to continue praying for our church and its leaders and for the revival of the faith we inherited from our forefathers. The Lord works in mysterious ways in order to accomplish his will and he will bring to light one day what is done in secret.

For more details about the above, read the following:

The Day Ministry Magazine Went Silent on Abortion

http://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/hello-world/

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Stan

please keep the abortion topic to one thread.

Perhaps this comment was missed.

[Overaged]

ClubV12 wrote:

“Just answer the questions, please. Do you support abortion in the case of the mothers life being in danger, or not? Yes or No.”

Yes, provided there is no way to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

“The Church supports elective abortion in the case of the mothers life being in danger. Do you agree with that position, or not? Yes or No.”

Same answer as above!

“Many Adventist hospitals have guidelines for elective abortion that EXCEED the guidelines of the G.C. Many Adventist hospitals do not offer abortion at all!!!

Do you agree with these two statements or not? Yes or No.”

Yes!

“Is there a SPECIFIC Adventist hospital you can PROVE or SHOW DATA for that it is in violation of the guidelines of the G.C.? Yes or No.”

The evidence is in my book and in the pages of “Ministry” and “Spectrum.” Some years ago the LLU Ethics department conducted a survey which revealed that five of our hospitals were offering elective abortions to their patients. You need to read my book!

Club; it has to be noted that Nics "documentation" which he keeps referring to is mostly his own material - he tries to stretch this into "Adventist Support" with brief forays into Spectrum materials, and the odd other thing, but the truth of the matter has always remained.

The reason the church allegedly went "silent" on abortion is because the church, as an official collective organization does not condone it in the first place. Two or three rogue individuals or organizations within the church, does not mean the whole church is behind it. And as I have shown in past threads of this nature, Nic cannot hold himself back from stirring in many other beefs he has with the church, into this abortion issue. That alone is cause to suspect the veracity of his "scholarship."

Also, the fact that Nic feels it necessary to spam the board with multiple, almost identical subjects shows the mendacity of his "book" and his web site and what he writes here. (IMHO)

Nic himself has admitted there are certain kinds of situations where abortion has to be done; and if he would be truthful about the church's official guidelines, and stop mixing in other issues with this one; he would see that his stated opinion with this abortion question is inline with our official policy. What individuals sometimes do with that official policy is not the church's fault.

[doug yowell]

Nic himself has admitted there are certain kinds of situations where abortion has to be done; and if he would be truthful about the church's official guidelines, and stop mixing in other issues with this one; he would see that his stated opinion with this abortion question is inline with our official policy. What individuals sometimes do with that official policy is not the church's fault.

Despite the fact that you continue to paint the guidelines as official church policy despite the church's official statement that they are not, let's presume as if they were official policy. If a few individual institutions, under the name Seventh-day Adventist and officially connected with the church, did openly violate the "official policy" and the church did nothing to discipline them, would God ignore the oversight and allow that church to carry the title of remnant unchallenged to the end? Is it unfair to use Aachan's small deviation as a guideline?

[Overaged]

I called them official guidelines, because that's what the Church calls them on their web site. So I fail to see how I am "painting" anything here.

I think you may be of the opinion I was insinuating "official doctrine;" and I know the church has made this distinction between doctrine and guidelines. Nevertheless, Nic has been very pointed about his attacks on the guidelines in much of what he writes, and this is what I was referring to. The guidelines are being constantly mis-stated to try to represent that the church is "doing nothing."

[Overaged]

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged Wrote:

“Club; it has to be noted that Nics "documentation" which he keeps referring to is mostly his own material - he tries to stretch this into "Adventist Support" with brief forays into Spectrum materials, and the odd other thing, but the truth of the matter has always remained.”

My own material? Do you think that this false argument has any credibility? Is the material contained in our official “Ministry” magazine my own material? Did I ever publish anything in “Spectrum”?

Are you forgetting that I am citing my own book because you will find there all the references to the abortion material published by “Ministry,” “Spectrum” and other Adventist publications, including the books Adventist authors have written about this topic?

Do you expect me to post here al the references I have to Adventist publications I have cited I my book? Are you that naïve? I have nearly 100 quotations with their documented references to “Ministry” alone. Can’t you see that you are imposing impossible expectations from me?

I did offer to order a copy of my book to ClubV12 as a gift so that he can verify all this, but he said he has no interest in looking at my book. This means to me that he is rejecting my offer simply because he knows that what I am saying is true and that if he were to look at my book, he would see that I am not fabricating any of this information.

Therefore, I will make the same free offer to you. All you need to do is to provide me with your mailing address. Here is my email address: nicsamojlukATroadrunner.com. Can you ask for more.

“The reason the church allegedly went "silent" on abortion is because the church, as an official collective organization does not condone it in the first place.”

This seems to suggest hat you have never read our “Guidelines on Abortion” document or if you have, you have read it with blinders on your mind. These guidelines clearly make a list of circumstances under which it is morally acceptable to kill unborn innocent human beings: rape, incest, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the woman’s pregnancy begins to affect her mental condition.

This means that all the woman needs to say to her doctor is: “I feel depressed. I cannot sleep at night nor study for my exams,” and bingo, another innocent victims body is dismembered without mercy or anesthesia.

Do you conclude from the above that the collective organization does not condone abortion? When you add to this the number of Adventist hospitals which profited from the elective abortion with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the church, can you still argue that the church is pro-life?

“Two or three rogue individuals or organizations within the church, does not mean the whole church is behind it.”

The “church” term has several connotations. Let’s us not confuse them. There is the church composed of all the baptized member of the organization, and there is the organizational structure represented by the General Conference.

When we talk about our “Guidelines on Abortion”—a document approved by the Autumn Council of the GC, we should understand that the reference is to the leadership of the church and not to the entire membership of the church.

I have never claimed that the entire membership of the church is behind the pro-choice/pro-abortion position we find in said document and in the practice of a small numbers of hospitals who did engage in the provision of elective abortions to their patients, a practice which started in Hawaii in 1970 and spread to other Adventist medical facilities.

My investigation revealed that two thirds of those who took the time to express their views about abortion in the pages of our publications between 1970 and 2006 held pro-life views; while a two third of those who were in the leadership category were favoring the pro-choice/pro-abortion position.

“And as I have shown in past threads of this nature, Nic cannot hold himself back from stirring in many other beefs he has with the church, into this abortion issue. That alone is cause to suspect the veracity of his "scholarship." …”

I have made my offer to you. I will order a copy of my book for you at no cos to you if you provide me with your mailing address. This way you will be able to speak with some degree of authority instead of making unsupported false allegations.

I do not claim that my book is free of errors. Some critics have already made me aware of minor imperfections, most of them dealing with grammar and punctuation, and I have taken the trouble to make the proper corrections.

No one has so far shown me any errors in the veracity of the sources I have quoted in the book. This is your chance to prove me wrong! Go for it, instead of making unfounded allegations. I will be delighted to have a chance to make any corrections which might be discovered by you.

“Also, the fact that Nic feels it necessary to spam the board with multiple, almost identical subjects shows the mendacity of his "book" and his web site and what he writes here. (IMHO)”

If you had taken the trouble to do what I am asking, I would have had no need to keep posting similar materials viewed from different perspectives. My mission is to warn the church I love that we need to repent of the moral deviation we have made in the past, repent of our sin, and to seek God’s forgiveness.

This has been the message of all the true prophets we find in the Bible. Are we not a prophetic movement? Why are you so afraid of our need to repent of our past mistakes? Was it a mistake for our German and Austrian Adventist loader to publicly apologize for the church’s cooperation with the Nazi regime over a half century ago? Why can’t we emulate their valor in publicly confessing the sin of our church?

“Nic himself has admitted there are certain kinds of situations where abortion has to be done;”

Certain kinds? I cited only one exception: when there is very strong evidence that both the pregnant woman and her unborn baby will certainly die if the pregnancy were to continue. The duty of physicians is to save lives. If they can save only one life instead of two, this is still true to the pro-life policy.

This was the position of the medical profession for two thousand years. In 1970—three years before Roe v Wade-- our church deviated from this reliable moral tenet, and our entire nation followed the example set by our own “Remnant” people, the one denomination which has been bragging of being faithful to God’s Commandments, one of which states unambiguously: “You shall not murder.”

I find no multiple exceptions to the Sixth Commandment in the Decalogue. Contrast this with our own version of the Sixth Rule for Human behavior given to us by God himself as expressed in our “Guidelines on Abortion.” The contrast is pathetic. We find there exception after exception to what God commanded, thus making what the Lord ordered devoid of any meaning.

“What individuals sometimes do with that official policy is not the church's fault.”

When we are dealing with what several Adventist institutions have been doing for decades with impunity cannot be described as the action of individuals. The leadership of the church did allow this to take place for fear of loosing revenue.

At the same time, the Adventist leaders have consistently and persistently made the work of Adventist pro-lifers impossible to continue. A good example is how the GC treated the noble work of Mark Price whose “Adventists for Life” web site was taken down and forced to de-register the domain name.

Why? because he was using the term “Adventist” in his pro-life activities. Contrast this with the lenient GC attitude towards our “Washington Adventist Hospital” which has been in the news for its work in killing thousands of innocent babies with impunity.

What I conclude from all this is: If you want to do something on behalf of the unborn, the church will do all in its power to stop you, but if you want to profit form abortion, the church will let you do your work without any interference.

[Nic Samojluk]

doug yowell wrote:

“Despite the fact that you continue to paint the guidelines as official church policy despite the church's official statement that they are not, let's presume as if they were official policy. If a few individual institutions, under the name Seventh-day Adventist and officially connected with the church, did openly violate the "official policy" and the church did nothing to discipline them, would God ignore the oversight and allow that church to carry the title of remnant unchallenged to the end? Is it unfair to use Achan's small deviation as a guideline?”

Here is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term “guideline.”

"a formal rule describing how a situation must be handled;"

http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/guideline

Notice that it defines the term “guideline” as a “rule.” How can we argue that a rule is not what it means? A rule is not a suggestion, but rather a prescribed policy.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“I think you may be of the opinion I was insinuating "official doctrine;" and I know the church has made this distinction between doctrine and guidelines.”

Yes, the church made such a distinction. I suspect that the church did not want us to believe that said guidelines were one of our Fundamental Beliefs.

“Nevertheless, Nic has been very pointed about his attacks on the guidelines in much of what he writes, and this is what I was referring to.”

True, the guidelines are an attempt at redefining the Sixth Commandment of the Lord. This is serious stuff. We have no right to correct and water down what God has written with his own finger on tablets of stone.

“The guidelines are being constantly miss-stated to try to represent that the church is "doing nothing."”

If you think that I have miss-stated the guidelines, please provide the evidence. If you show me where I have been guilty of this, I’ll be happy to make the proper correction.

We cannot say that the church is doing nothing—since it has been amply documented that the church has allowed our own hospitals to profit from the killing of innocent unborn children with impunity, in violation of its own guidelines which do not condone abortions on demand.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“What you & Nic are doing online in all of these topics Nic keeps starting is like saying; OK. There’s a child abuser at the Church. That means all Adventists are child abusers, or condone it.”

This is a clever caricature of what I have been saying, but it does not do justice to what I have been writing. If we expect to make any progress in this discussion, we need to be factual and avoid exaggerations, distortions, and misrepresentations.

You might have noticed that when I try to represent your views, I use your actual words instead of my own imagination or my own representation of your views. Could you, please, reciprocate me in this respect? If you did this, this would save both of us a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of unnecessary repetition.

We are not talking about an isolated case of abortion on demand done by a lone physician, but rather about thousands of abortions on demand performed in at least five of our hospitals with the full knowledge and acquiescence of our church leadership and in contravention of our own guidelines on abortion. How can you push this under the rug with the argument that these were a few isolated cases?

As long as the rest of us Adventists elect to avoid this issue, we become guilty of the sin of our leaders. Remember that when Achan sinned, the entire camp of Israel were punished. My guess is that many among the people were cognizant of what this man had done and said nothing to stop him from hiding the gold in his tent.

There was a need of a public reprimand without which the Lord could not continue to bless their sacred mission. This is exactly what is needed in our church today. There is a need for a public admission of guilt, repentance, and request for forgiveness. Our church is not growing in North America, and this is one of the reasons.

I used to give Bible studies to Catholics. I can no longer do this with a straight face. We are as guilty of watering down God's Law as Rome is! This is why some pro-life Adventists have left the church--some of them have gone back to Rome!

[ClubV12]

Nic I reject the offer of your book and would encourage others to also reject it because of your extreme bias. What you say is "proof" is merely your opinion. It would be a complete waste of time to consider your book, in fact, THIS thread is pretty much a complete waste of time. You have no interest in finding a balance on this issue, your mind is made up and logic and reason will have no impact.

There are many authors I don't need to read to figure out where they stand.

By the way, personally I'd be embarrased to quote or referrence anything from Spectrum. For the most part they are about as whacked out as some on this forum, they hardly represent the Adventist Church G.C. views!

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged,

You look great in that picture—and rather young! How come you chose the “Overaged” name? Just wondering!

[doug yowell]

[Here is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term “guideline.”

[color:#3366FF]"a formal rule describing how a situation must be handled;"

Notice that it defines the term guideline as a rule. How can we argue that a rule is not what it means? A rule is not a suggestion, but rather a prescribed policy.

This is exactly what one of my main complaints has been. I've already documented here the public statements by official SDA publications in which they did not apply this (above) definition to the voted "guidelines".Mirriam-Webster, Nic or Overaged not withstanding everyone connected with the official adoption of the guidelines tried to make it clear that they were not to be interpreted as any objective,enforceable rule/policy.(So I take those insiders at their word and not subsequent private interpretations.)Thus the confusion between what they say and what they mean continues to foment division. Unlike the "guidelines" put forward by the RCC or the So. Baptists, or hundreds of other prolife church organizations, the SDA guidelines themselves are useless in determining what the church thinks about the sanctity of the unborn's life. The SDA church has clear "rules" concerning the use of alcohol,drugs, tobacco and the other immoral practices. But none concerning the treatment of the unborn human being.And nobody responsible for the drafting or voting in process would disagree.As Roland Hegstad, editor of Liberty Magazine, put it "Guidelines not Edicts".

[ClubV12]

"Guidelines", it aint complicated Doug. And the Guidelines themselves are not complicated. When the life of a mother is at stake, the fetus must be aborted. I don't want our Church to have binding rules and laws that govern when, where and under what circumstances these tough decisions must be made.

I CERTAINLY don't want folks like yourself and Nic makeing that determination, running an inquisition, pointing fingers, accusing everyone of murder and condeming all involved.

I'll leave it to the Doctor, the counselors and the patient to determine what is best in any given situation within the guidelines the Church has suggested. The outcome is between them and God.

[Overaged]

Overaged Wrote:

“Club; it has to be noted that Nics "documentation" which he keeps referring to is mostly his own material - he tries to stretch this into "Adventist Support" with brief forays into Spectrum materials, and the odd other thing, but the truth of the matter has always remained.”

My own material? Do you think that this false argument has any credibility? Is the material contained in our official “Ministry” magazine my own material? Did I ever publish anything in “Spectrum”?

[Overaged]

"Guidelines", it aint complicated Doug. And the Guidelines themselves are not complicated. When the life of a mother is at stake, the fetus must be aborted. I don't want our Church to have binding rules and laws that govern when, where and under what circumstances these tough decisions must be made.

I CERTAINLY don't want folks like yourself and Nic makeing that determination, running an inquisition, pointing fingers, accusing everyone of murder and condeming all involved.

I'll leave it to the Doctor, the counselors and the patient to determine what is best in any given situation within the guidelines the Church has suggested. The outcome is between them and God.