GYC Vs “The One Project” – A shocking fact about our shaking church

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

I don't believe it's right for anyone to present as their own work that which should be credited to God.

Mrs. White repeatedly credits God for her work. The words she wrote were not her own thoughts merely, nor does she ever attempt to portray them so. She tells us clearly that God has directed her thoughts and presented the truths to her mind which she writes for our benefit.

Let me be clear:

1) I do not believe your misrepresentation of my posted comment should be credited to God. It is you who misrepresented what I said and not God.

2) I do not believe that you can be favorably be compared to Ellen White. IOW, I do not believe that you can honestly say that when you misrepresented what I said that God was leading you to say that.

3) Also, I do not believe that you are inspired by God in your postings here in Club Adventist.

In making the above statements, I am stating my personal position about you. I am not claiming that you said any of the above. You have brought EGW into the discussion, who was clearly used by God. I want it to be clear that I do not favorably compare you to her.

[Green Cochoa]

You need to read the whole book.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

You are making allegations that I do not see how you support.

Have a happy Sabbath,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

It seems, based on your opinion, that Ellen White was a plagiarist. I do not agree. Some people in her day, and even for centuries, would refer to the person who had written what they quoted. None of God's prophets have consistently done so. Sometimes, when it serves their purpose, they do. When it's really not important to the truth, they don't.

False.

EGW copied, at times, from the work of others. It has been clearly shown that she was not a plagiarist. Plagiarism is a legal term that is directly related to the statute. When EGW copied from the works of others, she did not violate any statue. Therefore, she was not a plagiarist.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

But there is nothing in the Word of God that would lead me to believe anyone can copyright truth.

Green, I wonder if you even understand what it means to copyright something.

You do not seem to understand that under civil law, one cannot copyright truth. This has never been an issue.

One, however can copyright a specific manner in which truth is stated. However, even that copyright does not prevent others from citing from that copyright statement of truth.

Let me give you an example: The New King James Bible has been copyrighted. I can not be prevented from quoting my sermon text in a published announcement given to the congregation. However, when I do so, I am expected to state that my publication of that sermon text came from the NKJV Bible.

Also, I could not publish, without permission, an entire book of the NKJV Bible (say the Book of Revelation) and distribute it either freely or for sale.

Further, under the statute, copyright generally has a limited time frame (there are a couple of exceptions). Once that time frame has expired one can publish as they please. Let me give you an example: Independent publishers are printing and selling material that EGW wrote. That in not a violation of the statute as long as they only publish material for which the copyright has expired. With a couple of exceptions, copyright is time limited.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green posted:

Quote:

Re: GYC Vs “The One Project” – A shocking fact about our shaking church [Re: mel20]

Green Cochoa Online content

I have already made 100 posts

Registered: 07/12/13

Posts: 346

Loc: The Orient

Gregory,

You are making allegations that I do not see how you support.

Have a happy Sabbath,

Green Cochoa.

Green, I am confused by the above post: First you clearly are responding to a post by mel20. then you name me and comment that I am making allegations that I cannot support.

Where are you getting me from a post by mel20?

NOTE: I have seen you do this before. I am simply confused as to what you are doing. Please clarify.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

incredible.

you honestly believe, don't you, that it's perfectly acceptable in God's eyes to steal the work of someone else and present it as your own work????

Sure don't.

I don't believe it's right for anyone to present as their own work that which should be credited to God.

Mrs. White repeatedly credits God for her work. The words she wrote were not her own thoughts merely, nor does she ever attempt to portray them so. She tells us clearly that God has directed her thoughts and presented the truths to her mind which she writes for our benefit.

Green, I have not been referring to Mrs. White or any of the cohorts of her time. That seems to be your one and only song.

I am referring to contemporary authors and those who use their words for personal use without authorization (plagiarism).

Not everything on the forum needs to be associated with Ellen White, imho.

[Tom Wetmore]

Green,

A couple questions for you. You keep referencing Ellen White in the copyright discussion. You say that nobody should copy right the Truth. And you seem to think that the Truth should not be for sale. (Gregory is correct by the way to say that accepting "donations" for your work is no different than being paid for your work. The price for your work is simply a sliding scale, a negotiated price.)

Yet Ellen White did the very same thing you say shouldn't be done. She copyrighted her own writings. She and James sustained their work by selling her books. She held the copyright to all of her writings during her lifetime. At her death those copyrights along with all the unpublished manuscripts of her writing were transfers to the Church for the intent that the money derived from the continued sale of her works would help support the work of the Church. And by the way, the concept of doing so by a will was following a human construct also, using the legal system of this country to further her wishes. Had she not had a will the law would have designated that her heirs would have gotten those copyrights and unpublished writings to do with as they wished.

So the question for you is, was what Ellen White did in copyrighting her writings wrong? Was she wrong to sell the Truth she wrote?

And one further question about your translation efforts. Are any of the writings you translate copyrighted in their original language? If so, do you realize that a copyright extends to translations of their work? Do you obtain permission of the copyright holder to translate their work?

The copyright includes the right to all derivative works of the original. That would include translations. It does not matter if you do it for free and give away copies, not even for "donations". The copyright holder has the exclusive right to profit from their effort. Take their work and copying it and giving it away for free deprives the. Of the opportunity to sell it to those who get free copies. (That by the way is the crux of the problem of the copying and distribution of electronic media, music and videos.)

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom said:

Quote:

And one further question about your translation efforts. Are any of the writings you translate copyrighted in their original language? If so, do you realize that a copyright extends to translations of their work? Do you obtain permission of the copyright holder to translate their work?

Under the statute, you can translate something that is in the public domain without permission. That is the law. You can debate the ethics of such.

Tom is correct (which you would expect from an attorney) that under the statute you cannot translate a work without the permission of the holder of the copyright--unless in public domain.

NOTE: There is a world-wide standard for copyright protection. The signatories to that standard have adapted it in their countries with minor changes which are allowed.

To violate copyright is considered intellectual theft.

Why do I know? Because while I was on the teaching staff of the U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School It was my job to know copyright law and to correctly obtain permission, when required, for material used in classroom teaching.

NOTE: Under U.S. law, materials used in an accredited institution of higher learning, which is where I taught, do not need to meet the same standards as materials that you might use, but not in an accredited institution of higher learning.

The question asked of your is: Do your obtain permission to translate any of your materials which are not in the public domain?

Tom also said:

Quote:

The copyright includes the right to all derivative works of the original. That would include translations. It does not matter if you do it for free and give away copies, not even for "donations". The copyright holder has the exclusive right to profit from their effort. Take their work and copying it and giving it away for free deprives the. Of the opportunity to sell it to those who get free copies. (That by the way is the crux of the problem of the copying and distribution of electronic media, music and videos.)

It is true that copyright protection applies whether the material is given away free or is sold, and whether or not any profit is made.

Tom said:

Quote:

Are any of the writings you translate copyrighted in their original language?

Under current U.S. law, copyright protection is extended to works covered by copyright at the time of the production of those works. Registration is NOT required for that copyright protection to exist.

NOTE: Registration is required for certain actions to take place. But, it is not, under current law, required for copyright protection to exist.

[phkrause]

Exactly Gregory, excellent post

[Johann]

This morning one of the consultants for the One Project, who also happens to be a union president, called me and we spoke about their work. I have known this man and his wife since they were small children,and I know they both come from very strong SDA families.

He told me that the One Project has based their efforts on the book the Desire of Ages, including every doctrine in the life of Jesus Christ. And they will continue using the books of Ellen White as the basis of their work and proclamation.

When I mentioned some of the things you people have been presenting about them on this forum, he replied that it made him very sad, but not surprised, because it is based on false assumptions created by some people whose credibility leaves some to be desired. Not a single doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is rejected, but Jesus Christ is made the central point in every doctrine. What some of them express is that no doctrine has any value without Jesus Christ.

When I mentioned Dr. Sweet, he said he had never met him, nor noticed his particular influence. I said that one of the arguments against the One Project is that this Methodist theologian will speak for 30 minutes in Seattle.

- Greet them and tell them that at the recent Fall Council with Ted Wilson we listened to a non SDA speaking for one and a half hours. So they will have to find some better arguments to prove their credibility.

[Gail]

One can only make as good a judgment as the information one has. Thanks, Johann, for providing more information.

[M. T. Cross]

If someone else has pointed this out earlier, I apologize, cause I did skip over a few posts.

The problem (other than the legal ones) that lies in claiming that one can't plagiarize truth is that one has to establish what truth is in the first place. This is not to argue theology, but even different translations of the Bible say somewhat different things.

But setting aside public domain spiritual writings, of which there are many from different belief systems, how do we decide what is truth? We can't. So when you directly take something from a book, an article, a blog and do not credit the author it is theft.

As far as the comment earlier about "Was Jesus plagiarizing"? - Jesus was not writing a book. He was having a conversation and he most often did refer to either the author or "the prophets" - which is giving credit.

[Stan]

[Windsor]

This morning one of the consultants for the One Project, who also happens to be a union president, called me and we spoke about their work. I have known this man and his wife since they were small children,and I know they both come from very strong SDA families.

He told me that the One Project has based their efforts on the book the Desire of Ages, including every doctrine in the life of Jesus Christ. And they will continue using the books of Ellen White as the basis of their work and proclamation.

When I mentioned some of the things you people have been presenting about them on this forum, he replied that it made him very sad, but not surprised, because it is based on false assumptions created by some people whose credibility leaves some to be desired. Not a single doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is rejected, but Jesus Christ is made the central point in every doctrine. What some of them express is that no doctrine has any value without Jesus Christ.

When I mentioned Dr. Sweet, he said he had never met him, nor noticed his particular influence. I said that one of the arguments against the One Project is that this Methodist theologian will speak for 30 minutes in Seattle.

- Greet them and tell them that at the recent Fall Council with Ted Wilson we listened to a non SDA speaking for one and a half hours. So they will have to find some better arguments to prove their credibility.

The fact that Leonard Sweet is Methodist had absolutely nothing to do with the objection people have to him speaking.

[Johann]

The fact that Leonard Sweet is Methodist had absolutely nothing to do with the objection people have to him speaking.

Isn´t it that he is not a solid Seventh-day Adventist?

What is your point?

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

"Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with - even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with."

I think that's it!!

I like it.

Are moderators required to demonstrate this as well?

Gail does. John317 did.

Gerry

You arn't getting it. You might want to read that again, for you.

Well, I'm kinda slow at times, but I am recovering.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

how do we decide what is truth? We can't.

"“What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime."John 18:38 NLT

"Jesus told him, “I am....the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6 NLT

God saves! Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

Johann said:

Quote:

This morning one of the consultants for the One Project, who also happens to be a union president, called me and we spoke about their work. I have known this man and his wife since they were small children,and I know they both come from very strong SDA families.

He told me that the One Project has based their efforts on the book the Desire of Ages, including every doctrine in the life of Jesus Christ. And they will continue using the books of Ellen White as the basis of their work and proclamation.

When I mentioned some of the things you people have been presenting about them on this forum, he replied that it made him very sad, but not surprised, because it is based on false assumptions created by some people whose credibility leaves some to be desired. Not a single doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is rejected, but Jesus Christ is made the central point in every doctrine.

Johann, I agree with you. I also personally know a denominational person of influence who has spent time in Sweet's home and is very knowledgeable of One Project. I have personally lost respect for the ethics and integrity of some of the critics. I do not have a problem with the people who have different understandings of SDA doctrine and belief. But, the actions of some of the critics pass well beyond that into basic ethics and integrity.

Also, I personally know one of the persons associated with One Project who is soundly criticized by some of these people. His central focus is on Jesus Christ as the center of every part of our (SDA) Doctrine, belief and life.

God is absolute honesty and truth. No human has ever achieved that. If I know a person well, I can expect to see in every person, to include me, a failure to reach that level. But, there comes a point where the lack of ethics and integrity tells me that they are not doing the work of God.

For some the lack of accuracy in their statements is probably ignorance rather than intent. But, that in itself in not an excuse. For others it is probably deception as happened with Eve. But, she gave the serpent the entry point for the deception. There are probably other reasons. Well, we are all human and the Father of Lies knows how to manipulate that humanness.

[debbym]

Quote:

Jesus in His love for the aforementioned, did not refrain from turning over the money changer's tables, though He knew it would raise their ire to the point of murdering Him.

they were profiting and making merchandise of salvation, as much as anyone could.

they were using holy things of God to increase their own glory.

when we use the scriptures to lift ourselves up, we are in the same kind of relationship to God.

in our human nature we are capable of using truth to exalt ourselves. and if the truth does not lead us to humble ourselves and be emptied of self seeking, and bringing attention to ourselves, we will do with divine things exactly what those men in the temple were doing, in our character and lives.

yes Jesus cleansed the temple of those who used sacred things to aggrandize themselves. when we feel exalted because we have the "truth" instead of humbled and self distrusting we are on the same ground.

it is Gods love and mercy we are to impart to the world working in and through our changed characters.

Quote:

We are constantly receiving of God’s bounty, and by imparting of the same we are to represent to the world the love and beneficence of Christ. While all heaven is astir, dispatching messengers to all parts of the earth to carry forward the work of redemption, the church of the living God are also to be co-laborers with Jesus Christ. We are members of His mystical body. He is the Head, controlling all the members of the body. Jesus Himself, in His infinite mercy, is working on human hearts, effecting spiritual transformations so amazing that angels look on with astonishment and joy.—The Review and Herald, December 24, 1908.

[CoAspen]

[mel20]

Not a single doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is rejected, but Jesus Christ is made the central point in every doctrine.

Dear Johann, sorry but you better be careful about this issue.

And as I quoted again from yours "no doctrine has any value without Jesus Christ"

This seducing statement is psychologically misused to advance the certain level of rejection of the core distinctive doctrines of the SDA church, simply by stating that no Jesus really involved in this doctrine..bla..bla..bla... then they are weeping while declaring "no doctrine has any value without Jesus Christ". Jesus. All.

So technically, New Theology and Liberals should never ever rejecting any single doctrine of SDA...not because they disagree, but sometimes it's because of their ego, self-centered arguments such as lifestyles, dressings, jewelries, eating/drinking... they said that those things are all about ADL (Activities of daily living)--completely separate and has nothing to do with Jesus. Btw, I speak to myself too. So bear with me.

However, they make certain doctrines as a none effect. The entire framework of the interpretive process and all of the critical exegesis explanation of the Bible would probably never being honored by this SDA group...simply because of their rejection of the Supreme Authority of the Biblical doctrines, and proudly say.... "I DID IT MY WAY."

[debbym]

Quote:

This seducing statement is psychologically misused to advance the certain level of rejection of the core distinctive doctrines of the SDA church, simply by stating that no Jesus really involved in this doctrine..bla..bla..bla... then they are weeping while declaring "no doctrine has any value without Jesus Christ". Jesus. All.

So technically, New Theology and Liberals should never ever rejecting any single doctrine of SDA...not because they disagree, but sometimes it's because of their ego, self-centered arguments such as lifestyles, dressings, jewelries, eating/drinking... they said that those things are all about ADL (Activities of daily living)--completely separate and has nothing to do with Jesus. Btw, I speak to myself too. So bear with me.

i do speak and read and write English, but i am having a hard time getting what you are trying to communicate here, can you please reiterate what you are saying here?

[CoAspen]

What we have hear, is a failure in comprehension.........

Me thinks that you are so blinded by your own desire to be right, that you reject everything that does not support your opinion. Much proof has been given you and yet you persevere. Simply repeating your opinion does not make it a fact. Perhaps an examination of your own motives might be of some help?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

i do speak and read and write English, but i am having a hard time getting what you are trying to communicate here, can you please reiterate what you are saying here?

Amen!

Jesus saves! God cares!