1888 this that and the other thing.

[Stan]

This is just my experience, others may have had different.

I read 1888 re-examined when it first came out, and was impressed with the History.

After a few years, I began to cringe when anyone said 1888 Movement, why?

Rudeness in Church

Splitting the Church

Attacking the Pastor

Often undereducated folks who just yell "Listen to me, I am an authority on everything Biblical"

Followers ended up not to go to Church or supporting the Church in a few months

When I was an ABC manager, of larger ABC's, the many folks quit being good customers.

The list goes on.

To me, that was the fruit of the movement.

As I said, this has been my experience, others may have had differences over the long term.

[Stan]

I know, I know, let the stoning of Stan begin....

[olger]

And those were the GOOD POINTS !!

Actually, Weiland, Short etc have had some good contributions, as well as that erstwhile cousin. I agree that it seems to be an easy topic for some to obsess about.

carry on,

oG

[Guest]

Don't let your bad experience turn you away from the truth Stan. I think if we would study for ourselves the massage that was given in 1888, through Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen White, instead of listening to Weiland and Short, there are gems to be found. I'm not overly impressed with Weiland and Short, and I'm not even sure they have a handle on what the real message of 1888 was all about.

[Robert]

Weiland and Short

Over the years I've talked to both of them....They have good points....Basically their argument is that the majority of the SDA church rejected the gospel after the 1888 GC.....While that's good to know, I say preach the gospel again....Hence I tend to back Sequeira more because he is doing just that.....

[teresaq]

i read the book but i was already disgusted with the church so i cant blame anything on them. perhaps others who read the book were also disgusted with the church for their various reasons.

i havent reread it since ive been working on my feelings about the church, but then id just as soon read j and w for myself, go straight to the horses mouth so to speak.

it is a wonderful message! once we get it and practice it.

[pnattmbtc]

I know Wieland personally, although I haven't been able to speak to him for several months, as he's been ill. He's in his mid 90's. I have trouble remembering what year exactly he was born.

I know him quite well, and I've never seen him act in any way other than as a Christian gentleman. He's the sweetest man I know. He has an amazing ability to empathize with others.

I've been greatly helped by his books and presentation of the Gospel. In particular, his explanation of God's love, especially as revealed on the cross, and the importance of our recognizing and appreciating that love has profoundly changed my life.

I've been amazed at the level of persecution this man has had to face, and his ability to have born under this and maintain a Christian attitude is a tribute to the Lord's ability to provide grace to those in time of need.

To say, "Basically their argument is that the majority of the SDA church rejected the gospel after the 1888 GC" it to seriously misunderstand what Wieland and Short's ministry was about. It's a shame there is so much misunderstanding surrounding their ministry, but when one considers the experience of similar movements throughout history, it's not at all surprising.

[pnattmbtc]

I should add that nothing grieves Elder Wieland's heart more than those who claim to be supporters of the 1888 message who act as Stan has pointed out. I'd be curious if those whom Stan is speaking of are those who actually have been to 1888 conferences. At these conferences, the type of behavior he spoke of is brought up, and warned about. That is, Wieland would express his disappointment at people, with a little bit of knowledge, who would act in the manner Stan has described. Those who do these things are acting expressly contrary to Weiland's teachings and wishes.

Those whom I know personally are by an overwhelming margin strongly supportive of the church, and kind. Also avid readers. Of course, there are outliers in any situation, but that's been my experience. To characterize the fruit of Wieland's ministry in this negative way is, I think, grossly unfair. I'm not saying this is necessarily Stan's fault, however, as it could well be that he's run into people who claim to be supportive of Wieland and Short's ministry without really understanding what it's about.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Weiland and Short

Over the years I've talked to both of them....They have good points....Basically their argument is that the majority of the SDA church rejected the gospel after the 1888 GC.....While that's good to know, I say preach the gospel again....Hence I tend to back Sequeira more because he is doing just that.....

YES YES.

[pnattmbtc]

Wieland and Short had the conviction that something special happened in 1888, and that that the Lord Jesus Christ is calling for corporate repentance in regards to that event. For some reason, although Wieland communicated the concept very clearly (George Rice is one who "got it" and has run with it, although he's not associated with, nor doesn't agree in general with the 1888 MSC), many people have erroneous ideas about what it means. I won't go into it here, but just say that Wieland does have a conviction regarding this, and this is an emphasis that he has.

However, it's a minor emphasis. At an 1888 conference, there might be one meeting on the subject. Over 4 days. So that would be something like maybe 5% of the content presented.

So it's hardly fair to say that he should "preach the Gospel again" if 95% of the time he is doing this (assuming the subject of corporate repentance, a Biblical subject, isn't "preaching the Gospel").