RFRA

[Dr. Shane]

"We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, 'No, no! We are not. It is the name the Lord has given us. It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches.'" [selected Messages, Book 2, 384]

You claim (as does the General Conference, by the act of acquiring a trademark) that you invented the name. Yet we are told that the Lord invented the name, and gave it to His people.

Let's get serious for a moment and stop being so silly.

How did the Lord give us our name? Did He write it on tablets of stone and hand it down to us from the Rocky Mountains? Or did an angel bring it to us on golden scrolls? Or did He put it in the minds of the early Adventist pioneers?

The name belongs to the Seventh-day Adventist church. God gave it to us - not to off-shoots. God also gave us the civil government to protect the name He gave us. The church is right.

[cricket]

I wish we were just called, "People Who Really Love the Lord."

[fccool]

Why not create a religious belief that says I can pirate Disney movies? When Disney sues me for copyright infringement I can claim protection under religious liberty? I don't think the judge will buy that. I have never seen the words "seventh-day adventist" in the Bible. I am not sure where that religious conviction would come from.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Disney is a for-profit corporation whose sole purpose of existence is to make money. That's what trademark law was invented to protect. Church is a non-profit religious corporation that only allowed to incorporate for the purpose of property ownership. Someone else calling their church Seventh Day Adventist church does not put an end to the idea that a specific church can have ownership of the property. On top of that, the churches in question do put a differentiating identifier that separates themselves... I.E. Creation SDA Church.

You still avoided my question. Are you willing to throw people in jail over this issue? You can argue all you want, but that's what ends up happening... and sorry to tell you that, but you are on the wrong end of the stick.

[Dr. Shane]

Church is a non-profit religious corporation that only allowed to incorporate for the purpose of property ownership.

[Light Fox]

Shane,

Your closing point reminds me of a quote from Daniel and the Revelation by Uriah Smith that I believe is valuable to share:

"It makes no difference that in numerous instances the victims were turned over to the civil authorities. It was the church that made the decision upon the question of heresy, and it then passed the offenders over to the secular court. But in those days the secular power was but the tool in the hands of the church. It was under its control and did its bidding. When the church delivered its prisoners to the executioners to be destroyed, with fiendish mockery it made use of the following formula: "And we do leave and deliver thee to the secular arm, and to the power of the secular court; but at the same time do most earnestly beseech that court so to moderate its sentence as not to touch thy blood, or to put thy life in any danger." [29] Then, as intended, the unfortunate victims of popish hate were immediately executed." [Pages 132-133]

Yes, you do decide the punishment. You know when you bring the suit what the results will be, and you must request the Court - as it is a civil case, not a criminal one - to not only issue the judgment of contempt, but to place men and women in jail as a consequence. At every step, it is your petition that the Court responds to. The Court does not take any action of it's own accord.

To say you do not decide the punishment because the Court has to decide whether to do what you demand of it is akin to claiming that the Jews never decided the punishment of crucifixion, because that was for Pilate to decide. It was the persistent request of the Jews that caused Pilate to take the action; so it is today.

As such, I think that fccool's question is still very relevant and merits a direct answer.

[Dr. Shane]

If thieves break into our church and steal our computers, sound equipment and pews, should we turn them into the civil authorities?

[Pastor_Chick]

It occurred to me a while ago that we had drifted far off from the original topic of “RFRA.” I hesitated to try and revert the discussion, since it was becoming rather interesting, even opening up a potential for “new light” to shine on us. Unfortunately, bitter spirits that are not easily controlled have begun to “spoil the porridge.”

Allow me to embark on one more diversion before trying to return to the “RFRA” topic.

Let’s say, just for discussion, I decided to join your GC Church organization. Now, what would be required of me? I think the leaders would request that I subscribe to your “28 Fundamental Doctrines.”

But, that would pose a problem for me, since I am non-Trinitarian. So, would you advise me to violate my conscience and seek membership anyway, testifying that I agree with the teachings? That would also cause me to “bear false witness.” How would you deal with that? Is it OK to tell a lie in order to obtain membership, ask Jesus for forgiveness, and go forward in the “three angels’ messages” as if nothing sinful ever happened?

I do not understand “righteousness” in that way. The Savior said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” (John 8:34) The Apostle wrote, “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.” (1 John 3:8a) The Bible is clear, “…the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Eze. 18:4b) “The wages of sin is death.” (Rom. 6:23a)

Let us face the fact that your denomination would not accept my application for membership, and I would not wish to apply, knowing of your Trinity doctrine (just to point out one of the discrepancies offending me).

Since I adhere to the fundamental beliefs of the SDA pioneers who were first given the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” I would pose some simple questions for analysis, and perhaps discussion.

Who would possess a “divine right” to use the name of the religion? Would it be the early pioneers of Adventism? Or, would it be the “advancing” contemporary SDA Church?”

You see, my position is that BOTH parties have an “arguable right” to the name “Seventh Day Adventist.” In fact, anyone should be free to use the name YAHWEH gave to His people, but there are certainly two groups who should be allowed to advertise and employ the name of their religion. One is the Trinitarian “version” of “Seventh-day Adventism” and the other is the “non-Trinitarian Seventh-day Adventism” which is essentially “Creation Seventh Day Adventism.”

Now, if you deny me and my brethren the “right” to use the name God gave to us, you also deny the following pioneers: J. H. Waggoner, E. J. Waggoner, James White, J. N. Loughborough, Joseph Bates, S. N. Haskell, D. W. Hull, R. F. Cotrell, J. N. Andrews, J. M. Stephenson, Uriah Smith, A. T. Jones, and Merrit Cornell (just to mention some of the principle figures). I purposely left Ellen G. White out of the list to avoid another long and controversial rabbit trail.

What does the General Conference SDA Church say about doctrinal changes and membership?

“Adventist beliefs have changed over the years under the impact of ‘present truth’. Most startling is the teaching regarding Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord […] the Trinitarian understanding of God, now part of our fundamental beliefs, was not generally held by the early Adventists.” (Adventist Review, Jan 6, 1994. p.10)

“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the trinity.” (Ministry, October 1993, p. 10)

Are Seventh-day Adventists Advancing in Light? An increasing number of SDA believers do not think so.

See: http://www.restorationministry.com/tracts/are_sdas_advancing.htm

[Dr. Shane]

would you advise me to violate my conscience and seek membership anyway, testifying that I agree with the teachings?

Absolutely not! I would advise you to seek out another group of believers that believes as you do, start your own denomination yourself, or feel free to worship with us but accept the fact that we do not agree on the doctrine of the Godhead.

I would never advise you to steal intellectual property that does not belong to you. That would be a violation of the Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Steal. Being a Commandment-keeping Christian, I am sure you would not want to take, or even covet, what is not yours. The name "Seventh-day Adventist" already has owners. I will give you a few ideas you could use for your church.

• Commandment & Grace Church
• YAHWEH's Love Church
• Law and Love Church
• Christian Sabbatarian Church
• Revelation of Christ Church
• Last Day Church
• End Time Church
• Lord of the Sabbath Church
• Creation & Redemption Church
• Creation's Sabbath Church
• Sleeping Dead Church
• God Is Love Church
• The Word Is Flesh Church
• Second Coming of Jesus Church
• Life & Resurrection Church

[fccool]

If thieves break into our church and steal our computers, sound equipment and pews, should we turn them into the civil authorities?

Hmm... you've accused me of building up straw man not so long ago?

Now the same issue. Nobody is breaking into church and stealing anything. And you know that.

So, you still did not answer my question... would you or would you not (along with GC) support jailing a CHRISTIAN who acts based on his believes and refuses not to be called anything other than SDA?

[Dr. Shane]

Nobody is breaking into church and stealing anything.

[fccool]

I'll take is as yes.

[fccool]

Pastor_Chick... if there's anything that you think people can do to help... let us know.

[Pastor_Chick]

Pastor_Chick... if there's anything that you think people can do to help... let us know.

Hello Cool,

Thank you for your testimony on this forum. You may be an unusual soul, for there are few who love others as they love themselves.

If you really wish to help, you can, but I suggest you contact me via email. I do not think this forum is a place for me to solicit help. You may post me at csda_relief (at) yahoo.com, the same address I offered to Stan previously.

May YAHWEH have mercy on those who "know not what they do."

[doug yowell]

[Pastor_Chick]

I was just reading a thread from 2008 "Spoke Like a Dragon."

There is a poster who made comments such as,

"The problem with the CSDA church is that it is not a SDA Church. If you return tithe there it is not supporting the mission of the Church. They are not audited by the GC auditors, if you join them you are not joining the SDA Church.

There seem to be some groups out there that are impersonating our Church. The Creation Seventh day Adventist Church is one of them. [...]

They have been asked nicely over the years not to proclaim they are an SDA Church.. No one is trying to tell them to change their doctrinal believe, some of which are viewed as querky by some.

They could just as easy call themselves Branch Davidian Church or Sabbath keeping Davidians or what ever... "

It is terribly unfortunate that some "authorities" publish their "facts" without being careful to adhere strictly to truth. The poster having written the above may have been honestly mistaken; I can forgive that. However, an Adventist Christian is held to a higher standard of testimony.

My contention, for the record, is that

1) The lawsuit styled as Gen. Conf. SDA v. McGill was initiated in September of 2006 after several months of controversy over domain names which were decided by WIPO in Geneva. (See the Wiki entry for more details)

2) The CSDA Church was founded in 1991, and the GC knew of our existence via mailings throughout NAD; I visited the GC General Counsel Walter Carson at Silver Spring, MD and gave him a copy of my books. Alan J. Reinach (SDA Attorney) dialogued with me admitting that our "version" probably did not violate the GC trademark. The first demand letter or complaint from the GC attorneys came in the Summer of 2005.

3) The Court has admitted that neither McGill nor any other CSDA member has tried to impersonate the SDA Church. The GC attorneys have failed to show even one case of actual confusion in the many years of the CSDA Church operation.

4) During the years of our existence, the CSDA Church has never passed a plate for tithes and offerings in a Sabbath worship or other convocations. It is not a part of our doctrine to collect money in the sacred sanctuary and during holy convocations.

5) The Court has further documented that the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" was employed by McGill under a "divine mandate." The Court cannot, of course, substantiate such a declaration, since God will not take the stand to verify the testimony. No other name can be employed if the CSDA members are to remain faithful to conscience. It would be sin against YAHWEH to "make a name" for ourselves.

6) The Court has said it would be unimaginable that someone would join the CSDA Church thinking they were taking membership in the SDA Church.

[Dr. Shane]

I know a church that claims to have a divine mandate to smoke marijuana. For them it would be unconscionable to worship God if they were not under the influence.

[doug yowell]

The CSDA Church was founded in 1991, and the GC knew of our existence via mailings throughout NAD; I visited the GC General Counsel Walter Carson at Silver Spring, MD and gave him a copy of my books. Alan J. Reinach (SDA Attorney) dialogued with me admitting that our "version" probably did not violate the GC trademark. The first demand letter or complaint from the GC attorneys came in the Summer of 2005.

On another thread here you can find the story of SDA Mark Price who started a site on Facebook named Adventists For Life.Within the past few weeks the church legal dept.has successfully threatened Facebook with copyright infringement. Facebook immediately dropped the AFL site. The original Adventists For Life was created in the 80's and openly accepted by church authorities.What has suddenly changed in the past 10 years to warrant this Mr. Hyde personality? Is this a case of the Adventist legal dept.gone wild??What has Alan Reinach felt about the case since 2005? Do you think the court would have ruled differently if you had showed up to the court hearing?

[Pastor_Chick]

I know a church that claims to have a divine mandate to smoke marijuana. For them it would be unconscionable to worship God if they were not under the influence.

Shane,

Thank you for trying to get us back on topic. The sort of issue you raise is quite related to the RFRA. Maybe this is a good time to discuss that more.

[Light Fox]

I know a church that claims to have a divine mandate to smoke marijuana. For them it would be unconscionable to worship God if they were not under the influence.

Ironically, religiously motivated drug use was the impetus for the original passing of the RFRA. The legislation that the Adventist church - among several others - lobbied for was the result of a ruling in Employment Division v. Smith that disallowed Native Americans from peyote use in religious services.

So, bypassing the incongruity of the comparison between following what Mrs. White plainly says and the use of marijuana, the fact is that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has no problem with advocating on the part of individuals who use narcotics in religious observances. It was, in fact, the very cause of the legislation this thread was opened to discuss.

Using the name of your religion, on the other hand...

[Pastor_Chick]

What has Alan Reinach felt about the case since 2005? Do you think the court would have ruled differently if you had showed up to the court hearing?

Doug,

Thanks for the questions.

1) An associate of mine phoned Alan Reinach just after the lawsuit began in 2006, and he said he could not endorse the GC action. He would not protest it, however, because he did not wish to jeopardize his job.

2) The only thing I failed to attend was the "forced mediation conference." There was no trial to decide anything. [some of the legal record is actually flawed (unfortunately)]. My lead attorney at the time agreed to the mediation conference without consulting me, and the judge avers that the Defendant agreed. When my attorney told me to attend mediation, I asked why he agreed without my consent. He tried to make up for his blunder by moving the court to delete the mediation requirement, but the motion was denied by the judge. I certified to the court that I would not be present because I had nothing to mediate, and I would not waste God's treasury to fly back to America to sit at a table and tell the magistrate, "I have nothing to compromise." Obviously, I fired my lead attorney forthwith.

To answer your question about whether there would have been a different result had I gone to mediation--I see nothing being different, except that I would have implied that I might have some mind to compromise, and I would have spent a great deal of money unnecessarily.

FYI: I have been in Africa for over 3 years and have been involved in setting up natural health centers that treat the common diseases without any cost to the beneficiaries. I am extra frugal with the funds donated, since our relief projects are not sustainable except through the sacrificial offerings from those who believe in natural health care. Please don't conclude that I am soliciting for donations here; just trying to give you some backdrop for understanding.

I will say this. Any Adventist individual or couple who would like to learn the natural way to health and volunteer for one year in Uganda can contact me. The volunteer provides their own finances from A to Z. You can find more about us at GoAbroad.com.

[doug yowell]

So, bypassing the incongruity of the comparison between following what Mrs. White plainly says and the use of marijuana, the fact is that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has no problem with advocating on the part of individuals who use narcotics in religious observances. It was, in fact, the very cause of the legislation this thread was opened to discuss.

Using the name of your religion, on the other hand...

A consistent litigious necessity in order to continue bypassing the incongruity of the comparison between what the Bible and Mrs. White says and the use of governmental power to protect the church's name.

[doug yowell]

[Dr. Shane]

Ironically, religiously motivated drug use was the impetus for the original passing of the RFRA. The legislation that the Adventist church - among several others - lobbied for was the result of a ruling in Employment Division v. Smith that disallowed Native Americans from peyote use in religious services.

Those Native Americans certainly should have the right to use peyote as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other citizens.

Those that I know who believe they have a divine mandate to smoke marijuana are not Native Americans but claim to be Christians. They are not alone in claiming a divine mandate for things that the Bible does not mention.

[Pastor_Chick]

Those that I know who believe they have a divine mandate to smoke marijuana are not Native Americans but claim to be Christians. They are not alone in claiming a divine mandate for things that the Bible does not mention.

Shane,

The RFRA is premised on the concept of "liberty and justice for all." I think that is an American ideal resulting in separation of church and state (among other things).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

On the contrary, a Papal system always seeks "control." "Force is the last resort of all false religion." (EGW)

When the United States government applies secular law to "religious observances and missionary services (viz., trademark law)," it opens the door for "an establishment of religion" by "neutral principles of law." Any religious corporation that invokes said law will ultimately "speak like a dragon." The effect is persecution via an unholy union of church and state.

[Pastor_Chick]

While I am on the subject of what the RFRA was intended to overcome, let us look at remnant inspiration about specifics like "the image of the beast."

The Lord has shown me clearly that the image of the beast will be formed before probation closes; for it is to be the great test for the people of God, by which their eternal destiny will be decided. (15MR 15)

But what is the "image to the beast"? and how is it to be formed? The image is made by the two-horned beast, and is an image to the first beast. It is also called an image of the beast. Then to learn what the image is like, and how it is to be formed, we must study the characteristics of the beast itself, --the papacy. When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel, and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the State, and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of "heresy." In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the State will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends. (GC 443)

The formula creating the "great test for the people of God" is very simple:

IN THE OLD WORLD:

Catholic Church + Roman Government = Papacy (the beast)

IN THE NEW WORLD:

Apostate Protestant Church + US Government = Religious Corporation (the image of the beast)

Keep in mind the teaching from Bible Readings for the Home:

http://loudcry.eu/images/image2beast.gif