The Washington Post, Adventists & Abortion

[Dr. Shane]

Were you referring to Adventist extremists? Or extremists in general?

I was referring to Adventist extremists that don't think the church is pro-life enough. They would have us abandon the Three Angels' Message if necessary so that we could do the work that God already has evangelicals doing.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

Were you referring to Adventist extremists? Or extremists in general?

I was referring to Adventist extremists that don't think the church is pro-life enough. They would have us abandon the Three Angels' Message if necessary so that we could do the work that God already has evangelicals doing.

Yeah right,Shane. Can you name one who fits that description?

[Overaged]

Unfortunately the church failed to do what is right, but the Lord is merciful and ready to forgive if we are willing to confess our sin and rectify what went wrong. I am following in the steps of the Old Testament prophets and the example set by John the Baptist, Jesus and his disciples. Their message was simple: Repent and the Lord will bless your ministry.

The solid evidence for what I am saying is in the pages of “Ministry” and “Spectrum” magazines which I have cited many times. Here are the references in case you want to verify the accuracy of what I am alleging:

George Gainer, “Abortion: History of Adventist Guidelines” Ministry (Aug. 1991): 11-17.

Gerald R. Winslow, “Abortion Policies in Adventist Hospitals” Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 47-50.

George Gainer, ““The Wisdom of Solomon”?” Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 38-46.

Here is some more:

Quote: “When I first heard and then confirmed that the hospitals of the Adventist Health System in North America were performing hundreds of abortions each year, my response was stunned disbelief. I was certain that the hospitals and physicians involved must be acting outside General Conference policy guidelines. I was wrong. Criterion No. five of the 1971 guidelines states that abortion is acceptable when for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human life. Criterion No. fives some reason not only rendered superfluous the first four guidelines, and the principles on which they are based, but it tragically opened the door to elective abortion (i.e., on demand) in Adventist hospitals two years before the United States Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision. The time has come to change the guidelines.”

Source: George Gainer, Letters Ministry (May 1988): 27.

[Nic Samojluk]

I was referring to Adventist extremists that don't think the church is pro-life enough. They would have us abandon the Three Angels' Message if necessary so that we could do the work that God already has evangelicals doing.

Abandon the Three Angels' Message? Can you explain what led you to make such an extreme assertion? Have you recently read the entire Three Angels' Message including verse 12? It makes reference to the saints who keep God’s Commandments! How can you say that pro-lifers who emphasize the Sixth Commandment are trying to make the church abandon the Three Angels’ message?

[doug yowell]

Well; it seems unlikely you will stop spreading your filthy lies;

Oh brother

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “Well; it seems unlikely you will stop spreading your filthy lies; so lets just look a little closer at your technique, and the actual truthfulness thereof.”

I say: First I want to thank you for your unyielding opposition because it has forced me to dig deeper into this issue and to refine my arguments. Of all those who have criticized my work in the past, you are the one I should be most thankful to. The worst thing that can happen to a researcher is to be ignored.

I will for now skip over your personal attacks and insults aimed at my character and deal with the evidence first. Later on, I will come back to this.

Overaged said: “None of your "solid evidence" is verifiable by the general public.”

I say: I cited over 700 sources in my doctoral dissertation which is online and which I harvested almost 100 percent from Adventist publications. Are you claiming that this is not available to the general public. Anybody can stop at an Adventist university library and verify the accuracy of what I quoted from those sources.

Overaged said: “MAKING THIS WHOLE SUBJECT SOMETHING IT IS NOT, NOR HAS EVER BEEN”

I say: If you believe that there are some factual errors in my research, I would appreciate if you identify them. If you also believe that my conclusions are farfetched, I would like to hear from you the reasons you disagree with them.

Overaged said: “It should be duly noted that "Spectrum" is an anti-Adventist magazine, and does not in any way speak for the Church. It is NOT a reference for official Church teachings or guidelines.”

I say: Spectrum magazine is an independent publication, but not necessarily “anti-Adventist” in my opinion. Is a researcher duty bound to stick to official publications only? Would his work be unbiased if he did so? Could he arrive at historical truth that way? Did Ellen White refrain from using non-Adventist sources? Have you ever seen the list of books she had in her library. Are you aware that her book “The Great Controversy” has hundreds of references and quotation from non-Adventist sources?

I just counted 95 references in my investigation to our official “Ministry” magazine. Are you ready to question my use of said source as well? In addition I included numerous references to books authored by Mrs. White and other Adventist books and publications. I also included two chapters in my study to the analysis of two books on the abortion issue authored by two renowned LLU ethics professors.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “In your May 88 [alledgedly] Ministry quote, you quote what you say is one of the letters written in to Ministry Magazine. You portray this letter as "solid evidence" of what the Church teaches and believes; and yet all it was is the opinion of an anonymous individual, who wrote in to the magazine; and who knows who it was? The contents of that letter was just by an individual, not necessarily even close to official Church position.”

I say: Anonymous? You don’t know who George Gainer is whom I cited so many times? You probably missed the fact that said individual is no other than the author of one of the most important papers presented at the 1988 LLU conference which included participants from around the world dealing with the abortion issue and which eventually resulted in our present document entitled “Guidelines on Abortion.” The title of his paper is “The Wisdom of Solomon” and it was eventually published by Spectrum magazine in 1989.

How much research have you done on this issue? I have spent over a thousand hours investigating this topic and I have analyzed all the comments made by readers in our main Adventist publications, and I have found not a single individual questioning the facts and the work of this man, yet you dare to make us believe that he concocted the story of what happened at our Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH] back in 1970 and that he is a liar.

In his paper he relates how our hospital in Hawaii was already engaged in the so called “therapeutic” abortion when said State legalized abortion in 1970. The controversy which erupted in our CMH was not over therapeutic abortion but rather over the desire of ou non-Adventist physicians to offer abortions on demand. Suggesting that this was not so is ignoring the facts of history. The issue is recorded in the pages of our “Ministry” magazine as well as in “Spectrum.” If you are concerned about your credibility, you would be wise not to deny what is solidly set as historical evidence.

Overaged said: “This is a clear example of how you pick out any little snippet you can dig up, and make it appear like official Church teaching.”

I say: You call what I just described as “little snippet”? And you want readers to swallow this attempt at belittling the testimony of history which is recorded in the pages of both Ministry and Spectrum? Has any researcher ever tried to mimic what you have just done? Do you have any evidence contrary to the facts I have just described? If you do, then please produce it for everybody to see.

Overaged said: “It is very significant to note how you deliberately left out the official Church teachings on abortions, which was also in that same, May 88 issue of Ministry. aND IT WAS NOT JUST AN ANONYMOUS QUOTE!! Truth About Official Adventist Position On Abortion, 1988 & NOW”

I say: Evidently, you missed the fact that I did not overlook this article written by Dr. Gerald Winslow in my dissertation nor did I “deliberatedly left [it] out” from my study. I did include in my report everything that had been published in our main Adventist publications between 1970 and 2006. And by the way, Gerald’s article is not considered to be the official Church teaching on abortion. The content of his article was never voted by the church.

Neither the “Guidelines on Abortion” were ever voted by the church in a General Conference session. Do you know why? Probably because there is fear that it would be voted down by the rest of the Adventist world. There seems to be credible evidence to suggest that the liberal attitude toward abortion in Adventism is a North American phenomenon. I could share with you some documentation regarding this if you are interested.

By the way, the title of Winslow’s article is not “Truth About Official Adventist Position On Abortion, 1988 & NOW” but rather “Abortion and Christian principles.” And do not forget that Dr. Winslow is the one who reported that five of our hospitals were offering abortions to their patients. If you cite him as someone whose credibility you accept, then how in the world can you question his report about elective abortions in Adventist hospitals? Can you see the trap you have set for yourself?

A 1988 survey conducted by Dr. Winslow revealed that five of our Adventist hospitals were offering elective abortion services to their patients. [Gerald R. Winslow, “Abortion Policies in Adventist Hospitals” Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989)] If you accept the article you cited by this man as official policy of our church, then you must also accept what he reported about elective abortions in our medical institutions. Would you disagree with me on this? Would you suggest that Spectrum concocted this report and the information is not reliable?

I do respect Winslow’s opinion on other matters, but do disagree with him over abortion. I did discuss this issue with him many months ago, and he invited me to his office for further exchange of views. I did share with him my views by email and asked for a date when I could meet him in his office for further discussion. I am still waiting for an appointment. More recently, I sent another email to him asking for current elective abortion statistics in our hospitals. No response.

The article you cited is well written. He is a highly intelligent individual, but he is not impartial about the abortion issue. He is an employee of the LLU and his wages are paid by said institution, which is a twin sister of the LLUMC. There is a conflict of interest, as far as I can see. Would you ask an employee of a tobacco company about the health risks connected with the smoking habit? Would a Coca-Cola employee be the best source for an opinion about the health effects of their product?

You might have noticed that in the article you cited Winslow argues on behalf of abortion under certain circumstances on the basis of the alleged autonomy of human beings. This is an unchristian principle and contrary to what the Bible teaches. Autonomy is defined as independence from exterior moral influence. Are we really independent from a higher source of morality? Is morality self generated? Are we not subject to the higher moral law written on tables of stone by Almighty God? He also argues that women should have the right to control their own bodies:

Quote: “It is fundamental to the concept of personal autonomy that a person be free to decide what happens to his or her own body.”

I say: Do women own their bodies. What did Paul say about this? Didn’t he state that our bodies belong to the Lord? If women do not even own their own bodies, how can they own the body of the unborn baby they carry? That baby belongs to God, and the baby has been entrusted to her care.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged said: “Paulsen was very obviously following the historical Adventist teachings about the high value we, as a Church place on human life.”

I say: Paulson [not Paulsen!]did what the architect of the “Guidelines of abortion” did to please both sides of the abortion controversy. Both of them started by exalting the high value of human life, and then proceeded to justify the killing of the unborn in a variety of circumstances with the net result that those exceptions effectively voided their initial apparent defense of human life.

This would be equivalent to saying that personal property is sacred and that burglary and theft are condemned, except when someone is broke or hungry, or out of work, or needs the neighbor’s car for en emergency.

Overaged said: “Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church.”

I say: What benefit is it for the unborn if the church states that abortion on demand are not condoned, if each hospital is granted the right to draft their own guidelines? The result is hundreds of babies killed before birth. The man whose article you cited, Dr. Gerald

Winslow is on record telling the world that five of our Adventist hospitals were offering elective abortions.

Hiding behind a pro-life sign did not protect said babies from a sure death. That is what Pilate did: He declared Jesus innocent of any crime, but granted Jesus’ enemies the power to kill him. He should have said: “Over my dead body.” He didn’t, and an innocent man died. This illustrates what the church did. That is not the way of protecting innocent human beings from execution.

Overaged said: “There may be individuals, Adventists/non-Adventists who need to repent of something here; but the official Church teachings and guidelines are SOLID EVIDENCE.”

I say: Who was guilty of the death of Jesus, the Jews, Pilate, or both? If the church granted our hospitals the power to kill innocent babies, who is the blame, the five hospitals, or the church, or both? Notice the irony of this: The same man who was the main contributor for the drafting of our Guidelines on Abortion, was the same individual who reported that five of our hospitals were offering elective abortions to their patients. Do you need more solid evidence than that?

Overaged said: “So again Nic; where is YOUR solid evidence that the general public can easily, without question, VERIFY?”

I say: It is in the pages of “Ministry” and “Spectrum” magazine, and documented by the man whose article you cited. Thanks for helping me making this issue crystal clear!

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged accused me of the following:

“Well; it seems unlikely you will stop spreading your filthy lies”

“From alleged "copies" of letters to "truthful" testimonies; you just steam-roller on, shouting away from your foul little soap box”

“You even tried to smear K Paulsen for saying that scripture does not specifically mention for or against abortion”

“and any other official source that Nic is deliberately distorting the information available;

I say: What happened to your accusations? What happened to the alleged “filthy lies,” or the “foul little soap box,” or the smear against Kevin Paulson [it’s Paulson! Not Paulsen! Jan Paulsen was the former GC president!], or the alleged distortion of information. Am I the one disporting the facts of the case or is it you?

By the way, what is it that prompted you to attack my character? Is it perhaps the fact that you are running out of valid argument in defense of your position? Can we possibly have a decent discussion without resorting to hurling mud against each other? Can we limit our discussion to the issues and leave the personal issues aside?

Lying is a serious charge. In order to sustain your accusation, you need to provide evidence that I am lying. So far you have failed to provide any evidence that I have distorted the facts of the case. If you disagree with me, say so and tell the readers why, but do not demean the character of your opponent. We need to keep this discussion at a dignified level. We should be able to disagree without resorting to mud slinging! Can we agree on this?

[Dr. Shane]

Abandon the Three Angels' Message? Can you explain what led you to make such an extreme assertion? Have you recently read the entire Three Angels' Message including verse 12? It makes reference to the saints who keep God’s Commandments! How can you say that pro-lifers who emphasize the Sixth Commandment are trying to make the church abandon the Three Angels’ message?

Perhaps you should answer your own question. How can I say that?

[Overaged]

Overaged said: “In your May 88 [alledgedly] Ministry quote, you quote what you say is one of the letters written in to Ministry Magazine. You portray this letter as "solid evidence" of what the Church teaches and believes; and yet all it was is the opinion of an anonymous individual, who wrote in to the magazine; and who knows who it was? The contents of that letter was just by an individual, not necessarily even close to official Church position.”

I say: Anonymous? You don’t know who George Gainer is whom I cited so many times? You probably missed the fact that said individual is no other than the author of one of the most important papers presented at the 1988 LLU conference which included participants from around the world dealing with the abortion issue and which eventually resulted in our present document entitled “Guidelines on Abortion.” The title of his paper is “The Wisdom of Solomon” and it was eventually published by Spectrum magazine in 1989.

It is interesting to note how you loudly ranted at me because I asked you how many pregnant ladies you have helped prevent abortions with, and you accused me of trying to say I was a better prolifer than you. Well; that was in an earlier post, I think from yesterday. But what is troublesome about this is that today; you tried to compare yourself to me by saying: "how many hours have you studies this topic;" in a desperate attempt to say you are a better pro-lifer than me...you have no authority over this subject so there's no use in you pretending anymore.

You avoided what I was saying re the Gainer comment, or atleast what you said was his comment. What I was pointing out is that the quote you gave was just a person who wrote in a letter to the Editor of Ministry. Therefore, even if you can prove that it was Gainer (which you can't) it still is not any kind of "evidence" as to what the Church officially believes, or practises. The article which I called "The Truth About...." is clearly documented as being the official Church position. I showed you the link from the Ministry Magazine in question; but what is not there are any Letters To The Editor from that month/year so how are you going to prove that it was Gainer who wrote that letter to the editor that you quoted?

Your insistent claims of "700 references" is a laughing stock at best, and your "disertation" in fact is not a disertation; a 12 year old I know could have done a better job...90% of your "references" can be excluded as "evidence because they do not point to what you say they do - and so many of them are just your own website, or to the anti-Adventist cult Spectrum; not to mention all the links that don't work. Those "700" references are not even half of what you crack them up to be.

Prove to us what you say about that quote from Gainer in the letters to the editor with something other than a claim. Show us something that we can easily verify without having to depend upon just your say so.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overage said: “What I was pointing out is that the quote you gave was just a person who wrote in a letter to the Editor of Ministry. Therefore, even if you can prove that it was Gainer (which you can't)”

I say: Are you sure I can’t? The evidence is in the pages of our official “Ministry” magazine: George Gainer, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 27. Do you live near an Adventist University? If you do, you can check this out by a short visit to their library. But if this is not practical, then read my dissertation. Here is the quotaion in question. Would you suggest that I fabricated this?

*********

"A Reader’s Opinion

by George Gainer

In his comments about the 1971 abortion guidelines, George Gainer stressed the fact that one of the criterion contained therein opened the door to abortion on demand:

“When I first heard and then confirmed that the hospitals of the Adventist Health System in North America were “performing hundreds of abortions” each year, my response was stunned disbelief. I was certain that the hospitals and physicians involved must be acting outside General Conference policy guidelines. I was wrong. Criterion No. five of the 1971 guidelines states that abortion is acceptable “when for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human life.” Criterion No. five’s “some reason” not only rendered superfluous the first four guidelines, and the principles on which they are based, but it tragically opened the door to elective abortion (i.e., on demand) in Adventist hospitals two years before the United States Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision. … The time has come to change the guidelines.”

George Gainer, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 27.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overage said: “it still is not any kind of "evidence" as to what the Church officially believes, or practises.”

I say: Did I claim that George Gainer was the official spokesperson for the church? Please, stick to what you can prove I said—not what you wish I had stated!

Overage said: “The article which I called "The Truth About...." is clearly documented as being the official Church position.”

I say: Sorry to disagree. Dr. Winslow is an influential member of the Adventist Church, and he occupies a position of responsibility at our LLU, but the article he wrote for Ministry magazine has never been voted by the General Conference in session. His views are a copy of what the church teaches about abortion, and the reason is very simple: He was, according o experts, the main architect of our current “Guidelines on Abortion.”

Nevertheless, do not forget that he is the one who also reported that five of our hospitals were offering elective abortions to their patients. This means that the guidelines he helped produce were responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent babies who were killed inside our own Adventist hospitals. Is this the best recommendation you can show in defense of the position of the church on abortion? Can you see now why I am opposed to what the church teaches about abortion and what the church has allowed to take place in our hospitals?

Instead of granting our Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH] the right to draft their own guidelines, the church should have said: “The Adventist Church does not engage in elective abortions and it will not grant you permission to offer abortions on demand. It is contrary to church policy and a violation of what the Bible teaches about the shedding of innocent blood. If you are determined to engage in the killing of innocent babies, you will have to sever your official connection with the Adventist Church and become an independent ministry like “The Quiet Hour” and “3ABN.”

The church did not have the moral courage to do what is right and the result can be seen in what Gerald Wislow reported years later: Five Adventist followed the example of our CMH hospital and started offering abortions on demand in violation of church policy and the violation of biblical morality.

Overage said: “I showed you the link from the Ministry Magazine in question; but what is not there are any Letters To The Editor from that month/year so how are you going to prove that it was Gainer who wrote that letter to the editor that you quoted?”

I say: No letters to the Editor for that month? I counted seven such letters, and here is the evidence. Do you think that I fabricated this? Notice the dates. They all say May 1988.

George Gainer, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 27.

Ken Blake, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 2, 27.

Van Ottey, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 27.

Samuelle Bacchiocchi, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 28.

David A. Scholes, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 28.

Charles W. Nichols, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 28.

Keith Peachey, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 28.

[doug yowell]

I don't think that OA is open to evidence. So far all the evidence has been dismissed as lies. When tens of thousands of documented words are summarily dismissed as factual lies by someone who doesn't want to investigate for themselves, any further discussion will only result in deja vu.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overage said: “Your insistent claims of "700 references" is a laughing stock at best”

I say: The 749 are not bibliographical references but rather footnotes. I did post the entire bibliography for you in a previous post and you could have done the math as I suggested. I just counted 211 items in the bibliography, and seventeen of those are references to articles I had previously published. This means that 8 percent of the references were to material I had authored. Do you think this was excessive? My major advisor at the university did not think so.

Overage said: “and your "disertation" in fact is not a disertation; a 12 year old I know could have done a better job”

I say: You may be right, but talk is cheap unless you can provide evidence in support of your claim. How many 12 year old boys you know who have produced a 300 pages research project?

Overage said: “not to mention all the links that don't work.”

I say: If you can identify the links that no longer work, I would appreciate. I have updated the links more than once and I did post the date they were updated. This is the reason I posted the reference to the hard copies of each source. This means that in the event a link is no longer working, you can still verify the accuracy of the facts by visiting a library. I just checked a few links to our Ministry magazine—which I had to update in the past—and they are working.

Overage said: “Prove to us what you say about that quote from Gainer in the letters to the editor with something other than a claim.”

I say: I already did! Read what I posted above. And if there is anything else you want me to document, please let me know. In addition, if you discover any factual errors, let me know so that I can correct it. I am human, and I do appreciate any constructive criticism you can provide.

[Nic Samojluk]

If some of you are still following this thread, I would like to share with you the fact that the issue of abortion has surfaced in a Spectrum thread in connection with what took place in Redlands on 2/21/11 when violence erupted and Jared was physically attacked by one of the attendees.

In said meeting I did publicly raise the issue of abortion and Ted Wilson responded by saying that the number of elective abortions performed in our Adventist medical institutions is practically down to zero. I have tried to verify this but so far the people who know are mum. Here is the link to the Spectrum thread:

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/02...1#comment-82169

[Overaged]

I don't think that OA is open to evidence. So far all the evidence has been dismissed as lies. When tens of thousands of documented words are summarily dismissed as factual lies by someone who doesn't want to investigate for themselves, any further discussion will only result in deja vu.

Mister Doug

In the post directly above this one I am replying to; you can see what I have been talking about. Nic is [allegedly] quoting what he calls "Letter, Ministry, 1988." I have repeatedly asked him to provide evidence that these "Letters" do indeed exist; and the best he could do is to tell us to go to an Adventist institution with a library, or to refer to his ridiculous excuse for a disertation as our PROOF.

I provided a link to the 88 Ministry article/issue which he says said "letters" exist, but none of the "letters" are actually included there. Nic needs to provide us a copy of this "letter;" but this alone won't even come close to proving all his phoney baloney.

Nic has proved once again that he cannot provide clear evidence that the general public can easily verify for themselves. he draws his fantics maze and expects us all to just follow and believe his message of lies and embellishments. What he does is not pro-life, and I want no part of it until he starts to cough up something we can all see and verify as evidence. If you want to be so gullible as to swallow his fanaticism, help yourself, but don't go bally-hooing about me not being open to evidence. That's exactly what I am asking for, and neither you or Nic has provided.

(shaking dust off feet now)

[Nic Samojluk]

Overage said: “Nic is [allegedly] quoting what he calls "Letter, Ministry, 1988." I have repeatedly asked him to provide evidence that these "Letters" do indeed exist; and the best he could do is to tell us to go to an Adventist institution with a library”

I say: Evidently you must be far away from an Adventist university library. Many people probably have the same problem; this is why I took the trouble to provide the link for each citation I used in the dissertation. Unfortunately, those in charge of our “Ministry” magazine have been playing hide and seek with me. I had to update those links several times. Those links used to lead the reader directly to each document, but now this is no longer true, and I could not find a way to provide a direct link to each document anymore.

This means that to locate the article you will have to do it the hard way, because when you click on the link I have provided, what you see is only the list of the main articles--the letters to the editor were excluded from that page. Here is what you do to find those letters: A. Click on “Archives;” B. Click on “1988;” C. Find “May 1988;” D. Click on “View PDF Version;” E. Locate the “+” icon and zoom out the page to make it visible and readable; F. Click on the ">" icon located at the bottom of the page to advance to page 27. If you follow these steps, you will find the letter I quoted several times. Here is the copy of the letter including the reference and the Internet link for it:

Quote: “When I first heard and then confirmed that the hospitals of the Adventist Health System in North America were “performing hundreds of abortions” each year, my response was stunned disbelief. I was certain that the hospitals and physicians involved must be acting outside General Conference policy guidelines. I was wrong. Criterion No. five of the 1971 guidelines states that abortion is acceptable “when for some reason the requirements of functional human life demand the sacrifice of the lesser potential human life.” Criterion No. five’s “some reason” not only rendered superfluous the first four guidelines, and the principles on which they are based, but it tragically opened the door to elective abortion (i.e., on demand) in Adventist hospitals two years before the United States Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision. … The time has come to change the guidelines.”

George Gainer, “Letters” Ministry (May 1988): 27. Accessed from http://ministrymagazine.org/archive/1988/May on 17 Oct. 2010.

Overage said: “I provided a link to the 88 Ministry article/issue which he says said "letters" exist, but none of the "letters" are actually included there. Nic needs to provide us a copy of this "letter;" but this alone won't even come close to proving all his phoney baloney.”

I say: I appreciate your insistence, which gives me an opportunity to help you locate the letter you wanted to see. I wish, though, you would be less critical in the future and provide me with a chance to document every item you request without denigrating the work I have done and without jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Do you think that I would be so foolish as to fabricate all those comments I cite in my dissertation? After all, I did give you the reference to the hard copy of the magazine, which enables anyone do verify this the hard way—by a visit to an Adventist university library.

Overage said: “Nic has proved once again that he cannot provide clear evidence that the general public can easily verify for themselves. He draws his fantics maze and expects us all to just follow and believe his message of lies and embellishments.”

I say: Nic has proved again that he stands on solid ground, while you are jumping to foolish and unwarranted conclusions which tend to destroy your credibility in the eyes of honest readers.

Overage said: “What he does is not pro-life, and I want no part of it until he starts to cough up something we can all see and verify as evidence.”

I did cough up the evidence you were requesting and have made your life easier. And do not forget that I am not responsible for the fact that those in charge of our “Ministry” magazine have apparently working extra time in order to make if very difficult for people to access those letters to the editors. This is not my fault. I am beginning to suspect that perhaps this was done on purpose in order to hide the evidence from honest truth seekers. I have no proof for my suspicion, but it makes me wonder. Twice they have altered the arrangement of their material in four years.

If you need additional help in locating any of the material I have quoted, let me know, and thanks for playing the part of the doubting Thomas, which gives me the chance to make thinks easier for other readers.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I don't think that OA is open to evidence. So far all the evidence has been dismissed as lies. When tens of thousands of documented words are summarily dismissed as factual lies by someone who doesn't want to investigate for themselves, any further discussion will only result in deja vu.

Mister Doug

In the post directly above this one I am replying to; you can see what I have been talking about. Nic is [allegedly] quoting what he calls "Letter, Ministry, 1988." I have repeatedly asked him to provide evidence that these "Letters" do indeed exist; and the best he could do is to tell us to go to an Adventist institution with a library, or to refer to his ridiculous excuse for a disertation as our PROOF.

I provided a link to the 88 Ministry article/issue which he says said "letters" exist, but none of the "letters" are actually included there. Nic needs to provide us a copy of this "letter;" but this alone won't even come close to proving all his phoney baloney.

Nic has proved once again that he cannot provide clear evidence that the general public can easily verify for themselves. he draws his fantics maze and expects us all to just follow and believe his message of lies and embellishments. What he does is not pro-life, and I want no part of it until he starts to cough up something we can all see and verify as evidence. If you want to be so gullible as to swallow his fanaticism, help yourself, but don't go bally-hooing about me not being open to evidence. That's exactly what I am asking for, and neither you or Nic has provided.

(shaking dust off feet now)

The sad part of all this is that the evidence IS there for the person who either cares enough to look it up or is willing to accept that the person who has claimed to have looked it up (Nic,and also me)is not a big,fat liar.I can assure you that Nic is neither big, nor fat, nor lying about this evidence. The evidence in question is now some 23 years old and if it is not easily found on line may have to be rediscovered in the way it was originally delivered,in it's magazine format. I have followed this issue with great interest (and great frustration and disappointment) since first becoming an Adventist back in the early 80's. I live 2 miles from the Heritage Room at LLU and have spent a hundred hours or more researching Adventist publications on the history and thought of SDA's on abortion. Long before Nic began his dissertational journey I had researched the archives. I copied many,many articles thinking that the day would come when no one would believe that the church had actually acted in the manner in question.Nic is not the creator of the prolife views that he espouses in his dissertation he has simply echoed the opinions of many other SDA's on the issue. Many of those who object to the current guidelines include SDA's who are well educated and well respected in church circles. Former evangelists, ethicists,MD.'s,college professors,hospital administrators,pastors, constitutional attorneys,ect...(not to mention the list of who's who in SDA history).What you are asking to be done is for someone to prove to you that "letters" in Ministry actually exist. Ok, I'll take my time to go and photocopy the pages of the magazine,then I'll try to figure out how to post them here for you to see for yourself. That way you won't have to do anything except make the decision whether to believe the visual evidence or not. And whether or not to concede that Nic is not making this stuff up. Fair enough?

[Nic Samojluk]

The sad part of all this is that the evidence IS there for the person who either cares enough to look it up or is willing to accept that the person who has claimed to have looked it up (Nic,and also me)is not a big,fat liar.I can assure you that Nic is neither big, nor fat, nor lying about this evidence. The evidence in question is now some 23 years old and if it is not easily found on line may have to be rediscovered in the way it was originally delivered,in it's magazine format. I have followed this issue with great interest (and great frustration and disappointment) since first becoming an Adventist back in the early 80's. I live 2 miles from the Heritage Room at LLU and have spent a hundred hours or more researching Adventist publications on the history and thought of SDA's on abortion. Long before Nic began his dissertational journey I had researched the archives. I copied many,many articles thinking that the day would come when no one would believe that the church had actually acted in the manner in question.Nic is not the creator of the prolife views that he espouses in his dissertation he has simply echoed the opinions of many other SDA's on the issue. Many of those who object to the current guidelines include SDA's who are well educated and well respected in church circles. Former evangelists, ethicists,MD.'s,college professors,hospital administrators,pastors, constitutional attorneys,ect...(not to mention the list of who's who in SDA history).What you are asking to be done is for someone to prove to you that "letters" in Ministry actually exist. Ok, I'll take my time to go and photocopy the pages of the magazine,then I'll try to figure out how to post them here for you to see for yourself. That way you won't have to do anything except make the decision whether to believe the visual evidence or not. And whether or not to concede that Nic is not making this stuff up. Fair enough?

Thanks, Doug. In Spanish we have a saying which goes like this: “No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver.” There is no worse blind man than the one who refuses to see.