The situation between the SDA and the SDARM?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

That's interesting. Any references that I could look up?

I do not have a reference that I could cite.

My knowledge on that came from study of denominational history in college.

[phkrause]

Quote:

Well, the fact is that if one is going to make a big deal about how terrible Halloween is then celebrates Christmas and/or Easter, they are hypocrites. They are all pagan holidays.

Yes, and the 2nd day of the week is dedicated to the honor of the moon-god. There is a pagan history only if you celebrate it as such.

Are you aware that every day of the year, all 365 days, is dedicated to a pagan god? That is true in Hinduism.

While Christmas is clearly not close to the birth of Christ, Easter is close to the actual death of Christ. Easter in the modern Christian year is clearly a Christian celebration.

Yes, one can chose to celebrate Easter in the spirit of pagan tradition. But, that is not required. One can celebrate in the spirit of Christ.

This is a choice that we individually make on much more.

Baptism began prior to the life of Christ. Baptism clearly has a non-Christian back ground and is celebrated today in pagan rituals.

Some of the Sanctuary ritual of ancient Israel came from the pagan background of Egypt.

"Laying on of hands" clearly has anon-Christian background.

It is your individual choice as to how you wish to view Christian symbols.

Excellent post Gregory, I totally agree

[ClubV12]

SDARM was right in their stand as pacifists during the war. The organized Church in that area was terribly wrong. Thats the facts in a nut shell.

Because they were right, it makes it an especially bitter pill, even today, to submit to a leadership who were so wrong. The organized Church has put forth a number of serious efforts at reconciliation, apologizing for the harm, understanding and loving their brethren who were wronged. The issues, for whatever reason, have gone beyond the original circumstances. I get the impression an apology is not enough, the divide appears to have solidified. I see no hope of reconciling the differences anytime in the near, or even far, future.

When you harm someone, seriously harm them, when their family members are killed and jailed, persecuted and prosecuted as a result of your actions, is an apology enough? Would you accept it and accept them as if nothing happened and now everything is going to be all right?

You can accept an apology and truly forgive, but that does not mean you are under obligation, nor should you automatically accept, the guilty party into your home and into your life. In some cases it is best if the guilty party go live somewhere else, out of town. Leave the victim alone, you can do nothing more to help them. Live with the consequences of your sin.

The victims will have to deal with how they accept the apology. They too need to find the right attitude, reject the anger. There is a lot of pain on both sides and the whole thing is very tragic.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

SDARM was right in their stand as pacifists during the war. The organized Church in that area was terribly wrong. Thats the facts in a nut shell.

They were right in their stand as pacifists: The SDA Church has never, and is not now pacifist. It is and has been conscientious objector with the right of its individual members to be otherwise. There is a very clear difference between being a pacifist and a conscientious objector.

The organized Church was terribly wrong: How broadly do you define that statement. The denomination as a whole never took the position that was wrong. There was a small group of leaders in Germany who were terribly wrong. Those wrongs are still not fully known. But, they were wrong.

I note that you do not in any way acknowledge that the SDARM was wrong. Perhaps you lack knowledge of that aspect. In fact, there were leaders in the SDARM who were just as terribly wrong as were the SDA leaders. As I have stated: There was sin on both side. You will note that on past issues I have never made such a blunt statement. Sin was on both sides.

[ClubV12]

"The organized Church in that area....", is what I noted, not the World Church.

I do acknowledge there were wrongs on the reformists side in this case. However, I also believe the organized Church was SO wrong and the injury to members of the Church SO horrendous, I will not even suggest the victims were at fault.

Many of our young men during the Civil War were also wrong, and in particular James White called them out for it. Telling them it was "madness" (his words) to resist. While some had the right spirit in resisting, others were so vocal they were effectively committing suicide by treason and conviction by the United States. Shall we then say ALL civil war resistors must bear share the responsibility?

This is how I see the SDARM action during the war. I cannot blame all or even enough to conclude they were "wrong" as a group. That distinction lays at the door step of the organized Church. Each side will answer to the Father for their attitude and positions taken.

I will not point out the lady was raped because her dress was to short...

I'm a Vet, enlisted, did my tour. No need to thank me, I knew what I was doing. Needed a job, an education, liked the benefits, understood the risk. Oh and all the cover story sounds good. Fighting for God and Country, save the world from the bad guys, honor and respect and blah, blah, blah.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I do acknowledge there were wrongs on the reformists side in this case. However, I also believe the organized Church was SO wrong and the injury to members of the Church SO horrendous, I will not even suggest the victims were at fault.

My thinking is that you, like most, have a very limited knowledge. I do not mean to put you down for that.

Who do you suggest was the victim in this?

In this case, the victim sinned greatly as to how the victim reacted to the sin against them.

As I have said: There is sin on both sides which is clear if one is aware of the facts.

The reality is: Just as denominational leaders sinned, it was leaders in the SDARM who sinned greatly against the SDA Church in Germany. It was leaders in the SDARM who contacted the German government, under Hitler, in a manner that caused that government to persecute the organized SDA Church. The leaders of the SDA Church then sinned in the manner in which they reacted to the falsehoods that had caused the government to persecute them.

The issue here is much more than that of being a pacifist or conscientious objector. The position that those SDA leaders took was clearly wrong. I will suggest that there is no question on that. No informed person could justify the position that those leaders took.

But, the sin that certain leaders in the SDARM committed was just as wrong.

Now, a question to you: Do we blame a denominational organization for the wrong done by a leader? If we blame the SDA denomination in Germany for the wrong done by certain leaders, then in fairness we must blame the SDARM Denomination for the wrong done by certain of their leaders.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The issues, for whatever reason, have gone beyond the original circumstances. I get the impression an apology is not enough, the divide appears to have solidified. I see no hope of reconciling the differences anytime in the near, or even far, future.

I agree.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

When you harm someone, seriously harm them, when their family members are killed and jailed, persecuted and prosecuted as a result of your actions, is an apology enough? Would you accept it and accept them as if nothing happened and now everything is going to be all right?

It was leaders in the SDARM that did that to the SDA Church. They did that with falsehoods and forged documents.

The government of Hitler turned upon the SDARM when it became apparent that the charges made by leaders in the SDARM were false.

That group paid a price for those falsehoods.

[ClubV12]

Well, the debate has been going on for decades. The two Churches have been unable to resolve it. We likewise, will not be able to. But I respect your opinion and expertise on the subject.

Today, as we both agree, the issues have gone beyond the war. I do see a spirit of unwillingness on the part of SDARM to even consider reconciliation now. And that has been the case for a very long time. For that, the blame lays squarely on their door step. The World Church has made every good faith effort to resolve this and have been consistently rebuffed.

[Gregory Matthews]

Leaving the SDARM, there is implicit in that discussion an underlying question that the organized SDA Church has discussed for decades. That question is: What should be the official position of the SDA Church toward its members participating in the military?

The SDA Church in Germany is so opposed to such that U.S. SDA military personnel are not welcome in SDA congregations in Germany.

AS ithasdeveloped, the position of the SDA Chruch in the U.S. hastwo (2)points:

1) With a possible exception for chaplains and physicians, the SDA Church in the U.S. encourages its members not to enlist in the military.

Personally, I support this. I will say: A SDA who holds traditional positions on Sabbath observance and the use of weapons should never join the U.S. military.

The reality is that more and more of our members do not hold to those traditional positions. AS a former Army chaplain, I would do a SDA religious census. IOW, I would have an official search of military records done of those assigned to the same base as I. Typically I would find that there were some 100 soldiers who claimed that the SDA Church was their church of preference!

2) The official position of the SDA Church in the U.S. is that pastoral care and support should be provided to the three group0s that exist within the SDA Church in the U.S,: a) The pacifists, The conscientious objectors, c) Those who fully participate in Armed Conflict with weapons. IOW, none of those three groups should be disciplined for the position that they take.

I support that position.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: LynnDel

I have friends who came from SDARM to SDA, and they tell me that, in general, they are rather rigid and critical about externals. They also do not celebrate Christmas or Easter.

LD

Well, the fact is that if one is going to make a big deal about how terrible Halloween is then celebrates Christmas and/or Easter, they are hypocrites. They are all pagan holidays.

I don't, and haven't celebrated any of those holidays for many years before I even became an SDA member.

I'm sorry OzarkWoman, but there is some new information that I just learn about in either 2001, 2002 or 2003. It is only recently starting to get into history books and sermons and commentaries.

It was a church history that was done in the 1700s that said that Christians started to keep December 25 as Christmas in the 4th century with Constantine and that it had been a pagan holiday first that the church took over. This has become tradition, however we have learned things over the past 200 years that the historians who formed that history did not have available for them to study. They did the best they could with the information that they had available to them at the time.

I know this is what you have been taught and it was what I was taught. However teaching agencies are now slowly starting to change from the outdated information to the evidence that has been discovered over these past 200 years since that history was first done. This history is now outdated. We now know that December 25 was seen as the birth of Jesus since the third century, 100 years before Constantine, and when they were hiding in the Catacombs because they did not want anything to do with Paganism, yet they still celebrated December 25 as the birth of Jesus.

Current evidence shows that there was a tradition that started in Judaism during the intertestimonial years. The tradition said to expect good things at Passover and said that Isaac was conceived on Passover, and that it was Passover that Abraham brought Isaac to Mt Moriah planning to sacrifice him and God provided a substitute. And while it varied depending on the Jewish calendar, 9 months after Passover, on a day that would occasionally fall on our December 25, was a minor Jewish holiday seen as the birth of Isaac.

In 135 AD the church split off from the Synagogue. At that time the church was arguing that Isaac was a foreshadow and type of Jesus. It was argued that just like Isaac, that Jesus was conceived on Passover and like how Isaac was taken out to be sacrificed on Passover, so Jesus was the true Passover sacrifice. Soon after this, during the second century, the 100's AD, the church celebrated the feast of the annunciation at Passover, and 9 months later saw it as the birth of Jesus on a day that would float around with the Jewish calendar but sometimes fall on our December 25. While the feast of the Annunciation and the birth of Jesus would float a few days here and there depending on the Jewish calendar, it was later during the second century that the church stopped keeping the Jewish calendar and started to keep the Roman calendar. That year Passover fell on March 25. Thereafter the church kept the feast of the Annunciation every March 25 whether it fell on Passover or not. And 9 months later was seen as the birth of Jesus and during the 3rd century the church started to put more emphases on the birth of Jesus 9 months after the feast of the Annunciation... December 25.

There is even evidence that the pagans did not start to celebrate the birth of Mithras on December 25 until the time of Constantine and that they took December 25 from the Christian's belief that it was the birth of Jesus.

Also, we want to be careful about what we say about Pagan holidays, as the Biblical Feasts of the Land were the Baal holidays of Canaan. They were tied to the agricultural cycle of the land. The Canaanites kept Passover with the feast of unleavened bread and Yom Kippur with the two goats, one going east to sacrifice and one to the west as a scape goat centuries before Abraham. Of all the nights of the year, how could God be so stupid as to deliver the Hebrews on the very night that the pagan Baal worshipers in Canaan were having their major spring festival and unleavened bread?

I'm sorry but Passover came from the Pagans, December 25 came from the Jews. (granted much of the traditions and trappings of the Christmas celebration came from the different cultures but the date itself seen as the birth of Jesus did not)

[Kevin H]

OzarkWoman: I have kept coming back rewriting the above post, I know this is new information, but I feel like I'm dropping a bomb on you with this information. It has become so traditional for people to so use to something. We need to be careful to both be fair to the scriptures. I know that we want to be careful to follow the Bible and not be taken in by paganism. But we need to be fair to the facts and evidence as it grows. I just hope I have not been too hard and dogmatic.

[Gregory Matthews]

Without passing judgement on Kevin's post, here is some material in support of his basic thesis:

Quote:

So how did we end up celebrating a wintry white Christmas? The church only settled on a Dec. 25 Christmas in the fourth century. The standard explanation is that the early church conflated its celebration of the Nativity with pre-existing pagan festivals. Romans had their Saturnalia, the ancient winter festival, and northern European people had their own solstice traditions. Among the features: parties, gift-giving, dwellings decorated with greenery.

The reasoning goes that the growing church, recognizing the popularity of the winter festivals, attached its own Christmas celebration to encourage the spread of Christianity. Business historian John Steele Gordon has described the December dating of the Nativity as a kind of ancient-world marketing ploy.

But some put forward another, less well-known explanation for the Dec. 25 date — one with appeal for anyone uncomfortable with a connection between Christmas and the old solstice festivals. According to some scholars, Christmas was set near the winter solstice not because of any pagan traditions but based on a series of arcane calendrical computations. This argument hinges on an ancient Jewish tradition that had the great prophets dying on the same dates as their births or, alternatively, their conceptions. Thus, to follow this peculiar assumption, the first step in dating Jesus' birth would be to date his death, which the Gospels say happened at Passover. The early Christian writer Tertullian calculated that the date given for Jesus' death in John's Gospel corresponds to March 25 in the Roman calendar. Many Christian churches came to celebrate the Feast of the Annunciation, marking the angel Gabriel's visit to the Virgin Mary to tell her that she would become the mother of Jesus, on this date. Adding nine months to this date produces a Dec. 25 Christmas.

This alternative explanation is sometimes deployed to dismiss the notion that the holiday had pagan roots. In a 2003 article in the journal Touchstone, for example, historian William Tighe called the pagan origin of Christmas "a myth without historical substance." He argued at least one pagan festival, the Roman Natalis Solis Invictus, instituted by Emperor Aurelian on Dec. 25, 274, was introduced in response to the Christian observance. The pagan festival "was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians." According to Tighe, the pagans co-opted the Christian holiday, not the other way around.

But even to some Christians, Christmas has always seemed like a version of a pagan feast — and therefore unworthy of observance. The early church father Origen argued against celebrating Jesus' birthday: "It is only sinners like Pharaoh and Herod who make great rejoicings over the day on which they were born into this world." The Puritans of 17th-century Massachusetts famously banned the holiday, in part because they found no biblical authority for celebrating the Nativity on Dec. 25. They also feared the Saturnalia-esque disorder and rowdiness that seemed to go with the holiday.

Quakers, too, abstained from celebrating. Harriet Beecher Stowe has a character in her 1878 novel "Poganuc People" explain why his family doesn't observe Christmas: "Nobody knows when Christ was born, and there is nothing in the Bible to tell us when to keep Christmas."

There is something familiar about all these erstwhile Christmas controversies. The holiday is still prime time for disputation. At this time of year, more than any other, the sacred and the secular spend a lot of time jostling for space and, eventually, accommodating each other. So, believers need not be threatened by Christmas' putative pagan roots.

[OzarkWoman]

OzarkWoman: I have kept coming back rewriting the above post, I know this is new information, but I feel like I'm dropping a bomb on you with this information. It has become so traditional for people to so use to something. We need to be careful to both be fair to the scriptures. I know that we want to be careful to follow the Bible and not be taken in by paganism. But we need to be fair to the facts and evidence as it grows. I just hope I have not been too hard and dogmatic.

It is still hypocritical. It doesn't matter at all. Plus, you need to provide links for the proof of what you posted.

Christmas is NOT the date of Jesus's birthday, so, no matter what, it is still a lie for a holiday. Therefore, it is hypocritical for any Christian that makes a big deal about Halloween to follow Christmas, which by the way, is nothing more than a holiday for spending money. Then you add in the Easter holiday.

You can have whatever your reason is but a hypocrite is a hypocrite and that doesn't change the facts.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ozark Woman: On the basis of your last post, I will suggest that your calling others a hypocrite would apply to you if you refer to the days of the week by their common names--Sunday-Saturday.

NOTE: I do not call you a hyprcrite. 1st, for all I know, you do not use the common names for the days of the week. 2nd even if you do, I still would not call you a hypocrite.

I am simply saying that talking your posted words seriously, your judgement others would apply to yourself if you use the common names for the days of the week.

I remind all reading these posts: Paganism is so deeplly embeded in the history of the human race that much of the culture of today can be associated with pagan backgrounde. E.G. As I said: Every day of the year, all 365 days, is associated with the birthday of a Hindu god/goddess and in fact, a large number of gods and goddesses.

[Gail]

And saints, too, I believe.

[M. T. Cross]

It was a church history that was done in the 1700s that said that Christians started to keep December 25 as Christmas in the 4th century with Constantine and that it had been a pagan holiday first that the church took over. This has become tradition, however we have learned things over the past 200 years that the historians who formed that history did not have available for them to study. They did the best they could with the information that they had available to them at the time.

I know this is what you have been taught and it was what I was taught. However teaching agencies are now slowly starting to change from the outdated information to the evidence that has been discovered over these past 200 years since that history was first done. This history is now outdated. We now know that December 25 was seen as the birth of Jesus since the third century, 100 years before Constantine, and when they were hiding in the Catacombs because they did not want anything to do with Paganism, yet they still celebrated December 25 as the birth of Jesus.

Current evidence shows that there was a tradition that started in Judaism during the intertestimonial years. The tradition said to expect good things at Passover and said that Isaac was conceived on Passover, and that it was Passover that Abraham brought Isaac to Mt Moriah planning to sacrifice him and God provided a substitute. And while it varied depending on the Jewish calendar, 9 months after Passover, on a day that would occasionally fall on our December 25, was a minor Jewish holiday seen as the birth of Isaac.

In 135 AD the church split off from the Synagogue. At that time the church was arguing that Isaac was a foreshadow and type of Jesus. It was argued that just like Isaac, that Jesus was conceived on Passover and like how Isaac was taken out to be sacrificed on Passover, so Jesus was the true Passover sacrifice. Soon after this, during the second century, the 100's AD, the church celebrated the feast of the annunciation at Passover, and 9 months later saw it as the birth of Jesus on a day that would float around with the Jewish calendar but sometimes fall on our December 25. While the feast of the Annunciation and the birth of Jesus would float a few days here and there depending on the Jewish calendar, it was later during the second century that the church stopped keeping the Jewish calendar and started to keep the Roman calendar. That year Passover fell on March 25. Thereafter the church kept the feast of the Annunciation every March 25 whether it fell on Passover or not. And 9 months later was seen as the birth of Jesus and during the 3rd century the church started to put more emphases on the birth of Jesus 9 months after the feast of the Annunciation... December 25.

There is even evidence that the pagans did not start to celebrate the birth of Mithras on December 25 until the time of Constantine and that they took December 25 from the Christian's belief that it was the birth of Jesus.

Also, we want to be careful about what we say about Pagan holidays, as the Biblical Feasts of the Land were the Baal holidays of Canaan. They were tied to the agricultural cycle of the land. The Canaanites kept Passover with the feast of unleavened bread and Yom Kippur with the two goats, one going east to sacrifice and one to the west as a scape goat centuries before Abraham. Of all the nights of the year, how could God be so stupid as to deliver the Hebrews on the very night that the pagan Baal worshipers in Canaan were having their major spring festival and unleavened bread?

I'm sorry but Passover came from the Pagans, December 25 came from the Jews. (granted much of the traditions and trappings of the Christmas celebration came from the different cultures but the date itself seen as the birth of Jesus did not)

Much to the horror of all the pagans that loved to cry foul about Christians stealing our holidays.

I think many of the traditions that became part of the festivities, such as the mistletoe, the tree, the gifts, where more of cultural things than religious and in time simply became a tradition.

I celebrate both the Soltice/Yule and Christmas. I wonder if this makes me a pagan hypocrite.

[BobRyan]

In my state there are a number of SDA churches and several more being planted, there is also a church that has been there ever since I remember called the Seventh Day Adventist Reform movement. What I wondered is what the key complaints are from the SDARM movement towards the SDA and what steps have been taken over the years to try and resolve this issue? What changes do the SDARM require of the SDA before in their view it can be reformed and the two groups can become one?

I think SDARM was started as a german SDA stand for truth and faithfulness - very opposed to the idea of cooperating with the Nazi regime. They paid a high price for their loyalty to truth and the SDA denomination failed to support them at that critical time in history.

Peter himself was rebuked by Paul. The SDA denomination has made some bad policy decisions here and there - and this is an example of one of them.

in Christ,

Bob

[debbym]

Quote:

I celebrate both the Solstice/Yule and Christmas. I wonder if this makes me a pagan hypocrite.

i am sure on both sides of this sda vs sdarm groups they are each claiming to be the true ones.

when you tongue in cheek ask of you might be a less than true pagan, it occurs to me, that saying you are pagan is like me saying i am Christian., there are so many kinds, so what traditions do you follow? which branch of paganism are you of?

are you what might be called neo pagan? or do you have a european group your beliefs are shaped by.

i found out today there was a religious group that called themselves Heathens, it was a local religious group that didn't call themselves pagan. then when the Christians came around they adopted it and called anyone that was not a Christian a heathen, and i thought it was a Christian term.

I think a lot of people were called pagans whether they called themselves that or not too.

[M. T. Cross]

Quote:

I celebrate both the Solstice/Yule and Christmas. I wonder if this makes me a pagan hypocrite.

i am sure on both sides of this sda vs sdarm groups they are each claiming to be the true ones.

when you tongue in cheek ask of you might be a less than true pagan, it occurs to me, that saying you are pagan is like me saying i am Christian., there are so many kinds, so what traditions do you follow? which branch of paganism are you of?

are you what might be called neo pagan? or do you have a european group your beliefs are shaped by.

i found out today there was a religious group that called themselves Heathens, it was a local religious group that didn't call themselves pagan. then when the Christians came around they adopted it and called anyone that was not a Christian a heathen, and i thought it was a Christian term.

I think a lot of people were called pagans whether they called themselves that or not too.

It was tongue in cheek, but I have often called myself a bad pagan. There is a number of things that you will find in a good number of pagan belief systems that I either think are wishful thinking, big mistakes, or things I respect but do not do myself - they just don't interest me.

You are totally correct in saying that paganism is an umbrella term. There are more different belief systems that fall under that than I know of. Its a bit different than saying that one is a Christian, because we honour/worship a lot of totally different deities. But more or less the same idea on the surface. One major difference is that you will find very little of one group thinking they have "the truth" and that the other is "wrong".

I do have an european group that shaped the structure of the group I belong to. It is a Welsh belief system that sadly was somewhat altered by a bit of a Wiccan influence at some point some decades ago. While we have tried to weed out the Wiccan bits, the last member of the original Welsh tradition (in Wales) that we had contact with passed away a couple of years back and so we are kind of left with what we have.

It is funny though that you mention Heathens. Heathens (in todays culture) are followers of the Northern Gods. The Aesir and Vanir. In my personal beliefs I follow a lot of what they teach as well. They have a moral structure that is incredible and a belief system that is beautiful. The reason they re-adopted using the term heathen is to separate themselves from the rest of the neo-pagan culture that includes a lot of people borrowing a bit from here and a bit from there, often without any real respect or study into the culture these beliefs or deities come from. Eclectic pagans.

I use the term pagan for myself for a couple of reasons. My religion indentifies under that term. Also it is much simpler that a lengthy explanation of what a Gwyddon. There is the issue as well of when someone Googles the term Gwyddon the first bunch of things that come up are pages for a man that uses that term for his organization. He is a low life dirt ball that has ripped people off for a great deal of money, is involved in some questionable legal activities etc. Due to lawsuits he had to keep opening new websites so about 30 come up on Google. Somewhere in there is ours LOL. I just hate anyone thinking I believe anything that this man teaches.

Sorry for going on here, but its a pet subject and you did ask. If its as clear as mud, ask away and I will try to get some of the dirt out of the water.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I think SDARM was started as a german SDA stand for truth and faithfulness - very opposed to the idea of cooperating with the Nazi regime.

Of course they claimed to stand for truth and faithfulness.

The SDARM dates back to WW I. That was before the Nazi regime. I have discussed this issue mostly in the WW II period of Germany and Hitler. But, their beginning was during WW I.

Quote:

They paid a high price for their loyalty to truth and the SDA denomination failed to support them at that critical time in history.

Denomination failed to support them: The denomination was headquartered in the U.S. Germany was at war with the U.S. It was impossible for the denomination, in the U.S. to support the SDARM in Germany. If the Denomination in the U.S. had publicly supported the SDARM, that support would have called the wrath of the Nazi government down on the SDARM. It was impossible to support them.

Loyalty to truth: It was the leaders of the SDARM, using forged documents, that called the wrath of the Nazi government down on the SDA Church in Germany. Those documents were forged and false. That was hardly a loyalty of truth. One might argue that it was individual leaders that did that and not the SDARM itself. O. K.

In response to the persecution that the SDARM brought upon the SDA Church in Germany, individual leaders of the SDA Church committed a great sin.

There you have it. Individuals on both sides sinned in a major manner.

Quote:

Peter himself was rebuked by Paul. The SDA denomination has made some bad policy decisions here and there - and this is an example of one of them.

Once the war was over, the decision of the General Conference was to send representatives to Germany to attempt to bring healing to that situation. That attempt failed. I would not call that attempt a bad policy decision.

Tell me, what do you think was the bad policy decision that the General Conference made?

Individuals on both sides sinned in a major way.

It is only in recent times that individuals such as Dr. Ronald Lawson have been able to gain some understanding of the actual events that occurred in Germany during the Nazi government. In my opinion, there is still much to be learned. In no way to I defend the actions of the SDA leaders which were very wrong. But, The General Conference did what it could to heal that situation which failed.

Yes, when the Nazi government realized that the documents submitted to them were forged and false, the government reacted strongly against the SDARM.

In a sense the SDARM paid a high price for the individuals had done in submitting forged and false documents to the Nazi government.

[debbym]

Quote:

Heathens (in todays culture) are followers of the Northern Gods. The Aesir and Vanir. In my personal beliefs I follow a lot of what they teach as well. They have a moral structure that is incredible and a belief system that is beautiful.

i believe we all grow in our spiritual lives. and we sort through what we believe and choose where we focus and integrate it into our lives whether we are religious or not.

Tt must have been heart rending when the sda and sdarm separated, each believing themselves to be truer to God's will.

We believe the Holy Spirit actively maintains the definitions of holiness, and righteousness, and reveals that personally to people and leads and teaches them personally. So when there is a conflict those left around it are left to sort it out and hear what God says to them about it. What else can we do when people in disagreement both say God is leading me this way. There is no disunity in God according to scripture.

So as your group cleanses away the wiccan influx, and as you partake of the Heathen Gods knowledge, do those God's personally communicate and maintain their knowledge and will to their followers? or is it your understanding of them through records of other peoples views, or study of history?

[BobRyan]

Quote:

They paid a high price for their loyalty to truth and the SDA denomination failed to support them at that critical time in history.

Denomination failed to support them: The denomination was headquartered in the U.S. Germany was at war with the U.S. It was impossible for the denomination, in the U.S. to support the SDARM in Germany.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Having said that - I think you make a good case for the earlier history and break away from the denomination via a false prophet (Rowen?).

http://www.adventistworld.org/article/97...a-false-prophet

The SDARM that we have been discussing has no relation to the group formed in Southern California in 1919. The title, SDA Reform Church has confused you. That is understandable as there are at least three (3) groups that indicate in their denominational name that they are Reformed SDAs.

Two (2) pf those groups relate back the the situation in Germany with theier beginning about 1914/1915, which predated the Rown group that was formed in 1919.

Quote:

The Seventh-day Adventist Reform Church

Rowen gradually developed a small but loyal group of followers who claimed that she was a divinely sent messenger. Her local congregation apparently was not convinced by her claims. She was disfellowshipped from the South Side Seventh-day Adventist Church in Los Angeles on November 15, 1919. With a spiritual martyr as their leader her followers organized a new denomination. They took the name “The Los Angeles, California, Seventh-day Adventist Reform Church” pejoratively referred to as “Rowenites.”

The Rowen group has essentially gone out of existance.

The German group, in its two (maybe there are more) formulations consintues to exist today.

You will note that this German group is very clear that they want to be known as the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement that is due to the fact that they beleive that other formulations of their name confuse them with the other groups.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

They refused to state that the SDA position in general is not to bear arms in battle.

Your quote above is in reference to the General Conference. As such it is false.

It was the local SDA Conference leadership the did wrong. Their wrong was much greater than you have stated. That is what interests me. I do not know whether you are simply being kind in your failure to correctly state the position that the Local Conference leadership took, or whether you do not know what the position actually was that was taken by Local Conference leaders.

In any case, in order to point the finger at the organized church you need to cite the wrong that the General Conference did. I will say again, there is no way that the General Conference could have intervened at that time as Germany was at war with the United States. It could simply not communicate with the Nazi government. The Local Conference leaders could and did and they were very wrong.

In any case, the position of the SDA Church today is as I statead in an earlier post. You may consider it to be wrong today, as do others. That is your right. But, it remains the position of the SDA Church.

You will find that post on page 4 of this thread and # 62430. That position is that SDAs should not enlist with the possible exception of some medical personal and chaplains. I may not have been very clear as to bearing arms. But, if one follows denominational advice and does not enlist, one will not bear arms in the military.