Beware of wolves in Sheep's clothing that come here.

[B/W Photodude]

34 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

6 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little child shall lead them. Isaiah 11

Since the animals will get along this well on the new earth, I cannot believe that he/she who were made in the image of God would be any less well off, despite the example of the tower of Babel.

Actually, many animals get along very well, even on this earth now. Many animals who you would think might be dinner for another animal are friends! You can find a number of animal friend compilations on YouTube, but here is a short one (sorry, but it is actually a commercial, but well done. Wish all commercials were as good):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnVuqfXohxc

 

[LifeHiscost]

On 12/13/2013 at 9:36 PM, OzarkWoman said:

 

 

God made both and they are necessary for the ecology of the earth. Where there is good, there must be bad, at least until Christ comes back.

If that were true then what would be the reason for our Father in Heaven casting out the original malefactor?

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[stinsonmarri]

On 1/16/2018 at 12:23 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Race:  Scientists who study humanity agree that the word "race" is a word that does not have clearly defined, objective boundaries.  That is the truth behind what Stinsonmarri says when she says that "race" does not exist.  

Regardless, of what the experts say, most English speaking people use that word, believe that they have some sort of and idea as to what it means and how it is defined.  In their use of that word they apply it to many groups of people.  

I can understand how one might say that the use of that word is racist,  but, I cannot say that everyone who uses that word is racist.  There is a point where we use words most familiar to those with whom we wish to communicate,  In common conversations, outside of scholarly circles that word may be one that we will use.

But, this does not preclude either us listening to what Stinsonmarri has to say about it or to her listening to what others have to say about such use and granting each an assesment that does not consider them to be racist due to their use of that word.

 

Thanks Pastor Gregory, I truly appreciate what you wrote. You know Wanderer did not understand what I was trying to get across. The problem lies with how we have been taught wrong things about each other. I want to give another example of prejudice. The Hebrews had this problem with the Romans and the Greeks, they truly are the Gentiles. This word has been thrown around in error a lot that has also cause confusion. Japheth children are actually Gentiles which is in Gen 10:5; neither Ham or Shem is called by this name.

Peter was sleep on the top of the house, waiting for dinner. I believe you all know the story in Act Chapter 10. Peter felt they were unclean like unclean animals and YAHWEH let him know they were not, they were created beings just like them. They were all mankind!!!! This is prejudice and YAHWEH nip it in the bud. All THREE ELOHIM are no respect of person who we all are mankind!

We have to respect each other with different color skin and men need to respect women as equal. All of this prejudice is sin and those who cannot accept this will not make it in. There is no superior race over another!!!! This problem is in the SDA Church and we need to openly discuss it. We should not be angry or accuse each other but learn from other and correct the sin. I will say it again, this is the hardest sin for all of us to discuss and we all must ask ourselves why! We also have stop paint YAHSHUA as being White, HE was not. Then we should never paint THE FATHER at all. One of the Commandments state not to make actually anyone a grave or an image. Painting is an image as well! So I am truly wonder should even take pictures of each other, I truly don’t know. This Commandment need to be study more. But I know we should not attempt to draw THE FATHER!

You see, here is my reason, in order to respect each other, we must begin to reverence THE FATHER first! We stand before THE MOST HIGH that HIS FACE is not shown, we cannot look upon HIS FACE with sin nor we will be struck dead! Brothers and Sister, this is serious, how far have we become because of sin! I urge each and everyone; this is the real wolf in sheep's clothing. Wake up and see what has been our biggest problem, hating each other to the point of displeasing THE CREATOR who created skin color for HIS PLEASURE! HE also made woman and man equal; they both were king and were to subdue the earth together. The Bible said if you break one Commandment, you are guilty of them all!

Are you ready for YAHSHUA to come, have you been faithful in all that you do? Have you fought a good fight? Have you stood for the right? Have others seen YASHUA in you? Are you ready to stand in you place? Are you ready to look on HIS FACE? Can you look up and say this is my YAH? Oh are you ready for YAHSHUA to come?

May you all have peace, everlasting joy, and wonderful blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

On 1/16/2018 at 11:46 AM, B/W Photodude said:

Actually, there is. In other animals you may call them breeds. Take dogs, as an example. An English Springer Spaniel can breed true to a standard and so can a Vizla. But leave them along together during breeding season and you will have a cross breed. They are both dogs, but they are very different dogs. They will both have red blood. They are similar in having a dog temperament. However, there will be breed differences in temperament. A Border Collie has a very different perspective on their reason for being than say a Saluki. But they are all dogs. It would be foolish to say that there is no such thing as "breeds". Any groups of animals, even to humans, will "breed" true to a certain standard after a time. A person from Sweden can have children with someone from the Congo or Beijing also, and commonly they may be called bi-racial.

Within certain groups, a dog breed can be established after eight generations of true breeding. What this means is that there are breeds of dogs that did not exist at the end of WWII. You may not like the fact that there are races of people, but we are a physically based unit with similar genetic behaviors to animals. The weird thing about it is that even in the wild, some animals have separated into what we even call species of animals. We commonly think that a lion and tiger are separate species of cats, but they can interbreed and produce ligers and tigons! < http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ligers >  Some different animals can reproduce together, but with sterile offspring. This occurs when a donkey has a good time with a horse, then you have a mule which is not capable of reproducing. Female liger are said to be able to reproduce, but not the males.

The problem with it all is that humans like to start imputing value to those different than themselves. No matter what anyone claims, just about all races consider themselves to be better than another. And even some, who have lived under some form of oppression from another race, start reacting against that race in a derogatory manner. Sadly, in Heaven, all of God's children will shine with His glory. When the New Jerusalem comes down to earth, none of the resurrected wicked will be able to come to the gate to speak with their saved family members. They will not be able to tolerate the glory of God which will no longer be hidden. So, whatever your race, if you are behaving in an unChristian manner, your will not bewaring the glory of God!

Photodude: I know you may think that I am against you. I am not, but it is the thing that you write that I do not agree with. Every species are a kind, including the trees, grass etc. according to the Bible.

 And ELOAHH said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.  And ELOAHH created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and ELOAHH saw that it was good. And ELOAHH said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And ELOAHH made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and ELOAHH saw that it was good. Gen 1:11, 21, 24, 25

So the breeding of dogs are of the same kind.

The Bible or Hebrew never used the word race. We are not a species either. Why because we were made in the RESEMBLANCE OF THE ELOHIYM!

And ELOAHH said, Let US make man in OUR RESEMBLANCE, after OUR LIKENESS: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  ELOAHH created man in HIS OWN RESEMBLANCE, in RESEMBLANCE of ELOHIYM created HE HIM; male and female created HE them. Gen 1:26, 27  

Tselem: (Heb.) - From an unused root meaning to resemblance; hence a representative figure.

resemble (v.) mid-14c., from Old French ressembler "belike" (12c., Modern French ressemble), from re-, intensive prefix, + sembler "to appear, to seem, be like," from Latin simulare "to make like, imitate, copy, represent," from stem of similis "like, resembling, of the same kind" (see similar). Related: Resembled; resembling.

That is what Pastor Gregory, was explaining that the word race is the problem.

race (n.2) - "people of common descent," a word from the 16th century, from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense.

Original senses in English included "wines with characteristic flavor" (1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c. 1500), and "generation" (1540s). Meaning "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" is by 1560s. Modern meaning of "one of the great divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities" is from 1774 (though as OED points out, even among anthropologists there never has been an accepted classification of these).

Just being a Negro doesn't qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine. [Dick Gregory, 1964]

In mid-20c. U.S. music catalogues, "Negro." Klein suggests these derive from Arabic ra's "head, beginning, origin" (compare Hebrew rosh). Old English þeode meant both "race, folk, nation" and "language;" as a verb, geþeodan, it meant "to unite, to join."

I agree with you last paragraph except the word race. That word is made up to do exactly what you said. We all the same, but we are culturally different as the Bible said: "every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."

I that you understand my point of view.

Bless you along with everyone!

[R. G. White]

This is a fascinating discussion, and it raises the question of what constitutes a wolf in sheep's clothing, and by extension, what constitutes a sheep. Is it doctrinal purity? If so, what are we to make of the doctrinal advancements made by our SDA pioneers? For example, were they not sheep until they had embraced the 7th-day Sabbath?

I believe that it is Christian sincerity that makes one a sheep. So, while we are watching out for wolves in sheep's clothing, perhaps a bit of self-distrust might be in order. Really, how sure can we ever honestly be about our own sincerity? As for others, only God reads their hearts, so it might behoove us to give people the benefit of the doubt, as far as possible. At the same time, those who appear the most trustworthy may secretly (perhaps unknown to themselves) be agents of the enemy. Again, we may well be our own worst enemies.

Just thinking aloud...

[Humble Disciple]

I find it strange that we're not allowed to criticize on this forum the current leadership of the Adventist church on abortion.

The pioneers of Seventh-Day Adventism were strongly pro-life, yet the General Conference has looked the other way at abortion performed at Adventist hospitals and abortion clinics run by Adventist doctors for the past 50+ years. 

Adventism can be the true church and still be complicit in serious works of evil. Ancient Israel was God's chosen people, and look how many of them worshipped Moloch and Baal, gods of child sacrifice. 

 

[Stan]

Show that is the current position of the GC.

[Humble Disciple]

4 hours ago, Stan said:

Show that is the current position of the GC.

I will share it if it's not at risk of being deleted by the moderators. 

[Humble Disciple]

Not only have abortions been performed at Adventists hospitals for decades, but La Sierra University named its department of entrepreneurship after an abortion doctor who personally performed over 250,000 abortions and who stated that he was happy to perform abortions on black and Hispanic people especially, saying that their children would be a drain on the welfare system. It's probably also worth mentioning that his clinics performed abortions on the Sabbath. I'm not making this up. This has all been thoroughly documented. 

https://columbiaunionvisitor.com/2019/how-many-abortions-do-adventist-hospitals-perform-0

https://atoday.org/62364-2/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/seventh-day-adventist-university-names-new-economics-centre-after-abortioni/

https://atoday.org/la-sierra-university-accused-of-collaboration-with-an-abortion-promoter/

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2013/february/adventist-university-names-new-center-for-alleged.html

 

 

[Humble Disciple]

I would like to say again that 7th Day Adventism can be the true church while the leadership is wrong on abortion at the same time. I hope that the leadership's position will ultimately change, especially if Roe v. Wade is overturned. As for La Sierra University, I don't know what it will take for them to re-name their department of entrepreneurship, but they should be ashamed and embarrassed. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Humble Disciple: The decision to end the discussion of abortion in this forum was made by Stan.  I agree with that decision.  The fact that he has allowed you to ask your question and to respond to him does not mean that the discussion on abortion is now open for discussion.  At the time Stan made the decision, abortion had become the primary discussion on this forum.  One person was attempting to change just about any comment on the SDA Chruch into a discussion on abortion.  No agreement was being reached. The discussion of abortion was wasting time and energy.  Previous statements were being posted again and again.  Stan simply decided to end it and to ask people to post on other subjects.  Stan can change his mind at any point.  But, I do not think that he has done so.

[Humble Disciple]

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Humble Disciple: The decision to end the discussion of abortion in this forum was made by Stan.  I agree with that decision.  The fact that he has allowed you to ask your question and to respond to him does not mean that the discussion on abortion is now open for discussion.  At the time Stan made the decision, abortion had become the primary discussion on this forum.  One person was attempting to change just about any comment on the SDA Chruch into a discussion on abortion.  No agreement was being reached. The discussion of abortion was wasting time and energy.  Previous statements were being posted again and again.  Stan simply decided to end it and to ask people to post on other subjects.  Stan can change his mind at any point.  But, I do not think that he has done so.

I am okay with that, but who can we contact in the General Conference to get straight answers on the church's official position on abortion, as well as the amount of abortions performed in Adventist hospitals?

This is the same leadership which forced Facebook to shut down a pro-life Adventist Facebook group, claiming copyright ownership over the name "Adventist." 

I would like to have a kind, polite conversation with someone in the leadership who can answer these questions and concerns.

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K. Humble Disciple, I will address two issues that you have raised.

1) Adventist hospitals:  To what extent are any hospitals in the U.S. a part of the SDA Church?   For many years, the so-called Adventist hospitals were a formal part of the SDA Church.  A few years back (I do not have an exact date.)  some SDA administrators became concerned that a situation could arise in which the Chruch could become legally liable for some huge financial judgment that resulted from a claim against a hospital.   So, Church leaders began a legal process to separate our hospitals in the United States from the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.  That has largely taken place.  In general, most if not all hospitals in the U.S.  have been legally separated from the SDA denomination and are no longer Seventh-day Adventist hospitals as far as being religious hospitals.   IOW, they are not run by the SDA Chruch.  Roman catholic hospitals have remained religious hospitals and are run by the Roman Catholic Church.  I cannot say this is 100% true.  Somewhere there may be some small hospital that remains run by the SDA Chruch.  Presently it is generally true that they have been separated from the SDA Chruch.  Yes, they have been allowed to use some form of the SDA name.  In actual fact, the SDA church did not properly register and copyright all forms of the name, so some forms are in the public domain.  You may be told that the so-called SDA hospitals have SDA clergy on their Boards.  In such cases their positions on those Boards  are not sufficent to effect any kind of major change, in my opinion.

2)  It is highly likely that you do not understand what it means when a hospital reports X number of abortions:   I will give you a true example.  Susan (penname) was pregnant.  During her pregnancy fetal death occurred.   Susan was informed that her body would on its own timing remove all of the fetal contents.  That might happen when she was sitting on the toilet.  It might happen when she was sitting in church.  It might happen while she was shopping.  Susan stated that she did not want to have to deal with such emotionally.  So, she elected to undergo a surgical procedure in which the dead fetal contents were removed.  Loma Linda University reported that surgical procedure as a voluntary abortion.  As a hospital chaplain, I have had to deal with this situation more than once.  I do not consider such to be what I would call a voluntary abortion.  

When you read figures stating that SDA" hospitals did X number of abortions during a stated year, those figures include situations such as I have stated.  It is not fair for you to make specific claims for SDA hospitals  without subtracting out the type that I have mentioned.

NOTE:  My example is real.  In the Loma Linda case that I cited, the woman's insurance company refused to pay the hospital/surgical bill due to it being classified as an abortion.  I worked with that woman to submit new medical documentation that resulted in the insurance company paying for the hospital/'surgical bill.  
 

As I stated, I have had to work with other women on this issue.

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Humble Disciple, I will give you a second example of hospital billing errors:

John (Penname) was a young soldier at about the bottom of the pay-scale, and I was military chaplain.   As a U.S. soldier, his medical care was provided by the Army.  However, his wife received her care under an insurance policy.  She was pregnant.  The insurance company had refused to pay for certain care that she had received related to her pregnancy and had now billed him for about $60,000, which he could not pay.  We talked, and I asked questions.  Soon, I picked up on the error.  With my help, new information was submitted and the insurance company paid the entire bill

If you are going to cite medical figures, understand what you are talking about, even if those figures came from another source.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

The current SDA position on abortion may be found at:

https://imsda.org/seventh-day-adventist-church-approves-new-statement-on-abortion/

[Gregory Matthews]

The previous, slightly more liberal, position on abortion may be found at:

https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2019/current-seventh-day-adventist-abortion-guidelines

NOTE:  While this position has been officially replaced by a revised position, this is the position that is accepted by some Seventh-day Adventists.

 

[Humble Disciple]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

The current SDA position on abortion may be found at:

https://imsda.org/seventh-day-adventist-church-approves-new-statement-on-abortion/

As far as I've read, the 2019 statement is a doctrinal statement, not a medical statement binding on Adventist hospitals and doctors to follow. 

Afterward, in 2020, the Adventist Health Ministries Department published a different statement with much broader criteria on when abortion is allowable, including the mental health of the mother:

https://atoday.org/62364-2/

For whatever reason, the 2020 document is no longer available on the Adventist Health Ministries website. Allowing for abortion for the mental health of the mother opens the floodgates for abortion on demand, since mental health can be defined as pretty much anything. 

I honestly do not want to discuss abortion on this forum. There has to be a way to pick up the phone and have a polite, kind conversation with someone at the GC about the church's official position on abortion, the number of abortions performed at Adventist hospitals, and why La Sierra University named its department of entrepreneurship after a notorious abortion doctor. 

If the 7th Day Adventist church is the true remnant church, then there has to be some representative of the church who is willing to answer these basic questions to the general public. 

[Humble Disciple]

Here is the article stating that the 2019 statement is not a set of guidelines Adventists are required to follow:

https://columbiaunionvisitor.com/2019/ann-world-church-executive-committee-considers-statement-abortion

I am being completely honest that I would like to have a polite and honest conversation with someone from the GC on these matters..

[NOTE:  The above is an excellent statement, well worth reading by all.   Thank you for posting it--Gregory Matthews.]

[Gregory Matthews]

1)   You are correct, the position on abortion that I provided is a theological document and it is not a required statement for hospitals to follow.  The reason is simple:  With the change in relationship between the SDA denomination and the hospital system the denomination does not have the power to require hospitals to do anything.  You may say that their power rests in the hospital use of Adventist names.    If so, you fail to consider that the hospitals were granted the use of SDA names at an earlier time when they were part of the SDA denomination.  Therefore, that use continues even after the separation.

  2)  There is no one corporate organization that controls the so-called SDA hospitals.  Therefore, the SDA denomination would need to issue a statement on abortion for each system.  I can think of five (5) major SDA hospital systems and a couple of minor systems.  I actually probably missed some.   The five major hospital systems control 94 different providers of clinical care.  Those five are:

*  Adventist Health

*  Adventist Health Care

* Advent Health

*  Kettering Health

*  Loma Linda University Health

3)  Some hospitals that may appear to be SDA are not.  They may be managed by one of the above hospital systems, but are not owned by that system.  As such, the SDA system does not control the services provided by the hospital.  I once lived for several years in a city where the city owned the hospital and it was managed by a SDA system.  There was a SDA hospital chaplain on staff.  All of the top management was SDA.   This is not uncommon.  There are other such hospitals.  In the example that I mention, shortly before I moved to another city, the city terminated (It may have expired and not been renewed.) the management contract with the SDA hospital system and hired another company to manage the hospital.

4)  You may want to talk to some denominational leader who has the power to do what you want done.  The reality is that such does not exist.

NOTE:  I appreciate your comments and questions.  I consider them to be of value and therefore, I am responding, in part to educate people reading in this forum.

 

 

 

 

[Humble Disciple]

I have no ill will or hard feelings toward the leadership of the Adventist church. I would just like to speak with a representative who can help clarify the church's official position on abortion. This should be no different than contacting the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and asking for their position on sex trafficking or climate change. 

 

[Humble Disciple]

Here's something other than the topic of abortion. Why did the General Conference hire an actress to portray Ellen White who, in previous films, drank, smoked cigarettes, promoted lesbianism, and simulated sex acts?

http://adventmessenger.org/porn-lesbian-actress-played-the-role-of-ellen-g-white-in-the-seventh-day-adventist-film-tell-the-world/

Couldn't they have found someone else to portray Ellen White, the most revered figure in Adventist history besides Jesus Christ Himself? 

Of course, no church is perfect, but the 7th Day Adventists claim to be God's remnant on earth.

When Baptists or other theologically conservative Christian groups look at Adventism, what reasons do they have for seeing Adventists as the remnant, besides not eating pork and attending church on Saturday? 

I attend an Adventist church, and it's because I happen to agree with Adventism more than with other denominations.

I have no vendetta whatsoever against Adventism. There's nothing wrong with, in a spirit of Christian civility, holding the leadership accountable. 

[Stan]

adventmessenger is not a good source of wisdom at all.  The South Pacific Division did this film in Canada, and hired a casting company. My experience has been that you get the best acting out of someone who is the opposite.

While you bring up those who have done wrong in your eyes, It would add to credibility if you showcased what you have done to spread the gospel.  True story.  

[Humble Disciple]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

1)   You are correct, the position on abortion that I provided is a theological document and it is not a required statement for hospitals to follow.  The reason is simple:  With the change in relationship between the SDA denomination and the hospital system the denomination does not have the power to require hospitals to do anything.  You may say that their power rests in the hospital use of Adventist names.    If so, you fail to consider that the hospitals were granted the use of SDA names at an earlier time when they were part of the SDA denomination.  Therefore, that use continues even after the separation.

  2)  There is no one corporate organization that controls the so-called SDA hospitals.  Therefore, the SDA denomination would need to issue a statement on abortion for each system.  I can think of five (5) major SDA hospital systems and a couple of minor systems.  I actually probably missed some.   The five major hospital systems control 94 different providers of clinical care.  Those five are:

*  Adventist Health

*  Adventist Health Care

* Advent Health

*  Kettering Health

*  Loma Linda University Health

3)  Some hospitals that may appear to be SDA are not.  They may be managed by one of the above hospital systems, but are not owned by that system.  As such, the SDA system does not control the services provided by the hospital.  I once lived for several years in a city where the city owned the hospital and it was managed by a SDA system.  There was a SDA hospital chaplain on staff.  All of the top management was SDA.   This is not uncommon.  There are other such hospitals.  In the example that I mention, shortly before I moved to another city, the city terminated (It may have expired and not been renewed.) the management contract with the SDA hospital system and hired another company to manage the hospital.

4)  You may want to talk to some denominational leader who has the power to do what you want done.  The reality is that such does not exist.

NOTE:  I appreciate your comments and questions.  I consider them to be of value and therefore, I am responding, in part to educate people reading in this forum.

 

 

 

 

 

After the 2019 General Conference statement, meant to be a Biblical and doctrinal statement on abortion, the Adventist Health Ministries released their own protocols on abortion in 2020.

The document on the Health Ministries website has been deleted, but here are two articles which were written about it at the time:

https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2020/7/31/the-long-awaited-sda-abortion-protocols-are-here

https://atoday.org/62364-2/

The 2020 protocols allow for abortion for mental health reasons, which can be defined as pretty much anything. The 2019 doctrinal statement, on the other hand, only allows for abortion in cases of "life-threatening birth anomalies."

If a woman says she has emotional distress over an unplanned pregnancy, that by itself can be used as justification for abortion under the 2020 protocols, which, for whatever reason, are no longer publicly available on the Health Ministries website. 

At this point, I am not even saying that abortion is right or wrong. I just want to know what the 7th Day Adventist Church's official position is on abortion and whether or not it's consistently practiced.

If 7th Day Adventism is pro-choice, then the leadership should say so openly, and let the chips fall where they may. This is the same General Conference which forced a pro-life Adventist Facebook group to shut down for copyright reasons, claiming sole ownership over the name "Adventist." 

Let's not forget that the pioneers of Adventism were against abortion, and we can read their arguments against abortion for ourselves. But if Adventism today is pro-choice, then the leadership should say so openly.

A majority of the laity, on the other hand, in both the Unity States and around the world, do believe abortion to be wrong in most circumstances, and I wouldn't be surprised if the average Adventist has no idea about the General Conference's inconsistent history on abortion. 

[Humble Disciple]

13 minutes ago, Stan said:

adventmessenger is not a good source of wisdom at all.  The South Pacific Division did this film in Canada, and hired a casting company. My experience has been that you get the best acting out of someone who is the opposite.

While you bring up those who have done wrong in your eyes, It would add to credibility if you showcased what you have done to spread the gospel.  True story.  

 

Did you look at her IMDB page, which is the primary source for the article?

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1690432/?ref_=tt_ov_st

My point is that if we truly believe that the 7th Day Adventist church is God's true remnant on earth, we should be holding the leadership accountable to a higher standard of morality than we would a church which doesn't claim to be God's true remnant on earth.

As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What reasons do members of theologically conservative denominations like Baptists and Nazarenes have for seeing Adventists as the remnant church other than not eating pork and attending services on Saturday? 

With over 20 million Adventists in the world, why couldn't the General Conference have found a devout Adventist, or at least a practicing Christian, to portray Ellen White? 

[Humble Disciple]

Does the 7th Day Adventist church even have a consistent position today on when human life begins?

In the past, Adventist publications have, based on Genesis 2:7, said that life begins when a baby takes his or her first breath. If that were the case, then is abortion through all nine months of pregnancy permissable, as long as the mother isn't yet in labor? 

If 7th Day Adventism is God's chosen remnant on earth, then I want to know if I'm supposed to be prolife or prochoice. If I'm supposed to be prochoice, then I want to know why all the Adventist pioneers were prolife. 

A majority of Adventist laity, in the United States and around the world, are prolife, but in North America, Adventist hospitals, colleges, and the General Conference are run by people who are either prochoice or too afraid to express a strongly prolife position. 

I find it deceptive that the Health Ministries are  operating under protocols that were likely removed from their own website due to risk of public shame and embarrassment. 

All I want is to know, once and for all, is that the church has a consistent, Biblical position on abortion, whatever it might be. If the church's position is prochoice, so be it, as long as it's Biblical.