"Glacier View" 25 yrs later

[Ron Lambert]

Beginning on October 23, 1844, the place of God's sanctuary was restored. Dan. 8:11 says that the one who opposed God would cast down the place of His sanctuary. It was not until Oct. 23, 1844 that a community of people emerged who taught with strong emphasis that the sanctuary is in heaven. This same community is the one that God also called to proclaim the message that "the hour of His judgment is come." Thus, independant of whatever scholarly distortions Fordites try to pawn off as sound scholarship concerning Daniel 8:14, 9:25, and the sanctuary types, the beginning of the judgment in 1844 is indicated by these historical events.

[John317]

Quote:

---

Jeannieb43 said:

Oops! I definitely misspoke!

Never intended to convey the thought that Dr. Ford had had his membership revoked. That was careless of me.

What I do mean is the same as is being stated in this thread: He should have his ministerial credentials reinstated. Because no two ministers ever interpret the doctrines EXACTLY the same as the next one. And the treatment he received at Glacier View was abominable.

I heard an esteemed Bible professor speak of him lately, "His theogy and mine are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum; but I believe he is honest, and I'll defend his right to his interpretation."

---

As a church, it is essential that we have unity and agreement in what we teach and preach. We can't have one Adventist preacher teaching one thing and another Adventist preacher teaching just the opposite. There is room for disagreement and different interpretations on minor matters but not on major doctrines, such as the heavenly sanctuary, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the Second Coming, etc. That would only lead to confusion, making it impossible to give the world a clear message.

I have been studying for the past six months with Jehovah's Witnesses, reading their literature, and attending their meetings. While I disagree with many of their doctrines, I have come to appreciate the fact that they speak with a united voice. You don't hear them disagreeing over what their organization believes or teaches; but I am sorry to say that since I joined the SDA movement in 1973, I have witnessed more and more voices within the church teaching different things, almost "every wind of doctrine," so that today it is just about impossible to point to anything that all SDA are in agreement on.

The whole purpose of giving credentials to ministers is to make sure that the people representing the SDA movement are qualified to teach SDA doctrines so that our message will be given clearly. Ministers who teach contrary to SDA doctrines ought to have their credentials pulled because they are not properly representing the church and its message. Ford may preach and teach his beliefs, but if he is not teaching SDA doctrines, he shouldn't have an SDA credential and be paid by the SDA church.

[John317]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

1844

The year 1844 marked the beginning of the restoration of the gospel from "the falling away" that occurred by 1,260 years of Papal domination. God raised the SDA for this purpose!

Rob

---

I completely agree with you, Robert, and believe that God's enemy is trying his best to get the SDA movement side-tracked and to forget its purpose for being.

There needs to be a discussion of what the restoration is and why it is necessary. There is confusion about these points because most SDAs seldom talk about them or hear them discussed.

[John317]

Quote:

---

Jeannieb43 said:

The longer I live, the more I learn that

truth is progressive.

Even Ellen White revised her beliefs in certain key doctrines, over the period of her ministry.

Change,

per se,

does not equal heresy.

---

What beliefs in key doctrines did Ellen White revise, and where is the evidence of these revisions in her writings?

Of course some of her views changed. For instance, she did not view everything exactly the same in 1915 as she viewed them in 1844. I would have no problem with that at all. I am sure that even Jesus' thinking as a human was not the same when he was 31 as when he was 10. Every human being grows and develops, and that includes their thoughts and beliefs. But the really important question is, did Ellen White ever say or write that God showed her something one way in vision at one time and then in a different way at a later time?

[Jeannieb43]

I've mentioned this elsewhere on C/A previously, but this is what I was referring to:

About fifteen(?) years or so ago, I attended a Sabbath school class taught by Elder Dalton Baldwin in Loma Linda. I believe Elder Baldwin was with the White Estate at that time; anyway, he had done some research on Ellen White. I can't quote him exactly, but one of the things he said was that Ellen White changed her teaching on two major points during her lifetime, points on which she felt her earlier positions had been revealed to her in vision -- but on which, after much study, she totally changed her belief and teaching.

I can't recall the second of the two items [wouldn't exactly call them "doctrines" because they may not have been major dogma, either of them]. But the one point which I do recall was that she first believed and taught that the Sabbath should be observed from 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 p.m. Saturday. This became the accepted manner of Sabbath observance, then, for several years.

However, the brethren continued to study, and they prevailed upon her at a later date that the Bible teaches the days to be numbered commencing with sunset. So she agreed, and she changed her teaching on that point, and Sabbath observance was from then on taught to commence at sunset Friday and end at sunset Saturday.

My point was that Ellen White was not afraid to change, upon receiving new light. Even though she felt her earlier position had been revealed to her by God Himself.

P.S. Although I don't directly recall Elder Baldwin's second point, it could have been regarding the health message. I do know Ellen White was a meat-eater during her early years. In fact, she ate pork. It was only later in her life she eschewed flesh foods. [Can't cite a reference for that, but I'm sure I've read it.]

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

I consider it beyond belief and beyond toleration that a credentialed minister and pastor could misrepresent what the Bible teaches on such fundamental things to Adventism as the gospel as it relates to the cleansing of the sanctuary, the second apartment ministry of Christ, and the pre-advent, investigative judgment. For a minister to misrepresent what the Bible teaches is the most unforgivable offense a mnister could ever commit, but especially when they involve attempting to discard the core doctrines of Adventism, upon which the church stands or falls. If he wants to throw away Daniel 8:14 and deny the first angel's message that the hour of God's judgment has come, then let him go form some other church. He has no business continuing to pretend to be a Seventh-day Adventist, and it is deceitful for him to do this.

---

>>>It is highly probable that what happened 25 yrs ago at Glacier View is not known about or understood by the majority of younger and newer SDAs today. This was an opportunity to learn. This 'opportunity-to-learn' has been turned into a personal attack on the character of another sincere Christian who has spent his life within the community of Adventists.

Olger....Of course those men you mentioned would disagree with Dr. Ford who was not afraid to face the problem and give another possible explanation of Dan 8:14. They would have lost their 'high status' and their job$ if they agreed openly. I watched the leading theologian at LLUMC agree with everything up to the very point of the final conclusion...in order to save his status and job he refused to make a final conclusion. (May he rest in peace!)

I don't see how an informed intelligent SDA could be so severe on one of our leading Bible exegetes who only mentioned there was *another possibility* to look at the most problem text in all of Adventism, namely, Dan 8:14. Wasn't it a special GC appointed committee of highly regarded SDAs that spent a period of 5 yrs or more periodically meeting to examine that text...struggling over the meaning of it...trying to deal with the previous and current decontextualization of it over the past 160 yrs? .... and they couldn't come to a conclusion!...even after studying the subject for at least 5 yrs as an appointed committee? At least they had enough positive character attributes to avoid personal attacks on each other.

Dan 8:14 and the "2300 days"?? After all, Wm Miller and his followers obviously didn't know the Bible very well, or they would have known better than try to set a date twice (!) for the Lord's return. Remember?....Miller recognized his mistake later, admitting it was wrong, and, he disagreed with his followers that tried to continue making the same mistake?

The whole situation is a "sore spot" in our history which some of our cultic "veil"-burdened traditionalists refuse to allow to be healed.

Ben

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The year 1844 marked the beginning of the restoration of the gospel from "the falling away" that occurred by 1,260 years of Papal domination.

---

What 1260 years would those be, Robert?

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Having been at PUC during the GV period, I knew of Dr. Ford, but never took a class from him. My wife did.

Our current views of righteousness by faith come from Dr. Ford. At the time of GV, the views of righteousness by faith were much more traditional, centering upon the Law and the need to obey it. Granted, Morris Vendon preached a righteousness by faith view accepted by the populace, but it was Doctor Ford's view, that made the inroads into theological circles.

I have to agree with Jeannie as to his treatment in GV. He was definately railroaded out of the ministry, and the opposistion would have drummed him out of the church as a heritic, if they could have. Such was the strong feeling agianst him. As a student involved with the faculty of PUC, I saw how he was treated, and I have to say, it was mob action against a man who showed himself of far better character than any of the mob. That is the church's shame.

[Jeannieb43]

Amen, Dr. Ben.

[Jeannieb43]

Neil, you must have been at PUC when my son was there. My son had a religion class from Dr. Ford and liked him very well. My son was not the world's greatest Biblical scholar, but he would have seen through any artifice if Des Ford had shown such.

My statement that the denomination owes a huge apology to Dr. Ford is taken directly from a statement made by Dr. Raymond Cottrell at the San Diego Adventist Forum meeting not long before he died. He said that Glacier View fiasco was the low point in our church's history. Dr. Cottrell, by the way, was the editor and author of several volumes of the SDA Bible Commentary; he was a renowned Biblical scholar and faithful Adventist member.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Quote:

---

The year 1844 marked the beginning of the restoration of the gospel from "the falling away" that occurred by 1,260 years of Papal domination.

---

What 1260 years would those be, Robert?

/Bevin

---

538 to 1798 AD....

[bevin]

But the papacy was by no means dominant over that period.

538 was a terrible year for the Bishop of Rome, and nothing major good happened that year for him.

1798 similarly - the dominance of the RC church in Europe had been long broken before that, and indeed the Pope had been captured, forced out of Rome, there had been competing popes, Henry VIII had kicked them out of England, and the whole Protestant stuff had happened much earlier.

The ONLY thing these dates happen to have going for them is that they are 1260 years apart. It is as though someone went through history trying to find ANY two events separated by 1260 years that vaguely fitted, and this was the best - albeit bad - fit that they could find.

/Bevin

[olger]

Dr. Raymond Cottrell demonstrated an almost sinister antagonism against the church after his retirement, one that focused upon doctrines as well as people. He is hardly what I would call a credible source.

Dr. Ben. LaRondelle made his statements about Ford after he retired. So much for any conspiracy on his part to keep his job.

Venden's statement was at an Ohio camp meeting. Richard Fredericks was at the same meeting in `92 and it became apparent that the two main speakers disagreed. Venden scrapped his notes for the day and talked about GV for the whole meeting. He called it a Non-sermon. He used a story about Martin Luther called "save me from my friends" to distance himself from Fredericks theology, which was in Venden's opinion a facsimile of Ford's. It was quite a camp meeting. I invited a large group of fellow believers to meet at our 5th wheel trailer (outside) for Bible study every night. It was very well attended because the atmosphere had everybody charged to understand the Word better. Venden even met with Fredericks privately at Kenyon college one afternoon to discuss the direction that the meeting was going (when it became apparent that there was theological disharmony in the two main speakers).

Fredericks theology led him out of the church two years later. Venden saw it coming..

As to Hasel, the church lost one of it's keenest minds when he was prematurely killed in that accident.

I find the judgement to be good news in the Bible. I hope that you do too, my friend.

gcw

[Neil D]

Regarding Richard Frederick:

There is far more to him than just Ford's theology.

Frederick's view allows him to disregard the Sabbath. Ford's view does not. When I was moderator of another SDA forum, we had people looking into Fredericks affairs...While it has been many years since then, and since I was not directly involved, there was much more going on in the Fredricks camp than is what is purported...And Fredricks was a much more clever man than we SDAs allowed.

Our conclusion was that by the time his congregation separated from the Adventist church, he had already given up on the Sabbath and was laying the foundation to move his congregation to a Sabbath to Sunday service....

In fact, as I recall, we contacted Des Ford and he gave an article regarding his views on the Sabbath...a SATURDAY Sabbath... And he did not view Sunday as sacred at all.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

But the papacy was by no means dominant over that period.

---

Maybe, maybe not....

The point is, however, that they perverted the gospel! 1844 is linked to Dan. 8:14 and 9:25. From the point to "restore and to build Jerusalem", 457 BC, add 2,300 years and you'll arrive at 1844 AD. Here God began to work through a people to restore the truth of the gospel distorted and perverted by 1,260 year of Papal influence.

Rob

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Maybe, maybe not....

---

You stated they were dominant. I pointed out they weren't. Your statement was wrong.

Quote:

---

The point is, however, that they perverted the gospel!

---

I agree 100% - the Catholic views of Hell, salvation, priesthood, sexuality, and many other areas are perversions of the gospel.

Quote:

---

1844 is linked to Dan. 8:14 and 9:25. From the point to "restore and to build Jerusalem", 457 BC, add 2,300 years and you'll arrive at 1844 AD. Here God began to work through a people to restore the truth of the gospel distorted and perverted by 1,260 year of Papal influence.

---

Ever since Wm Miller started touting this bad analysis, solid theologian's have been pointing out it is simply wrong.

Des Ford was one of the most recent and visible of these, but by no means the first or the last.

• You can't prove it starts in 457BC
• The text does not say 2300 years
• There is no reason to believe day = year
• The text does not say 2300 days
• The text does not say that at the end of the period the truth will be restored
• Nothing obvious happened in 1844
• and the plan of salvation does not require anything to happen

/Bevin

[Robert]

I will not debate you on the time frame, dates, etc.

The Adventist church came out of the Millerite movement. When Miller first began his studies on the book of Daniel, one of the questions that he asked himself was, “What did Daniel mean by the word ‘sanctuary’?”

Miller believed that because the sanctuary was the earth and the church, the coming of Christ would be the cleansing of the sanctuary. The earth would be cleansed by fire. The church would be cleansed by this corruption putting on incorruption.

The point here is that the "sanctuary" message began to be restored around 1844. Jesus said, "Destroy this temple [sanctuary], and in three days I will raise it up.” It is His humanity, glorified, that constitutes the sanctuary message [see Heb 10:19,20].

In 1888, 44 years after the great disappointment, Jones and Waggoner linked this truth to the truth as it is "in Christ." The majority of the church, especially the leadership, rejected that message. Nevertheless, it was this church, the SDA church, that God has used to restore "the sanctuary message" from the perversions of the papacy.

Rob

[olger]

There is an interesting story that never fails to stir me when I think of it.

It is found in a book called "Christian Experience & Teachings.

“In vision I saw two armies in terrible conflict. One army was led by banners bearing the world's insignia; the other was led by the blood-stained banner of Prince Emmanuel. Standard after standard was left to trail in the dust, as company after company from the Lord's army joined the foe, and tribe after tribe from the ranks of the enemy united with the commandment-keeping people of God. An angel flying in the midst of heaven put the standard of Emmanuel into many hands, while a mighty general cried out with a loud voice: "Come into line. Let those who are loyal to the commandments of God and the testimony of Christ now take their position. Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters. Let all who will, come up to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty." {CET 228.1}”

Evidently, many in the Advent Movement will feel the heat of the battle and jump out of the army. But at the same time, many will leave the ranks of the enemy and join the Lord's cause. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, and it speaks to each of us. Great changes are coming, and it is a time to open our hearts to the Lord, that He might use us to strengthen what He has built.

God cares,

gcw

[benherndon]

Olger wrote:

Quote:

---

LaRondelle: "Ford insisted on multiple fulfillments of one-time historical prophetic events. It was wrong.

---

>>>While I have heard some about LaRondelle I have not followed his writings or statements. However, multiple fulfillments of prophecies is not foreign to SDA thinking. Lets take Matt 24 regarding "Signs of the End of the Age"....

We all agree it was fulfilled in 66 to 70 A.D. Though Christ warned the people, all Jews, "Pray that your flight will not take place in the winter or on the Sabbath."...it turned out they did have to endure winters and Sabbaths under seige. Some have said the 'faithful' safely got away. I suggest those who say that read The History of the Jews.

While some claim Christ saying "Pray that your flight be not in winter or on the Sabbath," is proof He thus mandated Sabbath observance. Is that really so? Was He not referring to what they should pray for, being Jews who had long observed the Sabbath? He had not been crucified yet and Christianity began at His death and resurrection. (I am a Sabbatarian in practice...I have never agreed Sunday was preferred! However, I am against judging the Christian's salvation depedent upon whether he observes the Sabbath commandment anymore than whether he honors his Father and Mother exactly perfectly. Christianity is not Judaistic in all its characteristics.)

If you will search the history of the Jews you will find the seige began in 66 A.D. and didn't end until 70 A.D. and that's four winters and many Sabbaths. (See Johnson, The History of the Jews, Harper and Row, 1987).. It was a very mixed up 'war' between the elite Hellenized Jews and the poorer farmer Jews as well as segmented in-fighting groups....and the Romans, of course. It was a terrible time, starvation and even some reports of cannabalism, suicides, etc.

At any rate Matt 24 is interpreted by SDAs as having been fulfilled in the 66 - 70 A.D. seige of Jerusalem AND representing how things will be, in the 'end of time' of this earth. Isn't that some evidence for example of 'multiple fulfillments'of a prophecy?

Note this: "There is no excuse for anyone to take the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." (R&H, Dec 20, 1892) Who do you think wrote that?

I know you and Ron and others are sincere when commmenting. However, I've lived in Adventism for many a year and seen many a discussion and talked with many many people. There is, unfortunately, a tendency when someone disagrees with some 'precious' belief we promote, we tend to get a little bit angry about what they are saying while forgetting they have a right to examine our beliefs just as much as we do to examine theirs. Our words can be untrue and hurtful sometimes and we all, including me, should take care with what and how we say things about and to each other.

Ben

[Jeannieb43]

<<They have a right to examine our beliefs just as much as we have a right to examine theirs.>>

Thanks, Dr. Ben.

Discussion - without demeaning the intelligence of the people who disagree with us - would be the best way to use this forum, IMHO. Laying out our beliefs, together with the bases therefor, should be our goal here.

(And BTW, that's exactly what Des Ford does. I can't say I agree with all his conclusions. But one thing's certain -- he never denigrates the "brethren" in any way, except to say he cannot personally agree with this or that.)

[benherndon]

Thank you, Jeannie43. We have heard Dr. Ford many times and I have never heard him publicly or privately say anything derogatory about the church. Somebody said he supports Sunday observance. I don't think he does 'support' Sunday observance....but I have heard him say that if you can't get the gospel any other way but by attending with Christians on Sunday or any other day, be sure to understand and celebrate the Gospel. What is the Gospel? As I understand it, the Gospel is pretty well described in John 3:16 ff.

Ben

[Gregory Matthews]

Just tagging on to the last post.

Dr. Ford has thought the years defended the Sabbath. Has he changed now? I would like clear proof that he has done so.

Dr. Ford has been throughout the years an excellent example of a Christian response to those who have attacked him.

I think that it is Biblically clear that there are Biblical prophicies that have had more than one fulfillment. NOTE: I did not get this from Dr. Frod, or anyone influenced by him. I learned this years before Dr. Ford. However, one should have caution in attempting to claim multiple fulfillments of Biblical prophecy. The fact that it is true for some, does not automatically make it true for all. e.g. Will there be more than one Second Advent, and more than one incarnation of the Christ, as some people claim?

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Our current views of righteousness by faith come from Dr. Ford.

---

[:"blue"]Woooooooooo!!! That is some strong language! Has his writings been canonized that our doctrine is now derived from his writings? My views on righteousness by faith has nothing to do with Dr. Ford except to drive me to the Scriptures to see what it REALLY says. [/]

Gerry

[olger]

Gregory said:

"I think that it is Biblically clear that there are Biblical prophicies that have had more than one fulfillment. NOTE: I did not get this from Dr. Frod, or anyone influenced by him. I learned this years before Dr. Ford. However, one should have caution in attempting to claim multiple fulfillments of Biblical prophecy. The fact that it is true for some, does not automatically make it true for all. e.g. Will there be more than one Second Advent, and more than one incarnation of the Christ, as some people claim?"

olger said "Yes!"

That is precisely what I stated by qualifying "one-time historical events."

As to Sunday, I have not personally verified Ford's position regarding it. What I heard came from Dr. Gerhard Hasel in 1994 just before he was killed. It was at the Pennsylvania campmeeting, and it is recorded on the American Cassette Ministries tape set titled "Daniel, Battleground of Satan."

rejoice always,

gcw

ps. Amen brother Gerry (Cabalo)

[benherndon]

I strongly support Neil D on his point. Since GV, there has been a *lot more* emphasis on 'righteousness by faith' than there was earlier! ! !

Ben