Jump to content
ClubAdventist is back!

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
Posted

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the Bible.  There have been many posts made on this subject, lots of heat and little light.  I am posting here as I believe that it would be well to understand what the SDA Church, which is a Trinitarian denomination, actually teaches.  The Bible is the standard, not a SDA teaching.

To see what the SDA Church teaches on the Trinity, go to:

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/god/trinity/

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/god/trinity/article/go/-/god-in-three-persons/

 

 

Gregory

  • Moderators
Posted


The following is some of what the SDA Church teaches on the Trinity:

 

Quote

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)

 

Gregory

  • Moderators
Posted

We, as SDA Christians, have an obligation before God, to hold to the Bible as the authorative standard by which we should judge our beliefs.  The   standard by which we should judge our beliefs should not either be the statements of any human or of any organization.  

I am not here arguing that any specific statement by the SDA Church is wrong.  Rather, I am saying:  Hold to the Bible.

 

  • Like 2

Gregory

Posted

In my humble opinion, the Bible strongly supports The Father and Son as members of the Godhead, but is non-committal concerning the Personhood of the HS.  But it is my opinion; not my dogma.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

I'm with Joe, in believing their were/are TWO divine beings. 

"God" IS our Father, and our Father IS "God".  He is the ORIGINAL divine being. 

"God" beget another divine being, from out of Himself.  This second divine being "God" called "My Son". 

Jesus called Himself "the Beginning", so I believe that His begetting WAS "the Beginning".

The Son was exactly like His Father in every way.  

God the Father created THROUGH His Son.  He then communicated with the creation THROUGH His Son.  He reconciles us to Himself THROUGH His Son.  He also judges THROUGH His Son, and will heal THROUGH His Son.  The Father - in fact - does everything, THROUGH His Son.

The Son then incarnated (with the help of His Father, Heb. 1:6).  He took the form and the nature of a male human being.  Before incarnating He "emptied Himself" of all divine powers. 

During His sojourn on the earth, the only divine power available to "the Son" was the infilling of the Holy Spirit (His Father - Matt 1:18&20).  Jesus did say, "The Father who dwells in me, does the works" (John 17:5),  and "You Father are in Me" (John 17:21). 

After completion of His assignment on the earth, the Son returned to His Father in Heaven.  The Father then "glorified" His Son, restoring to Him to that glory He once shared with His Father.  The Father restored to His Son those divine powers He had given up, to incarnate as a human.

The Son then baptized His followers on earth with His spirit presence. 

This is my belief.  I do not believe it is a salvational issue - at least not for those who have not clearly understood it.

I have completed my series of studies on "The Trinity Question".   Anyone interested can find the series on prophecyviewpoint.com. 

  • Like 2

8thdaypriest

  • 1 month later...
Posted

The beef comes not from what the SDA Church affirms about the Trinity today but the radical departure of what it initially taught.

“God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it? — HE HAS SAID THAT THE DEAD ARE TO SPEAK. How? — Their works shall follow them. WE ARE TO REPEAT THE WORDS OF THE PIONEERS IN OUR WORK, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD. One by one these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, LET THAT WHICH THESE MEN HAVE WRITTEN IN THE PAST BE REPRODUCED.” — (E.G. White, RH, May 25, 1905)

 

The words of the Pioneers [ in the SDA periodicals ] were / are explicitly clear.

 

“Here we might mention the TRINITY, which does away [with] the PERSONALITY OF GOD, AND OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST,” — (James White, RH, Dec 11, 1855, p. 85)

 

“The doctrine of the TRINITY which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A.D. 325. This doctrine DESTROYS THE PERSONALITY OF GOD, AND HIS SON JESUS CHRIST our Lord.” — (J.N. Andrews, RH, March 6, 1855, p. 185)

 

Below, James White confirms [ in a Seventh Day Adventist Periodical ] that "The Testimonies" of the Holy Spirit that came through Ellen cannot be reconciled with the Trinity Doctrine.

 

"We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them [ the testimonies of Mrs. White ]. The Adventist Review & Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871

The Pioneers [ in the SDA periodicals ] systematically went through the Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist & Methodist Creeds, paying specific attention to the statements made in those Creeds about the Trinity Doctrine & pilloried them with vigorous fervor. The findings issued by the SDA Pioneer's were that a belief in the Trinity equated to Pantheism at the least and at the most a submission to the anti-Christ. 

Historic Christianity maintains that God is ONE SUBSTANCE that is coequally owned by three distinct persons - Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

Adventism maintained what they called 'The Personality of God & archangels Michael and Lucifer' which was defined to mean that God the Father had a body of flesh and bone with all the organs of a perfect man and that pre-Incarnation Michael the archangel ALSO had a body of flesh with bones and organs along with the archangel Lucifer & the rest of the angels.

In the Pioneers understanding God was ONE which meant that ONLY the Father was God in a strict sense & that because Christ agreed with the Father in perfect unity THEY were ONE in purpose and mind & that was the extent of meaning of ONE.

Ellen summarized this Pioneer understanding 

They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person.  It is thus that God and Christ are one.”  - Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, p. 269.4

The Pioneers rejected that God was a singular substance and that IN GOD was Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

The Pioneers taught only the Father was God in the strict sense and that God and Christ were ONE ONLY in the same sense that Christ and His Apostles were ONE [ in purpose, mind and character ]. 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted

I would add that its appropriate that the SDA Church has evolved its thinking on the Trinity & specifically THE SUBSTANCE which is the foundation of the Trinity Doctrine. Today we can be thankful that the modern SDA Church has rejected Ellen's views ( which were the Pioneer's views ) on the Trinity Doctrine.

Below is an excellent summary of what the issue was and the official (current) SDA position.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=shawn+boonstra+trinity+&&view=detail&mid=F4E416CF673F8BA15DA7F4E416CF673F8BA15DA7&&FORM=VRDGAR

  • Moderators
Posted

It should be noted that scholars today think that the early Adventists who rejected the Trinity doctrine did not understand it.

At the same time, some like James White came from a background that was not Trinitarian.

 

Gregory

Posted
13 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

It should be noted that scholars today think that the early Adventists who rejected the Trinity doctrine did not understand it.

At the same time, some like James White came from a background that was not Trinitarian.

 

Given that the Pioneers and Ellen White feverishly taught that The Father was a flesh & bone hominid God and that anyone who didn't agree with them was apostate I'm not sure why it would matter that they didn't understand the Trinity Doctrine? 

Yes, James White came from an anti-Trinitarian background & Ellen White came from a decidedly Trinitarian (Methodist) background. The Methodist Creed was specifically called out in the periodicals because of the Trinity "Substance" statements within it. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Howdy Gustave, may I ask what you mean with this phrase "the substance?"

As a finite creation of an Infinite God no human can define what "it is" that the 3 Person's coequally possess. Substance is the word used to describe something spiritual that ONLY God possess by nature. The Father isn't God because He's the Father, the Father is God because He coequally possess the same Substance that the Son and the Holy Spirit possess.

To be clear, God is NOT ONE with Christ and the Holy Spirit in only the same way that Christ was one with His Disciples. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Thank you Gustave. I just didnt want to presume what you meant so I thought I should ask. I am going through the video you linked to above. Very much enjoying it so far.

Glad you like it, I thought he did a good job of summarizing the issue for the length of the video. 

  • Moderators
Posted

Substance:   In the early days of Christianity, this was the subject of debate which the various creeds addressed.

Gregory

Posted

It's the "Substance" that's ONE and 3 distinct Person's coequally own that one Substance, which is God. If Jesus isn't God Almighty He didn't have the authority to say what He did and we are ALL LOST. 

Posted

My understanding is that Christ became man without ceasing to be God. 

The O.P. mentioned the confusion within the SDA body about the Trinity Doctrine & I believe this is true. 

The Pioneers, supported by Ellen White's "visions" - affirmed that God the Father was THE FLESH GOD and that came with some specific baggage - such that there COULDN'T be a "Substance" or "SPIRIT" because Father God was said to have a "body of flesh, bone and ALL the organs & members of a perfect man" ( Daddy goes potty too ). SDA's called this teaching "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD". 

Because God had a personality ( flesh bone and organ body ) there was NOTHING to share because there was NO SUBSTANCE. 

The Adventists argued how could 2 be one because they believed that prior to the Incarnation of the Son The Father as well as the archangels Michael and Lucifer all had bodies of FLESH. The Holy Spirit was believe to be similar to flatulence of the Father and the Son, an odor if you will. 

Due to the Internet and the accessibility of what devout SDA's believed up to the death of Ellen White many SDA's question the direction the Church govt. has gone because they see striking differences in what was initially said to be true doctrine and the situation that the Church has reversed itself.

I'm on the side of the General Conference on this issue as it's my position that they finally have accepted the truth laid down by the holy council in 325 A.D. 

 

 

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Form criticisms of scripture like this have always existed but they have never worked.

That's the point, the SDA's taught this literal anthropomorphic view of God from 1855 to 1916 so it worked at least that long and continues to work if we can believe there is a significant number of SDA's who are returning to those positions held by the SDA Pioneers. We can hope it's quashed but these types of teachings are unfortunately long lived.

Posted

Most SDA members do not realize just WHEN the change came in (about 1895), concerning Trinity - or no Trinity.  The early pioneers were NOT Trinitarian.  Mrs White credited only Father and Son for some 50 years.  You would think the LORD would have enlightened her, long before 50 years of her ministry had passed.  The church publishes collections of the later quotes, when the subject concerns the Holy Spirit. 

The expression "third person of the Godhead" first appeared in Mrs White's writings, in February 1896.  (Letter 8, 1896, To My brethren in America) Manuscript Releases Volume Four pg.329; Testimonies to Ministers pg.39

Prior to this, the "councils of the Godhead" had always been between the Father and the Son.

 

(Letter 126, 1898)  Manuscript Releases Volume Twenty-one pg.54  "By Christ the work upon which the fulfillment of God's purpose rests was accomplished.  This was the agreement in the councils of the GodheadThe Father purposed in counsel with His Son that the human family should be tested and proved to see whether they would be allured by the temptations of Satan, or whether they would make Christ their righteousness, keeping God's commandments, and live." 

"In the Psalms, in the prophecies, in the gospels, in the epistles, God has by revelation made prominent the vital truths concerning the agreement between the Father and the Son in providing for the salvation of a lost race."  Review and Herald, September 24, 1908, pr1

"In the plan to save a lost world, the counsel was between them both; the covenant of peace was between the Father and the Son."  Signs of the Times, December 23, 1897, pr2

"No man, nor even the highest angel, can estimate the great cost; it is known only to the Father and the Son." Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, October 28, 1895 pr.4

"The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted." The Youth's Instructor July 7, 1898 pr.2

"Father and Son are pledged to fulfill the terms of the everlasting covenant."  Youths Instructor  June 14, 1900  pr.5

"The plan of salvation devised by the Father and the Son will be a grand success."  Signs of the Times, June 17, 1903 pr.2

(John 3:16 quoted.)  "He came to declare that altho the agencies of evil had created rebellion in heaven, and sin had entered the universe of God, yet Christ and the Father would redeem the fallen race."  Signs of the Times February 17, 1909  pr9

 

There are soooo MANY of these.  Most of those dated after 1888, were actually written earlier.  The point is that Mrs White's belief concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit as a co-equal co-eternal "third person" did CHANGE.  Her later view was not held by the original pioneers. 

We must look to the Bible, and the Bible ONLY - for our understanding.

 

 

8thdaypriest

Posted
2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

This is not really true. While there were some early Adventists who believed in the way that you say, it does not automatically follow that this was taught officially by the denomination. They were not any different than you or I, studying and changing their minds as they learned more

Can you cite any Pioneer who rebutted the Personality of God Doctrine? According to what I’ve seen [in the periodicals] it wasn’t  just a suggestion, it was required belief and one couldn’t be an SDA without holding the view.

 

Posted

AMEN, Rachel!  I agree with every item of your post.  Furthermore, the more I think about it, the more I believe that correctly identifying the nature and structure of God or the Godhead is beyond our capability; and therefore should be outside of the realm of doctrine.  God's ways are not our ways; His thoughts are not our thoughts.  Our wisdom is foolishness to God.  If getting my head around who God is involves believing in a "Twinity" rather than a "Trinity", then that's my belief and my business.  When I get to the Kingdom, if Jesus tells I'm wrong, I will change my mind instantly.  I'm sure I will learn many things that I was wrong about in this life; as well as learning about things I never thought of.

I'm not saying the Trinity doctrine is wrong; I'm just saying that it doesn't suit my understanding as well as my personal Twinity beliefs.

Posted
1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

They were not any different than you or I, studying and changing their minds as they learned more

My experience exactly.  Thank you!

  • Members
Posted
21 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Twinity

sounds like Elmer Fudd... :)

Pam     coffeecomputer.GIF   

Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup.

If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony.

Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?

Posted
1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Furthermore, while people make the claim that "the nature of the Godhead cannot be fully understood by humans, they still move on to claim that they do understand and define it as a "Twinity." So they make both claims in one breath and that is confusing to me.

Perhaps I overstated my case.  To clarify,  I don't think we can collectively agree on the nature of God.  Get 3 of us in a room and we will have 4 different opinions.  I need to have a mental construct (personal understanding) of what my concept of God is.  Whether or not it agrees with your mental construct is immaterial.  I believe we are strong enough in our faith that once we have our one-on-one conversations with Jesus in the Kingdom, we will all agree 100% in who/what God is.

Siwwy Wabbit!

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

I had intended to ask you where you are basing your opinion here from. But I got side-tracked. You mentioned "a periodical?"  Maybe you could give us the reference for that? If you are basing your belief on this point onjust one mention in a periodical, I would have some questions about your conclusions. It is common knowledge that our Pioneers held more than one view on the nature of God and the trinity. So all I am saying out of that is that it wont be found anywhere as an official doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. People typically see a leader or two preaching something a little different from the official belief, and then erroneously claim it to be official teaching, just because a few have preached and believed it to be so. I dont know of any official Adventist publication that would prove your point. I am always open to correction

It [the Personality of God] obviously isn't an official doctrine of the SDA Church now - my point was only that it formally was. 

 

The Adventists believed Tertullian and other Church Fathers CORRUPTED the Personality of God as homage to the Beast. Sabbath Herald June 28, 1864, page 3

D.M. Canright SLAMMED the Trinity Doctrine specifically because it was not compatible with the Personality of God. See Review & Herald August 29, 1878 

This is a fairly important article that not only shows what SDA's believed and "REQUIRED" adherents to believe but what Ellen White actually believed herself - she essentially WROTE THAT ARTICLE

On August 22, 1878 Ellen writes an article in the Review and Herald in which she gives a glowing endorsement of D.M. Canright and how it was that "SHE AND JAMES WHITE" assisted Elder Canright ( in fact they were delayed in leaving - because ) they were busy helping Canright REVISE his article on the Personality of God [ what was published August 29, 1878 ] 

After knowing Ellen White essentially wrote that anti-Trinitarian article which was attributed to D.M. Canright we see additional statements as to the importance of this unique doctrine within Adventism. 

Ellen White speaks to the importance of this distinctive SDA Doctrine.

"He who denies the personality of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, is denying God and Christ. IF THAT which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Father and the Son. IF you continue to believe AND OBEY the truths you first embraced REGARDING THE PERSONALITY OF Father and the Son you will be joined together with him". Ellen White / Review & Herald March 8, 1906

If it's proven [ and it is ] that Ellen White actually helped Canright write that diatribe against the Trinity Doctrine while she supported the Personality of God have I not delivered what you asked for? 

I've collected all the periodicals between 1846 until well past the death of Ellen White that speaks as to the importance and ranking of this doctrine. If you need more citations I'll be happy to provide them to you - perhaps you could PM me your email address and I can start emailing them. 

 

 

 

 

Posted
28 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Thank you Gustave for the time and effort here you have invested perhaps now we are getting closer to the center of this thing. I do not have a problem per se with any quotations given so far. I do have questions about conclusions drawn from them. For eg in the first sentence you made a subjective statement without actually giving us the quote you referenced . Your statement of what it means remains subjective unless you give us the word for word quote along with a paragraph or two both before and after so that we can check for ourselves the intended context. You summing it up in your own words and telling us what it means like this is completely subjective and essentially unproven. 

At any rate none of these quotes prove that anything was "an official belief" either in 1878 or any other date. They show as I have maintained all along that various pioneers of Adventism did have differing views but it does not follow that those differences were "official doctrine" of the Adventist Church. Certainly...said differences cannot be made to show apostasy or unfaithfulness of any kind for the Pioneers were united on many core doctrines. It was actually the nature of Christ that was more misunderstood and not the then held views of the Holy Spirit.

The documents I've provided are well outside of anecdotal evidence in that they are documents produced during the normal course of business & further supported by the "Personality Of God" being a "WELL defined" term in Adventism that ONLY had one meaning.

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would REMOVE THE PILLARS OF OUR FAITH concerning the sanctuary, OR CONCERNING THE PERSONALITY OF GOD OR OF CHRIST, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift, without an anchor". Ellen White Manuscript 62, 1905.14

 

Its salient to this discussion that Ellen White said the following about the necessity of this teaching.

Christians should bear in mind that God has a personality as verily as has Christ. They should so represent Christ's person and conduct that by doing His works they will manifest the character and spirit of the Father. Christ is the express image of His Father's person and character.--Manuscript 130, 1902, p. 11. (Diary, "Christ's Example in Every Line of Work," October 27, 1902.)

The world is full of speculation and false theories regarding the nature and character of God. The enemy of our souls is earnestly at work to introduce among the Lord's people pleasing speculation, and incorrect views regarding the personality of God. . . . {8MR 304.1}

entreat every one to be clear and firm regarding the certain truths that we have heard and received and advocated. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phase of error, even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, which denies the personality of God and of Christ. {RH, August 31, 1905 par. 11}

Ever since going to the Berrien Springs meeting [1904], my work has been continuous and taxing. While there I saw that which we shall have to meet in the future. The only way in which we can advance in our work is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Book that contains the will of God concerning us, is in our hands. A blessed unity will be enjoyed by those who are indeed children of God. They will not, by their words and acts, lead anyone to doubt in regard to the distinct personality of God, or in regard to the sanctuary and its ministry. {2MR 186.2}

 

You would agree that to Seventh Day Adventists, between 1844 up through to the death of Ellen White that the Sanctuary WAS a foundational or "PILLAR" Doctrine, no? 

If you would agree that the Sanctuary was a Pillar of SDA Faith you have the prophet of the group affirming the Personality of God was also within the same sentence.

In fact, the understanding at the time was that the "Sanctuary" was "thought up" by God to prove the Personality of God Doctrine which defaults into the sanctuary doctrine being subservient to "The Personality of God" doctrine.

"Why Was The Sanctuary Built? They were to build a dwelling place for God, and God promised to walk in their midst, to destroy their enemies, and magnify his power on their behalf, BUT He desired a special dwelling place where they could see visible manifestations of His glory. ALL OF THIS WAS TO TEACH THEM OF THE PERSONALITY OF GOD". SN HASKELL SDA Bible Training School May 1904 Volume 2

There was NO differing view on the Personality of God Doctrine within Adventism while Ellen White and the Pioneers were alive, it was essentially "ground zero" for those individuals who became known as the Seventh-day Adventists. How you could make the claim that it's only subjective or unproven this anthropomorphic teaching was as important as Ellen White clearly said it was or that the doctrine could not be reconciled with the Trinity Doctrine escapes me. I understand its embarrassing to have an alleged prophet repudiate the Trinity while affirming the Father goes potty too but this is absolutely what the evidence demonstrates. 

The O.P. did say that there was much confusion pertaining to the Trinity Doctrine within the Seventh Day Adventist Church - this is understandable given what was affirmed as truth from God between 1844 through to about 1920. 

I hope I've convinced you that Ellen White believed The Personality Of God to be a foundational or pillar doctrine to SDA's. If not I do have more material I can quote from.

 

 

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

No. I am afraid you have not convinced me of anything yet. It was never my intention to question exactly what EGW believed and when. And if you look carefully at the very quotes you provided, she did refer people to scripture, and not to her writings. She herself would never condone the use of her writings as you have done here. The Adventist Church did not arrive at any of its official teachings, just based on her say so. She was not and is not the boss of the Church. Proving what the Adventist Church believed on an official basis goes far beyond "what Ellen G White wrote or said. Thats why its not much use to amass your quotes as you have been doing. In context, most of them say something quite apart from what you are claiming.

I'm not an Adventist or member of an Adventist offshoot group, I'm just a apologist that's been at this stuff for a few years. 

Obviously you're at liberty to believe that Ellen White didn't help write Canright's anti-Trinitarian article for the Review & Herald and are also at liberty to believe between 1844 & her death she didn't represent SDA teaching to the degree of being an expert witness on the subject. There is a reason so many SDA's are rejecting the Trinity Doctrine and the General Conference is attempting to mitigate that by production of training materials - some of them have been covered here in this thread. 

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

well, I guess you are also at liberty to believe this too. "So many" is not a very accurate picture here. Only because you, the "apologist" says so. The long and short of this whole thing boils down to HOW the Adventist Church did form their official beliefs, and they did not once use Ellen White to do so. Your lines about collaboration of some kind with Canright are as old and dry as the hills of Gilboa! No one who has a good grasp of how Adventists formed and do form their official doctrines would go along with this. And so yes, there was a short time where Canright did work together with some of our pioneers, but once again, he is not even an Adventist anymore, and you would never be able to prove that any of our official doctrines came from him or from EGW. When you find something that actually proves THAT point, I will listen.

One of your more prolific posters who is also an Admin said many SDA's had questions about the Trinity. 

I never said Ellen created the doctrines of the SDA Church - the Pioneers did that and when they needed a little extra help Ellen would have a vision and drag the doctrine over the finish line.

Ellen & James White helped Canright write that anti-Trinitarian article ( according to Ellen ) back when Canright was an admitted anti-Trinitarian and as that being as old as the hills of Gilboa I'd like you to show me where anyone else anywhere has pointed that out. I haven't see that. 

I am pleased however to see that you hold zero confidence in the writings of Ellen White as found in the periodicals - that sort of surprised me but I commend you for taking that position all the same. 

You were a nice person to have a conversation with - best wishes.

 

Gustave

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...