Stephen Bohr

[Gregory Matthews]

The following article informs as to the standing of Stephen Bohr in the SDA Church.

https://atoday.org/stephen-bohr-in-another-church-crisis/

 

[Rahab]

I have much respect for S. Bohr

[Gregory Matthews]

One can respect a person and disagree with aspects of that person's life.

[B/W Photodude]

Unfortunately, I do not believe we will be able to have an open discussion on this topic. Prior links to other websites regarding the actions of the Potomac conference have been deleted and apparently only acceptable politically correct websites (ie, those supporting the progressive agenda in the church) will be referred to. 

Spectrum, as usual, is engaged in another character assassination of someone who does not toe the progressive line. They are doing it to Bohr and have done it to others.

This quote from the Spectrum article was concerning:
The most recent example is in the Gaithersburg (Maryland) Hispanic church in the Potomac Conference, where Bohr joined church members in defying not only the conference and the pastor, but the standard procedures for inviting speakers into churches. 

The statement above reminded me of something I saw in a Greek orthodox church one time. The priest told the congregation that the "fathers" had decided and it was their duty to obey. The members of the church in question wanted to hear Stephen Bohr, however, the conference seems to think that they should determine who the members have speak in their church. Never mind that the Potomac conference says nothing to the pride festivities in other conference churches. Never mind that some of these churches were funded by the sacrifice of the members. (This is what happens when you let the conference hold the title to the church that the local members have struggled and sacrificed for to bring about.)

Stephen Bohr is a properly credentialed SDA pastor with "no demerits" on his record. There was no valid reason for this kerfluffle to be happening. The Potomac conference is doing to Bohr what the Florida conference did to Doug Batchelor. 

Bottom line: Stephen Bohr does not support the ordination of women. The Potomac conference is in full on rebellion against the greater church over this matter.  So they will cancel him in the Potomac conference.

[Gregory Matthews]

Additional information may be found in the following.

https://atoday.org/gaithersburg-the-rest-of-the-story/

NOTE:  We do not generally cite Fulcrum 7 in this forum.  Please follow this.

[B/W Photodude]

58 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Additional information may be found in the following.

https://atoday.org/gaithersburg-the-rest-of-the-story/

NOTE:  We do not generally cite Fulcrum 7 in this forum.  Please follow this.

Then, as I wrote, this is only a one way discussion and only presenting aToday's view of the situation. Much more has happened with the Gaithersburg church and the behavior of the pastor and the conference is quite concerning. 

I don't suppose you would care to elaborate on why Fulcrum7's stories are not welcome here especially when many websites have been linked here which even had very immoral pictures on them. 

Note: originally I mentioned Spectrum as being the source of the linked story. Apologies as it was aToday's story. However, Spectrum, aToday, what is the difference?

[Hanseng]

On 8/18/2023 at 1:26 AM, B/W Photodude said:

Bohr joined church members in defying not only the conference and the pastor, but the standard procedures for inviting speakers into churches. 

Don't know anything about Stephen Bohr. I do know that Jesus said it is the kings of the Gentiles who exercise Lordship over them. If a congregation wants a speaker, isn't it the pastor's job to facilitate that experience for the congregation? Imperious pastors are nothing new in the SDA church. Competent pastors promote conversation in the church. Incompetent ones stifle it. If Pastor Bohr opposes woman's ordination, the pastor should be able to show his congregation why he is wrong, rather than lock him out of the church. Adventism is becoming more like medieval papacy than a gospel centered denomination, if this kind of development is becoming the norm. They defied the pastor, conference, and didn't follow standard procedures. And people are worried about the Jesuits.

Why is Pastor Bohr hated, aside from opposing woman's ordination? There must be more to it than that.

[RonCorson]

14 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Additional information may be found in the following.

https://atoday.org/gaithersburg-the-rest-of-the-story/

NOTE:  We do not generally cite Fulcrum 7 in this forum.  Please follow this.

Why? A link is too much? That makes no sense. Either you want to bring more people into the conversation or keep people out. Which is it? I don't agree with much on F7 but I still look at it, I have even posted a couple of articles there. This purposeful separation of thoughts has to stop and we know Specrum and Atoday will not allow the other side but if this site completely stops the other side's views then the Adventist church has accepted balkanization. And guess what the only free site for Adventists would be F7!

[Gregory Matthews]

In this forum, we allow considerable freedom of civil discussion.  That includes much with which we who operate it disagree with.   However, we have always had limits.  Some of you have experienced that in private conversations.  Some have voluntarily stopped posting here because they did not want to comply with our limits.  Others have had their ability to post here removed. With the exception of those who have attempted to post porn, and commercialize their posts, those have been extremely few.

Fulcrum 7 exists.  People read its posts, as I do at times.  I do not want to criticize either it, or the people who post there. Its purpose appears to differ in some manner with the purpose of this forum.  If we were to allow considerable duplication of its posts in this forum, we would have to allow significant criticism of them.  I do not want that type of discussion to happen in this forum.  My position is that we should let Fulcrum 7 be what it is and we will be what we are.

I am aware that some of our members also are active on some levels in Fulcrum 7.  I am fine with that.  They have expressed their opinions in post here in this forum that abide by our standards.

Yes, I cite both Adventist Today and Spectrum.  But, you should be aware that I only reference a small subset of what is posted on those websites.  I also cite from the Review and a number of standard SDA publications.  But, my citations consist of a small part of what they publish.

The bottom line is:   Fulcrum 7, is doing ministry as it understands it to be ministry.  Our ministry in this forum is seen differently.  We welcome those who wish to participate in this ministry as we understand it.  Those who have some differences in their understanding of ministry are welcome to contribute to the ministry of Fulcrum 7.  

[RonCorson]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 If we were to allow considerable duplication of its posts in this forum, we would have to allow significant criticism of them.  I do not want that type of discussion to happen in this forum. 

This part does not seem to follow, By posting a link or someone in a thread posting a link how does that equate to duplication of its posts? Do you think by posting an Adventist Today or Spectrum link you are duplicating their website posts? I can't imagine any of their authors being upset about a link to their article posted here even if in the thread people were critical of the article. If it is of interest to Adventists it seems to fit in the parameters of this group. Most anyone who publishes a website article does so that it can be read. If someone tears it apart with good comments it should be a learning opportunity for those involved. For instance, Loren Seibold just posted an article on AToday that I will take apart later. I think that can be done with accurate comments and that it is worthy of consideration by those pro Seibold or pro Finley. Ultimately when we restrict what is linked to we restrict the conversation, if the goal is a search for truth we simply can't do that. If someone is kind enough to offer a source for some additional info it seems it should be appreciated and not denigrated. The reader can always see where the link goes and decide if it is an informative site or not. If they are not some kind of spam or hack site I don't see a problem with the link. If someone is just trying to keep their click count down that seems an unworthy goal. If someone is just trying to post F7 articles here without comments regarding the articles I would think that was out of place. I would always prefer some kind of substantive comment but I know you are hoping to get some kind of discussion going and as the moderator, I think that makes it perfectly acceptable, whereas if I just posted a link and said good article read this I think that would be less appropriate unless it was someone related to comments I had spelled out. It seems we could easily modify the current rules in a way that encourages comments and does not muddy this site.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have discussed this issue with Stan.  We are in agreement.   We do not wish for this forum to become a discussion of Fulcrum 7 articles--either for or against.  Any who want to discuss such can do so on the Fulcrum 7 website.

 

[Gustave]

Not that it adds anything of value to this specific discussion, but I just looked up Stephen Bohr and found a video posted on YouTube called "The Trinity Explained". I was surprised that I was liking his presentation - up until I got to the 37-minute mark where he articulated the Latter Day Saint (Mormon) Doctrine of the Godhead, literally word for word. 

 

 

[Theophilus]

I don't know about any of this stuff, but I do know this:

The ministry of Stephen Bohr brought me back onto the church after 20 years of being gone.

[B/W Photodude]

Over at Christian Forums, they have the Adventists seperated into "progressive Adventists" and "Traditional Adventists". And neither shall posts in the others groups!

So, it seems that ClubAdventist wishes to fashion itself like the progressive Adventists. This is really sad. After reading much of the Spectrum article regarding the amount of people leaving the church, I found it interesting the reasons they were leaving. Everything from not welcoming the LGBT+ groups to a hatred of Sister Ellen.

I have been reading a number of books by "historical authors" along with much of Sister Ellen's writings and find little in the progressive movement that resembles the church of yesterday. Much of what goes on in the SDA church today bears no resemblence to the church I grew up in. 

What is "interesting" is that people leaving the church is nothing new. You can read how the children of Israel over and over again fell away from the paths that God laid out for them to walk in. And people falling away has been occurring in the SDA church for as long as it has been around. Nothin new under the sun.

A. G. Daniells quoted the Review in one of his books, "The reason why many find the Christian life so deplorably hard, why they are so fickle, so variable, is, they try to attach themselves to Christ without first detaching themselves from these cherished idols."

And as Paul wrote, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" 2 Thessalonians 2:3

So, as it has been noted here before, more than one pastor who speaks from a very correct Bible position is being cancelled by the "authorities" and being prevented or attempted to prevent them from speaking to the people. This is clearly in the tradition of the Roman church when those in disagreement with the church were also "cancelled." And as has been noted, the persecution of God's people in the last days will even come from within the church.

[Gregory Matthews]

There are many forms of ministry.  Those who do ministry have a right to define the boundaries of their ministry, as that is necessary in order to be effective and to provide a focus for the ministry.  In this forum, we have defined our boundaries in terms that allow for some degree of both positive and negative evaluations of the SDA denomination.  However, our boundaries do have limits.  Those limits may be subjectively enforced.  They may be imperfect.  But, they do not come directly from God.  Everything human is imperfect. 

Fulcrum 7 has a ministry that goes beyond the level of criticism of the SDA Chruch that I wish to allow.  If this forum were to allow the posting of Fulcrum 7 material in this forum, we would have to allow a posted level of material that critiqued the Fulcrum 7 posts that goes beyond the level of criticism that I wish to allow.  I have discussed this With Stan and he agrees with me.

Therefore, for those two reasons, we are not going to allow this forum to become a mouth-piece for Fulcrum 7.  This also means that we are not going to allow free ranging criticism of Fulcrum 7.   On some levels, we feel that the Biblical course of prescribed action is simply to let Fulcrum 7 do its thing in peace, while we also do our thing as we feel it is best to  do.  In the eventual end, God will support that which God wants supported

 

 

[Hanseng]

9 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Therefore, for those two reasons, we are not going to allow this forum to become a mouth-piece for Fulcrum 7. 

For what it's worth, I agree with this policy. Those who have issues with Spectrum, AToday, or Fulcrum 7, Advindicate, and others should discuss those issues on those boards. Unfortunately, those boards are known to ban people who don't subscribe to, for example, the "queering" of Adventism or extreme views in other directions. Definitely a "my way or the highway" attitude. What I don't understand is why links on this website often lead to Spectrum or AToday but not to Fulcrum7. Obviously that is perceived as an endorsement of the "woke" perspective and disapproval of the conservative one. Whatever the reasons, I still respect the decisions made here.

[Gregory Matthews]

There is some truth in the idea that I agree with the material that I reference here in this forum.  I do agree with some of it.

However, I reference in this forum material with which I disagree.  

I post material here that I consider to be newsworthy to Adventism, in a major way, and which I think members ought aware.  Examples of this are my mention of the Miracle Meadows litigation and the recent $350,000,000 litigation.

I also cite material that I consider to be important to current Adventism and worthy of discussion pro and con.  My posting is not indicative of my personal position.  Sometimes those posts consist of doctrinal issues.  Actually, in some cases, I have not determined a position.

There is a reality that in some cases I make a decision on the basis of my perception of the accuracy of the website.  Some time in the past a reference was made in this forum, to a charge against a SDA clergy person that was made on another website.  I immediately closed down response and i stated that I would investigate the charges and would inform as to my findings.  As that clergy person served the SDA Church in another country, I spent 3-mionths investigating it.  I found that every charge of wrong doing was totally false.  There was no excuse for the false statement.  

I should be clear:  The above did not involve either the Bishop of Rome, or Ted Wilson.  But, to illustrate:  If you post a quote from Ted Wilson, at least read the document from which you are quoting and do not attribute a statement from the Pope to Ted Wilson.  Such is beyond excuse.

[Hanseng]

7 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I should be clear:

Any officer who elects to go through basic training with enlisted men, in order to get a better grasp of their experience, is going to get a lot of leeway from me when making decisions which I might not fully understand.

[phkrause]

Here's a followup to your article GM:

Gaithersburg: The Rest of the Story

Recently Adventist Today published a news story about the problems caused by Stephen Bohr’s invitation to the Gaithersburg, Maryland Hispanic Church, resulting in a deeply wounded congregation. 

https://atoday.org/gaithersburg-the-rest-of-the-story/

[Rahab]

Sounds like a big mess