Leaderboard

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.