Leaderboard

The RSV vaccine is highly recommended for children and people 65+. It comes in two types: Arexvy: Has a 94.6% effectiveness in older adults, in a reduction of the risk of developing LRTD and overall efficacy of 82.6% in people with some other symptoms Abrysvo: Has a 67%effectiveness in older adults, in a reduction of the risk of developing LRTD and an overall efficacy of 86% in people with 3+ symptoms. NOTE: There is a supply shortage of the vaccine. You will likely not have a choice as to which vaccine you take.

Once again: This is about the work that our church is currently doing for outreach in Europe, but under the Ted Wilson General Conference. While his father was much more of a step back and do the administration and supervision while letting a broader approach to Adventism alone, Ted is much more hands on, and much more seeing the views of Robert Pierson and the 1922 General Conference as being the ideal. Therefore I do not expect much on the liberal side to be involved in this outreach to Europe. If the conditions were more likely to support the liberal As for the phrase: I believe you had something more specific in mind when you stated "any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them. Yes, I do. I'm sorry I was too wordy for you to notice. There is the danger of the liberals to see no absolute truths, to see everything as subjective, of our existential experience as the final authority. We have a lot of Christians who clearly see that this is a danger. But the ideas of surrendering our liberty of conscience to avoid this is what worries me. And what I mean by: Conservatives are tying God's hands in us wanting these only to call glory to conservative Christianity, and our narrow version of Adventism instead of the wideness of Christ., While there is probably more than this, what I'm aware of here is the health message. As I understand the Bible and Mrs. White, God wants to perform some amazing things through the health message. The health message is to teach us about how the natural and the supernatural will work together. It is a consistent God who cooperates with his laws, instead of the inconsistent god who will do instant healings or nothing depending on his current whim and if the faith healer can come up with the proper words, no matter what your diet or habits. If we were to find God suddenly doing amazing things through the health message, I'm afraid that there is too much of a spirit of wanting to bring praise to the messenger instead of to God. That someone like Elder Wilson would use it to say "See my version of Adventism is the true form of Adventism" and that he would use this to add even more teeth in pushing his view. Or even more extremes, the so called "Historic Adventists" who even see Elder Wilson as too liberal, would really push for the church to become completely their version. Or lets say that some of our Fordite evangelicals using the health message and God does the amazing things he wants to do, then they will say "See, we are right, so give up 1844..." And if God was to work equally through all of these groups, I fear that our spirit would not be to respect the whole tapestry of Adventism as a vessel to share God with the world, but again just argue among ourselves about who's version of Adventism is the true one and for it to be enforced onto the whole church. Thus for now God is mostly focused on the natural of the health message. Once we stop arguing over which version of Adventism is the greatest and respect each other, and respect the tapestry of Adventism, then God can put more of the supernatural into the results of our health message. Oh, and also, don't forget, it was several letters that Mrs. White wrote that were critical of the ideas that became the more conservative side of Adventism that I've been reading. I hope this helps.

Hi again Bonnie: Please let me specifically address the quote you wish for me to address: any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them, even if it is the same methods as the Pope. Daniel 11 has conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south. From ancient Jerusalem if you take the road north, you will eventually turn east and end up in Babylon. If you take the road south you will eventually turn west and get to Egypt and the Nile River. While both the king of Egypt and Babylon saw themselves as enforcing order over chaos; in Daniel 11 it was Babylon who had been the great super power enforcing it's view on to the world. And if you move beyond the government in Babylon and go to the Nile River, the Nile with it's delta helped to give the chaos monster, the leviathan as a 7 headed dragon. Thus you have the king of the north which either should be God or someone claiming to be God. And for the king of the south the chaos monster. We find the same picture in Revelation 12 and 13. We have the 7 headed dragon, and the beast with 7 heads. Along with the false prophet composes a counterfeit trinity. In heaven Lucifer was upset with God's law. He wanted everyone to be their own law. If this happens we end up allowing our feelings to define what is right or wrong. Our will becomes destroyed. There is the philosophy of existentialism which is based on this. When people say "you have your truth and I have mine" you are right in the mindset of the dragon, Existentialism is that we look for truth in our existential experience as the final authority. As we look at the trinity: we have God the Father who represents God as final authority and power. God the Son is personal and approachable our good friend. These two manifestations are both objective, but like God, he made us both objective and subjective. Thus God the Holy Spirit is God working with our subjective existential experience to help us where we are and to lead us into deeper truth. The dragon focusing on our subjective existential experience is thus a counterfeit Holy Spirit. The beast on the other hand represents authority, the king of the north, either God or someone in the place of God. The spirit of pharaoh, and the emperors from Babylon through Rome and beyond to have destroyed the chaos monster with force and control. While the dragon represents having your existential experience to be your final authority, the beast is any organized group that replaces God by being the final authority. With the dragon you look inward for truth. With these emperors, including the papacy over the years are willing to tell you what is truth and you simply obey. Thus in many ways we find the dragon and the beast, the king of the north and the king of the south as in a lot of ways opposite of each other. Small c catholic Europe was where church and state told you what to do and what to believe. It is authoritarianism. in contrast to the dragon's existentialism. The French revolution was based on the king of the south, the dragon, existentialism. While Lucifer originally saw this as ideal, over the French Revolution he and the demons found it to be a headache. They needed to personalize each temptation, and they hate us too much to want to individualize so many temptations. Over Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, catholic Europe including Papal supremacy was so much easier. So they decided to try that outside force telling people what is right and what is wrong and giving a mass temptation, so we got Hitler. When they were done with the man they threw him away like a lab rat when done. Now they are discussing how they can try again but in a way that would also deceive people like Bonhoeffer and Churchill. In the statement: any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them, even if it is the same methods as the Pope, I remember listening to a non-Adventist pastor on the radio. He gave an excellent cry of warning against existentialism, but his solution was that we need the power of the church and state to control this lawlessness. I've seen other Christians who are very concerned again about all the messages in the media to look for what is true for you, and thus the warnings against the dragon, but you don't hear the same worry over the church state placing of force. I've recently started reading a book by a far right author. She is looking at the horrors of the French Revolution and how it has grown into our general culture. I am in full agreement with her on this. I got the book because she has done homework that I need to do. But it is painful to read with how she is looking to the religious right taking control of the country as the solution to the problem. In all three of these situations, two of them both are looking for the religious right taking control of the government to be the solution, and the third (various groups that warn about the cries in media about following your heat and not the rules) leaves the solution blank, but they are not giving equal warning about the religious right. Both that radio preacher I heard many years ago, and this book that I'm trying to read, are doing an excellent job of warning against the dragon/existentialism/you have your truth and I have mine/ ignore your parents and follow your heart... and I am in full agreement with their concern, but while they clearly see the danger of the dragon; too many are looking for the religious right, the beast, to be the solution. Listening to some voices in Adventism, I am starting to see no longer a clear trumpet of warning against both the dragon and the beast. I'm finding more of a sympathy with the religious right, and as long as it is not specifically from the Vatican, not specifically the pope, and on other topics than specifically Sunday Laws; like I said, I am not normally a worrier of the slippery slope worries, I very much fear that they are compromising too much with the religious right, becoming more comfortable with the religious right. Supporting politicians who sound like who Mrs. White warns us about in the book Great Controversy. I fear that they are becoming too friendly with the beast in their running away from the dragon. And that when the test comes, even when looking at the Sabbath Sunday issue, I worry that they will figure out a loop hole that they will use as an excuse to go along with what is happening and expecting some other form of the Sabbath Sunday issue that they will see is wrong, but that it will be ok with what they see happening.

* I mentioned Fundamentalism in both posts. What I mean is that: 1. For much of history, in countries with more of a Christian influence, people tended to believe in God and that the Bible was his book. Now there were good people and bad people, but they both tended to hold this assumption. 2. From time to time in Bible study those who had a better understanding of the Greek and Hebrew would notice different writing styles, sometimes you see a story going along, then the story stops as there are other verses in a different writing style, and then the story would pick up right where it was left off. In the 1700s they began calling the looking at the different styles "Higher Criticism" and studying how they all came together as "Lower Criticism." These terms did NOT mean that one was better than the other. Both were seen as equal tools to get a better understanding of the word of God. 3. In the mid-1800s with the rise of evolution as the origin of life, the philosophy of the French Revolution, including what became Marxism, lead to people considering themselves not good or bad people who assumed that God was real and the Bible was his book; but they became atheists'. They started to look for evolution in everything. They latched on to higher criticism to really tear the Bible apart and would say "Hey, if God is supposed to be so perfect, and that He is behind the Bible, then why did it need to have different styles edited together?" and use this to argue that the Bible is a human book only and the editing was a reflection of human evolution. 4. In reaction to the atheists, those who continued to believe in God and the Bible began a new view of how inspiration worked and reasoned "Since God is perfect, then his word must be equally perfect, no errors, no contradictions, no editing." The way the atheists latched on to higher criticism and use it to attack the Bible, so this group latched on to lower criticism ONLY. This super strict view of inspiration was called "Fundamentalism" 5. Most churches then fell (Is this a part of the falling of Babylon) into either modernist who decreased their attachment to the Bible, or Fundamentalists with their over reaction. 6. Over the worst of this crisis, Seventh-day Adventists had used our mistaken view of the shut door which insulated us from the bulk of this crisis within Christianity. By the time we realized that we did not hold a correct view on the shut door, and rejoined the Christian Church as a whole, the bulk of this crisis had past. We became late comers to the crisis. Over all as we connected with the church as a whole, we tended to lean towards the Fundamentalists side, but just as pioneer Adventism was a tapestry, we also formed a tapestry in approaches to the inspiration of the Bible. I'm going to point out some exceptions to this rule, but most who have accepted Fundamentalism tended to be more on the liberal side of Fundamentalism. This the crisis did NOT devastate us as it did to so many others. 7. Now there was at least one major minister who believed that both sides were wrong and wanted to offer a moderate view of inspiration, still believing in God, still believing that the Bible was inspired of God, but not latching on to the extreme of Fundamentalism. This minister (sorry, I've heard his name a few times, but don't have it memorized or where I can easily get his name.) ended up loosing his ministry when a woman claimed that she and this minister was having an affair. This sandal ruined his influence. Eventually the lady admitted that she was lying, that she never had an affair with this pastor. But she said that it was an appropriate lie because she was protecting the Bible from his horrible view of inspiration. 8. While most of our even most conservatives would be considered on the more liberal side of Fundamentalism; there were a few people, specifically D. M. Canright, who did become a very strict Fundamentalist. Also W. W. Prescott read a couple of books on Fundamentalism and began teaching it, and A. G. Daniels was also acquiring a taste for Fundamentalism. When Mrs. White learned about this she asked all three to come and work for her. She then gave them assignments that terrorized them because they went against their Fundamentalist ideas. Prescott and Daniels started to move away from Fundamentalism. Canright latched on to it even harder and ended up leaving the church because Mrs. White did not fit into his Fundamentalism views. When you read his writings, this is the one point that keeps coming up. If he, like Daniels and Prescott, started to loosen his grip on Fundamentalism, he would have had no reason for leaving the church. Elder Jones eventually left the church and again his reason was because he became a strict Fundamentalist. Elder Spicer ended up coming to believe that God uses two different types of inspiration: that the Bible fit the Fundamentalist view, but that post and extra Biblical prophets, such as Mrs. White received a different/ non-Fundamentalist inspiration. Now, Elder Haskell insisted that Mrs. White does indeed fit Fundamentalism. He and Mrs. White had some intense arguments well, they were not loud or angry, but lets say intense discussions on how inspiration worked. There is a little bit of correspondence between them on this topic, with indications of a lot of talking. Haskell kept quoting the Fundamentalists theologians in telling Mrs. White how her visions and inspiration works. What we have of her replies, we keep finding her quoting the pastor from point #7, with one exception. The pastor saw inspiration as more of a subjective experience. Mrs. White made it clear that inspiration was very much an objective experience, but with that one change, she kept using that minister's views to describe inspiration. When writing the forward to Great Controversy she used a lot of quotes from him. And you can also find a number of quotes from him in the section of Selected Messages. Despite their disagreement over how inspiration works, they were polite and remained close friends. After her death Haskell and Willie continued to discuss the issue, but he was less friendly to Willie. I'm glad that Mrs. White choose not to accept his marriage proposal. Would he have been as friendly in this discussion if he was her husband? How about with Willie if Willie became his stepson? It may have split the church in half. 9. At the start of the 20th century there were Seventh-day Adventist members worried about Mrs. White having become an apostate. Some of their arguments included that she had become a trinitarian. That she was critical of some of the most faithful pastors, and that she no longer believed that she was inspired because she did not see herself as inerrant and infallible 10. The 1919 Bible Conference tried to encourage the more moderate view of inspiration. It was rejected in the 1922 general conference. (but they still were on the more moderate side of the Fundamentalists. So when I mentioned Fundamentalism, I am talking about that movement that started around the middle to late 1800s which went into the opposite ditch than the atheists fell into. And I try to hold a view of inspiration that is in harmony with Mrs. White's side of the discussions with Haskell, the side of that pastor in point #7 (with Mrs. White' modification to seeing inspiration as definitely an objective experience,) and the 1919 Bible Conference. 11. I understand both the "conservatives" as well as the "liberals" as in Ford, and even more so Rea, are united in that they are both definitely Fundamentalists. Each have their favorite quotes and texts that they fling at each other. In a lot of ways, our church continues the friction between the 1919 Bible Conference and the 1922 General Conference, and the 1922 people split into the more evangelicals, "liberals" and the more "Historical Advents" conservatives.

Hi again Bonnie: I felt that the above post was starting to get too rambling, and I'm getting back on topic: We are dealing with Evangelism in Europe. We have Ted Wilson as the General Conference President. What are the chances that the more liberal arm of our church will be leading out in this outreach endeavor? If for some reason someone like Desmond Ford had gotten into the GC president's office, I'd be at least as vocal against the theology that would come under his leadership. But Ford is now sleeping, and it is the view that Ted Wilson has for the church that is behind how we are going to reach out to Europe. Thus I look like I'm concerned about the conservatives. Yes, I am, but I'm equally concerned of those we are labeling here as liberal. In between these two views (or shall I say a more oneness of these two views) with holding to the tradition that Jesus had his own unique nature (and despite the way how people on both sides want to force her words to fit their view, as the trinity became more accepted and even central to Adventism; Mrs. White quoted the best comments of at least one theologian who gave an excellent description of the traditional view). Also, Seventh-day Adventism have two views of hell that we argue over. I believe that one can reach the European mind, as well as the believing in the inspiration of the Bible, but not strict Fundamentalists. *

Hi Bonnie: I'm sorry that I'm sounding too much like attacking the conservative and sadly thus leave the possibility that whoever is reading that I am thus embracing the liberal. I am uncomfortable with both sides. And, yes, it is both sides that are using righteousness by fear to force the rest of the church. The liberal side has not moved much farther then the church was in the 1500s. In fact they have even moved backwards some because they are so focused on Christ our substitute and legal adjustment, that they have moved from the traditional understanding that Jesus has his own unique nature which has similarities with different points with both Adam's nature before the fall, as well as ours after the fall. But the liberal extreme has often if not totally embraced the pre-fall nature. Now, again as I use the "label" liberal in a comparative way. We are all conservatives in the fact that we are all Biblical Maximalists and believe in a literal God who is active in history and that the Bible is a record of his work with people. Now, not all of us claim to be "Fundamentalists"* but living in this culture probably the most anti-Fundamentalist among us probably has a large amount of Fundamentalism inside of us. But despite our embrace, or trying to distance ourselves from Fundamentalism, we are as I said Biblical Maximalists, believe in the inspiration of scripture (either from an embracing of Fundamentalism, or a trying to distance ourselves from Fundamentalism) and God active in history including the interaction with the Bible writers. Too much of the 14th century views of what we are labeling "liberals" and their forsaking the traditional understanding of Jesus having his own unique nature, that they have turned salvation into "Say the magic words about Jesus and be saved. If you try anything else you are depending on your own works, and are thus lost. Be careful with how you treat the Sabbath, maybe it is best to give it up, because it is part of the law and thus of works. Luther never taught an investigative judgement, so what roll can that play if not some sort of legalism? You are depending on your own works so God's wrath will get you. Christ did it all on the cross, so you don't need anything else (yet they say their prayers which is a way of asking the Lord to do something beyond the cross, and for their lives and events to be investigated so that God can do something, hopefully what they are asking for.) I'm saved because I have accepted Jesus as my savior and my substitute. I have the assurance of salvation. Everyone else is lost. The reason why I did not do a paper on the correspondence between the White's and our pastors who's ideas involved into the more conservative part of the church, is because I did not realize that they were still an issue in the 1980s, and did not foresee how much their views was going to grow in the church over the years to come. I was focused on the problem of Ford, Rea and other liberals. Also I wonder if I could have even gotten much to them if I was actually trying to search. I just kept coming across these letters while searching for other topics. To get a better understanding of where I am coming from please reference the books by A LeRoy Moore such as "The Theology Crisis" (also I've seen this referred to as "Theology in Crisis") https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/theology-in-crisis-or-ellen-g-whites-concept-of-righteousness-by-faith-as-it-relates-to-contemporary-sda-issues/19317188/vintage/?vid=1238199904&mkwid=|dc&pcrid=77378313662347&pkw=&pmt=be&slid=&product=1238199904&plc=&pgrid=1238050402825500&ptaid=pla-4580977772571563&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping - Everything Else&utm_term=&utm_content=|dc|pcrid|77378313662347|pkw||pmt|be|product|1238199904|slid||pgrid|1238050402825500|ptaid|pla-4580977772571563|&msclkid=9c15f4d0c3cc192e3e5991965bb2c6f7 Also his "Questions on Doctrine Revisited" https://www.amazon.com/Questions-Doctrine-Revisited-Leroy-Moore/dp/1597650021 Richard and Beatrice Neal (Neil?) had a seminar showing how the Ford and Rea side took about half the truth, and how the so called "Historic Adventists" tended to take about the other half of the truth and the two sides use their portions of truth to fight each other. Sadly you can only find this in the original 1981 edition of Sanctuary and the Atonement, by the Biblical Research Committee, but I strongly, very strongly, recommend the 3 chapters "The Mighty Opposites: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2, and "We Must All Appear: The Investigative Judgment in the Writings of Ellen G. White.)

1. Kevin, I deeply appreciate the material that you are posting. 2. Bonnie, you have got a good discussion going. That is good. 3. The unisex bathrooms that I see are used by people of both genders, but not at the same time. IOW, they are only used by one person at a time, who locks the door to keep anyone else out. 4. I once lived in a country where the bathrooms were unisex and both females and males were using them at the same time. There never was a problem. However, my Father had a problem when he visited me in that country and a woman walked in on him when he was attending to business.