Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[doug yowell]

Helloooooo.Nic and John. Are you ignoring my post? The quotations under discussion are found on p.100 of A Solemn Appeal under the heading ABORTION. A field trip to the Heritage Room at LLU may be fun but it's not necessary to validate what Dr. Miller is writing about here! Don't make me have to tell you "I told you"!!

[doug yowell]

Your sarcasm and animosity speak volumes. Have a nice Christmas.

[John317]

the issue was whether james white wrote it as claimed.

That's exactly right. And I called the Heritage Room in Loma Linda and the good lady there studied the document and told me that James White did not write it.

[John317]

Helloooooo.Nic and John. Are you ignoring my post?

Please see my reply to Nic in post#313372 on this thread.

[Nic Samojluk]

I think you make a good case and that the writer is probably talking about more than babies being "still born." I think several things are involved here, but it sounds like one of them are abortions. I'd be interested in what the staff at the Heritage Room in Loma Linda say. I doubt she'd disagree with you on that point. The main subject of conversation between myself and the Heritage Room was who wrote the article, not whether it dealt with abortions. The staff mentioned "still born babies" but that doesn't mean that's all the physician-writer was talking about.

Maybe some time we could meet there if you would like to. If so, send me a Private Message and let me know when you plan to be there. I live about half an hour away.

That is a good suggestion. I am not sure when I'll be able to do this. This coming week will be a busy one for me. I'll do the best I can. In the meantime, I would like to share with you a story I wrote this morning inspired by the Christmas season. I posted it on my new website. Here is the link to it: http://letsfocusonlife.com/?p=636 . Actually, perhaps I should post it here as well. It's rather short. Here you go. The Title is "Baby Jesus gets a Broken Toy Truck for Christmas:"

Once upon a time there was a boy living in a remote village in a foreign country where poverty was so prevalent that even policemen went barefooted, and so did children from poor families. Little Daniel’s father was having a hard time providing for his wife and child, for which reason he decided to cross the border to a neighboring country with the hope of securing employment. He promised his wife that he would send her money as soon as possible. Time went by, and a month later the woman received the bad news that her husband had been involved in an accident and was in a government hospital recovering from his injuries.

Then came Christmas Eve, and the local church had scheduled a Christmas program for the village dwellers. Danny’s mother was not feeling well, so he asked his mom permission to go to the Christmas program with a neighbor family, and she agreed. Danny took with him a little toy truck which he had inherited from a friend the previous Christmas season. It had seen better days, one wheel was missing, the original shiny paint had faded, and the dirt was showing where the paint was missing; nevertheless, it was the only toy little Danny had, and it went whenever he went.

The Christmas program went quite well, and everybody was in good spirits. Towards the end of the religious service, the pastor made an appeal. He reminded his parishioners that they were celebrating Jesus’ birthday and encouraged the people to offer a gift for the baby that had been born in Bethlehem two thousand years before. As the deacons started collecting the offering, Danny wanted to show somehow that he was grateful for what Jesus had done for him, but he had no money, not even a dime. His only possession was his old, dilapidated and dirty little toy truck. It took a real struggle, but as the plate came near where he was seated he made the resolve to give to Jesus his cherished possession.

When the deacons got together to count the money, they noticed the little toy truck, and one of them remarked: “I wonder who did this! I don’t understand how in the world someone attempted to desecrate this offering by putting in the offering basket this old, broken and dirty toy truck. Didn’t the person know where the trash can is? Nevertheless, another deacon who had seen the boy placing the toy in the offering basket responded: “That offering was from Danny. I visited the family a few days ago. They live in a thatched roof hut with a dirt floor. Her husband is ill in a foreign country. As far as I am concerned this is the most valuable offering we have received this evening."

"I know what I will do: I will write up the story of what transpired here this evening, send it to the local paper, and put the little toy truck on E-bay for sale.” He did, and a rich man, who had read the newspaper Christmas story, purchased the item for the equivalent of around one thousand dollars. Thus, the dirty, broken, and dilapidated toy truck became the most valuable offering collected said Christmas Eve.

[Nic Samojluk]

Helloooooo.Nic and John. Are you ignoring my post? The quotations under discussion are found on p.100 of A Solemn Appeal under the heading ABORTION. A field trip to the Heritage Room at LLU may be fun but it's not necessary to validate what Dr. Miller is writing about here! Don't make me have to tell you "I told you"!!

I agree! It is not necessary; nevertheless, I need to correct any factual errors I discover in my dissertation, and my duty is to consult the original sources whenever this is feasible. I intend to do this ASAP. I do thank those who made this constructive criticism which will make my research more trustworthy.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: John317

I think you make a good case and that the writer is probably talking about more than babies being "still born." I think several things are involved here, but it sounds like one of them are abortions. I'd be interested in what the staff at the Heritage Room in Loma Linda say. I doubt she'd disagree with you on that point. The main subject of conversation between myself and the Heritage Room was who wrote the article, not whether it dealt with abortions. The staff mentioned "still born babies" but that doesn't mean that's all the physician-writer was talking about.

Maybe some time we could meet there if you would like to. If so, send me a Private Message and let me know when you plan to be there. I live about half an hour away.

That is a good suggestion. I am not sure when I'll be able to do this. This coming week will be a busy one for me. I'll do the best I can. In the meantime, I would like to share with you a story I wrote this morning inspired by the Christmas season. I posted it on my new website. Here is the link to it: http://letsfocusonlife.com/?p=636 . Actually, perhaps I should post it here as well. It's rather short. Here you go. The Title is "Baby Jesus gets a Broken Toy Truck for Christmas:"

Once upon a time there was a boy living in a remote village in a foreign country where poverty was so prevalent that even policemen went barefooted, and so did children from poor families. Little Daniel’s father was having a hard time providing for his wife and child, for which reason he decided to cross the border to a neighboring country with the hope of securing employment. He promised his wife that he would send her money as soon as possible. Time went by, and a month later the woman received the bad news that her husband had been involved in an accident and was in a government hospital recovering from his injuries.

Then came Christmas Eve, and the local church had scheduled a Christmas program for the village dwellers. Danny’s mother was not feeling well, so he asked his mom permission to go to the Christmas program with a neighbor family, and she agreed. Danny took with him a little toy truck which he had inherited from a friend the previous Christmas season. It had seen better days, one wheel was missing, the original shiny paint had faded, and the dirt was showing where the paint was missing; nevertheless, it was the only toy little Danny had, and it went whenever he went.

The Christmas program went quite well, and everybody was in good spirits. Towards the end of the religious service, the pastor made an appeal. He reminded his parishioners that they were celebrating Jesus’ birthday and encouraged the people to offer a gift for the baby that had been born in Bethlehem two thousand years before. As the deacons started collecting the offering, Danny wanted to show somehow that he was grateful for what Jesus had done for him, but he had no money, not even a dime. His only possession was his old, dilapidated and dirty little toy truck. It took a real struggle, but as the plate came near where he was seated he made the resolve to give to Jesus his cherished possession.

When the deacons got together to count the money, they noticed the little toy truck, and one of them remarked: “I wonder who did this! I don’t understand how in the world someone attempted to desecrate this offering by putting in the offering basket this old, broken and dirty toy truck. Didn’t the person know where the trash can is? Nevertheless, another deacon who had seen the boy placing the toy in the offering basket responded: “That offering was from Danny. I visited the family a few days ago. They live in a thatched roof hut with a dirt floor. Her husband is ill in a foreign country. As far as I am concerned this is the most valuable offering we have received this evening."

"I know what I will do: I will write up the story of what transpired here this evening, send it to the local paper, and put the little toy truck on E-bay for sale.” He did, and a rich man, who had read the newspaper Christmas story, purchased the item for the equivalent of around one thousand dollars. Thus, the dirty, broken, and dilapidated toy truck became the most valuable offering collected said Christmas Eve.

Excellent story Nic.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

In the meantime, I would like to share with you a story I wrote this morning inspired by the Christmas season. I posted it on my new website. Here is the link to it: http://letsfocusonlife.com/?p=636 . Actually, perhaps I should post it here as well. It's rather short. Here you go. The Title is "Baby Jesus gets a Broken Toy Truck for Christmas:"

Once upon a time there was a boy living in a remote village in a foreign country where poverty was so prevalent that even policemen went barefooted, and so did children from poor families. Little Daniel’s father was having a hard time providing for his wife and child, for which reason he decided to cross the border to a neighboring country with the hope of securing employment. He promised his wife that he would send her money as soon as possible. Time went by, and a month later the woman received the bad news that her husband had been involved in an accident and was in a government hospital recovering from his injuries.

Then came Christmas Eve, and the local church had scheduled a Christmas program for the village dwellers. Danny’s mother was not feeling well, so he asked his mom permission to go to the Christmas program with a neighbor family, and she agreed. Danny took with him a little toy truck which he had inherited from a friend the previous Christmas season. It had seen better days, one wheel was missing, the original shiny paint had faded, and the dirt was showing where the paint was missing; nevertheless, it was the only toy little Danny had, and it went whenever he went.

The Christmas program went quite well, and everybody was in good spirits. Towards the end of the religious service, the pastor made an appeal. He reminded his parishioners that they were celebrating Jesus’ birthday and encouraged the people to offer a gift for the baby that had been born in Bethlehem two thousand years before. As the deacons started collecting the offering, Danny wanted to show somehow that he was grateful for what Jesus had done for him, but he had no money, not even a dime. His only possession was his old, dilapidated and dirty little toy truck. It took a real struggle, but as the plate came near where he was seated he made the resolve to give to Jesus his cherished possession.

When the deacons got together to count the money, they noticed the little toy truck, and one of them remarked: “I wonder who did this! I don’t understand how in the world someone attempted to desecrate this offering by putting in the offering basket this old, broken and dirty toy truck. Didn’t the person know where the trash can is? Nevertheless, another deacon who had seen the boy placing the toy in the offering basket responded: “That offering was from Danny. I visited the family a few days ago. They live in a thatched roof hut with a dirt floor. Her husband is ill in a foreign country. As far as I am concerned this is the most valuable offering we have received this evening."

"I know what I will do: I will write up the story of what transpired here this evening, send it to the local paper, and put the little toy truck on E-bay for sale.” He did, and a rich man, who had read the newspaper Christmas story, purchased the item for the equivalent of around one thousand dollars. Thus, the dirty, broken, and dilapidated toy truck became the most valuable offering collected said Christmas Eve.

Quite a good story. I like it.

[Nic Samojluk]

Excellent story Nic.

Richard,

A few months ago, when you invited me to participate in this blog which you had posted, I gladly accepted feeling it was my duty, since I had written the original. The result was that in doing so, I was forced to neglect my personal mail and my three web sites I had created. I believe that I have fulfilled my duty the best way I can, and that it is time for me to go back to what I was doing.

Right now I have over 200 Emails in my folder waiting to be read and answered. I need to take care of that and of other pressing projects waiting for my attention. This means that I may have to be very selective in the future about which blog comments I should respond to. I hope you and others will understand.

By the way, I am glad you did like the Christmas story I wrote. In the event you have nothing else to do, I suggest you check some of the other stories I have written in the past. Here are some of them:

In the Name of the Lord: http://sdaforum.com/page37.html

A Stigmata Case in Loma Linda?: http://sdaforum.com/page38.html

Nathan Chirstian's Dilemma: http://sdaforum.com/page42.html

The Magic Key: http://sdaforum.com/page50.html

If You Choose That Profession I Will Cry!: http://sdaforum.com/page51.html

Designing a Home With the Church in Mind: http://sdaforum.com/page56.html

What My Kitchen Floor Taught Me: http://sdaforum.com/page60.html

Showers of Blessings: http://sdaforum.com/page63.html

God bless!

[Guest]

Thank you Nic, I didn't mean to take you away from your other duties, but I always like it when I see you posting here at Club A. It lets me know you are alive and well. I will have to come and check out your new websites.

[doug yowell]

Nic, I've already posted the official position of the SDA church. We are not pro-choice. What individual church members say and do may be different.

As I stated before, I'll have to disagree with you on this one,Steve. There are good reasons for doing so.The church does NOT have an "official position".In this, Teresa is 100% correct. The "guidelines" were adopted by the Annual Council in Oct. of 1992. They were released to the public for the first time in the Dec.31,1992 edition of the Adventist Review(pp.11,12). Here's how the editors of the "official" Adventist publication described them: "Committee members...then adopted the proposed guidelines and position statements covering abortion, temperence, environment, and care for the dying. Because these documents are of high interest, we are printing them here before the rest of the official minutes...This printing will serve as the official publication of minutes regarding these actions. As you read these items, remember that the documents on abortion and care for the dying are GUIDELINES (emphasis theirs),NOT CHURCH POLICY (emphasis mine).They are intended to be pastoral in nature, providing help to individual members as they personally struggle with the issues. The other two documents state the OFFICIAL CHURCH POSITION(emphasis mine)on temperence principles and the environment.Editors"

This should be pretty clear.Official church positions are evidenced by enactment of church policies. The church has official policies regarding smoking, drinking,ect..(apparantly a six pack of Bud Light, and a carton of Cools contain more moral significance than a healthy unborn child)and even the environment, but not abortion.

[teresaq]

"teresa" is only 100% correct on what the pioneers position was. no position

i had heard what the current position was pro-choice, but based on what you are saying it is still, no position. it is neither for or against, officially.

[doug yowell]

Steve,notice how the intent of the "guidelines" is described as "pastoral".Then editor of Liberty magazine,Roland Hegstad wrote,"The seeming ambivalence in this statement is easily explained. On the one hand, we don't have a Pope on the Potomac to tell us what we must do (except when it involves tobacco,alcohol,drugs, and the environment). On the other hand, we respect the church member's right to make some very personal decisions."(I think brother Hegstad forgot to look on the other hand)--Additional comments,Mine.(Liberty Jan./Feb.1993)So each of Hegstad's explanations is a paraphrase of the pro-choice position! These examples are only the tip of the abortion iceberg that the church has adopted over the past 40 or so years.At best it has miserably failed to provide any kind of moral clarity on the issue. Instead (and this has been well documented) it has produced a history of contradictory, and often times false, and misleading public statements on where the "church" really stands. This is further contaminated by the complete absence of any official support to the prolife community or outreach to those who face an unwanted pregnancy. Actions speak louder than words.

[doug yowell]

"teresa" is only 100% correct on what the pioneers position was. no position

i had heard what the current position was pro-choice, but based on what you are saying it is still, no position. it is neither for or against, officially.

It is not what I'm saying,it's what the official church paper says.And on this you are 100% right.The official church position is that there is no official church position. It is the defacto church position and it's practice that receives my criticism. As for the pioneers,you are 100% incorrect. The pioneers were 100% (no exceptions) opposed to abortion and thought it murder. This is the position that I take and am convinced that the SDA church should take as well. If you want to argue that the early Adventist "church" organization took no official position you would be historically 100% accurate. You'll get no argument from me.But then, what would have been the need for an official position in 1870?

[teresaq]

As for the pioneers,you are 100% incorrect. The pioneers were 100% (no exceptions) opposed to abortion and thought it murder. .... If you want to argue that the early Adventist "church" organization took no official position you would be historically 100% accurate. You'll get no argument from me.But then, what would have been the need for an official position in 1870?

an argument from silence is hardly proof of anything.

there is just no discussion on the subject in the archives, other than a couple of articles. ellen whites statements on the criminality of bringing children into the world unless under certain circumstances seems to have settled the issue.

criminality of bringing children into the world unless under certain circumstances.

we may not like that, but i have lived long enough to see, and understand, the wisdom of what she said and meant!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Just looking in...I already made my point. And Teresaq is doing a great job here.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Steve Billiter

Nic, I've already posted the official position of the SDA church. We are not pro-choice. What individual church members say and do may be different.

As I stated before, I'll have to disagree with you on this one,Steve. There are good reasons for doing so.The church does NOT have an "official position".In this, Teresa is 100% correct. The "guidelines" were adopted by the Annual Council in Oct. of 1992. They were released to the public for the first time in the Dec.31,1992 edition of the Adventist Review(pp.11,12). Here's how the editors of the "official" Adventist publication described them: "Committee members...then adopted the proposed guidelines and position statements covering abortion, temperence, environment, and care for the dying. Because these documents are of high interest, we are printing them here before the rest of the official minutes...This printing will serve as the official publication of minutes regarding these actions. As you read these items, remember that the documents on abortion and care for the dying are GUIDELINES (emphasis theirs),NOT CHURCH POLICY (emphasis mine).They are intended to be pastoral in nature, providing help to individual members as they personally struggle with the issues. The other two documents state the OFFICIAL CHURCH POSITION(emphasis mine)on temperence principles and the environment.Editors"

This should be pretty clear.Official church positions are evidenced by enactment of church policies. The church has official policies regarding smoking, drinking,ect..(apparantly a six pack of Bud Light, and a carton of Cools contain more moral significance than a healthy unborn child)and even the environment, but not abortion.

Doug,

We seem to agree on the position of the Adventist pioneers, while disagreeing on the current position of the Adventist Church; nevertheless our disagreement is rather a question of semantics. We seem to agree that the way our church behaves can be accurately described as pro-choice. Pro-choice means that each pregnant woman has the moral right to decide whether to kill her unborn baby without her action being considered as a violation of the Commandments which forbids the shedding of innocent blood. This is quite evident from reading our “Guidelines on Abortion,” from the fact that said guidelines are nor prescriptive but rather descriptive, and from the fact that the most influential leaders within the church are either silent on the issue or else they defend the pro-choice position on abortion.

The most prominent books published by leading Adventist authors do support my contention: “What is a Person,” authored by James Walters, and “Abortion,” edited by David Larson. The articles published on the topic published by the official and independent magazines have been defending the pro-choice policy on abortion. The only exception I am aware is my article published by “Adventist Today.” Every time I have asked for a chance to present the pro-life position on the issue has been rejected with the excuse that “the issue is controversial,” while those in the pro-choice camp were granted the privilege of defending their views. Loma Linda University was granted the right to draft our “Guidelines on Abortion,” which is equivalent to asking the tobacco company to write the policy on the sale of tobacco products.

At the bottom of the guidelines document we find the following explanation: "These guidelines were approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council session in Silver Spring, Maryland, October 12, 1992." http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html . My understanding is that when the Annual Council takes a vote, the document becomes the official voice of the church. Am I wrong on this? Evidently, you rely on how the “editors of the ‘official’ Adventist publication” have described the action of the church, while I am relying on the actual vote of the Annual Council. It seems to me that the actual vote of the Annual Council bears more authority than the opinion of the editors of Adventist publications.

The attempt to distinguish between “guidelines” and “policy” is a question of semantics. It is the equivalent of trying to ride on a horse and a mule at the same time. Even if you insist on a fine distinction between those two terms, you will discover that the fact that the guidelines are descriptive instead of being prescriptive talks volumes in favor of the true position of the church on the issue of abortion. The guidelines grant our Adventist medical institutions the right to draft their own guidelines, which is the equivalent of a pro-choice policy. The church is telling our hospitals: You have the privilege of exercising your choice in this matter. If women have the moral right to choose, and our hospitals have been granted the right to choose, why do we need to wonder whether the church is pro-life or pro-choice? If the church walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do we need to wonder whether it is in fact a duck?

[Nic Samojluk]

Steve,notice how the intent of the "guidelines" is described as "pastoral".Then editor of Liberty magazine,Roland Hegstad wrote,"The seeming ambivalence in this statement is easily explained. On the one hand, we don't have a Pope on the Potomac to tell us what we must do (except when it involves tobacco,alcohol,drugs, and the environment). On the other hand, we respect the church member's right to make some very personal decisions."(I think brother Hegstad forgot to look on the other hand)--Additional comments,Mine.(Liberty Jan./Feb.1993)So each of Hegstad's explanations is a paraphrase of the pro-choice position! These examples are only the tip of the abortion iceberg that the church has adopted over the past 40 or so years.At best it has miserably failed to provide any kind of moral clarity on the issue. Instead (and this has been well documented) it has produced a history of contradictory, and often times false, and misleading public statements on where the "church" really stands. This is further contaminated by the complete absence of any official support to the prolife community or outreach to those who face an unwanted pregnancy. Actions speak louder than words.

This is very evident from the facts of the case!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

"teresa" is only 100% correct on what the pioneers position was. no position

i had heard what the current position was pro-choice, but based on what you are saying it is still, no position. it is neither for or against, officially.

It is not what I'm saying,it's what the official church paper says.And on this you are 100% right.The official church position is that there is no official church position. It is the defacto church position and it's practice that receives my criticism. As for the pioneers,you are 100% incorrect. The pioneers were 100% (no exceptions) opposed to abortion and thought it murder. This is the position that I take and am convinced that the SDA church should take as well. If you want to argue that the early Adventist "church" organization took no official position you would be historically 100% accurate. You'll get no argument from me.But then, what would have been the need for an official position in 1870?

Doug,

You are quite right. There was no need for to the nascent Adventist Church to adopt an official position on abortion because abortion was illegal at the time and all Christian denominations were on the side of the pro-life position on the issue. The statements we have from the original Adventist pioneers are clearly pro-life and in apposition to the practice of killing the unborn. There are no exceptions to this understanding like we have them listed today in our Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion”: rape, incest, when the pregnant female is a minor, or when the woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and this is beginning to affect her “mental health” [the woman is depressed].

By the way, I did visit the Heritage Room of the LLU Library yesterday and did verify the constructive criticism I received from some members of this blog. I stand corrected: the quote I attributed to James White was actually written by E.P. Miller, but James White did edit the book “A Solemn Appeal,” and it is not a pamphlet, but a real book, and the quote I erroneously attributed to James White is preceded by the subtitle “ABORTION,” which means that the issue being addressed is not merely sexual misconduct, but rather the intentional killing of the unborn.

I am in the process of editing my doctoral dissertation in order to correct this factual error. This discovery does not negate my contention that our Adventist pioneers were pro-life, or the main premise of my investigation: That our church has veered from its original attitude towards abortion. You can see the progress I am making on this task online: http://letsfocusonlife.com .

[teresaq]

You are quite right. There was no need for to the nascent Adventist Church to adopt an official position on abortion...

[teresaq]

Just looking in...I already made my point. And Teresaq is doing a great job here.

teresaq is going to let nic continue to put out a faulty paper that the stable can easily see through.

i wont be pointing out the rest of the errors since the educated will spot them right off, which is probably why the church wont touch it with a 10-foot pole.

those who wish to believe it give evidence of having made up their minds regardless of what the truth may be, so that seems to be another reason to leave the error in.

[doug yowell]

this is a faulty assumption, since abortion, whether legal or not, was being addressed for a "minute", then dropped in light of ellen whites statements on the criminality of bringing children into the world unless under certain defined circumstances.

Teresa, Why would SDA pioneers drop their condemnation of abortion because of EGW's statements on the criminality of bringing children into the world? What does the one have to do with the other? Isn't this a non sequitur?

[karl]

Does an unborn baby qualify as "the least of these?"

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Karl, did you read the whole thread?

[karl]

Karl, did you read the whole thread?

Negatory. Sorry about that. Long one. I obviously missed something?