Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged,

I did read your response to Richard in which you made the following claim:

Quote:

Too often, ones like Nic who have "special truth" make it so special that no one else has access to the materials they do; thereby setting themselves up as the sole authority on the subject at hand. Its a very common ruse these days. The historical points in question should be able to be established just fine with materials easily available to the general public. I am not belittling what you did in the Heritage Room Redwood, I am very interested to hear you comment more on what you learned. I am making a separate point re Nic with that comment.

After reading such a comment it is evident to me that you did not read my dissertation. If you had, you would have noticed that the great majority of the facts gathered for my investigation came from our official “Ministry” magazine. This is available online, and I did provide hundreds of links to this source. How can you suggest that they represent “special truths” which “no one else has access to the materials”? This claim reveals that you did not take the time to examine the facts before rendering your critical verdict. This harms your credibility a great deal. Please make the proper correction to what you have stated before everybody learns of the weak position you have taken.

[Nic Samojluk]

Sorry. The room is secret. You have to sign on the dotted line just in order to enter the room. After they verify your identity to make sure you aren't a Jesuit. Once you enter the room you are sworn to secrecy. And you are not allowed to take any of the materials outside of the locked room.

Thus, it is all secret and I am not allowed to divulge any of it's vast materials.

Evidently you are talking about some secret room with which I am not familiar with.

The Loma Linda University Library Heritate Room is open to everybody; there are no signs on the door to keep anybody out; nobody asks for your identity; nobody is sworn to secrecy; and you are allowed to copy the materials you are interested in.

I was there the other day and requested some copies which were provided to me without any restrictions. Of course, I had to pay for them.

Can you please explain what secret room you were referring to?

[Woody]

Sorry. It's a secret.

[Woody]

Actually. I think I was mistaken. I was thinking you were referring to the room where they hold the original documents of Ellen White in the James White Library at Andrews.

This is what it is like to be in that room. Well I embellished a little about the 'secret' part. But you do have to show ID and sign in before entering the room. And you are not allowed to take anything out of the room.

I forget the name of it. But it the room where you can see the original documents.

[Overaged]

Overaged,

I did read your response to Richard in which you made the following claim:

Quote:

Too often, ones like Nic who have "special truth" make it so special that no one else has access to the materials they do; thereby setting themselves up as the sole authority on the subject at hand. Its a very common ruse these days. The historical points in question should be able to be established just fine with materials easily available to the general public. I am not belittling what you did in the Heritage Room Redwood, I am very interested to hear you comment more on what you learned. I am making a separate point re Nic with that comment.

After reading such a comment it is evident to me that you did not read my dissertation. If you had, you would have noticed that the great majority of the facts gathered for my investigation came from our official “Ministry” magazine. This is available online, and I did provide hundreds of links to this source. How can you suggest that they represent “special truths” which “no one else has access to the materials”? This claim reveals that you did not take the time to examine the facts before rendering your critical verdict. This harms your credibility a great deal. Please make the proper correction to what you have stated before everybody learns of the weak position you have taken.

Nic; I was referring to the comment you made to bolster your case where you said you spent many hours sitting in some room pouring over some kind of original documents. Such things are not readily or easily available to the general public. My position is not "weak" until proven weak; which you have not come close to doing.

[Overaged]

Mr. Murphy is my dog.

LOL I didn't know that! That's a pretty cool looking beast you have there.

[doug yowell]

Actually. I think I was mistaken. I was thinking you were referring to the room where they hold the original documents of Ellen White in the James White Library at Andrews.

This is what it is like to be in that room. Well I embellished a little about the 'secret' part. But you do have to show ID and sign in before entering the room. And you are not allowed to take anything out of the room.

I forget the name of it. But it the room where you can see the original documents.

You're a dead man now, Redwood!! Don't answer the door!!!

[Woody]

Quote:

You're a dead man now, Redwood!! Don't answer the door!!!

Ahhh. That's nothing new. I stick my neck out all the time.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Overaged,

Nic; I was referring to the comment you made to bolster your case where you said you spent many hours sitting in some room pouring over some kind of original documents. Such things are not readily or easily available to the general public. My position is not "weak" until proven weak; which you have not come close to doing.

What are you talking about, Overaged? Are you accusing Nic,and I of lying about spending hours in research??? Public access to the original documents are as readily available to the GP as the names of those posted on the Viet Nam Memorial--the Wall. And once the content of those documents is published they are even MORE widely available!Unless you can provide some evidence (other than your own personal skepticism)that those documents don't exist or that they have been misquoted, your criticisms about their validity don't yet reach the status of "weak". Thankfully, Thomas took the time to examine Jesus when given the opportunity.How bout you taking an hour and checking out these sources for yourself. Tell em,Nic sentchya.And don't mention that you know Redwood!

[Woody]

Quote:

Tell em,Nic sentchya.And don't mention that you know Redwood!

Good Advice Doug.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Describing this as “illegitimate” is an outright lie for which Pam and company should be ashamed!

I never said your dissertation was illegitimate. That was YOUR word. Your degree is not a legitimate PhD. And you, my friend, ought to be ashamed of proffering it as such. You are not an expert in this field.

Originally Posted By: nic

If Pam wanted to insinuate that I might be working in conjunction with Catholicism, let me assure her that I am as second generation Adventist and have never had any connection with Rome.

I didn't insinuate anything of the kind. I don't care if you're Pope. Your PhD is still worthless.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Mr. Murphy is my dog.

LOL I didn't know that! That's a pretty cool looking beast you have there.

Thank you

[Overaged]

Nic; I was referring to the comment you made to bolster your case where you said you spent many hours sitting in some room pouring over some kind of original documents. Such things are not readily or easily available to the general public. My position is not "weak" until proven weak; which you have not come close to doing What are you talking about, Overaged? Are you accusing Nic,and I of lying about spending hours in research??? Public access to the original documents are as readily available to the GP as the names of those posted on the Viet Nam Memorial--the Wall. And once the content of those documents is published they are even MORE widely available!Unless you can provide some evidence (other than your own personal skepticism)that those documents don't exist or that they have been misquoted, your criticisms about their validity don't yet reach the status of "weak". Thankfully, Thomas took the time to examine Jesus when given the opportunity.How bout you taking an hour and checking out these sources for yourself. Tell em,Nic sentchya.And don't mention that you know Redwood!

Sorry if I gave the impression of accusing you of lying. If you go back and read more carefully, what I actually said was that Nic used some sources which the general public cannot easily access; if they can at all. This kind of thing sets the stage for Nic to be in authority on the matter. He has been the one to say where he got his sources, and to use his so called degree as qualifying himself preeminently here; not me. I am saying I don't think it's right. Try just going with what I say; not what you'd like me to say. Sensationalizing your replies to me like this only further weakens your case.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Nic; I was referring to the comment you made to bolster your case where you said you spent many hours sitting in some room pouring over some kind of original documents. Such things are not readily or easily available to the general public. My position is not "weak" until proven weak; which you have not come close to doing What are you talking about, Overaged? Are you accusing Nic,and I of lying about spending hours in research??? Public access to the original documents are as readily available to the GP as the names of those posted on the Viet Nam Memorial--the Wall. And once the content of those documents is published they are even MORE widely available!Unless you can provide some evidence (other than your own personal skepticism)that those documents don't exist or that they have been misquoted, your criticisms about their validity don't yet reach the status of "weak". Thankfully, Thomas took the time to examine Jesus when given the opportunity.How bout you taking an hour and checking out these sources for yourself. Tell em,Nic sentchya.And don't mention that you know Redwood!

Sorry if I gave the impression of accusing you of lying. If you go back and read more carefully, what I actually said was that Nic used some sources which the general public cannot easily access; if they can at all. This kind of thing sets the stage for Nic to be in authority on the matter. He has been the one to say where he got his sources, and to use his so called degree as qualifying himself preeminently here; not me. I am saying I don't think it's right. Try just going with what I say; not what you'd like me to say. Sensationalizing your replies to me like this only further weakens your case.

I'm trying my best to understand you but I think that maybe part of the problem is that the way you communicate words. So let me try again to understand you. You continue to doubt whether Nic's sources can be publically accessed,right? That's exactly what you wrote!! But you haven't checked their accessibility yourself,right? But you're willing to say that you don't think it's right for Nic to refer to his sources as proof that he actually is qualified (preeminently or not) more than the general public (I assume you would include yourself in this category)to address the issue in question,right?So that I don't misrepresent you, please answer a reasonable question. If it were demonstrated that Nic did,in fact,what he claimed (1000's of hrs.of research)and his sources were proven to to be documented accurately, would you then concede that he is well qualified to speak to the question "Is the SDA Church Prolife?". If not, would you tell us WHAT you would require to qualify as an "expert". And finally, please clarify for me what my case is (maybe you're not understanding me either)that my "sensationalized replies" have weakened?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

(1000's of hrs.of research

what a waste...

And you want Overaged to spend an hour doing what you say takes 1000's of hrs?

Originally Posted By: DougYowell

Unless you can provide some evidence (other than your own personal skepticism)that those documents don't exist or that they have been misquoted, your criticisms about their validity don't yet reach the status of "weak".

One wrong quote has already been identified. It is not incumbent upon Overaged to go through Nic's entire "dissertation" to look for more. It WAS incumbent upon Nic to prove that his evidence, i.e., quotes, were accurate. He did not do that.

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic; I was referring to the comment you made to bolster your case where you said you spent many hours sitting in some room pouring over some kind of original documents. Such things are not readily or easily available to the general public. My position is not "weak" until proven weak; which you have not come close to doing.

Could you provide me with the reference. For some reason, I do not recall having claimed to have "spent many hours sitting in some room pouring over some kind of original documents."

I did rely on the LLU Library Heritage Room in order to verify the original source for what James White had published about abortion, but my major source of information was not the Heritage Room.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

from Reason for Posting Dissertation here

Quote:

he managed to successfully pass the last examination

split infinitive needs correcting

Quote:

friends an acquaintances he has decided

needs a comma, correct spelling of "and"

Quote:

dissertaion

correct spelling of dissertation

Quote:

Readers Corner:

use apostrophe on Reader's

The Dissertation

Quote:

FROM PRO-LIFE TO PRO-CHOICE

THE DRAMATIC SHIFT OF

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS’ ATTITUDE

TOWARDS ABORTION

there should be a colon [:] after PRO-CHOICE

Under Acknowledgements

Quote:

Many books have been written and many studies have been conducted dealing with the controversial issue of abortion, but very few of them have been authored by Seventh-day Adventist scholars, and much less by someone who is not a paid employee of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Actually, none has been written by someone who is completely detached from the trappings of church employment, where fear of loosing the source of one’s income might tempt the author to compromise on the integrity of the data available to the investigator.

run-on sentences. Make smaller.

Here is an edited version of this paragraph:

Many books have been written and numerous studies have been conducted dealing with the controversial issue of abortion. Very few, however, of these have been authored by Seventh-day Adventist scholars. Indeed, none have been written by someone who is completely detached from church employment [leave out "trappings"] where fear of losing one's job may tempt the author to compromise the integrity of the available data.

Under "Abstract"

Quote:

From the moment of its inception the members of the Seventh-day Adventist [sDA] religious denomination portrayed themselves as the apocalyptic Remnant that keep the commandments of God in the midst of almost universal apostasy.

Hyperbole...

Edited version:

From its earliest times, the members of the Seventh-day Adventist [sDA] denomination saw themselves as the apocalyptic Remnant church that kept the commandments of God in the midst of what they considered to be a nearly worldwide apostasy. (YOU NEED REFERENCES HERE)

Quote:

One of those commandments clearly forbids killing, yet abortions are taking place inside SDA operated hospitals, both therapeutic and even elective in some of them, while conflicting statements are made by leading officials of the church, with the current president of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist affirming that the SDA church is pro-life.

You are using a run-on sentence for the whole thing. Cut it up into smaller pieces.

Edited version:

One of those commandments, the sixth, forbids killing. It is submitted that abortions are the killing of the unborn. Abortions, however, are taking place inside SDA-operated hospitals, both therapeutic and elective abortions. The SDA church's leading officials and the current General Conference President have made conflicting statements, affirming that the SDA church is pro-life. (YOU NEED REFERENCES HERE)

Quote:

To elucidate this apparently enigmatic contradiction, the author of this study decided to investigate this incongruous ethical situation, and made the following discoveries:

Edited version:

To elucidate the apparent enigma, the author of this study investigated the incongruous ethical situation. He made the following discoveries: {A-L YOU NEED REFERENCES]

A. A. The early SDA pioneers manifested a most determined opposition to abortion.

Edited version:

Early SDA pioneers appear to manifest opposition to abortion.

Quote:

B. B. Two thirds of those who have expressed their opinions in the leading, recently published, SDA books and periodicals seem to be on the pro-life side of this issue, but lack the power to set the official policy of the church.

"seem to be" is not factual...

I could go on, but this would take forever. I didn't change anything you said, Nic. I only made it more readable.

[Nic Samojluk]

Doug,

Thanks for the time and effort you have invested in correcting a few misunderstanding between our position and that of our opponents. I would like to set a few additional details straight. I believe that as long as we stick to the facts of the case, many things will become crystal clear to the unbiased reader.

1. The Availability of Sources. This morning, I counted the number of references I did list in my dissertation. They total 746. Less than one percent of the same came from the LLU Library Heritage Room. A major source for my research came from the official SDA “Ministry” magazine, which is available online. Much of the other references are also online, and I did provide the Internet links whenever the data was online.

2. The Alleged Claim to Expertise. I do not recall having ever claimed to be an expert and I did not suggest that people should believe my word because I hold a Ph. D. degree from an accredited university. A doctoral degree does not make people infallible. This is why I took the trouble to document a total of 746 sources, and provided the link to the information whenever it was available. Our opponents are raising a red herring and they should stop doing this!

3. The Accreditation Issue. Andrew Jackson University is an accredited institution. Their expertise is in online teaching by distant learning, which is becoming more common in modern times. AJU was authorized by the accrediting committee to run the Ph.D. in Religion program. They were also allowed to accept students into the program and to grant the Ph.D. degrees to those students who were already enrolled in it. I did complete all the requirements for graduation and AJU did grant me the degree. What is illegitimate about this? I conclude that describing this as “worthless” makes no sense, especially since this had nothing to do with the reason I signed up for the program.

4. Why Did AJU Drop the Program? When I was writing my dissertation, I was notified by AJU that the program would end shortly after the students who were already enrolled completed their program of studies. I imagine that they had decided to drop the program for a good reason; perhaps it was because it turned out to be non-profitable. I have no valid reason to believe the theory that the degree itself was unaccredited. I am currently trying to find out; once I do, I will share this with you. I never bothered to inquire for the simple reason that I had not intention to apply for a teaching position at an accredited institution.

5. The Thousands of Hours in Research. The thousands of hours I invested into the research were spent reading a number of books and wading through everything I could find online that was relevant to the issue I had set before me: Finding out whether the Adventists Church had in fact deviated from the clear pro-life example of the early Adventist pioneers. Of the thousands of hours invested into the research, not even one percent of said time was spend at the LLU Library Heritage Room. The documents I consulted are readily available to anybody interested in verifying the accuracy of my report.

6. In spite of some of Pam’s criticism, it gives me great satisfaction that she did admit that the basic thesis of my research was on target. She did agree that the Adventist Church today is pro-choice instead of pro-life. I hope Aubrey, Overage, and Redwood will eventually agree on this as well. I did ask some of them to tell us whether they do agree or disagree, and in the event they disagree, to let us know why; after all this is the main topic of this blog: “Is the Adventist Church Really Pro-life?” The time has come, I believe, for those who have been engaged in this debate to state their position on this issue.

7. Pam’s Incredible Argument! Pam has stated someone did find an error in my dissertation. This is true; nevertheless let me clarify what kind of error it was. The word “editor” was missing from one of the sources cited. Think of this: Out of 746 sources cited, one word was missing from one of those sources, and I already did correct the omission. Is this a good reason for rejecting the entire document simply because of such an omission? If such stringent requirement were imposed on every document or book ever published, how many books or documents would survive? Here is the evidence that the omission was corrected in the revised version I am currently working on:

Quote:

[1] James White, editor. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.

8. The Illegitimacy Argument. Compare what Pam claimed with what she herself and Aubrey stated. Can you see a contradiction there? How can I rely on her expertise if she herself makes this kind of error? Evidently we are all humans and prone to err!

Quote:

“No one ever said your degree was "illegitimate"....that's YOUR word.” [Posted by Pam. You can view the post by clicking this link.]

Quote:

Your degree is not a legitimate PhD. And you, my friend, ought to be ashamed of proffering it as such. [Posted by Pam. You can view the post by clicking this link: http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/325553/137.html

Quote:

The degree, as a degree, is worthless and is illegitimate. [Posted by Aubrey. You can view the post by clicking this link.]

[Woody]

Wow Pam. That was some good help. That was kind of you. I hope he appreciates it.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the program he attended is not legitimate. It was not licensed nor approved. So, perhaps the instructions you have given him Pam ... will assist him in getting a quality product.

[Outta Here]

Just to be clear, Pam did not use the word illegitimate. Rather, Nic used the word first, then I did. Pam and Aubrey are different persons.

Also, I provided further definitions of the word illegitimate. Which definition is being used could explain some of the confusion found here. Additionally, I provided information regarding my use of the word in my post. I will not repeat that post. It is recorded in this thread.

The reader will also find in this thread my opinion on which entity is rightful to judge a human decision when it regards meting out eternal consequences.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Nic, you asked for areas in which your dissertation could be improved. I just gave you a whole list of things with proofed editing done. It did not change your position. I did it for you as a favor. I could do more, but it seems that you don't appreciate nice things that people do for you.

Your degree is not legitimate. Your dissertation is unprofessional. You did not defend it in a scholastic circle. You have harangued me. And I am tired of your disregard for common courtesy.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

After 138 pages, I do believe my answer to the original question would be..."Frankly my dear, I don't give a _____!"

Exactly my feelings on the matter, CoAspen. But I can't say it because someone in this forum will take what I say and use it against me.

[Nan]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

After 138 pages, I do believe my answer to the original question would be..."Frankly my dear, I don't give a _____!"

Exactly my feelings on the matter, CoAspen. But I can't say it because someone in this forum will take what I say and use it against me.

Can you say "I do not give a reservoir"?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

LOLOLOLOL ... thanks Nan!

[doug yowell]

After 138 pages, I do believe my answer to the original question would be..."Frankly my dear, I don't give a _____!"

Deeply spiritual,CoAspen. If you really felt that way why did you waste your time and ours by posting on this thread?