Letters to the Churches

[Kevin H]

They reinstated him back in, but he died before he got word of it.

While I will not disagree with this statement, I was under the impression that he was aware of it and thought I read in his biography (I read it like 30 years ago) that got off welfare as his credentials were re-enstated and thus was able to close his life with his pention, and I think that Graham Maxwell tells about hearing a general conference leader coming out from a visit with Elder Andresen and anousing how they had worked things out.

My memories may not be correct, but I seem to remember him being aware of and able to benifit from his reenstatemet.

[Kevin H]

John317, Thank you for that powerful photo!

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

They reinstated him back in, but he died before he got word of it.

While I will not disagree with this statement, I was under the impression that he was aware of it and thought I read in his biography (I read it like 30 years ago) that got off welfare as his credentials were re-enstated and thus was able to close his life with his pention, and I think that Graham Maxwell tells about hearing a general conference leader coming out from a visit with Elder Andresen and anousing how they had worked things out.

My memories may not be correct, but I seem to remember him being aware of and able to benifit from his reenstatemet.

He spent his last night at home praying and weeping over his sad situation relative to the ministry of which he had formed a part for almost sixty years. His wife sent word to the General Conference president, who was in the vicinity at the time, explaining that M. L. wanted to see him. He went, accompanied by the president of the Pacific Union Conference.

The three had met together on previous occasions, when the results had been unsatisfactory. Now they talked together frankly about past experiences and actions. M. L. made it plain that although he differed regarding some of the procedures followed in handling his case, he wanted to be at peace with his brethren and with God. He wanted no animosities. The president responded in kind. Then each prayed. The bitterness was eliminated. At last the old warrior was ready to leave the whole matter in the Lord's care. There were tears of gratitude in his eyes as the visitors left. "Now I can die in peace," he told his wife.

On March 1, 1962, the General Conference Committee voted to restore M. L.'s ministerial credentials and to list his name in the Yearbook along with the other sustentees. But M. L. never learned of this action; he had already gone to his rest.

Source: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/andreasen/index.htm

[Kevin H]

Perhaps quite a number of us have our little collections of EGW comments on the nature of Christ.

The following snippets certainly represent the old SDA view, but as recently as last year an SDA minister told me that he could not accept the view thus expressed:

"What a sight was this for heaven to look upon. Christ, who knew not the least moral taint of sin, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. This was humiliation greater than finite man can comprehend." (16 MR p. 115)

"Think on Christ’s humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." (4BC 1147)

But of course,

"In taking upon Himself man’s nature in it’s fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin." (5BC 1131).

After I have stopped hopping around my room in anger breaking 9 of the 10 commandaments in defence of the truth awaking my neighbors (and since I live in the country and my neighbors are a close to a half mile away that is quite a feet) and now having to clean my house after smashing every thing I can get my hands on.... let me see if I can sit down and not type any unkind words that I have to come back and appologize for.

This is a topic I am very passionet about and one that with in Seventh-day Adventism and so far only officially in Seventh-day Adventism (although I fear that with the rise in the neo-lutheran views in the evangelical movement that this poison may spread, but has not so far, at least not consciously) a truth has been split in half and we tend to support one half of the truth and fight the other half. We have so ruined this topic that we have turned what we teach, no matter which half, into a LIE. Splitting the truth has caused us to teach false teaching. We have two false doctrines spreading in the church.

For centuries the church debated the nature of Christ and finally came to a conclusion. Once it became resolved it became part of church culture and a point that we took for granted.

Many of our early pioneers were questioning the doctrine of the trinity and thus did not think much of the nature of Chirst. When you tend to down play the trinity, you have a tendency to emphise only one aspect of God and make that one aspect ALL of God. Usually who gets emphesised is God the Father. This tends to lead to focusing on the law the law the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa, and if that goes unchecked the religion tends to become very authoritarian. The solution is to become trinitarian, and in the 1890s Mrs. White had a decade on Jesus.

The statements Mrs. White made on Jesus and the nature of Jesus come from some of the best books talking about the traditional Christian view and from the old church counsels that developed the doctrine. Since we are ignorant of church history and want to read Mrs. White in a vaccume we don't realize where she was getting her ideas from and looking at her sources. She just took us to the traditional Christian view of the nature of Christ. Today we take her words and interpet it by which ever half of this truth we want to support.

Having in classes learned about this history and the sources that Mrs. White used then reading L. LeRoy Moore's "Question on Doctrines revisited" (as well as some studies on QOD in classes) I have come to the conclusion that Andresen, Froom, Anderson, Read, Barnhouse and Martin ALL HELD THE EXACT SAME VIEW OF THE NATURE OF CHRIST!!!!

The problem is that after Mrs. White convinced us that Jesus was indeed God, we naturally assumed the traditonal doctrine of the nature of Christ without giving much thought to it. Barnhouse and Mratin were wondering if we viewed Christ like the Jehovah's Witnesses do or like several of our pioneers did. Had Froom, Read and Anderson simply said "While our pioneers did question the doctrine durring the 1890s we came to accept the traditional view of the nature of Christ" and let Barnhouse and Martin read the quotes of Mrs. White that were included in the book, and left it there there would have been no problem.

Unfortunetely our leaders tried to elaborate on this by emphessising the divinity of Christ. Being a theologian Andreasen saw that their explination was only half the truth. From my understanding (and while class lectures and Moore's works have been major influences on this understanding) but also some of my own looks at Andreasen's words, I see Andreasen's consern being that the QOD people were only emphessising part of the truth and he was upset that they did not tell the whole truth and began to emphessise points of the truth that they did not mention.

Andresen was right, but he was wrong in assuming that we were teaching ONLY half of the truth and that the QOD people were rejecting the rest of the truth. George McCready Price warned Elder Andreasen that he was doing this, but sadly Andreasen kept pushing. Now maybe I should not say "sadly" because once again Andreasen was correct, but the reason why I believe that the word "sadly" fits in this sentence is because of what his hearer's did with his words...

Instead of him reminding us of the whole truth, his supporters took the over looked part and divorced that from the whole truth that Andreasen was trying to defend. They ended up developing a doctrine on the nature of Christ which is only half the truth and they have it in a way that fights the other half of the truth and they have turned their half of the truth into a lie and heresy.

In reaction to this over reaction and the turning the one half of the truth into a lie, other church leaders began to emphessise the other half of the truth and instead of holding the view that the councels that Mrs. White quoted came to, instead of holding the views of the author's that Mrs. White felt presented the truth clearly, instead of holding her view, instead of holding the view that Froom, Anderson, Read, Barnhouse, Martin AND Andreasen held; most of us only hold half of what they held and Andreasen's nightmare has come true, we are only preaching part of this great truth, and we have had a civil war truth being used against truth, half truths being so defended that they have turned into a lie and we have two different heresies floating around the church.

Jesus had his own unique nature. He did NOT have the nature of Adam before the fall NOR the nature of us after the fall, although he has elements of both and things missing from both. We ARE sinners because we have the sinful nature, a disposition in us to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world. JESUS DID NOT HAVE IN HIM THE DISPOSITON TO THINK HE WAS FOR HIMSELF BY MAKING LESS OF THE OUTSIDE WORLD!!!

[Kevin H]

Richard Holbrook, thank you that makes sense and united both what I had read and what was said, I had been taking part of the truth and the statement on his death before the re-enstatement had the other part of the truth. A good lesson over what happened with what happened in our church on the nature of Chirst. We could have split into a huge argument and factions me arguing that Andresen lived when reconcilled and you arguing that he did not. Thank you for showing me that the whole story is better than half facts.

[Guest]

Glad I could help.

[skyblue888]

I've read M. L. Andreason's Letters to the Churches several times before, and I completely agree with him. What he said is also supported by Herbert Douglass, who was there at the time QOD was written and was close friends of all three men who wrote it. Douglass recently wrote an important book about it, called, A Fork In the Road, a "must read" for anyone who is interested in QOD and its affect on the church.

Roy Allen Anderson was a good man who made some serious mistakes but he should not be made to appear an evil man. The same with LeRoy Froom. They both sincerely loved Christ and the SDA church, and they wrongly thought they were doing the right thing by writing what they did in QOD.

Here's a picture I took of RAA in his house in Loma Linda the year he died:

Herbert Douglass told me I "captured RAA" exactly. Anderson was talking to me about QOD when I exposed the film.

John I appreciate your comments but it is not for us to say whether they were just men who wrongly thought they were doing the right thing by writing what they did in QOD. After all we are told from the pen of inspiration, and brother Andreason saw it coming, that this was part of the "omega" of apostasy, to undermine the pillars of our faith just as the "alpha" was intended to do just that. Apostasy comes from within.

To apostatize is more serious that making mistakes no matter how serious those mistakes may be. Making mistakes is not the same as apostatizing. I'm sure you agree with me on that.

sky

[skyblue888]

Letters to the Churches

Post # 29

ATTEMPT TO TAMPER WITH THE TESTIMONIES

In a previous letter I have related how in the month of May, 1957, I came into possession of some official minutes of the White Board of Trustees--supposed to be secret--which revealed an attempt to tamper with the Testimonies by having inserted in some of the volumes notes and explanations that would make it appear that Sister White was in harmony with, or at least not opposed to, the new theology advocated in the Ministry and the book Questions on Doctrine. I was dumbfounded when I read this official document, and doubly perplexed when I learned that this plan had the sanction of the leadership, and was approved procedure. This would mean that men could freely attempt to have insertions made in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy that would vitiate or change the intended meaning of what Sister White had written. What assurance could we then have that the books being published were the unadulterated teachings of the author, and that they were not "remedied and corrected" as were other books, according to the account in the Eternity Extra of September 1956?

While I felt uneasy at what the men had attempted to do, my real concern was the realization that this had been approved by the administration, and was henceforth to be accepted policy. Men could now go to the White Board, and with its approval, have inserted explanations and notes secretly and privately before any one would find out what was happening. And they could do this with the assurance that if any one learned of this and revealed what was being done, the administration would deal with such and threaten them unless they ceased their "activity".

In my case, I was told that the minutes were confidential, that I had no right to have them or even read them. Though I quoted directly and correctly from the official minutes, I was told, "You are doing all this upon hearsay and upon confidential minutes which you have no right even to read." Letter, December 1957.

While the men wished to insert "notes", "explanations', "appendix notes", "foot notes", "suitable notes", "in future printings of the E.G. White writings", (note that all these statements are in the plural) the chairman minimized the matter by declaring in a letter of September 20, 1957, that all it involved was a "cross reference inserted at the bottom of a certain page"; that is, one cross reference, at the bottom of one page, in one of Sister White's books. This is altogether at variance with the official record. How can this discrepancy be explained?

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Letters to the Churches

Post # 30

WHY NOT A HEARING?

My first thought and hope was that I would be called to account immediately, and be asked to prove my charges or retract them; that an impartial group of men would be asked to conduct a hearing. But in this I was disappointed.

The first reaction to my "activity" came in a letter of December 16, 1957. There I was told:

"The question of your activity was discussed by the officiers of the General Conference and they deeply deplore what you are doing. They therefore request you to cease your present activities."

Before I had an apportunity to answer, I received the following on December 19:

"I wish to repeat what I wrote before, that men have a perfect right to go to boards, including the White Estate group, and make their suggestions without the fear of being disciplined or dealt with as heretics. When we recall that you are doing all this upon hearsay, and upon confidential minutes which you had no right even to read, it certainly impresses one as not the Adventist way of doing things. You were not present at this board meeting, and all you know about it is hearsay and the brief notes recorded by the secretary of that meeting... Now for you to go forward and broadcast a matter like this, certainly puts you in an unenviable light. If you do this, we shall have to do some broadcasting, too. This will again place you in plain opposition to your church, and will undoubtedly bring up the matter of your relationship to the church. In view of all this, the officers, as I have previously written, earnestly ask you to cease your activities."

As will be noted, there was no suggestion of a hearing to ascertain the truth or falsity of my charges. I was simply asked to cease my "activities", or else...

How did I react to this? As any man would under threat. I answered that I was a man of peace, that I could be reasoned with, but not threatened. I asked them to go ahead with their plans. I was ready for whatever might come.

What would come? I did not know what was meant by considering my "relationship to the church". It might mean anything. I know what impression they had left upon Dr. Barnhouse if any should object to their usurped authority. Here is what he recorded:

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Letters to the Churches

Post # 31

GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT

"The position of the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination." Eternity Extra, September 1, 1956.

It seems unfortunate that our leaders should have left such an impression upon the evangelicals. This statement has now been in print three years. The attention of our leaders has been called to it and requests made that they disavow any such intention. But they have made no such disavowal or protest, and our people have somewhat reluctantly come to the conclusion that Mr. Barnhouse is correct in his estimate of our leaders.

Add to this what Mr. Martin reports the leaders told him, that "they (the Adventists) have among their number certain members of their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar 'wild-eyed irresponsibles' in every field of fundamental Christianity."

This is what our leaders told the evangelicals in discussing the important topic of the nature of Christ while in the flesh. These statements I consider an insult. It shows the contempt our leaders have for those who disagree with them. I think these statements are ample ground for impeachment. Our people are longsuffering, but this is the first time of which I know that insults are heaped upon loyal Seventh-day Adventists by the leaders.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Letters to the Churches

Post # 32

A SHORT MEETING

The only meeting I have ever had with our leaders was one day in February 1958, when two officers asked me to meet with them for the few minutes they had to spare between sessions of their business meetings. The chief thing seemed to be their desire to know if I intended to continue my "activity". I told them I would. A remark was made as to why I had not asked for a hearing. It had never occured to me that I should ask for a hearing. I expected to be summoned. But thinking it over, the next day I wrote:

"I did not know that you wanted me to come to Washingtom for a hearing or discussion as you never mentioned such a thing. If that is your desire, I am ready to come... I have only one request, that the hearing be public, or that a stenographer be present, and that I receive a copy of the minutes." Letter, February 5, 1957.

In response to this I receive this, dated February 10, inviting me to come, saying:

"In compliance with your wish, the brethren see no objection whatever in recording our conversation. It is suggested that a tape-recording would likely be the most practical way of doing this."

This was satisfactory to me. I noted, however, that nothing was said of my receiving a copy of the minutes. But perhaps, I thought, this was taken for granted, as I had made this a condition, and they had accepted my proposition. But I felt uneasy. If I should write for further confirmation it might appear that I was questioning their sincerity. But when by February 21, I had received no further word, I wrote:

"Whether by oversight or intent, you did not answer my request that I be given a copy of the minutes. This is necessary for in any discussion of what is said or not said, it will be my word against that of twelve. I cannot afford to put myself in that position. This is the condition upon which I come."

To this I received a reply February 27:

"In the matter of record, I think I indicated in my letter of February 10 that the brethren had in mind recording on tape the proceedings of the meeting. This would provide a full record of what is said and done. We assume that such a complete record would be agreeable to you."

I had asked for a copy of the minutes, and this letter assured me that a tape recording would be made which would "provide a full record of what is said and done." It was assumed "that such a complete record would be agreeable to you". It would be. At last I was assured that a full and complete record would be made, and that according to their own suggestion it would be tape-recorded. I could ask for no more.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Letters to the Churches

Post # 33

A COMPLETE BREACH OF FAITH

But having read Questions on Doctrine carefully, I had noticed that certain things would be said on one page, and a few pages further on this would be ignored. I had made note of certain double-tongued expressions, and it gave me a sense of uncertainty. I could not avoid the conviction that some of these expressions were used for the purpose of confusion and were intended to mislead.

I therefore reread the letters I had written, and also those I had received, especially the portions dealing with my request for a copy of the minutes. I found that nowhere had my request been acknowledged, but the issue had been avoided. This made me wonder. Had there throughout been a studied purpose not to give me a copy of the minutes, while the letters were so worded as to give the impression that I would get a copy? The evidence seemed to substantiate my suspicion. To make sure of my ground, I wrote on March 4 that I wanted absolute assurance, plainly stated, that I would get a "full and complete record of the minutes" such as had been mentioned. I closed by saying, "On this point I must have absolute assurance."

March 18 this answer came:

"You have referred to a desire to have minutes kept, and also a copy of the minutes. In discussing this with the officers, it occurs to the brethren that we do this, which would seem fair to all concerned: a secretary be appointed from the group to write out the conclusions we arrive at, and these be submitted to the whole group for approval, after which each will be given a copy. We believe, Brother Andreason, that this suggestion will be agreeable to you."

This was a wholly and entirely different suggestion. After I had been told in the February 27th letter, that a tape-recording would be made, a "full" record of "what was said and done", and hope expressed that such "a complete record would be agreeable" to me, I was now presented with a new and previously unheard of proposal, a complete face-about. There would be no stenographer, no tape-recording, no minutes at all, but one of the men would write down the conclusions arrived at. And that was supposed to be agreeable to me! It certainly was not agreeable to me. It was a complete breach of faith. It was like substituting Leah for Rachel, a dishonorable transaction. I felt as did Jacob that I had been beguiled. Three weeks earlier, I had been promised "a complete copy" of the minutes which it was hoped would be agreeable to me. Now I was offered a copy of the conclusions, which it was also hoped would be agreeable to me.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES

POST # 34

OF WHAT WERE THEY AFRAID?

This March 18 letter reveals the fact that it was never the intention to give me a copy of the minutes, and yet they had played me along, thinking I would accept their suggestion, coming to a hearing or discussion, and having no record whatever of the discussion, but only of the conclusions.

In the dark ages heretics were taken and convicted in secret. There was no habeas corpus act in existence then. And now the officers suggested an unrecorded session, where only a few would be present and no record of any kind be made! I consider this an immoral suggestion. Of what were they afraid? Moreover, before coming to such a hearing the condition was made "that you agree, in submitting your case to the General Conference committee, to abide by the decision of the committee." (Letter of May 13, 1958)

This clearly reveals the intent of the committee. A hearing is to be held, a secret hearing, and a discussion entered into, but before the hearing or discussion is held, I am to agree to accept their conclusion and verdict. Under these conditions, how could they help winning their case?

It appears that the officers had in mind appointing themselves accusers, jurors, judges, and executors. In a case involving points of doctrine where of necessity there must be discussion to arrive at sound conclusions, a neutral committee of men not directly involved in the controversy must hear the case. No judge ever hears a case where he is personally interested. He refuses to sit on a case where he is even remotely concerned. But our officers appoint themselves to hear the case and act as arbiters in a dispute involving points of theology, with powers to act, and ask that one side agree beforehand to accept whatever decision might be made. This, of course, is tantamount to accept the dictum of men elevated as administrators, executors, promoters, financiers, organizers and counsellors to have jurisdiction over doctrine, for which they are not educated. I have heard every one of them say, "I am no theologian."

March 26, 1958, I answered the letter which stated that there would be no record of any kind, but that I would get a copy of the conclusions. I did not need this. I knew beforehand what they would be, for I had already been judged and threatened. I had purposely been kept in ignorance of the intent not to give me a copy of the minutes but to try me secretly. Apparently it was the intention to keep the matter from becoming known, and if I agree beforehand to accept their conclusions, I could be accused of breaking my promise if I made further comment.

If I could be induced to come to Washington under these conditions, I surely would be "sunk". With the whole case in mind, with the repeated evasions of my request for a copy of the minutes, I felt I had been deceived and ended my letter by saying, "Your broken promises cancels the agreement." My faith in men had been severely skaken.

April 3 I received an answer stating that my letter "had been received and its content presented to the officers." There was no mention whatever of my statement, "Your broken promise cancels the agreement", the most important part. Also, this statement was not read to the officers, for a month later I received a letter saying, "Through others I have learned that you feel we have broken our promise to you." This perversion of my words had gone out to the field, who would naturally believe that I had written to others and not to the person concerned. I don't do that kind of work.

In this same letter of April 3, the writer states:

to be continued

[skyblue888]

LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES

POST # 35

PATENT MISSTATEMENT

"It is true, as you state, that a tape recording was suggested at first, without a promise, however, of giving you a copy. Since making this suggestion, we have thought further about the matter and believe that such recording would not be a wise plan to follow... A tape recording of every little remark would not be fair to the participants. In such discussions it is not uncommon for earnest men to make a slip which they later regret and correct. Mortal man is subject to such errors, but why preserve them? The sincere purpose of the meeting would be to arrive at a conclusion together... as I look over your letters, this would appear to be in accord with your original suggestion."

This makes clear several matters. It admits that a tape-recording was suggested at first. It also makes clear that it was never the intention of giving me a copy, though the letters were written to hide this fact. It also states that the officers changed their mind and decided that it would not be a wise plan to record anything, as it "would not be fair to the participants", a most astounding reason, and revealing a most decided weakness. And then the last untrue statement: "As I look over your letters, this would appear to be in accord with your original suggestion."

Greater untruth was never uttered. I challenge the writer who says he looked over my letters to find any place where I say or intimate any such thing. And yet, this impression has gone in the field from Washington. Never suspecting that Washington would tell anything but the absolute truth, the men in the field who were admonished to "hold the line", naturally would believe that this was my "original suggestion". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Again and again, I stressed in all my letters that I wanted a copy of the minutes, and now the writer says as he looks over my letters that a copy of he conclusions was my original suggestion. What was his reason for such patent mistatement? I think I know. Is it possible that news from Washington is given a biased slant?

to be continued

[skyblue888]

LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES

POST # 35

WHY THIS SUDDEN CHANGE?

There must have been some weighty reasons why it was suddenly decided not to have any record at all, after it was first decided to have a complete and full record "of all that was said and done." The records of the 1888 crisis, the Alpha of apostasy, have largely disappeared, and the existing records are safely hidden and not available. We do not want a like situation in the time of the Omega. Let there be light.

I do not know why the change came about. I can only surmise. It was understood that my "activity" would be considered as well as my relationship to the church. The brethren also suggested that perhaps I had some matters also that should be discussed. I had. I made a list of these subjects. It is:

1. Elder Froom's articles, particularly those in the February number of the Ministry, 1957, downgrading Mrs. White.

2. The vault visits of Elders Anderson and Read in regard to having insertions made in the writings of Mrs White, and the general policies now prevailing.

3. A list of the topics discussed with the evangelicals which had taken "hundreds of hours" and the main conclusions reached.

4. A detailed list of the books "remedied and corrected" at the recommendation of Mr. Martin, and a further list of books yet to be remedied.

5. The $3,000 law suit.

6. Proselytisation. What was agreed to?

7. The meaning of "putting the brakes on' and "lunatic fringe" and "wild-eyed irresponsibles."

8. The new university, and the launguishing foreign fields.

9. "Exchange monies."

10. A complete audit by a responsible firm of public accountants.

This list I did not send to Washington, for I well knew that it would be a matter of months to compass such a program. I suggested only a few subjects, and of course, I did know what the results would be. But, curiously enough, at just this time the brethren decided that it would not be wise to have any recording made. Under the circumstances I agree with their decision. The pusillanimous reason given for not having a record made--that the brethren might make remarks of which they later would repent--is simply inane. But let there be no misunderstanding. An accounting will yet have to be made.

To top it all comes this in the April 3 letter: "You never asked for a hearing." I will let the reader decide this question for himself. I answered: Make no mistake on that point. I not only want a hearing, but such a hearing must be held if this sorry matter is ever to be settled. You say that you wonder if I am really sincere in wanting a hearing. Yes, I want a hearing. I demand one. Not a secret hearing. An open one, or else with a full and complete record of all that is said and done. This has been my desire from the beginning. No star chamber proceedings."

My last communication to headquarters was dated June 28, 1958. I asked if it was still the determination to give me a hearing with a tape-recording for me. A secretary answered:

"With reference to a tape-recording of the meeting, I am instructed to say that our correspondance reveals no promise of a tape-recording for you. If desired, one can be made, but it will be kept in this office for a permanent record as previoulsly stated."

This leaves me free. I have exhausted all means of corresponding with the men I should address. I can now speak to the church, as Christ said might be done if other means fail. This I shall do. But I still hold myself ready to come to a hearing or trial, properly conducted and properly recorded. Let there be light.

[Twilight]

Very interesting Sky.

Mark

[skyblue888]

Thanks Twilight!

A few years ago I took the time to type every word and to divide his book in several posts. Every time I go over it, I am so amazed at this brother who was a true champion imbued with the Spirit of Christ.

I'm glad you find it interesting, yeaa most interesting!

sky

[skyblue888]

Has not our religion been changed then? Have not books of a new order been written ever since containing the "new theology"? Have not the words of inspiration, as found in 1 S.M.204,205, been fulfilled to the very letter?

Is this not the "new organization" we have been warned about and were not the repudiations of our pillars the beginning of the "omega of apostasy" we have been warned about?

sky

[Guest]

Has not our religion been changed then? Have not books of a new order been written ever since containing the "new theology"? Have not the words of inspiration, as found in 1 S.M.204,205, been fulfilled to the very letter?

Is this not the "new organization" we have been warned about and were not the repudiations of our pillars the beginning of the "omega of apostasy" we have been warned about?

sky

Yes, you are right about this sky. It is true.

[Twilight]

Has not our religion been changed then? Have not books of a new order been written ever since containing the "new theology"? Have not the words of inspiration, as found in 1 S.M.204,205, been fulfilled to the very letter?

Is this not the "new organization" we have been warned about and were not the repudiations of our pillars the beginning of the "omega of apostasy" we have been warned about?

sky

But has the whole denomination gone over to these teachings Sky?

You are right to educate and warn, I totally agree, we must be able to "understand" these compromises.

But I am not sure the "church" has fallen?

But I am also not sure it "hasn't"...

Mark

[skyblue888]

Okay, good. Now what do you think is next, Richard, in the unrolling of the prophetic scroll?

sky

[Guest]

The national Sunday laws.

[Dr. Rich]

National Sunday Laws will NEVER happen!

[John317]

On the basis of both Daniel and Revelation as well as the Spirit of prophecy, i.e., Ellen White's writings, I believe Sunday laws will definitely happen. Considering history and the present course of things, I don't think it's all that far fetched.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I thought we already *had* Sunday laws, but that they just are not enforced at present.