Letters to the Churches by M.L. Andreason

[skyblue888]

CROZIER SPEAKS

"But again, they say that the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us.

This, then is the "true light", which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval, and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint. Only as we downgrade Sister White can we reject this testimony of hers. We are not ready to do this.

We now face this situation. Did our Ministry author in his thorough search find this statement that Brother Crozier had "the true light"? If he did not find it, he has little ground to feel pleased with his work. In either case, if I were a teacher and had sent him to do this research work and he presented the collection in Questions on Doctrine as his report, I would have to give him a straight F, which in school language stands for Failure. It is either a case of poor research, or of omission, which latter, under the circumstances, is most serious.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

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]

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 officers 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 opportunity 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]

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 long suffering, 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

[ClubV12]

If I understand this VERY long thread there are two or three primary issues from the 1957 meetings.

Leadership SEEMS to be in conflict concerning the nature of Christ while on earth. An issue many of us today remain at odds over.

Leadership (in 1957) SEEMS to be in conflict with the basic understanding of the Most Holy Place and the work currently going on there.

Leadership seems to have caused changes in some books, TV and other ministry outreach publishing or programs to "tone down" the rhetoric in some way. What changes were made, what instructions were given (if any) we do not know. There is a LOT of "suggestion" that something "evil" was done, in secret, and the devisings of men carefully hidden from the members. Without any specifics I have to conclude those allegations are equivelant to "a second gunmen on the grassy knoll" shot Kennedy. A conspiracy theory, from 1957.

Since there is indeed a "lot of water under the bridge" since 1957 the BIG question for TODAY is: What is the CURRENT POSITION of the Adventist church on the two primary issues this thread brings up.

1. Nature of Christ, as SDA's officially understand it TODAY?

2. Do SDA's officially accept the on-going work doctrine of the Most Holy Place?

3. Is substantially more controversial and is tied directly to "conspiracy THEORIES", not proofs. A lot of suggestions, hints, finger pointing, assumptions, but lacking proof. This is nothing more than a "grassy knoll" theory without it. The #3 question is: WHAT books and publications have been altered? Where are the alterations? Bonus question: WHO did authorized these changes? Are the changes still in effect today?

Sky, I don't know how to say this kindly and with a spirit of love but I AM trying to do so. You have made it clear that you believe the Testimonies (Volumes 1 - 9) are at least some of the books that have been altered. You have suggested, clearly, that some of those Testimonies were either forged, written and inserted by men other than Ellen White or that Ellen White was coerced in some way to write what she did. Thus, anything written after about 1897 or so, cannot be considered as "inspired" writings of Ellen White. Or, at least, has to be considered as "suspect" as to authorship. I DON'T know if you mean the Testimonies were alterd TWICE, during her life while they were being published, and AGAIN, sometime around 1957?

But the BIG QUESTION is: What do Seventh-day Adventists officially believe TODAY on the NATURE of CHRIST and the work in the MOST HOLY place. IF it's consistent with our pioneers fundamental beliefs, why is 1957 an issue today?

[ClubV12]

Is there a suggestion in this thread that fundamental belief #24 is incorrect?

In brief:

24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry.

[skyblue888]

A SHORT MEETING

by M.L. Andreason

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 occurred 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 Washington 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]

Club, the issue is about what our leaders told the Evangelicals when they asked us about our beliefs.

I am only making available Letters to the Churches for those who may not have read them.

If you read these with prejudices, you will never be able to appreciate these letters.

Plus, did you forget that I have often referred to these secret meetings as the crucifixion between the first call and the second call of the parable of Matt.22.

We are living in the time of the second and final call.

So its not over yet.

sky

[skyblue888]

A COMPLETE BREACH OF FAITH

by M.L. Andreason

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]

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 counsellers 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 shaken.

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 promises 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]

PATENT MISSTATEMENT

by M.L. Andreason

"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 misstatement? I think I know. Is it possible that news from Washington is given a biased slant?

To be continued

[skyblue888]

WHY THIS SUDDEN CHANGE?

by M.L. Andreason

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 correspondence 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 previously 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.

M.L. Andreason

[ClubV12]

Sky this is not about prejudice, I'm an engineer, I deal in facts, logic, reason. I KNOW where YOU stand on the Testimonies, thats a fact, what has been seen cannot be unseen. The questions are really more about Andreason. I see a LOT of inuendo and suggestions, from Andreason. He suggests and theorizes and draws conclusions that are based on his opinion. I don't dismiss his testimony, but I can't give it as much weight as some might like either. As a "jurist" I cannot convict the accused the brethren of being quilty of a crime worthy of removing them from office. As he has stated should be done.

Based on violations of what? Where is the clear and convincing evidence?

1. At best we have circumstantial evidence, no hard facts.

2. Where is the proof that books WERE altered? What steps were actually taken to intimidate those in the ministry to "tone down" their rhetoric?

But most importantly, where do we stand TODAY on the relevant issues? I realize and accept mistakes were made in the late 1950's and with the book QonD. What has changed TODAY? How is any of this relevant TODAY? Have the allegations of mistakes now been corrected? Is fundamental belief #24 in error?

The questions of your personal confidence in the Testimonies are secondary, but cannot be easily dismissed.

Andreason states:

I will let the reader decide this question for himself."

I am still deciding....

[skyblue888]

Club, How can anyone take you seriously when you have not even taken the time to weigh in on these matters. You are rushing to conclusion without giving Letters to the Churches a fair trial. You are following in the steps of the leaders who in 1903 refused to give a fair trial to the 1901 Constitution which was after God's order. They put God aside and adopted the devisings of men.

You have admitted yourself that you are a rookie and yet you put yourself in a position of "know-it-all"

The fact that you are an engineer will not do for in spiritual matters that counts for nothing. Do you really think that you are the only one who deals with facts? M.L. Andreason dealt with facts and with facts only and with the right attitude. He approached the G.C. leaders in a Christian manner but the apostate leaders resorted to fraud and guile as predicted by Mrs. White bearing the semblance of zeal for truth and for the advancement of the cause of God.

I urge you to start all over and read this material slowly and prayerfully.

It took me many years of study comparing statement with statement to come to an understanding of what really took place in those years.

sky

[ClubV12]

I've read it twice, I'm still weighing the evidence, it keeps coming up short.

HOW is this relevant TODAY, Sky? I made lots of mistake in my past as well, I rectified as best I could.

Is it your conclusion the church has NOT rectified these issues?

[John317]

Is fundamental belief #24 in error?

I don't believe FB#24 is in error.

Have you read the chapter on that doctrine in the book, SDAs Believe 28 FB?

As I see it, Christ's death on the cross was an atoning sacrifice and Christ completed it there on Calvery. It is an atonement that will never need to be repeated.

But what is going on in the heavenly sanctuary is no less important than His death. It also is a work of atonement.

I mean "atonement" as the process by which God is bringing the whole universe to be "at-one-ment" with Him. The death of Christ was essential for sure, but so were His resurrection and ascension. Without those two works of Christ-- without His perfect life, prior to His death-- we would all be lost. Our salvation depends on all of Christ, not merely the last 3 hours.

[John317]

Is it your conclusion the church has NOT rectified these issues?

I think it's fair to say that many in the church haven't.

[ClubV12]

I don't question #24, I think it's accurate, as written today. It is suggested by Andreason that belief was CHANGED in 1957 in a substantial way and in defiance of Ellen Whites counsel.

The TWO issues Andreason brings forth are:

1. The nature of Christ, the official position of the SDA church. Is THAT wrong, TODAY?

2. The antonement, I think it's safe to say TODAY we have the correct view. I'm not sure what the view was in 1957, as per Andreason's comments.

What the general membership believes is one thing, this is about the OFFICIAL position of the SDA church TODAY on these issues.

Sky says,

"He approached the G.C. leaders in a Christian manner but the apostate leaders resorted to fraud and guile."

DID they? THAT is a valid question. Andreason thinks so, I'm not sure I do, the weight of hard evidence is missing.

[ClubV12]

Andreason makes some serious accusations, perhaps they are correct, maybe not. Is there any OTHER witness to substantiate the charges? Shall we move to conclude the GC remains in apostasy based on this mans suppositions?

I think not, Matthew 18.

[John317]

...Sky says,

"He approached the G.C. leaders in a Christian manner but the apostate leaders resorted to fraud and guile."

DID they? THAT is a valid question. Andreason thinks so, I'm not sure I do, the weight of hard evidence is missing.

Club, check out Herbert Douglass'fairly new book, Fork in the Road. It contains documented evidence of what took place, and he also speaks to the issue of the fallout from QOD. It is sold in the Adventist Book Center. Herbert Douglass was there at the time those events were happening and he was a close personal friend of both men. By the way, he remained close to both of them, especially to RA Anderson, until those men's deaths. In his book, Herb Douglass is simply reporting the facts and he supports everything he says with documentation.

[ClubV12]

OK, lets ASSUME that much, but certainly not ALL, of what Adreason states is true.

How does that impact TODAY? Have the mistakes of 1957 been rectified? Is it time to "move on"? Are we to conclude the GC has been in apostasy since 1903 or so, that the apostasy deepened in 1957 and that it remains in apostasy TODAY?

Sky, it is not "prejudice" when I state that I KNOW your view on this is that the church TODAY remains in apostasy. Has been in apostasy since 1903. You've never made it clear what, if anything, any given individual or group is supposed to do about it. This 1957 issue carries forward your "work" in proclaiming the SDA church to be in apostasy. I'm not judging you on that, just clairifying your position. Those are the facts, supported by your many previous posts, good or bad, it is what it is.

So WHAT are we supposed to do or think concerning the 1957 issue? Never mind the 1903 issues for now....

[John317]

Shall we move to conclude the GC remains in apostasy based on this mans suppositions?

I think not, Matthew 18.

You are right here. Although the SDA church has made some major errors, I don't believe that it's in apostasy. The SDA church certainly is not a part of Babylon. Andreason didn't teach that that the SDA Church has fallen away from truth and apostasized. Individuals have fallen away from truth and apostasized, but not the church itself.

[BobRyan]

Club, check out Herbert Douglass'fairly new book, Fork in the Road. It contains documented evidence of what took place, and he also speaks to the issue of the fallout from QOD. It is sold in the Adventist Book Center. Herbert Douglass was there at the time those events were happening and he was a close personal friend of both men.

Herbert Douglass seems like a nice enough person from what I have seen. But when it comes the Atoning Sacrifice completed at the cross - and the 2nd phase of the atonement going on in the Heavenly Sanctuary since 1844, was Herbert ever able to show that QoD rejected that teaching?

This is where the rubber meets the road on that particular complaint.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

CROZIER SPEAKS

"But again, they say that the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

Both Ellen White and the Bible are places where you can find God inspiring prophets to write that the atoning Sacrifice of Christ was complete at the cross and this is the first phase of the Lev 16 teaching on Atonement.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

I'm leaving shortly to take my family to a baseball game in San Bernardino, but when I get back I will answer your post at length. But for now, let me just say that Douglass' book answers that question directly and clearly and supports it with documentation.

I will also ask Herbert Douglass for his answer to your question. I'll let you know what he says.

One thing I know and that is you can depend on Douglass as a scholar and historian of the church and Ellen White.