Nic Samojluk Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “There are lot's of professed Adventists that have a wide variety of view's. They do not speak for the church as a body of believers.” I agree! I don’t pretend to be speaking for the church. I am simply a lay member who has studied the Bible for over seven decades and I am the product of Adventist education. I am faithful to the church I joined 67 years ago. Said Adventist Church was definitely pro-life and did not practice abortion. I am also faithful to the church our Adventist pioneers founded a century ago. I refuse to believe in the liberalized position about abortion my church has chosen for the sake of profit. “So, when someone asks, "What do Adventists believe?". I like to go to the official source(s). The 28, the church manual, a direct statement by the G.C. that originated from an "in session" world meeting.” Did you know that the church has never voted our Guidelines on Abortion in a general world meeting? Do you know why? Because our leaders are afraid to loose on this issue. A friend of mine who lives in Germany has informed me that when he was in charge of the Adventist medical work in Europe, Africa, and South America, abortions were not permitted in the hospitals under his care. The liberalized attitude towards abortion seems to be a North American phenomenon. “My view is that true revival and reformation will happen only at the time of the last shaking. One could say, and correctly so, we HAVE been in the shaking for decades, if not a century or more.” Yes, the shaking did take place in Germany, Rwanda, and the U.S. and we as a church have failed the test. Are we going to stand firm when the final test is upon us and the death decree is issued and the government removes the legal protection against the Adventists? Then, Adventists, like the unborn babies today, will have no right to life, and anybody who would choose to kill them will not be penalized. The faithful will be protected by God, but I wonder about those who have compromised about the issue of abortion in violation of what the Lord ordered. “The Civil War comes to mind, when our people faced death for choosing the Sabbath over the military draft. Or WW1 which split the church over the conscientious objector positions some took. Perhaps the Great Depression era and WW2 and the calamity they brought. Times of very intense personal decisions impacting life, liberty and your ability to simply survive. The church will be purified only through very serious trials such as we have not yet seen, worse than we have yet seen. Wait for it, it will come.” Yes, this is serious stuff! We did fail in Germany while Hitler was exterminating innocent human being—six millions of them. We were afraid to open our mouths. Our church compromised on the Sabbath and on killing. Was this the proper preparation for the final test? You decide! A few year ago, our German and Austrian leaders of the Adventist Church publicly apologized for our moral failure under the Nazi regime. This was the right thing to do. The problem is that when the final test comes upon us, there may be no time to apologize. We have failed three times already—Germany, Rwanda, and the U.S.—Remember the three strikes law! “Meanwhile, I'll go with the G.C.'s official position as it concerns what "Adventists" really believe. As opposed to what "most" Adventists tend to believe. My gutt leaves me wondering if "most" of them have it wrong.” What the church believes about abortion in the U.S. is very clear. The church believes that it is morally acceptable to violate God’s Commandment which forbids murder. What the worldwide Adventist church believes is unknown at this point simply because the issue of abortion has never been submitted to the church’s general session. I am looking for that to take place sometime in the future, but our leaders prefer not to take this issue yet for fear of loosing.
Administrators Naomi Posted January 14, 2012 Administrators Posted January 14, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “There are lot's of professed Adventists that have a wide variety of view's. They do not speak for the church as a body of believers.” “So, when someone asks, "What do Adventists believe?". I like to go to the official source(s). The 28, the church manual, a direct statement by the G.C. that originated from an "in session" world meeting.” “Meanwhile, I'll go with the G.C.'s official position as it concerns what "Adventists" really believe. As opposed to what "most" Adventists tend to believe. My gutt leaves me wondering if "most" of them have it wrong.” If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God
ClubV12 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Nic, your position on abortion is to radical for me. I think it is clear that if you had the power you would indeed force any woman to carry to term her baby, regardless of the circumstances, even if it would result in her death. This is not a balanced approach to a serious problem. I would describe such a position as "fanatical". You missed the point about the General Conference in the early church. It wasn't Peter, or Paul or anbody else from that session that spoke and wrote to the early churches. It was the combined opinion of the assembled men concerning doctrine. That is no different than what we have today. I would urge you to use a bit more caution when referring to the General Conference and your speculation as to why they are or aren't taking a position on something. The fact is, you don't know why. Speculation leads to rumors and gossip.
Nic Samojluk Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “Nic, your position on abortion is to radical for me.” What a coincidence! This exactly what I was thinking about your radical position and your willingness to place the GC above Scripture. When the Noble Bereans heard Paul explain Scripture, they did not say: “He is the final authority on doctrine.” They rather went home and compared Paul’s doctrine with what Scripture had to say. “I think it is clear that if you had the power you would indeed force any woman to carry to term her baby, regardless of the circumstances, even if it would result in her death.” Evidently you possess a wild and overactive imagination which is not supported by any credible evidence. You are free to engage in wild speculation, since we live in a free country. Let me cite to you what an Adventist physician did when faced with a similar situation. His patient was determined to have her unborn baby aborted past the point of viability—which is when the baby is able to survive outside the womb. This is illegal, of course, so the doctor reported this to the police, and the woman was incarcerated until the baby was born. “This is not a balanced approach to a serious problem. I would describe such a position as "fanatical".” You will conclude, based on your reasoning, that what the police did was fanatical. To my view, the doctor did what he was supposed to do: save the life of an innocent human being. If we know that a crime is about to take place, we have a duty to report this to the police, and they decide what their duty is, which is to protect human beings from harm. “You missed the point about the General Conference in the early church. It wasn't Peter, or Paul or anybody else from that session that spoke and wrote to the early churches. It was the combined opinion of the assembled men concerning doctrine.” Yes, but Peter was the spokesperson for the decision of those leaders of the church. “That is no different than what we have today. I would urge you to use a bit more caution when referring to the General Conference and your speculation as to why they are or aren't taking a position on something.” Our “Guidelines on Abortion” were drafted by our Loma Linda University ethicists—which implies a conflict of interest—and approved by the GC Autumn council. The document was never submitted to the worldwide church in a General Conference session. The decisions of the Autumn Council are supposed to be a temporary arrangment until the next worldwide session of the GC session. The document was never submitted to the authority of the worldwide church. Why? For fear that it would fail to pass! “The fact is, you don't know why. Speculation leads to rumors and gossip.” If you have a different logical and credible explanation for what happened, please share it with us!
ClubV12 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Nic, the remnant church will not fall, as the title of this thread would suggest. What will happen instead is, the sincerely mistaken radicals and fanatics will be shaken out in due time.
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 16, 2012 Administrators Posted January 16, 2012 Our “Guidelines on Abortion” were drafted by our Loma Linda University ethicists—which implies a conflict of interest—and approved by the GC Autumn council. The document was never submitted to the worldwide church in a General Conference session. The decisions of the Autumn Council are supposed to be a temporary arrangment until the next worldwide session of the GC session. The document was never submitted to the authority of the worldwide church. Why? For fear that it would fail to pass! Actually, the document was drafted by a committee at the General Conference with wider representation than you imply. The drafting of those guidelines was informed by a significant range of input, including medical ethicists from Loma Linda, but it certainly not exclusively from their input nor drafted exclusively by them as you imply. And you rationale for it never being submitted to the "authority of the worldwide church" is pure speculation. The process by which things make it to a Session agenda is more complex and rational than that. And it is certainly not driven by certainty of passage as one should be informed by the repeated failure of WO to gain sufficient support to pass. If one is to speculate as to a fear driven motive, I would suggest their was as high a probability, if not higher, that a significant number among those in office at that time may have feared that it would succeed in being passed. Here is a more realistic view. Matters of some controversy or dispute or that are in development may get passed at an Annual Council as guidelines which reflect a sense that this is more flexible and effectively in draft form, subject to revision and refinement. A consensus view realizes compromises acceptable to the majority, even if strong minority views to the contrary remain. More extreme or dogmatic views either way would not have carried a sufficient majority to gain passage at an Annual Council. If such guidelines are not subject to further acceptable refinement they are excepted as a reasonable consensus position. It is most likely that no serious effort was ever put forward to take those guidelines to a GC Session because the majority of leadership was reasonably comfortable with them. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
BobRyan Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 No subcommittee of the full GC in session has the authority of the entire GC session. This is impossible to ignore. It is why the recommendations of subcommittees are brought to the floor for a vote in the first place. The autumn council also does not have the authority of the full GC in session and so drafting proposals by either a subcommittee or drafting a temporary/provisional resolution by the Autumn Council does not carry with it the weight of the full GC in session. Once the GC in session has met there is no reason at all to imagine that prior Autumn Council decisions that are NOT ratified by the GC in session - carry the weight or support of the GC in session. However the use of those other committees and sessions in coming up with recommendations, suggestions and guidelines remains a valuable service. in Christ, Bob John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
Administrators Naomi Posted January 16, 2012 Administrators Posted January 16, 2012 Thank you, Bob R and Tom W for making the organizational structure crystal clear. If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 16, 2012 Administrators Posted January 16, 2012 No subcommittee of the full GC in session has the authority of the entire GC session. This is impossible to ignore. It is why the recommendations of subcommittees are brought to the floor for a vote in the first place. The autumn council also does not have the authority of the full GC in session and so drafting proposals by either a subcommittee or drafting a temporary/provisional resolution by the Autumn Council does not carry with it the weight of the full GC in session. Once the GC in session has met there is no reason at all to imagine that prior Autumn Council decisions that are NOT ratified by the GC in session - carry the weight or support of the GC in session. However the use of those other committees and sessions in coming up with recommendations, suggestions and guidelines remains a valuable service. in Christ, Bob Actually, that is really not correct. The General Conference Committee, which meets at Annual Council, does in fact have authority to act on a significant range of things, without need of any Session ratification. GC Working Policy, Finances, elections and appointments between Sessions, Guidelines, position statements, etc. may be acted upon and require no further action by a Session. Anything that requires Session action may only be passed by the Executive Committee as a recommendation to the Session. Things specifically reserved only to the General Conference in Session are amendments to the GC Constitution and Bylaws, doctrine, and the Church Manual. Here is the opening section from the Bylaws about the authority of the Executive Committee: Quote: During the intervals between sessions of the General Conference, the Executive Committee is delegated the authority to act on behalf of the General Conference in session. The membership of the Executive Committee includes representatives of all the divisions of the world field and the presidents of all union conferences and union missions, and therefore speaks for the world Church. Major items affecting the world Church are considered at the Annual Council meetings of the Executive Committee, when all the members of the Committee are invited to be present. The authority, therefore, of the Executive Committee is the authority of the world Church. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Nic Samojluk Posted January 17, 2012 Author Posted January 17, 2012 Nic, the remnant church will not fall, as the title of this thread would suggest. What will happen instead is, the sincerely mistaken radicals and fanatics will be shaken out in due time. I cannot predict what will happen, but my personal view is that very likely the organized, corporate church will fail the final test, but there will always be a remnant minority which will remain faithful to God until the end in spite of pressure and threat. If you analize the behavior of the Remnant in the Bible, you will discover that said Remnant was made up of individuals who remained faithful to God, but they were not members of any organized group of people. The classic example is that of the “seven thousand” who had not knelt down in front of Baal when the prophet Elijah fled from the presence of Queen Jezebel. Had those members of the Remnant belonged to an organized group, Elijah would have known of their existence. Notice that he complained to God that he was the only one remaining faithful to the Lord, yet God responded by saying that there seven thousand who had never worshipped the pagan God. Let’s not forget that we Adventists did fail the test in Germany while Hitler was killing Jews by the millions. We did compromise on the Sabbath and on killing during war time. The same took place in Rwanda, and now in the U.S. regarding our duty to respect human life. We did allow the killing of innocent unborn babies to take place in our own hospitals by the thousands. What makes you think that our church will stand the final test? If we failed the test at a time when there were no death decrees against us, why should I believe that we will stand firm when our very own existence will be on the line?
Nic Samojluk Posted January 17, 2012 Author Posted January 17, 2012 Tom Wetmore wrote: “Actually, the document was drafted by a committee at the General Conference with wider representation than you imply. The drafting of those guidelines was informed by a significant range of input, including medical ethicists from Loma Linda, but it certainly not exclusively from their input nor drafted exclusively by them as you imply.” True! There was input from a wide variety of individuals; nevertheless, do no forget that Loma Linda University was chosen to work on this problem. Actually, the Ethics department in LLU was created for this purpose, and their influence prevailed during the process. “And you rationale for it never being submitted to the "authority of the worldwide church" is pure speculation.” Pure speculation? Perhaps, but it represents an intelligent guess! The fact is that the “Guidelines on Abortion” document was never voted by a general session of the worldwide Adventist Church. Do you have contrary evidence? “It is most likely that no serious effort was ever put forward to take those guidelines to a GC Session because the majority of leadership was reasonably comfortable with them.” I agree! The question is why? The logical answer is profit. I know of two individuals who were present when Neal Wilson, a former president of the General Conference, in response to a question from the public as to the reason for our involvement in the abortion business responded: “There is money in this business, and if we don’t take advantage of this opportunity, others will.” [My paraphrase of what he said, but I think I can dig the witnesses’ actual words.]
doug yowell Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Actually, that is really not correct. The General Conference Committee, which meets at Annual Council, does in fact have authority to act on a significant range of things, without need of any Session ratification. GC Working Policy, Finances, elections and appointments between Sessions, Guidelines, position statements, etc. may be acted upon and require no further action by a Session. Anything that requires Session action may only be passed by the Executive Committee as a recommendation to the Session. Things specifically reserved only to the General Conference in Session are amendments to the GC Constitution and Bylaws, doctrine, and the Church Manual. Here is the opening section from the Bylaws about the authority of the Executive Committee: During the intervals between sessions of the General Conference, the Executive Committee is delegated the authority to act on behalf of the General Conference in session. The membership of the Executive Committee includes representatives of all the divisions of the world field and the presidents of all union conferences and union missions, and therefore speaks for the world Church. Major items affecting the world Church are considered at the Annual Council meetings of the Executive Committee, when all the members of the Committee are invited to be present. The authority, therefore, of the Executive Committee is the authority of the world Church. I don't know the ins and outs of official GC procedure but this seems in harmony with what was done with the abortion guidelines. Since they were not voted on in general session they are neither binding,official policy,or an official position.Unlike official prohibitions on tobacco and alcohol,they,in fact,remain suggestions.This category is also in harmony with what was printed in official SDA publications at the time(Ministry,The Review, Liberty) of their approval. The guidelines themselves invite further dialogue on the subject. This hardly indicates an official mandate for all SDA's.It merely continues the often contradictory and always confusing information that the church has allowed to be disseminated on the issue since the early 1970 Termination of Pregnancy Recommendations.
Nic Samojluk Posted January 19, 2012 Author Posted January 19, 2012 doug yowell wrote: “I don't know the ins and outs of official GC procedure but this seems in harmony with what was done with the abortion guidelines. Since they were not voted on in general session they are neither binding, official policy, or an official position. Unlike official prohibitions on tobacco and alcohol, they, in fact, remain suggestions.” If the above is true, then why do church officials cite them as an authoritative source for the abortion issue? When I publicly asked Ted Wilson, the GC president, in the City of Redlands a year ago about abortion, he cited the abortion guidelines document in his response. Evidently, he treated said document as a valid statement about the church position on this issue.
doug yowell Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 doug yowell wrote: “I don't know the ins and outs of official GC procedure but this seems in harmony with what was done with the abortion guidelines. Since they were not voted on in general session they are neither binding, official policy, or an official position. Unlike official prohibitions on tobacco and alcohol, they, in fact, remain suggestions.” If the above is true, then why do church officials cite them as an authoritative source for the abortion issue? When I publicly asked Ted Wilson, the GC president, in the City of Redlands a year ago about abortion, he cited the abortion guidelines document in his response. Evidently, he treated said document as a valid statement about the church position on this issue. This is precisely the reason why even people like President Wilson can give such misleading and confusing answers...because they have been told one side of the story without being informed of the other. If you had read George Gainer's entire work (The Wisdom of Solomon...")you would have remembered his story of the GC president's (Mrs.Miriam Wood, I think)wife being given conflicting messages by those who she asked for clarification of the church's policy on abortion. Editor Hegstad made it very clear in his opinion piece in Liberty magazine (Jan./Feb.1993)that this was NOT a policy,by titling the abortion report; "Adventists Approve Guidelines Rather Than Edicts".The editorial staff of the Dec. 31,1992 Adventist Review categorically stated " As you read these items, remember that the documents on abortion...are 'guidelines',NOT CHURCH POLICY... They are intended to be pastoral in nature...The other two documents state the 'official church position' on temperance principles and the environment."(p.11)While I don't have the quote in front of me I recall that the editor of Ministry magazine said exactly the same thing.So if anyone claims that the church has a policy or an official position on abortion that is clearly stated in the "guidelines" either they are lying, misinformed,misunderstanding, or hopeful. Either that or the editors of those official church publications are lying, misinformed,misunderstanding,or hopeful. Whatever the case, it should be obvious to every informed person that the church has answered the abortion issue by providing the world with a clear and definite maybe.
Nic Samojluk Posted January 20, 2012 Author Posted January 20, 2012 doug yowell wrote: “As you read these items, remember that the documents on abortion...are 'guidelines', NOT CHURCH POLICY...” Here is a dictionary definition of the word “guidelines.” It clearly defines a guideline as equivalent to policy. “A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guideline This reminds me of the way our church attempted to explain the difference between our Fundamental Beliefs and church Dogma, when in fact the dictionary defines the term “dogma” as a statement of fundamental beliefs.
ClubV12 Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 Thats putting to fine a point on it Nic. Guidlines from the G.C., in many areas, are nothing more than that, guidelines. It is left to the various WORLD conferences to flesh out the details that are applicable to their unique circumstances. It is left to them to establish official policy for their Conference. What is acceptable in America may not be acceptable in Africa, this is why we have "guidelines". The difference can be seen in the 28 fundamental beliefs, they are applicable world wide, the official position of the world church. They are not guidelines.
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 20, 2012 Administrators Posted January 20, 2012 Pure speculation? Perhaps, but it represents an intelligent guess! The fact is that the “Guidelines on Abortion” document was never voted by a general session of the worldwide Adventist Church. Do you have contrary evidence? A self-assesment of ones own intelligence in this context only compounds the nature of the speculation... And that it was never voted by the GC in Session forces me to the conclusion - So what! A guideline need not be passed by the Session. It remains as is, a guideline, not a hardline dogmatic conclusion of the matter. Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk Tom Wetmore wrote: “It is most likely that no serious effort was ever put forward to take those guidelines to a GC Session because the majority of leadership was reasonably comfortable with them.” I agree! The question is why? The logical answer is profit. I know of two individuals who were present when Neal Wilson, a former president of the General Conference, in response to a question from the public as to the reason for our involvement in the abortion business responded: “There is money in this business, and if we don’t take advantage of this opportunity, others will.” [My paraphrase of what he said, but I think I can dig the witnesses’ actual words.] I find your paraphrase of hearsay a bit suspect if for no other reason than your use here that implies a contextual connection to the guidelines as compared to the more probable context of the practice at some hospitals. Knowing Neal, having worked with him, I am more inclined to believe if he made such a statement it was more likely an observation of the facts as they were at the time rather than as you imply a rationale for the guidelines or even worse, an expression of his approval or agreement with the practice. What greatly undermines your erroneous speculation that the guidelines were motived or reflect a profit motive is that the Church side of the denomination does not receive any financial benefit from the operation of the hospitals. The income and profits remain in the healthcare system. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 20, 2012 Administrators Posted January 20, 2012 doug yowell wrote: “As you read these items, remember that the documents on abortion...are 'guidelines', NOT CHURCH POLICY...” Here is a dictionary definition of the word “guidelines.” It clearly defines a guideline as equivalent to policy. “A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guideline This reminds me of the way our church attempted to explain the difference between our Fundamental Beliefs and church Dogma, when in fact the dictionary defines the term “dogma” as a statement of fundamental beliefs. There is a very significant difference between a policy and a guideline. This quite clearly explains it: Quote: Guideline vs Policy Many individuals when asked about guidelines and policies don’t know how to distinguish one from the other. Others merely don’t give a fuzz about it and often neglect the importance of knowing the difference between the two. Because of this, people often misuse the word policy for a guideline and vice versa. To lessen the cloud of confusion between the two, guidelines are documents that seek to simplify a set of processes with regard to an established habit or practice. With this, it is safe to denote that guidelines are never compulsory compared to protocols or policies. Although these documents are not mandatory, they are still an important part of the entire process. The use of a set of guidelines can really impact the entire system in a positive fashion. For one, the employee’s movements or actions can become more knowable without sacrificing the quality of the process or outputs. In fact, the quality is almost always seen to improve more with the application of a set of guidelines. Whatever the organization (a private sector, a school org or the government), guidelines really ‘guide’ these groups to ensure that their processes are carried out well aside from being simplified. On the contrary, policies are more compulsory than guidelines. These can be an intentional map of actions that serves to guide an organization or group in decision making or in attaining positive results. Being mandatory, policies are more synonymous to protocols, rules and are similar to the executive orders or decrees mandated by the head of the state. However, policies must not be construed as completely similar to rules or laws because the latter limits certain behaviors (a characteristic obviously not present in policies). In addition, it can be heard , that policies are the ones that can be violated by the people. You often hear expressions that some individuals have not followed the policies and therefore violated them. In the case of guidelines, it is inappropriate to say that these can be violated. Because guidelines merely serve as a guide, one cannot be accused to violate such if he or she was not following them. Lastly, because policies are enforceable the enforcer would require the people to follow them whereas guidelines are best if followed by the people even if they are not required to be followed. In summary, the two degrees differ in the following aspects: 1. Policies are more of the mandatory type compared to guidelines that are not mandatory. 2. If one does not follow the policies, he or she is said to have violated them whereas if one fails to follow a set of guidelines he or she is not really violating them. It is more appropriate to say that it could have been better if he or she has followed the guidelines. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-guideline-and-policy/ "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Nic Samojluk Posted January 22, 2012 Author Posted January 22, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “Guidlines from the G.C., in many areas, are nothing more than that, guidelines. It is left to the various WORLD conferences to flesh out the details that are applicable to their unique circumstances. It is left to them to establish official policy for their Conference. What is acceptable in America may not be acceptable in Africa, this is why we have "guidelines". The difference can be seen in the 28 fundamental beliefs, they are applicable world wide, the official position of the world church. They are not guidelines.” I the church wanted to deviate from the strict definition of the word “guidelines” they should have labeled those guidelines as “Suggestions about Abortion.” The reason is very simple: Guidelines and policy are synonyms according to my dictionary. The church made the same mistake when it tried to make a difference between the word “dogma” and “fundamental beliefs.” My dictionary defines the term dogma as a set of fundamental beliefs. Of course, any person or organization is free to create new meaning for certain words, and this is what the church has done. Based on the behavior of our hospitals and our church, I agree that for all practical purposes our guidelines on abortion are mere suggestions. This is why at least 12 of our Adventist hospitals have offered abortion services to their patients and have been killing innocent unborn babies in violation of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue. If we have no obligation to follow the Guidelines on Abortion, then the same can be said about the Sixth Commandment, because those guidelines is an attempt to redefine the meaning of said Commandment. The Decalogue was not a set of suggestions! Were they? When I was young, our preachers emphasized that our church was the "Remnant" because we taught that all Ten Rules of human behavior were still valid and in force. Now we emphasize only nine of them. We have redefined the Sixth one and watered it down beyond recognition. Some of our hospitals were allowed to offer abortion on demand with impunity. This was amply documented in the pages of our official “Ministry” magazine. This was a terrible sin against our Creator and the church needs to repent of this flagrant deviation from moral duty. Public sins must be confessed publicly, while private sins in a private setting. Our church compromised on the Sabbath and the Sixth Commandment in Germany while Hitler was exterminating the Jews. Our German and Austrian leaders did publicly apologized for this moral failure. Our North American church must follow this noble example regarding our profit from abortion.
Nic Samojluk Posted January 22, 2012 Author Posted January 22, 2012 Tom Wetmore wrote: “What greatly undermines your erroneous speculation that the guidelines were motivated or reflect a profit motive is that the Church side of the denomination does not receive any financial benefit from the operation of the hospitals. The income and profits remain in the healthcare system.” There is strong evidence in support of my view. I have the testimony of two reliable witnesses who have put this in black and white. They both claim to have been present when in a public meeting Neal Wilson was asked why the church was involved in the abortion business, and he responded by saying that there was money in abortion and if the church failed to take advantage of this opportunity, others would. This argument was echoed by Edward Allred--a graduate from Loma Linda University who became a millionaire thanks to his involvement in abortion--when asked in public why he was in the profitable business of killing unborn babies. He recently retired and sold his large collection of abortion clinics to another Adventist.
ClubV12 Posted January 22, 2012 Posted January 22, 2012 "Guidelines and policy are synonyms according to my dictionary." Thats like a strict interpretation of a bible verse that does not take into consideration the context and supporting ideas surrounding that verse. In my opinion, Nic, that is essentially what you are doing with this whole abortion issue. Your view is so narrow, so rigid, you even go so far as to claim the G.C. allows abortions so they can make money on it. Thats a pretty radical idea. They call it "guidelines" because "suggestions" are what the teacher tells the students in art class (when they are finger painting). :)
Nic Samojluk Posted January 23, 2012 Author Posted January 23, 2012 ClubV12 wrote: “Your view is so narrow, so rigid, you even go so far as to claim the G.C. allows abortions so they can make money on it. That’s a pretty radical idea.” That is what the president of the North American Division of Adventists said, according to two reliable witnesses. Have you read the article written by George Gainer and published by “Ministry” a couple of decades ago entitled “Abortion: history of Adventist guidelines”? If you have, then tell me: What was the motivation behind the Adventist leadership when they allowed our Castle Memorial Hospital to offer abortions on demand to their patients? Was it not the fear of loosing significant revenues from abortion? What moved other hospitals to follow the example of CMH? Was it not profit? What incited Dr. Edward Allred—a graduate from Loma Linda—to engage in the abortion business? Was it not profit? You don’t believe his own words? What motivated those Adventists who purchased his profitable business from him when he retired from practice? Was it not profit? You label my views as rigid. Thanks for this compliment! The Decalogue is rigid in its demands! Isn’t it? Have you read Jesus' view on the Decalogue? Aren’t his statements quite rigid? He said that merely looking at a woman with sinful desire is treated by God as adultery. Isn’t this rather rigid? Have you considered that my views on abortion match that of Christianity for two thousand years? The liberal attitude towards abortion began in our country merely four decades ago. What can we say about our Adventist pioneers? Were they liberal on this issue? Weren’t they as rigid as steel on abortion?
ClubV12 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 "Two classes have been presented before me: first, those who are not living up to the light which God has given them; secondly, those who are too rigid in carrying out their one-sided ideas of reform, and enforcing them on others. When they take a position, they stand to it stubbornly, and carry nearly everything over the mark." Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, pg (56) May I suggest, Brother Nic, you are well over the mark on this issue. Be rigid in doctrine, never waver. The Sabbath is a rock, an anchor, for instance. Christ will return, an absolute belief. On matters of conscience, every man must be convinced in his own heart. It is not our place to be so rigid as to not allow free will in matters of abortion. We can offer counsel and guidelines, in some cases we can refuse to be involved, IF that is done in a Christlike and loving way.
doug yowell Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 "Two classes have been presented before me: first, those who are not living up to the light which God has given them; secondly, those who are too rigid in carrying out their one-sided ideas of reform, and enforcing them on others. When they take a position, they stand to it stubbornly, and carry nearly everything over the mark." Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, pg (56) May I suggest, Brother Nic, you are well over the mark on this issue. Be rigid in doctrine, never waver. The Sabbath is a rock, an anchor, for instance. Christ will return, an absolute belief. On matters of conscience, every man must be convinced in his own heart. It is not our place to be so rigid as to not allow free will in matters of abortion. We can offer counsel and guidelines, in some cases we can refuse to be involved, IF that is done in a Christlike and loving way. This is a nice quote but it still doesn't answer Nic's question of why you call the anti abortion views of our SDA founders a violation of conscience? How does Nic's position differ from any of theirs?
ClubV12 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I don't see any difference in the pioneers views on abortion than the view the church holds today. It's just a matter of common sense, then and now. In some cases, abortion must remain a viable option. You simply cannot have a blanket rule that covers every case. The question THIS thread is asking is: Can the remnant church fall? The specific reason for that fall is given as the abortion issue. The entire concept that this will lead to the fall of the church is ludicrous.
Recommended Posts