The Day Ministry Magazine Went Silent on Abortion

[doug yowell]

Based on Nic's post, nope, don't think that would change anything.

There are fanatics on all sides of an issue, I'll take the middle of the road thanks.

And where IS the middle of the road on this baby killing highway?

[ClubV12]

I see you haven't given this much thought Doug. Or, are you, like Nic, prepared to force a 10 year old victim of incest carry to term her grossly deformed fetus? If so, you become the monster you accuse of others of.

Do also think the General Conference would allow such an abortion because there's money to be made?

This is the problem with religious fanatics, especially fanatics that carry signs like "baby killers". It's a small step from there to not condoning the murder of doctors who perform abortions, Doug.

Look in the mirror,,,, who's the monster now?

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“I admire your zeal for a cause, Nic, but what is your solution?”

Corporate repentance, public confession, public apology, and God’s forgiveness. This is the only experience which will prepare us as God’s people to stand firm when we face the final moral test which will determine our eternal destiny.

Don't forget that we failed the moral test in Germany, we failed in Rwanda, and we also failed in the U.S. It is high time to repent and confess our sins.

[Nic Samojluk]

doug yowell wrote:

“Clearly, but all that will change once Nic gets used to using his walker.”

I am considering trading my walker for a walking stick. It is more effective in self defense. Do they make them with steel?

[Nic Samojluk]

doug yowell wrote:

“Put down the N.Y.Times editorial section and try going to a couple of local pro-life meetings or better yet visit your local Crisis Pregnancy Center disguised as a young pregnant girl and then make an informed evaluation on the nature of the fruit. You may just change your mind about those fanatics.”

I have been to several pro-life meetings and the strongest weapon they use is prayer. It is a terrible weapon indeed. Everybody should fear its power!

[ClubV12]

Nic, the church is going through, the question is, will YOU be a part of it? Your looking at various organizations, hospitals in this case, others see problems in our schools or any number of church related business'. From that they conclude the church is going to fall. No, it won't. Those business' may fall, we know that MOST of the people will fall. Individual whole churches will. It WILL appear the very highest levels of the church will fall, apostasy will wide spread, but the church won't fall.

Individual members, at some point, NOT YET, will make up what we know as the church. Sister White refers to the church as the VISIBLE CHURCH. The same one down the road from you, the same one folks in a community recognize as the Adventist church.

In looking at theses failing institutions, what ever they may be, in critizing the G.C. for it's actions, your no different than those who have left the church. Saying it has or will fall. No different Nic. Your looking at the people, the institutions, when you do that you take your eyes off the prize.

There is an endless variety of faults you can find in the church, this issue of abortion is the one that captures your imagination. For others it might be a particular doctrine that fosters their bitterness. The devil doesn't care what you want to focus on, as long as it's not Jesus.

We SHOULD, with pen and voice, declare the truth. But we MUST do that in a balanced way. Sister White had to fight fanaticism in her day and the church has had to fight it ever since. "We" are fighting it again, on this very thread. It will never go away, the greatest danger to the church comes from within, not from without.

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“There are fanatics on all sides of an issue, I'll take the middle of the road thanks.”

I wouldn’t do that. You risk of getting hit by traffic moving from both directions.

[doug yowell]

I see you haven't given this much thought Doug. Or, are you, like Nic, prepared to force a 10 year old victim of incest carry to term her grossly deformed fetus? If so, you become the monster you accuse of others of.

Do also think the General Conference would allow such an abortion because there's money to be made?

This is the problem with religious fanatics, especially fanatics that carry signs like "baby killers". It's a small step from there to not condoning the murder of doctors who perform abortions, Doug.

Look in the mirror,,,, who's the monster now?

It is also a small step from calling someone a fanatical, unthinking monster to condoning their persecution and ostrasization from society.Since the hypothetical that you've proposed may occur in a 1 in 10,000,000 chance,and you yourself probably agree that the 9.8999% of all other pregnancies might be immoral then why the quick leap to the less than human labels for Nic and I?

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“I see you haven't given this much thought Doug. Or, are you, like Nic, prepared to force a 10 year old victim of incest carry to term her grossly deformed fetus? If so, you become the monster you accuse of others of.”

I don’t think Doug has such an authority; the church doesn’t have said authority either. The mission of the church is to preach the Ten Commandments and the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness. The government is the only one with the authority to protect all human beings from being killed and with the power to punish those who break the law.

Since you used an extreme case, I will ask you: Have you considered the fact that we Adventists opened the door for the so called “therapeutic” abortions and ended by allowing our hospitals to offer abortions on demand. Thousands of innocent babies became the victims of our liberal attitude towards abortion. Is this the mission of the “Remnant” church which allegedly keeps God’s Commandments?

Those who know what we have been doing, look at us with disdain and conclude that we do not deserve the Remnant name anymore. Because of our compromise on this issue, some of the most valuable pro-life leaders among us have left our church, and some of them have gone back to Rome, because the Catholic Church has so far refused to profit from the lucrative abortion business.

A well known G.C. representative did described one of our hospitals as an “abortion mill,” and this medical institution does carry the Adventist name with impunity. I get messages from Catholics who ask me what happened to the Adventist Church. What can I tell them that might entice them to join our church? I used to give Bible studies to Catholics; I wouldn’t dare to do this today!

[ClubV12]

"Baby Killing", thats what Doug calls it. It's an inflamatory term, designed to evoke a strong emotion, a FANATICAL TERM, spoken from a radical position. It is these kind of terms that provoke a, literally, killer response from some individual. And you will have to share in that responsibility, you have condoned it, enabled it. You too are guilty.

I will not leave it to YOU two guys to condem and decide which mother was right or wrong. With such a radical, fanatical position you take, you would without doubt get it wrong.

As you have done on this thread with your clearly unbalanced approach to a serious problem.

Sister White says of those waiting for the church to reform, you will wait in vain. It's not about the church, it's about YOU.

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“Nic, the church is going through”

How can you be so sure when Ellen White wasn’t? Can you use the Bible in support of your view? The Jewish leaders were as sure as you are that God’s promises to his chosen people could not fail. King David and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were also sure that Jesus would sit on David’s throne for ever. Priest Eli was sure that God’s promise to his descendants could not fail. What happened? How come none of those promises were fulfilled?

We are described in the last book of the Bible as Laodicea. Did Jesus give the church of Laodicea any assurance that it would not be vomited from his mouth? This is why Ellen White told us that God’s promises and threatening are conditional. They are contingent on our human response. Is this that difficult for you to grasp and accept?

“the question is, will YOU be a part of it? … but the church won't fall.”

God’s promise to me, to you, and to the Remnant church is contingent on our enduring the final test. This test will be much harder that the abortion issue. Since our church failed in Germany, in Rwanda and in the U.S. How can we be sure that it will endure the hardest test of them all? Is this a reasonable way to prepare ourselves for the final test—by failing three moral tests in a row?

“There is an endless variety of faults you can find in the church, this issue of abortion is the one that captures your imagination.”

Suppose tomorrow the leaders of our church would compromise over the Sabbath, the way the “Worldwide Church of God” did some years ago and moved their day of worship to Sunday. Would such a move capture your imagination?

And remember that if we started to worship on Sunday like the rest of Christendom, probably no large segment of humanity would be targeted for extermination like in the case of abortion. Our hospitals were allowed to profit from killing innocent unborn babies, which is a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment, and you are surprised that this captured my imagination.

“The devil doesn't care what you want to focus on, as long as it's not Jesus.”

What is the use of focusing on Jesus if we knowingly ignore and redefine the true meaning of one of the Commandments he wrote with his own hand on tablets of stone? Jesus said: “If you love me, keep my Commandments.” What kind of Gospel are we preaching when we dare to alter what God ordained?

“We SHOULD, with pen and voice, declare the truth. But we MUST do that in a balanced way.”

How can participating in the extermination of human beings be considered a balanced way of declaring the Truth?

[CoAspen]

I think what you are responding to....can be summed up as a "one trick pony"!

[ClubV12]

Ah yes,,,, the old and tired "The Jewish leaders were as sure...". The veritable watch word/phrase of all off shoots and those who claim the church has/will fall. For, oh, a couple of thousand years or so the Lord labored with His chosen people. This last day church has been here how long? Less than a couple of hundred. Don't be so quick to bail out.

Sister White was SURE, there is no question about where SHE stands on the issue of the church falling, it won't. It will APPEAR as it is about to, event's which have not yet happened. If you think the church is about to fall NOW, you aint seen nothing yet. Wait till the shaking begins!

We are told there WILL BE Adventist (ordained) Pastors urging their congregation to accept the Sunday laws, to worship on Sunday. We ARE TOLD there will be open air meetings in the cities and towns, organized by Adventists, urging the populace and the members to accept Sunday worship. Leadership at highest levels WILL be in disarray, communication will be extremely difficult from the Conference level down to the individual churches. The pews WILL be almost empty, it will be in a very real sense "every church for themselves". We WILL stand alone, terribly alone, with no signs of leadership in sight. Families will be broken up, some going to church, some abandoning church, children will leave their families. In many respects it will be a time like that of the early church in the New Testament. The church WILL survive. Don't run ahead of the Lord and bring that time upon us before it's due. Your local Pastor may have left the church along with most of the people, the Elders, Decons, Sabbath school teachers. Perhaps the only man left standing will be the janitor, who may well become the new leader of a true revival for those few who remain. Will YOU be there Nic? Those who think the church has fallen or very close to it NOW, those who have already left will find theres a good chance they won't even be around to see the real shaking!

So you say the church in Germany has fallen? Let me check,,,, nope, it's still there! Don't mistake a shaking and trials for a falling. WILL Jesus sit on the throne forever? Yup, of that there is doubt.

In legal terms it's called, "inciting a riot", when we stir up anger and move people to violence. Be careful your not part of the problem.

[doug yowell]

"Baby Killing", thats what Doug calls it. It's an inflamatory term, designed to evoke a strong emotion, a FANATICAL TERM, spoken from a radical position.

The only emotional response to this term is coming from you,Club.It is the same term (they called it murder, is that less evocative?)used by the original SDA leaders when referring to abortion in the pages of the "Review" and other SDA publications.James White, Uriah Smith, J.N.Andrews, J.H.Kellogg,Kate Lindsey, and even Ellen White who alluded to the premature death of an unborn caused by the indescretions of the father as murder. Taken from a radical position?? If the unborn child is not a baby then why does every mother in the world call it that? If it is not alive then what exactly does an abortion accomplish? If it is alive what do YOU call abortion?

[doug yowell]

"Baby Killing", thats what Doug calls it. It's an inflamatory term, designed to evoke a strong emotion, a FANATICAL TERM, spoken from a radical position. It is these kind of terms that provoke a, literally, killer response from some individual. And you will have to share in that responsibility, you have condoned it, enabled it. You too are guilty.

It is this kind of nonsensical rhetoric that while masquerading a righteous,non-judgmental indignation is actually the opposite. Not only is your premise false (calling abortion "baby killing" does not naturally lead to the creation of abortionist killers any more than those calling slavery a brutal, immoral, sinful crime against humanity were responsible for the actions of John Brown)but your attempt to picture those whose views appeal to the inherent importance of human life as the real advocates of evil is hardly supportive of that Christian worldview.I understand how Christians in today's post-Christian can differ on the most difficult cases (like Gerry) but I can't understand why anyone simply lamblasts another's character before engaging them on the logic of their position in contrast to or in harmony with God's revealed Word?

[ClubV12]

You don't call it murder or baby killing in every case and THAT is the point! It's unbalanced. Sister White also talks about families that do little to control the number of children and how wrong they are to do that. Especially with poor families that have so many children they can barely feed them and the mother never has a chance to rest. There is a balance here.

Of course there are many abortions that are not warranted. Nobody is suggesting it should be used as a birth control measure. It seems to me the position Nic has taken on this issue is that in virtually EVERY case the fetus should be carried to term. That is profoundly wrong!!! It is NOT the position of the church OR Loma Linda, there ARE guiding principles of acceptable standards. For the most part, that fact has been ignored or swept under the rug or called an outright lie. The suggestion that the G.C. is "in it for the money" is flat out ridiculous, it verges on liable in fact.

In short, such a hardcore, as CoAspen noted, a "one trick pony" position has been taken it is impossible to see ANY reason in the policys. Loma Linda, and other Adventist hospitals, may well not be up to YOUR standards, or even mine, but they are far from being an abortion clinic in some back alley with a coat hanger.

I will certainly trust Loma Linda or any number of other clinics to make these difficult decisions and offer counseling, before I would allow some radical, sign waving, protesters to come in and set policy! Which could very easily lead to the death of a mother while they debate the ethics. Murder indeed!!!

[ClubV12]

What guidelines, if any, would you recommend, Doug, Nic?

In what cases WOULD an abortion be the right thing?

Yeah, we have heard all about the ultra low percentage numbers, we get it. For the most it's hyper bole, lets deal with reality a moment. Are they or are there not some cases where abortion is warranted? What cases are those?

Do you guys even know what guidelines and procedures an institution like Loma Linda follows? What the guidelines of the G.C. are? I doubt it, I think your mostly just trash talking, like Enquirer Headlines, looking for something new and startling to grab attention. This debate has been going for SO long, the Ministry Magazine just let it go. A wise decision, considering the number of unreasonable people out there that refuse a reality check.

[doug yowell]

I will not leave it to YOU two guys to condem and decide which mother was right or wrong.

I'm not condemning I'm simply trying to bring the humanness of the unborn into the equation. You're condemning us for engaging our views in the conversation. Both Nic and I have made it clear that when two lives are at stake we have no vision from God as to who should choose what. I want people to realize that the unborn is still a living human being worthy of life once conceived. Pretending that the value of it's life is completely dependent on it's being perfectly healthy and wanted by it's mother seems a little more than I'm willing to freely concede.I can't see how God would shrug His shoulders at that type of rationale or how it fits harmonously in with His concern for the sparrow that falls from the tree.

[ClubV12]

"I want people to realize that the unborn is still a living human being worthy of life once conceived."

Sounds good, sounds very lofty, sounds wonderful, but it's not reality. Some fetus' should be considered for termination. Who will decide? Are you privy to the details in every case? Who will serve as the moral conscience for those who have experienced this traumatic decision?

"The church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Decisions on abortion should be made by the individuals involved, aided by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships. Finally, church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing consideration of their moral responsibilities with regard to abortion in the light of the teaching of Scripture.”

Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology

Some aspects of this also apply to euthanasia, or the refusal of medical care to extend life. Such decisions are best left to the individual, or in cases where they cannot decided for themselves, to a responsible family.

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“You don't call it murder or baby killing in every case and THAT is the point!”

If abortion is not baby killing then what is it? When the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when there is malformation, our church and our hospitals label abortion as “therapy.” Do you believe that dismembering a developing unborn baby is therapeutic?

Would any pro-choice individual choose this kind of therapy for themselves? If not, then why not? The task of the abortionist is to take a live and kicking unborn baby and reduce it to a lifeless mess of broken remnants made up of torn limbs, head, and torso. How can anyone deny what is patently clear.

“Sister White also talks about families that do little to control the number of children and how wrong they are to do that. Especially with poor families that have so many children they can barely feed them and the mother never has a chance to rest.”

Did Ellen at any time suggest that the solution was killing the unborn? She did state that when a man neglects the health needs of a pregnant woman, he is guilty of almost murdering his own children. Her solution was restraint instead of killing the innocent.

“It seems to me the position Nic has taken on this issue is that in virtually EVERY case the fetus should be carried to term.”

First let me remind you that the term “fetus” is the Latin for unborn baby. My position matches what was prevalent in Christianity for two thousand years. The Hippocratic Oath was honored by the medical profession which forbade abortion.

There was only one exception: when there was strong evidence that there was no way for the pregnant woman to survive the pregnancy. A good example is an ectopic pregnancy—the baby is growing outside of the uterus.

“That is profoundly wrong!!! It is NOT the position of the church OR Loma Linda, there ARE guiding principles of acceptable standards.”

What is wrong is not my view, but the modern, liberal view of the church which justifies what the Lord condemned in Scripture and what our Adventist pioneers labeled as plain murder and the violation of God’s Ten Rules of human behavior.

We don’t need guiding principles on killing innocent human beings. The biblical principle is simple and crystal clear: “You shall not murder.” Murder is defined as the killing of innocent human beings. There is no need to clarify what is already plain and unambiguous! What we have done to the Sixth Commandment resembles what Rome did to the Second and the Fourth.

Several pages of human guidelines will never nullify what the Lord has written on tablets of stone. We need to choose between what God said and what human tradition has developed and human reasoning has devised. When we face the judgment, do you think that we will stand guiltless by arguing that we lived by guidelines on killing invented by humans?

“The suggestion that the G.C. is "in it for the money" is flat out ridiculous, it verges on liable in fact.”

You seem to be willingly ignoring the facts of history. When the issue of abortion on demand reached the North American Division office, the then president of the NAD publicly declared that our church was leaning towards abortion because there were too many people and too much hunger in the world.

Why did our church move from the so called “therapeutic” abortion to abortion on demand in 1970? What was the issue? Did you ever read George Gainer’s monumental historical account of the events which took place between 1970 and 1992? Wasn’t profit the issue? If it wasn’t money, then what was it?

I have statements from two independent and reliable witnesses who have heard Neal Wilson say publicly that the church was involved in the abortion business because of profit. He justified this by arguing that if we didn’t take advantage of this opportunity to make money, others would.

“Loma Linda, and other Adventist hospitals, may well not be up to YOUR standards, or even mine, but they are far from being an abortion clinic in some back alley with a coat hanger.”

Some of our own hospitals have not been even up to the world standards. A General Conference representative once said of our “Washington Adventist Hospital” that it was an “abortion mill.” On two occasions the “Washington Post” published articles critical of the work of said Adventist medical institution.

On one occasion, a non Adventist couple chose our WAH for their pregnancy care. The first question they were asked was: “Do you want to keep this baby?” They were astounded to hear such a question from a physician at a Christian hospital. They got up, said “we must be at the wrong place,” and left. Thousands of unborn babies were killed in said hospital according to credible reports. Is this the mission of our medical institutions: killing innocent unborn human beings?

“Which could very easily lead to the death of a mother while they debate the ethics. Murder indeed!!!”

Yes, this is why saving the pregnant woman’s life has never been an issue. Saving one human life instead of loosing two is still pro-life. There is no point in sticking to an unreasonable policy when we can save at least the life of the mother.

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“What guidelines, if any, would you recommend, Doug, Nic?”

The one given to us by the Lord himself: “You shall not murder” which is found in Exodus 20.

“In what cases WOULD an abortion be the right thing?”

When there is very strong evidence that both the pregnant and the unborn baby will die otherwise. A good example is, to my judgment, an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is growing outside the uterus.

“Do you guys even know what guidelines and procedures an institution like Loma Linda follows? What the guidelines of the G.C. are? I doubt it, I think your mostly just trash talking, like Enquirer Headlines, looking for something new and startling to grab attention.”

As far as I know, Loma Linda follows the guidelines adopted by the church. Why would they choose some other guidelines? Loma Linda University ethicists were the main individuals responsible for the drafting of the church guidelines; why would they depart from what they designed?

If you have any doubt, you can write to them; you probably will never receive an answer. I have written to several Adventist medical institutions and to the General Conference. Their usual response is absolute silence.

But the Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” are online and available to everybody. I have read and studied those guidelines probably twenty times. Here is the link to the document:

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main-guide1.html

“This debate has been going for SO long, the Ministry Magazine just let it go.”

Our “Ministry” magazine went silent shortly following the publication of said guidelines and the publication of two books by Adventist LLU ethicists. This policy was intended, in my view, designed to silence the opposition.

Adventist pro-lifers, which were running 2 to 1 according to my own investigation, were suddenly deprived of the privilege of defending the pro-life position. Several leading Adventist pro-lifers left the church, with some of them going back to Rome.

This silent treatment is what forced me to publish my book about abortion and the Adventist Church. You can access it at the printer’s page: http://lulu.com. All you have to do to see my book is o type my name—Nic Samojluk—in the Search blank space.

[ClubV12]

"Several leading Adventist pro-lifers left the church,,,,"

Citing examples like that is no doubt the reason you did not recieve any correspondence from Loma Linda or the G.C. They know better than to shout in the ears of a deaf man.

Several leading Adventist fanatics left the church,,, over the years. Nothing new there, you continually draw the wrong conclusions and see only what your blinders allow for.

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

"The church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance.”

True! I fully agree with the above statement.

“Decisions on abortion should be made by the individuals involved”

Yes, there is no alternative option given the current legality of killing innocent unborn human beings; but this was not the policy of civilized society for two millennia.

Either civilization was morally wrong in sticking to the Hippocratic Oath which was respected for two thousand years and which forbade abortion; or else the current liberal policy about killing the most vulnerable members of the human race is wrong!

What would you say in the event society were to apply the same liberal policy to rape, theft, and the sexual abuse of children? If rape and burglary is wrong, why do we justify killing innocent human beings? Does this policy make moral sense?

Rape is a serious offense, but murder should be most serious! Most victims of rape do outlive the criminal act perpetrated against them; aborted babies don’t. Can you see the difference?

“ … aided by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

The Holy Spirit is the one which inspired the Bible, and the Bible is crystal clear about killing the innocent! Why would the Holy Spirit condone what the Bible has condemned?

This reminds me of the story of a young couple who were engaged in heavy petting. They were Christians, so they decided to pray. They asked God to send them a message about whether they should be guided by their natural impulses. Since no message came back from heaven, they went ahead and had sex.

[BobRyan]

In Ellen White's day - many denominations argued that decisions on slavery should be made by the individual slave owners involved - not by the state.

However the SDAs of the 1800's had a much higher concept of the value of human life than that - no matter that the democrat party thought it was a good idea at the time.

Today we have the same value of human life issue raised. Only the individuals at risk are members of all races, both genders. The infant is being targeted in this modern assault on the value of human life.

I pray that the SDA church will in no way play a hand in support of these crimes against humanity.

in Christ,

Bob

[doug yowell]

I pray that the SDA church will in no way play a hand in support of these crimes against humanity.

You mean "no longer play a hand in support of these crimes against humanity"? It's historical guilt is well documented and any evidence of true repentance is still awaiting. Prayers for the end of support for idol worship in Judah were answered when men of faith stood up to be used by God.The church goes nowhere without it's leaders leading.