A Former Schoolmate Appeals to Dan Jackson

[B/W Photodude]

A Former Schoolmate Appeals to Dan Jackson

I would not trade places with Dan for “all the tea in China,” as they say.  I can categorically say that he is not my Division president. I refuse to be influenced by someone who has lost their godly-leadership bearings to the extent that he has.  I hear the heart cry of conservative Adventists around the world who  stand in opposition to his rebellious positioning. 

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2019/1/27/a-friend-appeals-to-dan-jackson

[phkrause]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

AMEN!  Something from F7 I can whole-heartedly agree with!  I would use several different words, in place of "rebellious."  He acts like a spoiled child when they dont get their way. HOOEY!

I agree, and he reminds me of another spoiled brat President!!

[Kevin H]

Elder Jackson is standing on the shoulders of Mrs. White,  Willie White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and others who the Fulcrum7 people see as horrible people as they try to form another coup against God's servants as they did when they united with the more moderate Stephen Haskell people in the 1922 General conference.

Oh, I know that the Fulcrum7 people claim to follow Mrs. White but they hold to a theology that distinguishes between what they believe Mrs. White wrote that came from God and what they believe that Mrs. White wrote that came from Willie, Prescott and Daniels. 

Talk about spoiled children. The Lord lead his church with Mrs. White at the leadership, and in a special way from 1888 through 1919. In 1922 there was a rebellion that derailed their work as a bunch of rebels took over the church, but as time went by the Lord has been leading us away from that rebellion and back to the Adventism of the 1890s and early 1900s. But this has rubbed those rebels in the wrong way so they are calling the faithful rebels and are trying to reinstate and force upon the rest of us the rebellion of 1922.

[Gregory Matthews]

There are honest differences of opinion between people on both sides of these issues.

Unfortunately, people on both sides sometimes fail to recognize this and demonize those with which they differ.

The tirade of the former schoolmate against Jackson fails to contribute to the discussion in the same sense that such against people on the other side fails to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Stan]

All those who support the Ecclesiastical  structure as set up by the Church of Rome in the 3rd century will nevefr support what Dan Jackson is saying.

It is that simple.

[Gregory Matthews]

For those who may wish to comment as to where they think I am on this:

1)  Prior to  Photodude posting the link to the article in the opening post, a suggestion was made that I might want to post it.  I read the article, considered posting it and decided not to do so as I believed that it would not be helpful to the conversation.  NOTE:  I have not stopped Photodude from posting it.

2)  Yesterday I received a short comment that was about President Ted, along with a request that I post it in this forum.  I reviewed it.  I considered posting it.  I notified the person who sent it to me that I was not going to post it as I did not believe that it contributed to a civil  discussion of the issues.

Folks,  I do not claim to be without bias.  Most of you know where I am on issues.  Although some of your thinking is probably incorrect.  But,  I often say "no" to both sides.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

to respond to a previous comment:  People such as me, who under the organization  of the Church of Rome, believe that there are many similarities between that Church and  the present organizational structure of the SDA denomination as is attempted to be put in place by  some of our denominational leaders;

It could be argued that we have similar in function to, even if we do not use the same words:

*  A Pope

*  Cardinals.

*  The College of Bishops. 

*  Similar roles for Bishops and Priests.

*  A written and voted creed.

*  A Catechism

Yes, there are some differences in all of the above.  But, there are also, in my opinion,  major similarities. 

However, one role that we do not have, which is causing us problems that that of Canon Lawyers

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

18 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Elder Jackson is standing on the shoulders of Mrs. White,  Willie White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and …

Not sure why Jackson is on EGWs shoulders, but I would suggest he get off. Actually, I see a lot of what he is doing is very much against what EGW wrote of. I have already posted a section of her writings somewhere here on Adventistan that clearly show how issues should be settled in the church. I would even go a bit further. Jackson has shown by his disregard for those who hold alternative views to his by using such words as hooey and stating they should "buzz off." It seems to me to be conduct unbecoming a division president. 

 

[B/W Photodude]

10 hours ago, Stan said:

All those who support the Ecclesiastical  structure as set up by the Church of Rome in the 3rd century will nevefr support what Dan Jackson is saying.

It is that simple.

The fact that there may be a similarity between the Church of Rome and the current SDA church is not really important. Keep in mind that they were much closer to the early Christians and the Apostles and were not so distant from them as to not have a lot of similarity to the church in the time of the Apostles of which we try also to emulate.

Do remember that this argument is really all about WO and there has never been women in leadership of the church throughout the earth's history. Leadership in the way of being a judge is a very different thing. Male leadership of the church was not a Roman invention. Next we will be calling Jesus a member of the Roman church because he didn't have female disciples!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I think people, including leadership, on both sides of [whatever the church controversy du jour might be] have spoken and acted like spoiled brats.  I don't even bother to read 99% of churchy opinion pieces anymore, because nobody is interested in understanding the opposing views.  They just want everyone to embrace *their* views.  And each side acts as if they have the moral high ground.

What's kinda sad is that so many have become so driven, so involved, so wrapped up in being crusaders of their respective opinions, that if the problem were solved, the gasbags would all go into a deep depression because there'd be nothing left about which to fight and demean the opposition... because, you know, humbly spreading the Gospel doesn't provide the endorphin "fix" that they get from playing the victim...  

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

well; I would strongly disagree with this statement. How did you decide that this must be so?

You asked this after quoting my comment "Elder Jackson is standing on the shoulders of Mrs. White,  Willie White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and others "

The answer is simple, I've studied Adventist history, but also something that I thought was just random but where I now believe that the Lord was leading me. When I was at Andrews besides what I needed to study for class, I also liked to just pick up a file in the White estate and read. As I said I did not make specific studies but would just pick up what ever file seemed to catch my interest or that I may have happened to grab at the time.

Anyway, in file after file I kept coming across a series of letters that all sounded like each other. The one side of the issue was written by either Mrs. White or Willie. The other side was written by I originally thought it was the same pastor since the last name frequently started with the letter "W" However after a while I'd be surprised that there were names that did not start with "W" and eventually came to relize that even the "W" was at least 3 different last names: Watson, Washburn and Washburn's protégé Wilkinson.

Mrs. White or Willie would write to these people telling them that despite the fact that they were using a massive amount of her quotes in their teachings, that they did not understand her message and were thus misrepresenting her and were in fact abusing her writings by using them to actually push their views, and that both Ellen and Willie told them that their views that they were pushing were WRONG.

These ministers would defend their views. They would tell Mrs. White that they were indeed using her writings correctly and that they were not misrepresenting her and that they were not wrong, but told Mrs. White that she only wrote those sharp testimonies to them because people close to her were polluting her mind against them, but that these people who were polluting her mind are the ones who were wrong, they were lowering the standards in the church and that she needs to direct her testimonies towards those who were polluting her mind against them and that if Mrs. White knew what was going on, instead of sending them sharp testimony she would fully embrace their ministry and join them in their message. The letters to Willie were not that friendly often comparing him to Nadab and Abihu and the sons of Samuel, accusing him of being used by Satan to bring in New Theology into the church and changing his mother's writing to be against their views and to support his heresies. etc.

I have to give these pastors credit that I did not read this next part in their letters, but I came across a couple of mimeographed messages that were being spread in the churches in the early 1900s. These accused Mrs. White of Apostacy, saying that until around 1888 Mrs. White's writings came from God. But since 1888 Mrs. White has apostatized. First she did not support the truth but started opposing the truth in the 1888 General Conference, then in the 1890s she went even deeper into aposticy when she accepted and started to preach the heresy of the trinity, and she no longer believes that she was a prophet because she teaches that her writings are not infallible. They also accused Willie A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and sometimes others of having taken over Mrs. White's mind so that they are using her writings to spread their new theology. They warned people to avoid these heresies and to stop reading Mrs. White directly, especially what she wrote starting with 1888, and to ONLY read Mrs. White as quoted by and they named the different pastors such as Elders Watson and Washburn.

The views of Fulcrum7 are basically the views of Elders Watson, Washburn, Wilkinson and the others. They are carrying on the torch of this thread of Adventism. When I was in the Army at Ft. Lewis Washington I use to read a journal called "Our Firm Foundation". That journal kept spreading the same message that I read in those letters that Mrs. White said was wrong. The footnotes kept quoting Watson, Washburn and Wilkinson and the others. I'm sorry but if Mrs. White could say to them that they were wrong back then, why are they right today? Fulcrum7 besides spreading the messages of Watson, Washburn, Wilkinson and the others, what they say about Elder Jackson sounds a lot like what these people use to say about Willie, Daniels and Prescott and what their followers were saying about the post 1888 Mrs. White.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.

[Gregory Matthews]

Comments:

1)  Ellen White grew in her doctrinal understandings in the same manner that we humans grow.  We grow by prayer, Bible study and the experiences of life.  So did she.  God did not intervene to immediately correct her in every element of her doctrinal understanding that failed to fully reflect the truth of God.  As humans it is only in eternity that we will fully understand God.  It will not be in this human life.

2)   A study of the life and doctrinal understanding of Ellen White will show that over time her doctrinal understandings changed in a number of areas.

3)  Much of the individual advice that she gave specific people represented a specific application of a basic principle to their situation and not a generalized application to be applied to all people in all situations.  Many people err in failing to understand this.  They fail to understand why she may seem to tell one person to do something that she seems to tell another person not to do.

4)  God did not give the ministry of Ellen white to the fledgling SDA denomination to replace the Bible as an  instructional guide to understanding God.  The Bible fills that role, not Ellen White.  God gave Ellen White to this denomination to administratively guide it in its developing years.  We would not be the denomination that we are today if   it  had not been for the ministry of Ellen White.

5)  In my personal opinion, we have people, who I will not name in this post, who in rejecting the administrative advice of Ellen White, are attempting to form this denomination into a structure that rejects the advice that God gave us through her ministry.  In addition, I believe that such  fails to prepare us as a denomination for the events that we believe will happen in End Time.

6)  These are serious times.  As I believe that some of the problems that exist in the SDA denomination are beyond human resolution, I can only wait to see how God will lead and the direction that will take, if God does lead us beyond those issues, which I am uncertain that God will do.  

   

[Gregory Matthews]

I have received a private message from a well known figure in our church making the following comment on my above post.

1)   (Agree!)

2)    (Agree—and can add, “It is reasonable to propose that she would have continued to change her views, as she matured in her understanding of God’s purposes.)

3)   (Agree! What you have identified is a component of the Historical-Critical method that some reject.  We have applied the methods of this  so-called “demonic” process to EGW for years, and don’t know it.)

4)  (Agree!  We claim we follow this process, except when we don’t.)

5)  (Agree!  These as-yet-to-be identified people appear to put their energy into making an organization that reflects their desires.  These individuals might modify EGW’s well-known statement to read, “When the SDA denomination perfectly reflects the will of those who have been appointed to lead them, then Jesus can come.”) 

6)   (Agree.  Interesting times lie ahead.)

NOTE:  I have very slightly modified the wording of the actual message sent to me.  That modification does not change the meaning of the message sent to me.

[debbym]

i don't follow Ted Wilson, I don't follow Dan Jackson.  I let Christ be the one authority in the Church.This was a real problem for the religious authorities in his day.  He was considered radical and a rebell, and fighting against the established righteous authority of His day.

I pray today, I will be found standing In Jesus and Jesus alone.  If i add human authority to the authority Jesus in my life i will stand in human strength and not in the strength of the Holy Spirit.

[B/W Photodude]

18 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Mrs. White or Willie would write to these people telling them that despite the fact that they were using a massive amount of her quotes in their teachings, that they did not understand her message and were thus misrepresenting her and were in fact abusing her writings by using them to actually push their views

I get it that some people misuse the writings of Mrs. White

18 hours ago, Kevin H said:

When I was in the Army at Ft. Lewis Washington I use to read a journal called "Our Firm Foundation". That journal kept spreading the same message that I read in those letters that Mrs. White said was wrong. The footnotes kept quoting Watson, Washburn and Wilkinson and the others.

For anyone wishing to read a bit of what this group was all about:

https://hopeint.webs.com/ourfirmfoundation.htm

I used to get the magazines after someone sent me a subscription. I no longer followed them after one of the leaders wanted readers to send them their tithe money.

18 hours ago, Kevin H said:

The views of Fulcrum7 are basically the views of Elders Watson, Washburn, Wilkinson and the others. They are carrying on the torch of this thread of Adventism.

I'm sorry but if Mrs. White could say to them that they were wrong back then, why are they right today? Fulcrum7 besides spreading the messages of Watson, Washburn, Wilkinson and the others, what they say about Elder Jackson sounds a lot like what these people use to say about Willie, Daniels and Prescott and what their followers were saying about the post 1888 Mrs. White.

As already noted, over 150 different authors have sent in articles to F7. There is no conspiracy there. And whatever you think, it still doesn't diminish the fact that the president of the NAD is telling people to "buzz off." So, I do have your version of F7, but exactly how did F7 follow the previous messages of W,W, &W? And how was their message wrong?

FWIW, I have also said there are people on both sides of these issues who are probably misusing her writings. I also have said some there have some serious ethical issues that preclude me from reading anything they write. One author even has a restraining order against her preventing her from entering her former church! Again, all of their problems does not change the fact that those on the liberal side are doing seriously wrong stuff

(OK, someone gets to put in the obligatory "two rights don't make a wrong!" or vice versa.)

[Kevin H]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 2:14 PM, The Wanderer said:

Thank you for your informative post, and for taking the time and effort to clarify. I am still struggling to understand more practically, what you are saying about Dan Jackson here. May I also ask what your opinion of "Our Firm Foundation" as a news letter> Did you enjoy it and see it as preaching the truth? I am asking so that I do not presume.

I enjoyed reading "Our Firm Foundation" However I see the so called "Historic Adventists" as for the MOST part being part of the truth that is being used against the rest of truth.  Thus in what they usually say there are precious gems that I value and is good to be reminded of.

I said the MOST part but there is also another part where they peculate on their fractions of the truth, then speculate on the speculations, and the worst part is that they want to force their views on to the rest of us through demanding the church to enforce their views, telling all kinds of scary stories as to what the rest of the church outside of their views are doing (such as the book "With Cloak and Dagger") their updating the villain's list so that it appears that points they are complaining about are just new ideas creeping into the church in recent years instead of the 1890s and early 1900s. And how they like to divide Adventists into only two groups, good faithful them or the apostates that like the theology of Desmond Ford. (I see them and Des Ford as the two ditches we can fall into. There is a whole tapestry of Adventism that does not fall into these two ditches but the Historic Adventists like to pretend that these do not exist.)

I hope this helps