The Role of the Chruch Manual

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

https://atoday.org/the-church-manual-in-crisis/

The above will challenge you.

My personal position is that the Church Manual is a recommendation, that often is not followed,

 

[Daryl]

What is the position of the Church Manual itself through its writings???

[Gregory Matthews]

Any citation that I make will be from the 2005 edition of the Church Manual.

Yes, there is material in it that would seem to say that it sets forth requirements for the world-wide SDA Church, down to the local congregation.

However, on page xxii, the following sentence sentence states:  "It is recommended that leaders at all levels of the church should always work with the most recent edition of the 

Church Manual.   This supports my position that it is a recommendation.  Further, I have been informed many times by denominational leadership, at various levels that it is a recommendation and that it is not followed in the same way in all parts of the world.  IOW,  SDAs organizations are not  held to what it says in many circumstances all over the world. world.

There is a document that establishes required standards, which is known as the Working Policy.  This is a restricted document that is not generally available to most SDAs..  The one that applies to North America is known as the North American Division of the General Conference Working Policy.  It is a huge publication that is much larger than the Church Manual.  Most people, to include congregational pastors are not able to obtain a copy of that document.  It is literally hundreds of pages in length.

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Daryl said:

What is the position of the Church Manual itself through its writings???

The manual describes itself as Magisterial, absolutely trumping the individuals "private judgement" and "private independence". Therefore, the position of the Manual is synonymous with a Creed that is "enforcable"  SEE: https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Resources/ChurchManuals/CM1940.pdf and OCR "Authority". 

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/magisterium

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/magisterium

 

Under the section dealing with discipline the manual says: 

 

Thus, the Manual claims that what the SDA Magisterium does on earth (provided they interpret it to be in accordance with the Bible) "WILL BE RATIFIED in heaven". 

In other words, the General Conference is understood to essentially be the Pope - when it speaks officially on matters of Faith and Morals (Doctrinal Authority). 

 

 

[Daryl]

I can't find that comment, ""It is recommended that leaders at all levels of the church should always work with the most recent edition of the", anywhere in the 2015 version of my electronic version of the Church Manual, therefore, IMO, that comment from an older version can't appropriately be used.

[Gustave]

22 minutes ago, Daryl said:

I can't find that comment, ""It is recommended that leaders at all levels of the church should always work with the most recent edition of the", anywhere in the 2015 version of my electronic version of the Church Manual, therefore, IMO, that comment from an older version can't appropriately be used.

The current version, however, still has the Magisterial Statement affirming that the SDA Church acts in God's stead as as such has the power "to bind and loose". Therefore, if the Conference of SDA later informs you that it has determined it will officially ordain females or openly homosexual individuals you must consider the matter validated by Heaven itself.  

Or, do you see it another way? 

[phkrause]

No, but how about a page #??

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

No, but how about a page #??

57 & 58

sorry, assumed everyone was using ocr.

[Gregory Matthews]

Daryl: I understand the position that you are taking.  I am telling you the reality.;    In North America, the Church Manual is generally considered to be a recommendation.  I have talked to Conference Presidents on this point who agree with me.  It is unlikely that any congregation in North America is fully compliant with what the Church Manual says.  I will suggest that it true for the congregation that you attend, but, I may be wrong on that.

As I have stated, the document that has teeth to it is the Working Policy..  Congregations may be held to that document.

In actual fact, the Church Manual does not have any effective  discipline tha can be applied to a congregation that does to follow the it says.

The SDA Denomination is not gong to expel an entire congregation due to the fact that they are in some violation of the Sabbath School order of service outlined in the  Manual.

A congregation is not going to be expelled because they voted into membership a person under current discipline by another congregation.  That hapoens and congregations are not expelled.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, I need you to provide me with the edition of the Church Manual that you cited along with a page number for the citation.

 

Thanks,

Gregory Matthews

 

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, I need you to provide me with the edition of the Church Manual that you cited along with a page number for the citation.

 

Thanks,

Gregory Matthews

 

https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Resources/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fResources%2fChurchManuals&FolderCTID=0x01200095DE8DF0FA49904B9D652113284DE0C8000B5857BEC3C5DB4F96C32A1C24765988

 

The link above contains the SDA Church manuals between 1932 and 2010 - all of them containing the quote. I used the 1940 Manual, page 92.  I checked the 2015 manual and it also contains the same "Papal language". I was hoping that Daryl F. would comment on that language. 

 

 

[Gustave]

Here is what the page looks like for the 1940 version. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, an important part of the statement that you have quoted is quoted below.

The SDA  magisterium that you cite differs from that of the Roman Catholic view of the Bishops.  In the Roman Catholic view, when the Bishops proclaim a doctrine in magisterium that doctrine is ipso facto in accord with the will of God.  As stated below, and in your citation, the SDA view is that the SDA  statement  is only true if is is in accord with the will of God.

SDAs do not claim this in connection with the Church  Manual.  But, I will grant you a point:  SDAs may seem to claim this in connection with a vote of the General Conference meeting in session.  I Do not make that claim, as I hold such votes to be subject to the statement below.

Whatever the church does that is in accordance with the directions given in God's word will be ratified in heaven.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, an important part of the statement that you have quoted is quoted below.

The SDA  magisterium that you cite differs from that of the Roman Catholic view of the Bishops.  In the Roman Catholic view, when the Bishops proclaim a doctrine in magisterium that doctrine is ipso facto in accord with the will of God.  As stated below, and in your citation, the SDA view is that the SDA  statement  is only true if is is in accord with the will of God.

SDAs do not claim this in connection with the Church  Manual.  But, I will grant you a point:  SDAs may seem to claim this in connection with a vote of the General Conference meeting in session.  I Do not make that claim, as I hold such votes to be subject to the statement below.

 

 

Doctrine is certainly ipso facto because it was God that initiated it - as time went on some doctrines were questioned or even heresies pertaining to those Doctrines came about and then those doctrines had to be more fully developed / understood. As in the case of the Trinity the Doctrine was always there but because it became questioned and a heresy started over it the Doctrine had to be more developed / defined. The Catholic Church, from my understanding didn't "bring in new Doctrines". The Deposit of Faith was made by Christ and His Apostles and from there some Doctrines were more deeply developed. This is different than the Doctrines of the SDA Church which I see as new ipso facto based off of Ellen White.

Vs.

 

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

The new doctrines Ellen White confirmed were "binding",  eternally. Ellen White claimed to channel "The Power of God". 

^ General Conference Committee Meeting Minutes,  May 1969: https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Minutes/GCC/GCC1969-05.pdf

 

These were proposed "new doctrines" that were being "brought in" and discussed - until an "impasse" ground things to a halt. Ellen describes above how when the ministers and doctors would get stuck which caused the power in Ellen to activate whereas SHE was enabled to "DEFINE" truth from error. Difference being this wasn't a development of Doctrine - they were new Doctrines never before heard of. Thus Ellen White = Ipse Dixit ( because she said God said xyz ) - that, by definition, is an Oracle. This is well past the power Catholicism claims the Pope has.

 

[Gustave]

59 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, an important part of the statement that you have quoted is quoted below.

The SDA  magisterium that you cite differs from that of the Roman Catholic view of the Bishops.  In the Roman Catholic view, when the Bishops proclaim a doctrine in magisterium that doctrine is ipso facto in accord with the will of God.  As stated below, and in your citation, the SDA view is that the SDA  statement  is only true if is is in accord with the will of God.

SDAs do not claim this in connection with the Church  Manual.  But, I will grant you a point:  SDAs may seem to claim this in connection with a vote of the General Conference meeting in session.  I Do not make that claim, as I hold such votes to be subject to the statement below.

 

 

Doctrine is certainly ipso facto because it was God that initiated it - as time went on some doctrines were questioned or even heresies pertaining to those Doctrines came about and then those doctrines had to be more fully developed / understood. As in the case of the Trinity the Doctrine was always there but because it became questioned and a heresy started over it the Doctrine had to be more developed / defined. The Catholic Church, from my understanding didn't "bring in new Doctrines". The Deposit of Faith was made by Christ and His Apostles and from there some Doctrines were more deeply developed. This is different than the Doctrines of the SDA Church which I see as new ipso facto based off of Ellen White.

Vs.

 

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

The new doctrines Ellen White confirmed were "binding",  eternally.

^ General Conference Committee Meeting Minutes,  May 1969:

 

These were proposed "new doctrines" that were being "brought in" and discussed - until an "impasse" ground things to a halt. Ellen describes above how when the ministers and doctors would get stuck which caused the power in Ellen to activate whereas SHE was enabled to "DEFINE" truth from error. Difference being this wasn't a development of Doctrine - they were new Doctrines never before heard of. Thus Ellen White = Ipse Dixit ( because she said God said xyz ) - that, by definition, is an Oracle. 

This concept is further documented in the Sabbath School Lessons, here is one: 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:

I can understand why you might think that  SDA doctrine was derived from the teachings of Ellen White.  Personally, I do not believe that to be an accurate statement, and I Do not have athe time at this moment to fully develop my position.  But, let us consider the following:

It is true that the SDA Church has teachings that can not be based upon the Bible.  It is also true t hat those teachings may be based upon the writings of Ellen White.  In such cases, the SDA Church does not require that they be accepted by its  members.  To illustrate, let us consider SDA teachings on diet.

The best that can be derived from the Bible is that people should have a well balanced diet that provides them with what they need to live a good life.  In actual fact, such is the fundamental SDA teachings.   However, individuals are left to themselves to determine how to apply this to their lives, taking into consideration the ability to obtain and purchase good food.  SDAS who live above the Artic circle will likely have a different diet from on who lives in a climate on a farm where they can grow some of their food.

  Yes, Ellen White suggested some sort of a vegetarian diet.  This diet can not be demonstrated to be a specific Biblical teaching.  Therefore, SDAs are not required to be vegetarian, in any form.

I could give you other examples where EGW had a teaching, tha is not specific stated in the Bible.  SDA members are not required to accept such.

Contrary to how some people present her, she was both human and reasonable.

To the surprise of many people, in the late of her life she enjoyed eating clams, although she probably did not eat them often.  Her doing so reflected the actual fact that more diversity existed in the SDA Church, than many people know, to probably include yourself.    

Ellen white was not as rigid as she may be thought to be.  The SDA Church has been  more diversified from its beginning to today, than is sometimes understood.

 

 

 

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:

I can understand why you might think that  SDA doctrine was derived from the teachings of Ellen White.  Personally, I do not believe that to be an accurate statement, and I Do not have athe time at this moment to fully develop my position.  But, let us consider the following:

It is true that the SDA Church has teachings that can not be based upon the Bible.  It is also true t hat those teachings may be based upon the writings of Ellen White.  In such cases, the SDA Church does not require that they be accepted by its  members.  To illustrate, let us consider SDA teachings on diet.

The best that can be derived from the Bible is that people should have a well balanced diet that provides them with what they need to live a good life.  In actual fact, such is the fundamental SDA teachings.   However, individuals are left to themselves to determine how to apply this to their lives, taking into consideration the ability to obtain and purchase good food.  SDAS who live above the Artic circle will likely have a different diet from on who lives in a climate on a farm where they can grow some of their food.

  Yes, Ellen White suggested some sort of a vegetarian diet.  This diet can not be demonstrated to be a specific Biblical teaching.  Therefore, SDAs are not required to be vegetarian, in any form.

I could give you other examples where EGW had a teaching, tha is not specific stated in the Bible.  SDA members are not required to accept such.

Contrary to how some people present her, she was both human and reasonable.

To the surprise of many people, in the late of her life she enjoyed eating clams, although she probably did not eat them often.  Her doing so reflected the actual fact that more diversity existed in the SDA Church, than many people know, to probably include yourself.    

Ellen white was not as rigid as she may be thought to be.  The SDA Church has been  more diversified from its beginning to today, than is sometimes understood.

 

 

 

 

It seemed from the reading I've done that Ellen didn't create any of the doctrines SDA's have - others (primarily the SDA Pioneer's and their immediate associates thought up the doctrines. The descriptions of the formation era appeared to indicate that multiple people would meet and the people meeting would be advocating various "new doctrines". I.E. 10 people are meeting together and these 10 people can't agree in total about what new doctrines they should create and promulgate for the membership of the SDA Church. Ellen has a vision where the new doctrines are confirmed to be correct and others are confirmed to be false. Like below. 

 

 

"In the early days of the message, when our numbers were few, we studied diligently to understand the meaning of many Scriptures. At times, it seemed as if no explanation could be given. My mind seemed to be locked to an understanding of the world; but when our brethren who had assembled for study came to a point where they could go no farther, and had recourse to earnest prayer, the Spirit of God would rest upon ME and I WOULD BE TAKEN OFF IN VISION, AND BE INSTRUCTED IN REGARD TO THE RELATION OF SCRIPTURE TO SCRIPTURE. These experiences were repeated OVER AND OVER. Thus many truths of the third angels message were established, point by point". Selected Messages, Book 3 page 38

& of course the other statement she made that I've already shared:

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

To me this seems like a direct admission that "companies of devoted men and women" who loved the Bible and were supposedly students of it could not use the Bible to establish the truths of the 3rd angels message - it required an Oracle to explain the relation of one text of Scripture with other Scriptures. Oddly this makes sense given that in nearly 2000 years of Christian history no one else I know of came up with the things Ellen said God showed her were truth. 

I see your point about the diet - its difficult to imagine God being disappointed because someone consumed clam chowder or a BLT sandwich.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, I will comment on your above post.  In the selected quote below, I have identified two (2) comments t hat you made, to which I will respond, and identify as # 1 & # 2.

Comment # 1:   You are closer to an accurate understanding than I thought you were.  The early SDA doctrines were developed in what our historians call five (5) Sabbath Conferences, as they happened on the weekend.  In these conferences, the early SDAs would commit to the study of a Biblical subject to see if they could come into a common understanding.  Five subjects were studied, one at each conference.  Those five subjects were:  The Sabbath, The 2nd Advent, The State of the Dead, The Sanctuary & The Spirit of Prophecy.  You will correctly note tha none of those five subjects were at the foundational core of Christianity.  Those early leaders in what became the SDA denomination came from  other Christian congregations.  [NOTE:  I Understand that there are issues connected with the Christian Connection.] They felt that there was enough unity among them as to the basic core of Christianity that they did not need to have a conference to discuss that core.  [NOTE:   Yes, I understand that this could be argued today.]  So, they chose the five that I have mentioned as subjects on which they were n to unified and attempted to achieve unity on those subjects.  Ellen White attended all of  them.  She did not have a major role in the Bible study on any of them.  However, there were times after which they had come into a common understanding, based upon the Bible, that Ellen White did confirm that hey had  gone in the right direction.  From this perspective, I and other will saqy that our doctrines were derived not from Ellen white, but from what was believed to be the teachings of the Bible.  I can understand how you might not see it in exactly the same way.

 

Comment # 2:  My comment above argues against the first part of your comment # 2.  I remind you that we today are aware that Ellen White copied in her writings, more than we have understood in the past for her to have done.  There are those SDA historians that posit that those early SDAs were more indebted to other Christian writers for their doctrinal understandings than we have previously recognized.  In other words, of the five that i have listed above, most seem to have been positions taken by other Christian writers.   In some cases that doctrine was slightly modified while maintaining the basics that came from others.  A well-known example of this is the 7-day Baptists who were influential in our early leaders accepting the Sabbath as on the 7th day of the week.  

 

  #1.  

 It seemed from the reading I've done that Ellen didn't create any of the doctrines SDA's have - others (primarily the SDA Pioneer's and their immediate associates thought up the doctrines. The descriptions of the formation era appeared to indicate that multiple people would meet and the people meeting would be advocating various "new doctrines". I.E. 10 people are meeting together and these 10 people can't agree in total about what new doctrines they should create and promulgate for the membership of the SDA Church. Ellen has a vision where the new doctrines are confirmed to be correct and others are confirmed to be false. Like below.   * * * * 

#2. To me this seems like a direct admission that "companies of devoted men and women" who loved the Bible and were supposedly students of it could not use the Bible to establish the truths of the 3rd angels message - it required an Oracle to explain the relation of one text of Scripture with other Scriptures. Oddly this makes sense given that in nearly 2000 years of Christian history no one else I know of came up with the things Ellen said God showed her were truth. 

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, I will comment on your above post.  In the selected quote below, I have identified two (2) comments t hat you made, to which I will respond, and identify as # 1 & # 2.

Comment # 1:   You are closer to an accurate understanding than I thought you were.  The early SDA doctrines were developed in what our historians call five (5) Sabbath Conferences, as they happened on the weekend.  In these conferences, the early SDAs would commit to the study of a Biblical subject to see if they could come into a common understanding.  Five subjects were studied, one at each conference.  Those five subjects were:  The Sabbath, The 2nd Advent, The State of the Dead, The Sanctuary & The Spirit of Prophecy.  You will correctly note tha none of those five subjects were at the foundational core of Christianity.  Those early leaders in what became the SDA denomination came from  other Christian congregations.  [NOTE:  I Understand that there are issues connected with the Christian Connection.] They felt that there was enough unity among them as to the basic core of Christianity that they did not need to have a conference to discuss that core.  [NOTE:   Yes, I understand that this could be argued today.]  So, they chose the five that I have mentioned as subjects on which they were n to unified and attempted to achieve unity on those subjects.  Ellen White attended all of  them.  She did not have a major role in the Bible study on any of them.  However, there were times after which they had come into a common understanding, based upon the Bible, that Ellen White did confirm that hey had  gone in the right direction.  From this perspective, I and other will saqy that our doctrines were derived not from Ellen white, but from what was believed to be the teachings of the Bible.  I can understand how you might not see it in exactly the same way.

 

Comment # 2:  My comment above argues against the first part of your comment # 2.  I remind you that we today are aware that Ellen White copied in her writings, more than we have understood in the past for her to have done.  There are those SDA historians that posit that those early SDAs were more indebted to other Christian writers for their doctrinal understandings than we have previously recognized.  In other words, of the five that i have listed above, most seem to have been positions taken by other Christian writers.   In some cases that doctrine was slightly modified while maintaining the basics that came from others.  A well-known example of this is the 7-day Baptists who were influential in our early leaders accepting the Sabbath as on the 7th day of the week.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weren't the Sabbath Conferences conducted between 1848 - 1850? Miller died in 1849 and had renounced his own movement shortly after the Great Disappointment of 1844 and urged everyone to return to their own churches. The only people left in the Millerite movement in1848 - 1850 would have been unfavorable to Orthodox Christian Doctrines excepting the Sabbath - where there is at least some evidence of its observance in the supposed heretical Tewahedo Orthodox Church. 

 

 

Even in the above Church where the Sabbath is observed every week - the Tewahedo (One Nature believers) still assemble on Sunday in accordance with the Biblical Commandment to do so. Aside from the Sabbath it appears that the distinctives were all brought in by individuals contemporary with James White and by individuals who shared his general displeasure with Orthodox Doctrines and Creeds. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, I consider myself to be well informed as to SDA history for someone who is not an academic historian.  But, I also consider you to be exceptionally well informed.  So, at times I will check out what you have stated to see if I  need to revise something that I have said.  After checking you out as to your statement on the Sabbath Conferences, I will revise my comment.   

In actual fact, I find that there are two (2) groups of conferences that historically are called today as Sabbath Conferences.

*   The first group took place during the 1846/1847 time period.  This is the group that I have called the Sabbath Conferences.  These included a small group of  people and included among this group< Joseph Bates, James & Ellen White, Hiram Edson and a few others. The subjects studied were the five that I have previously listed.  Of those five, known dates for them included November 1846,  March 6, 1847, April 3, 1847 [I will need to do more research on the dates for the other two.].     

*  The second group of conferences took place during the 1848 - 1850 time period and consisted of both major and minor conferences.  Six major ones took place during 1848 and in 1849, ten major ones took place  in 1850.  These conferences were an attempt to bring the majority of what became the SDA denomination into agreement on the issues that had been discussed    in the first group that I have mentioned above.

I have taken issue with you on your suggestion that Ellen White was a major source for our doctrine,  I will give you some additional information:

*  I have previously mentioned the Seventh-day Baptists and the Sabbath.

*  Owen Russell Loomis Crozier was a Millerite preacher, who never became a part of the developing SDA denomination.   His teachings laid the groundwork  for the SDA understanding of the Sanctuary, not Ellen White.

*  George Storrs, who also never became a part of the developing SDA denomination laid the groundwork for the SDA understanding  on the non immorality of the wicked.

*  Joseph Bates, who can be listed as an early founder of what became the SDA denomination was largely responsible for taking the work of Crozier, Storrs and others and causing them to become an integral part of early SDA beliefs.  In actuality, he was more important in this than was Ellen White.

 

 

[phkrause]

On 6/14/2020 at 9:00 PM, Gustave said:

57 & 58

Not in my version?

On 6/14/2020 at 10:39 PM, Gustave said:

The link above contains the SDA Church manuals between 1932 and 2010 - all of them containing the quote. I used the 1940 Manual, page 92

Also not in my version?

My version is dated 1967

 

On 6/14/2020 at 9:00 PM, Gustave said:

sorry, assumed everyone was using ocr.

Don't need to be sorry!! And what does "ocr" stand for?

[Daryl]

On 6/15/2020 at 1:38 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

To the surprise of many people, in the late of her life she enjoyed eating clams, although she probably did not eat them often.

As this isn't the topic of this thread, can you, either give me a reference here, or direct me to a topic where this was discussed, or begin a new thread regarding this???

[Gregory Matthews]

Daryl, I may have misspoke when I said clams,  I am thinking that it was oysters.

There is a reason why the Church Manual (CM) is essentially aa recommendation.   The action that can be taken against a congregation that does not follow the CM  is essentially limited to two actions:  1)  teh pastor can be moved.  2) The congregation can be expelled from the SDA denomination.  Such action requires a vote to expel by a properly called constituency meeting,   Such will seldom happen.

As I have said:  The CM does not have any teeth to it.  Essentially it is a recommendation and that is how it is normally treated in North America.

The Working Policy has more teeth to it than does the Church Manual.  This document is not generally available to most SDAs, to include clergy!

 

 

 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, Daryl said:

As this isn't the topic of this thread, can you, either give me a reference here, or direct me to a topic where this was discussed, or begin a new thread regarding this???

 

One must first be a connoisseur of bivalves to know the difference between mediocre bivalves and "good oysters". In my case I'm not sure I could tell the difference as the only way I'll eat them is pan fried with plenty of tartar sauce! Thus, I concede that Ellen White was an expert on Oysters within a culinary context - while I'm just an amateur in the field. 

 

[Daryl]

On 6/15/2020 at 1:38 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

To the surprise of many people, in the late of her life she enjoyed eating clams, although she probably did not eat them often.

Can you give me a reference or quote that I can use to verify what you posted here???