Former Adventist Review Editor Becomes Director at Homosexual Organization

[B/W Photodude]

Former Adventist Review Editor Becomes Director at Homosexual Organization

Steve Chavez learned religion from LaSierra, and theology from Andrews, and worked at the Review Magazine as Managing Editor and then  Assistant Editor for around 22 years.  Most of us will agree that any religion or theology that supports something which God calls an ‘abomination’ is false stuff, leading to the eternal editing of the soul.

https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2021/9/22/former-adventist-review-editor-becomes-director-of-church-relations-of-homosexual-organization

Reader comment:
Don't we find it strange that no post-1980's, ex-Review editor EVER becomes a leading force for a return to Biblical faithfulness after they retire? Shouldn't that trend alert us to something? (Perhaps the fact checkers can get right on this!)

[B/W Photodude]

The Bible and LGBTQ Adventists: A Theological Conversation about Same-sex Marriage, Gender, and Identity, 

Reviewed by Stephen Chavez, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Quote

The Bible and LGBTQ Adventists reveals that the teaching of the Bible on this subject is not at all clear; it’s open to interpretation. 

https://atoday.org/a-necessary-conversation/

[JoeMo]

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20)

[phkrause]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20)

I do agree with that!!

[Kevin H]

Hah, the good news that the church is going to hell in a handbasket, therefore play it safe and become a blind follower of a flavor of Adventism who loves leaders that Mrs. White and Willie White were critical of, and who in the early 1900s even complained that Mrs. White was an apostate.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

Hah, the good news that the church is going to hell in a handbasket, therefore play it safe and become a blind follower of a flavor of Adventism who loves leaders that Mrs. White and Willie White were critical of, and who in the early 1900s even complained that Mrs. White was an apostate.

Is Steve Chavez gay? 

Could you point me towards people circa Ellen White who believed that White was an apostate? I've not heard of this before. 

[phkrause]

22 hours ago, Gustave said:

Is Steve Chavez gay? 

Does it matter?? As far as I know he is not, and is married and has children!!

[GHansen]

6 hours ago, phkrause said:

Does it matter?? As far as I know he is not, and is married and has children!!

It matters if you object to, for example, sharing the eucharist with recalcitrant homosexuals, or letting them work with impressionable youth, or any number of other activities associated with the body of Christ. It's not especially unusual for men who have been married to women and have children to become  "gay." I can recall at least 7 gay men who were, at one time, married to women. Some had children.

I spent about 5 years working with gay AIDS patients, off and on. Sometimes mostly on. I was tested twice due to possible occupational exposure; nevertheless, some SDA gay partisans refer to me as a homophobe because I don't and won't validate homosexual behavior for Christians. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman" is fairly clear.

[Gustave]

13 hours ago, phkrause said:

Does it matter?? As far as I know he is not, and is married and has children!!

I don't have a dog in this fight but if I did my first question would be if he was gay.  If he was it would appear to add weight to what B/W Photodude said if that kind of thing was common place. 

As GHansen said there isn't a provision for validating same sex sexual activity in Sacred Scripture (its also not found in Sacred Tradition). Back at the now defunct CA Forums I got into a debate with a Anglican who was gay that claimed he could do anything sexually to his "partner" that a woman could do for a man IN A CAR, IN THE CHURCH PARKING LOT and after doing so waltz into Church and eat a pound of the Eucharist and it would transmit as much Grace as it would to a husband and wife man and woman - he went so far as to say the Pastor giving the Eucharist could be openly gay and validly consecrate the gifts! 

once Kinship International spools up it will likely take the same path as the Anglican variant. I'm not saying it will but that it's just likely.   This is generally what happens. 

And for the record I'm not saying my sins are worse than the most aggressive buggerite - I stand just as guilty of falling short. 

 

 

[phkrause]

15 hours ago, GHansen said:

It matters if you object to, for example, sharing the eucharist with recalcitrant homosexuals, or letting them work with impressionable youth, or any number of other activities associated with the body of Christ. It's not especially unusual for men who have been married to women and have children to become  "gay." I can recall at least 7 gay men who were, at one time, married to women. Some had children.

I spent about 5 years working with gay AIDS patients, off and on. Sometimes mostly on. I was tested twice due to possible occupational exposure; nevertheless, some SDA gay partisans refer to me as a homophobe because I don't and won't validate homosexual behavior for Christians. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman" is fairly clear.

When I say does it matter, I don't mean it in the sense of being excepting of the life style, because I don't!! If they are celibate than I don't have a problem with them attending and participating in church. Yes the Bible is not just fairly clear, but very clear on that subject!!

[Kevin H]

On 10/6/2021 at 11:02 PM, Gustave said:

Is Steve Chavez gay? 

Could you point me towards people circa Ellen White who believed that White was an apostate? I've not heard of this before. 

I do not know him. I'm thinking more of the general approach. 

Our pioneers were kicked out of different churches because their ideas did not fit in the narrow creeds. They decided to form a church that had room for different ideas, holding to a few landmarks, and as long as you were not fanatical, you had freedom to follow your conscience. From time to time they would form a list of fundamental beliefs, but they differed from creeds in that creeds tried to be specific and laid the borders for their group. Our fundamental beliefs (or what ever they called them from time to time) tended to be written in more vague language and gave a general neighborhood of where our beliefs tended to be.

Thus our church had a tapestry of different flavors. At our high points we all learn to work together and respect each other. At our low points one or more of us decide that we are the ONLY TRUE version of Adventism, and everyone else is wrong. 

When I was at Andrews, I spent hours in the White Estate vault, usually for class but other times just to read. While I did not plan this, and due to our classes at Atlantic Union College, and a fantastic campmeeting series by Ralph and Beatrice Neal (or Neil?) from Union College, on how Adventist truth tends to be divided with "New Theology of The Desmond Ford flavor" on the one side, and the so called "Historic Adventists" on the other. I did not see this as a major issue for our time, thus I did not do a research paper on this. I was more interested in looking into events in Mrs. White's life or related to my research papers at the time, Biblical geography/history/culture. But in session after session, topic after topic I kept coming across correspondence between mostly Mrs. White, sometimes Willie, with a group of ministers. Since these letters sounded so similar, and a number of the people were an "Elder W" or last names that started with "W" I thought that this was only one pastor who was a pain in the neck to Mrs. White and/or Willie. However, as time went by I noticed that these letters were not only to an "Elder W" but other letters as well, and other last names, and that there were at least 3 different people with the last names that started with "W" in this correspondence. Yet, the letters were incredibly similar.  None were radical enough to leave the church or anything like that, but the Whites did complain that they did not understand Mrs. White's thought and therefore, despite massive quoting from her writings, they were using those quotes to force members to push their views onto the rest of the church. They would reply that they were indeed understanding her and using her correctly, and that it was others (often naming others, frequently Willie, Prescott or Daniels) of polluting her mind against them and that if she knew the facts she would not be writing them testimonies, but would fully endorse them. 

While I did NOT find this in any of the correspondence, I did find flyers to be handed out from the first decade of the 1900s warning about dangerous things going on in the church. Among these were how Mrs. White had apostatized, some suggested that a Jesuit had infiltrated her inner circle and was controlling her thoughts and writings. One or two even suggested that Mrs. White had left the church, became a Jesuit and was using her old role as a prophet to lead the church into apostasy. Some of the evidence included her not totally rejecting Jones and Wagner in 1888, and to not trust her post 1888 writings. That she became a Trinitarian, and that she was critical of faithful Adventist pastors, and would name names that I recognized from the correspondence. Some recommended that members not read her post 1888 writings, or to read her through those pastors who knew what she wrote that came from God and what came from other sources. 

After Andrews, I was in the U. S. Army, stationed at Ft. Lewis Washington. Many in the churches around Ft. Lewis had a journal published in the area, titled "Our Firm Foundation." I read many copies, but noticed that I kept finding familiar information, and checking the footnotes, there was a lot of quoting from the pastors from the above discussed correspondence. 

Looking at the writings from these so called "Historic Adventists" over the years, I noticed that after Mrs. White died, and especially after Willie, Prescott and Daniels died, the writings of this sub group changed from picturing them as doing horrible things that were leading the church into heresy, that they suddenly were baptized into good, faithful "Historic Adventists" and the ideas that bothered them were now brought into the church by later generations. 

Now this is an aspect of the tapestry. There are things that they point out that I find useful. We have the freedom to share what we love about our understanding of Adventism, but we need to allow others to weigh the evidence and make choices. Sadly, from back to the letters between the leader's who's thought developed into this tapestry of Adventism up to modern groups such as Fulcrum7, there has been too much of trying to scare Adventists into joining their faithful group. Too much a building of distrust of the rest of the church and demanding the church to make their version of Adventism the only official version. 

Now, as to this specific article: There are places where this topic is open for discussion. We have the traditional understanding and our proof texts. But as these proof texts are being studied closely, they are not saying what we thought they were saying. The Old Testament verses are given in either the context on how the Hebrews were not to come to worship and hold the orgies that the Canaanites believed they needed to do to help out Baal and the gods of life to get victory over the Leviathan and the gods of death. Or in the context of how the Canaanites thought that through that activity that they could steal some of the life forces from their victims, so that food that would have grown in their victims garden will now grow in the perpetuator's garden. Flocks that would have been born to their victim's flocks will now be born to the perpetuator's flocks. Children that would have been born to their victim's wife will now be born to the perpetuator's wife. 

In the New Testament we find these two situations again, with Roman's 2, first of all picturing this as the punishment for being idolaters, instead of the act that is being punished.  And thus it is again saying that the reason why the Canaanites ended up having their worship service and this strange thought that does not work, on thinking that they could steal the life forces of another is the result of idolatry. The third New Testament context is a word that should not be translated "homosexual" but "pedophiles", since it is adults abusing children. 

None of these are what we have people today struggling with. Theologians are discussing whether we should take a narrow application of these texts and only apply it to the context and thus they might not apply to what today's issue is. Others are discussing whether we should take a wide application and apply it to more than the actual context. This is a difficult job for our leaders. I'm glad that I don't have to deal with this.

An additional issue is while we would recommend them to not join our church, there are still issues in how we minister to the broader community both within and outside of Christianity. They may just like his editing skills.  

 

[GHansen]

13 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

An additional issue is while we would recommend them to not join our church, there are still issues in how we minister to the broader community both within and outside of Christianity. They may just like his editing skills.  

 

I share these sentiments. I've had some gay friends through the years.  I was occasionally approached by gay men for different purposes. A couple of times in SDA contexts before Kinship existed. There are men who just prefer the company of other men, not necessarily for nefarious purposes. Cardinal Newman had a close male friend for years. Of course there were whispers but unless actually caught in the "act" whispers are all that they were/are. Jews are very strict about the accusation of adultery, requiring rather explicit views of the act, before someone can be condemned. There was a time guys could room together with out being alphabeted but not nowadays.

Homosexuals come in different stripes. Well adjusted ones just live their lives. Being gay is just one aspect of a life that they enjoy and is a blessing to others. They don't need validation from a congregation or a denomination. They get validated by distinguishing themselves in their professions, not their bedroom habits. Then there are the constricted types who crave acceptance and validation. In a sense, they are seeking permission to be gay. Validation form a church is quite a feather in their cap.

People don't need a denomination or a congregation to have a relationship with Christ.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

I do not know him. I'm thinking more of the general approach. 

Our pioneers were kicked out of different churches because their ideas did not fit in the narrow creeds. They decided to form a church that had room for different ideas, holding to a few landmarks, and as long as you were not fanatical, you had freedom to follow your conscience. From time to time they would form a list of fundamental beliefs, but they differed from creeds in that creeds tried to be specific and laid the borders for their group. Our fundamental beliefs (or what ever they called them from time to time) tended to be written in more vague language and gave a general neighborhood of where our beliefs tended to be.

Thus our church had a tapestry of different flavors. At our high points we all learn to work together and respect each other. At our low points one or more of us decide that we are the ONLY TRUE version of Adventism, and everyone else is wrong. 

When I was at Andrews, I spent hours in the White Estate vault, usually for class but other times just to read. While I did not plan this, and due to our classes at Atlantic Union College, and a fantastic campmeeting series by Richard and Beatrice Neal (or Neil?) from Union College, on how Adventist truth tends to be divided with "New Theology of The Desmond Ford flavor" on the one side, and the so called "Historic Adventists" on the other. I did not see this as a major issue for our time, thus I did not do a research paper on this. I was more interested in looking into events in Mrs. White's life or related to my research papers at the time, Biblical geography/history/culture. But in session after session, topic after topic I kept coming across correspondence between mostly Mrs. White, sometimes Willie, with a group of ministers. Since these letters sounded so similar, and a number of the people were an "Elder W" or last names that started with "W" I thought that this was only one pastor who was a pain in the neck to Mrs. White and/or Willie. However, as time went by I noticed that these letters were not only to an "Elder W" but other letters as well, and other last names, and that there were at least 3 different people with the last names that started with "W" in this correspondence. Yet, the letters were incredibly similar.  None were radical enough to leave the church or anything like that, but the Whites did complain that they did not understand Mrs. White's thought and therefore, despite massive quoting from her writings, they were using those quotes to force members to push their views onto the rest of the church. They would reply that they were indeed understanding her and using her correctly, and that it was others (often naming others, frequently Willie, Prescott or Daniels) of polluting her mind against them and that if she knew the facts she would not be writing them testimonies, but would fully endorse them. 

While I did NOT find this in any of the correspondence, I did find flyers to be handed out from the first decade of the 1900s warning about dangerous things going on in the church. Among these were how Mrs. White had apostatized, some suggested that a Jesuit had infiltrated her inner circle and was controlling her thoughts and writings. One or two even suggested that Mrs. White had left the church, became a Jesuit and was using her old role as a prophet to lead the church into apostasy. Some of the evidence included her not totally rejecting Jones and Wagner in 1888, and to not trust her post 1888 writings. That she became a Trinitarian, and that she was critical of faithful Adventist pastors, and would name names that I recognized from the correspondence. Some recommended that members not read her post 1888 writings, or to read her through those pastors who knew what she wrote that came from God and what came from other sources. 

After Andrews, I was in the U. S. Army, stationed at Ft. Lewis Washington. Many in the churches around Ft. Lewis had a journal published in the area, titled "Our Firm Foundation." I read many copies, but noticed that I kept finding familiar information, and checking the footnotes, there was a lot of quoting from the pastors from the above discussed correspondence. 

Looking at the writings from these so called "Historic Adventists" over the years, I noticed that after Mrs. White died, and especially after Willie, Prescott and Daniels died, the writings of this sub group changed from picturing them as doing horrible things that were leading the church into heresy, that they suddenly were baptized into good, faithful "Historic Adventists" and the ideas that bothered them were now brought into the church by later generations. 

Now this is an aspect of the tapestry. There are things that they point out that I find useful. We have the freedom to share what we love about our understanding of Adventism, but we need to allow others to weigh the evidence and make choices. Sadly, from back to the letters between the leader's who's thought developed into this tapestry of Adventism up to modern groups such as Fulcrum7, there has been too much of trying to scare Adventists into joining their faithful group. Too much a building of distrust of the rest of the church and demanding the church to make their version of Adventism the only official version. 

Now, as to this specific article: There are places where this topic is open for discussion. We have the traditional understanding and our proof texts. But as these proof texts are being studied closely, they are not saying what we thought they were saying. The Old Testament verses are given in either the context on how the Hebrews were not to come to worship and hold the orgies that the Canaanites believed they needed to do to help out Baal and the gods of life to get victory over the Leviathan and the gods of death. Or in the context of how the Canaanites thought that through that activity that they could steal some of the life forces from their victims, so that food that would have grown in their victims garden will now grow in the perpetuator's garden. Flocks that would have been born to their victim's flocks will now be born to the perpetuator's flocks. Children that would have been born to their victim's wife will now be born to the perpetuator's wife. 

In the New Testament we find these two situations again, with Roman's 2, first of all picturing this as the punishment for being idolaters, instead of the act that is being punished.  And thus it is again saying that the reason why the Canaanites ended up having their worship service and this strange thought that does not work, on thinking that they could steal the life forces of another is the result of idolatry. The third New Testament context is a word that should not be translated "homosexual" but "pedophiles", since it is adults abusing children. 

None of these are what we have people today struggling with. Theologians are discussing whether we should take a narrow application of these texts and only apply it to the context and thus they might not apply to what today's issue is. Others are discussing whether we should take a wide application and apply it to more than the actual context. This is a difficult job for our leaders. I'm glad that I don't have to deal with this.

An additional issue is while we would recommend them to not join our church, there are still issues in how we minister to the broader community both within and outside of Christianity. They may just like his editing skills.  

 

I appreciate your answer. I'll need to read this over several times but I wanted you to know I find it of value. 

[Gustave]

Time permitting I plan to start a new thread in the future about the SDA Pioneers and how their ideas didn't fit into the narrow creeds of the Catholic / Eastern Orthodox & Protestant Churches (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Etc.). This will be more of an answer seeking post than a post where I argue a position. 

[stinsonmarri]

On 10/8/2021 at 8:42 PM, phkrause said:

When I say does it matter, I don't mean it in the sense of being excepting of the life style, because I don't!! If they are celibate than I don't have a problem with them attending and participating in church. Yes the Bible is not just fairly clear, but very clear on that subject!!

Many do attend church, also bisexual, oral sexual and it goes on and on. We lift our nose at the homosexual but what do you do in the bed that YAHWEH declares it is abomination. We all need to get the sin out of our lives and stand correct! Maybe just maybe that homosexual who is struggling can see you hate the sin but love the person. Maybe just maybe we will all realize that no one who is sinning that the judgmental public knows is no different then those  heterosexual  that is leaving the natural use of the marriage relation; that was Commanded at Creation: "Be Fruitful and multiply," behind close doors. Roman 1:18-32 "Vain in their imaginations," was not only talking about Gay people! You need to read these Scriptures and weep!

What I am going to do is pray for all of us that by beholding we all become change! We all have sin and come short of YAHWEH'S GLORY!  What are you doing behind close doors? What are you trying to justify that is alright to do, that is against YAHWEH?

I say loud and clear, please stop talking about just the homosexuals alone and speak about the Reprobate mind, Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of YAHWEH, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection (oral sex folks it is not natural and heterosexual and homosexual both do the same thing, only differences they are a man and a woman. IT IS UNATURAL ), implacable, unmerciful! The Bible says all who commit such things are worthy of death-HELLO! Thanks Gustave about we all come short!

Happy Sabbath!

[B/W Photodude]

22 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Many do attend church, also bisexual, oral sexual and it goes on and on. We lift our nose at the homosexual but what do you do in the bed that YAHWEH declares it is abomination.

Now you are making stuff up. Where is it said that oral sex is a sin? Perhaps you are unaware that nearly half of all women can only achieve satisfaction from oral sex.

Of course, (speaking of the US and lesser so for Canda, Australia, as they are far ahead of us in getting rid of this atrocious practice) it would not be near that much if the culture hadn't bought into genitally mutilating baby boys at birth. Genital mutilation of boys is just as devastating as genital mutilation of baby girls if not more so. And for women who know the difference, intact (uncircumcised) men, as a group, are much more gentle on them physically.

[stinsonmarri]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:30 AM, Kevin H said:

Our pioneers were kicked out of different churches because their ideas did not fit in the narrow creeds. They decided to form a church that had room for different ideas, holding to a few landmarks, and as long as you were not fanatical, you had freedom to follow your conscience. From time to time they would form a list of fundamental beliefs, but they differed from creeds in that creeds tried to be specific and laid the borders for their group. Our fundamental beliefs (or what ever they called them from time to time) tended to be written in more vague language and gave a general neighborhood of where our beliefs tended to be.

Dear Kevin: I had some difficulties with you concept of our pioneer. Especially being "kicked out of other churches." From a child up, going to Church School the full story of our Church history was told; starting with William Miller. William Miller had started off being a Baptist but was led to Deists,' as most military men were including George Washington. He had a change in his life showing that THE MOST HIGH does deal in the affairs of men. He return to the Baptist belief, but was challenged by his Deists' friends on the validity of the Bible principles of caring and loving ELOHIYM!

As you all know he thought and believed he was called God! It was Miller deep studying particularly on the prophecies of Daniel, I feel deeply was chosen to bring them to the forefront. The 1800's historically was known as the enlighten period! Many church were preach a spitfire God who was vengeful with wrath. HE was perceived as ready to pounce on the sinner and cast into the burning inferno called Hell. You would think by now, we know that the word Hell actual means grave and come from the Greek word "hade." It is simple know that ancient people believe the "biggest lie." ever told that they would not surely or really die! So, hades which had become well know was where the "living dead," dwells. It is called the "under world," actually in all cultures, and there was a king over this place. Well there were no peaceful concept of Heaven; thanks to Catholicism. William Miller realize, through study and prayer that there was an Advent. THE SAVIOUR, THE SON was going to return. For the first time men was understanding the true Calendar of YAHWEH! Miller discover the "day-year principle," of time. The Bible was spending of years and not days. Miller at first begin to publish his findings and then his preaching ministry begin.

Many people were delighted to hear the preaching of Miller! It was something to look forward to. It removed this mean and terrible God, but ONE of compassion and loving. Miller first had to erase the concept of THE FATHER and to show HIS LOVE for Mankind. This love HE had to send HIS SON back to save repenting sinners. Historically, this was the end of the dark days and Miller was invited to speak in all the churches of all Protestant faith! Even negative writings about Miller's Movement had to admit his growing popularity!

Mobs of angry citizens tried to break up some of the meetings. Miller himself was pelted with eggs and decaying vegetables. But the crowds grew larger and the number of converts mounted. More than 50,000 believed Miller, and as many as a million others were curious and expectant.

As the year progressed, tension mounted, especially when a comet suddenly appeared in the heavens. There were huge meetings in New York and Philadelphia, but dates for future gatherings were announced with the proviso "if time continues." "William Miller Mistaken founder of Adventism;" https://www.christianitytoday.com/

But the great second advent awakening was by no means confined to the United States of America. In England, Edward Irving began to preach the soon return of Jesus and his message was echoed by Joseph Wolffe, a rabbi, turned Catholic priest turned fervent protestant Adventist preacher. Wolffe traveled all through Africa, Asia and India taking the news of a soon coming Saviour with him on his travels. In South America these truths were discovered and preached by Manuel LaCunza, a Jesuit turned protestant Adventist preacher and in Germany, the second Advent was preached by Johann Bengell. The news of Christ’s soon return began to slowly seep through every nation and territory on the planet, electrifying thousands and urging people to turn their eyes heavenward. The revolution sparked by the Reformation was continuing but on a far larger scale. Lineage Journey

When Snow showed Miller about the 7 months (I believe this today), and the Karaites continue to accept the actual lunar calendar of YAHWEH! The Rabbinic was following the Gregorian calendar. They accepted the 7 month and the tarrying/the midnight cry which led them to pick October 22, 1844.

The great disappointment of the event, cause William Miller was sadly, led to the Fundamental Adventist view. Many the third small group emerged the Seventh Day Adventist.

By the end of October, the Advent Herald and the Midnight Cry both bounced back and resumed publication. Joshua Himes wrote to Joseph Bates on the 30th of October saying “I never felt happier or more reconciled to His will, the late work has saved me, it has been a blessing to us all. Now let us hold on!” And so it was while the faith of some waxed dim and flickered out altogether, the faith of others glowed strong. Present Lineage Journey

But, Hiram Edson vision was the true turning point that kept the course of those who truly believed in the Advent Message. Which included the Midnight Cry! Crosier and Bates also uplifted the group of Adventist that had form churches during the Movement. These churches were spread through out Main, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut.

It was probably in the early Spring of 1844 before the great disappointment and even the seventh-month movement that Frederick Wheeler started to keep the Sabbath. Wheeler was a Methodist farm minister from Hillsboro, New Hampshire who had become an Advent believer. He occasionally ministered to a congregation in Washington, New Hampshire and it was here that he met the formidable Rachel Oakes.

Rachel Oakes was a Seventh Day-Baptist laywoman who had moved to Washington to live with her daughter who was a local school teacher. One day when Wheeler paid her a home visit she challenged him about a sermon he had recently preached about the obligation of all men to keep God’s commandments. She told him that if he was going to preach sermons like that he had better keep all God’s commandments himself, including the seventh-day Sabbath.

Many important events linked to the shaping of early Sabbatarian Adventism took place on Edson’s farm. Along with the development of the Sanctuary doctrine in 1844 and 1845, the Edson farm in Port Gibson was also one of the places that Joseph Bates shared the truth about the Seventh-Day Sabbath. In addition, it was also the site of one of the Sabbath Conferences held in 1848. Lineage Journey

I never read that they were thrown out of their churches. Many of them Left the Baptist and Methodist churches themselves. They were organized later as EGW begin to emerge with her visions!

Blessings and Happy Sabbath 

[stinsonmarri]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

Now you are making stuff up. Where is it said that oral sex is a sin? Perhaps you are unaware that nearly half of all women can only achieve satisfaction from oral sex.

Of course, (speaking of the US and lesser so for Canda, Australia, as they are far ahead of us in getting rid of this atrocious practice) it would not be near that much if the culture hadn't bought into genitally mutilating baby boys at birth. Genital mutilation of boys is just as devastating as genital mutilation of baby girls if not more so. And for women who know the difference, intact (uncircumcised) men, as a group, are much more gentle on them physically.

You know Photodude you can always find people like you that will dispute the truth. Let ask you where do you find that its alright to do this  unhealthy thing? Using the area that discrete waste and your birth organs for oral use! Show me that please sir? I guess you do not know what unnatural means. I provided it and why are so let's say furious or upset? It appears that is gotten to you.

Speaking of genital mutilation, this is not relevant to the subject. However, it is awful and let me see: A reprobate mind, being filled with all unrighteousness, implacable, 
 unmerciful. You can read it in the  same place where it talks about oral sex. I did give it to you.

Have A Nice Day!

[bonnie]

31 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

 I guess you do not know what unnatural means. I provided it and why are so let's say furious or upset? It appears that is gotten to you.

Speaking of genital mutilation, this is not relevant to the subject. However, it is awful and let me see: A reprobate mind, being filled with all unrighteousness, implacable, 
 unmerciful. You can read it in the  same place where it talks about oral sex. I did give it to you.

Have A Nice Day!

BWphotodude,

You don't sound upset or very angry to me.?  A verse came to mind when I first read ........

Now you are making stuff up. Where is it said that oral sex is a sin?  .....

A text came to mind Proverbs 30:6

Do not add to is words, Or he will reprove you and you will be proved a liar.

 

[B/W Photodude]

14 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

You know Photodude you can always find people like you that will dispute the truth. Let ask you where do you find that its alright to do this  unhealthy thing? Using the area that discrete waste and your birth organs for oral use! Show me that please sir?

You have not provided a Biblical source for your opinion. You can not wrap up your opinions in a bunch of sanctimonious babble and pawn it off as truth. Biblically, it is silent on the matter, as you have proved.  

As far as waste, your kitchen in your house has far more germs than the bathroom, and that has been demonstrated over and over again. 

BTW, the newly to be ordained paster mentioned in the "Down the Rabbithole" thread, she wrote this:

Apparently, she has the conference president solidly in her corner. So, in terms of religious leaders, you are out voted.

14 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Speaking of genital mutilation, this is not relevant to the subject. However, it is awful and let me see:

Genital mutilation (aka circumcision) has everything to do with it. Some studies have shown that circumcised men tend to engage in more extreme forms of sexual activity.

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not believe that the majority of people participating in this forum want to participate in a discussion of oral sex.  

Any who wish to engage in such are welcome to discuss it with a therapist.

Therefore I am closing this thread.