Daniel 8

[Gregory Matthews]

The following article on basic aspects of communication and Caniel 8, will challenge you.

https://atoday.org/to-whom-daniel-was-writing-makes-all-the-difference/

[GHansen]

In a Spectrum interview, Larry Geraty tells of a committee he chaired at the 1980 GC. It was  tasked with revising the SDA fundamental belief of which Daniel 8 is an integral part. The group of hand picked scholars all agreed that the traditional view of this passage was untenable; nevertheless, at Neal Wilson's request, they voted a statement which, in essence, none of them believed was true.

I found that recollection  "challenging."  

[Gustave]

On 12/19/2021 at 9:10 AM, GHansen said:

In a Spectrum interview, Larry Geraty tells of a committee he chaired at the 1980 GC. It was  tasked with revising the SDA fundamental belief of which Daniel 8 is an integral part. The group of hand picked scholars all agreed that the traditional view of this passage was untenable; nevertheless, at Neal Wilson's request, they voted a statement which, in essence, none of them believed was true.

I found that recollection  "challenging."  

Would you mind expanding on this a bit? A group of scholars - handpicked by the General Conference to presumably bolster the SDA position on Daniel 8 were unanimous in agreement the traditional SDA view was ill-founded yet participated in some type of vote production that was not in keeping with their prior unanimous agreement and then this statement (vote) was disseminated down to the Church membership? 

[GHansen]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

Would you mind expanding on this a bit?

Gustave, As far as I know, you are not SDA, never have been and have no intention of becoming one; consequently, your interest in the inner workings of the denomination puzzles me.

The RC pedophile scandal no longer involves the inner workings of that denomination. It's a very public matter about which numerous books have been written and at least one movie made [Spotlight]. It's of interest to me for a number of reasons:

I was personally acquainted with a priest who was at the paraclete facility.

I was employed in prisons where child molesters were sometimes murdered or targeted in other ways which directly involved me.

I worked in the gay community for a few years during the Height of the AIDS crisis in the States.

 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, As far as I know, you are not SDA, never have been and have no intention of becoming one; consequently, your interest in the inner workings of the denomination puzzles me.

The RC pedophile scandal no longer involves the inner workings of that denomination. It's a very public matter about which numerous books have been written and at least one movie made [Spotlight]. It's of interest to me for a number of reasons:

I was personally acquainted with a priest who was at the paraclete facility.

I was employed in prisons where child molesters were sometimes murdered or targeted in other ways which directly involved me.

I worked in the gay community for a few years during the Height of the AIDS crisis in the States.

 

I've read enough and watched enough Walter Vieth clips to know there are a significant number of SDA's that think the Catholic Church will come after them (and encourage other Christians to do so as well). Any opportunity I have to demonstrate why this isn't a scenario an SDA should spend any time worrying about is a great opportunity IMHO AND I'd say that SDA Church admitting (albeit internally) that they couldn't defend their historical positions on Daniel 8 is about as big as it gets. 

I've been open and transparent about my dislike of the Adventist peccability of Christ teaching and their rejection of Devine Simplicity (101 level Trinity). I'll admit I'd like to explore the Daniel 8 issue.  I'd commend you for helping gay people at the height of the AIDS crisis - that was a pretty scary time. 

[Gustave]

Just now, Gustave said:

I've read enough and watched enough Walter Vieth clips to know there are a significant number of SDA's that think the Catholic Church will come after them (and encourage other Christians to do so as well). Any opportunity I have to demonstrate why this isn't a scenario an SDA should spend any time worrying about is a great opportunity IMHO AND I'd say that the SDA Church admitting (albeit internally) that they couldn't defend their historical positions on Daniel 8 is about as big as it gets. 

I've been open and transparent about my dislike of the Adventist peccability of Christ teaching and their rejection of Devine Simplicity (101 level Trinity). I'll admit I'd like to explore the Daniel 8 issue.  I'd commend you for helping gay people at the height of the AIDS crisis - that was a pretty scary time. 

 

[GHansen]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

I'd say that SDA Church admitting (albeit internally) that they couldn't defend their historical positions on Daniel 8 is about as big as it gets. 

It was only top scholars of the denomination who were involved with revising the statement on the sanctuary at the 1980 GC [General Conference] who didn't believe it. At GV [Glacier View], there were an unknown number of men who agreed with Des Ford on the sanctuary but kept silent. One, Fred Veltman, plainly told Neal Wilson privately that he agreed with Dr. Ford. NW said "That's fine; just don't talk about it" [source: Gill Ford] There are others who believe that EGW's validation of the sanctuary teaching is reason enough to embrace it. E.J Waggoner, a physician who presented Christ at the 1888 General Conference, also did not believe it, according to his "Final Word and Confession."

I worked part time, for about a year, at Mont La Salle, a retirement home for the Brothers de La Salle. I had Thanksgiving dinner with a Papal nuncio, and a meal with Brother Timothy, who started the Christian Brother's wine business. It was eventually sold for an estimated 800 million dollars. I very much enjoyed watching football on Sunday afternoon with them. Together we watched Steve Young flop into the end zone in one of his greatest plays. Their spiritual director, Brother Columban, was a spiritual giant. I still think of him and others with great fondness.

The Sabbath issue and 1844 are, more or less, independent of each other. Paul plainly stated that the doctrine which saves us is that of Christ's death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15). We can be certain of that!

[Gustave]

16 hours ago, GHansen said:

It was only top scholars of the denomination who were involved with revising the statement on the sanctuary at the 1980 GC [General Conference] who didn't believe it. At GV [Glacier View], there were an unknown number of men who agreed with Des Ford on the sanctuary but kept silent. One, Fred Veltman, plainly told Neal Wilson privately that he agreed with Dr. Ford. NW said "That's fine; just don't talk about it" [source: Gill Ford] There are others who believe that EGW's validation of the sanctuary teaching is reason enough to embrace it. E.J Waggoner, a physician who presented Christ at the 1888 General Conference, also did not believe it, according to his "Final Word and Confession."

I worked part time, for about a year, at Mont La Salle, a retirement home for the Brothers de La Salle. I had Thanksgiving dinner with a Papal nuncio, and a meal with Brother Timothy, who started the Christian Brother's wine business. It was eventually sold for an estimated 800 million dollars. I very much enjoyed watching football on Sunday afternoon with them. Together we watched Steve Young flop into the end zone in one of his greatest plays. Their spiritual director, Brother Columban, was a spiritual giant. I still think of him and others with great fondness.

The Sabbath issue and 1844 are, more or less, independent of each other. Paul plainly stated that the doctrine which saves us is that of Christ's death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15). We can be certain of that!

I'm with ya on the last two sentences. Interesting history you've had there!