Adventist Wheel - Latest Comments in http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:55:18 -0000

Get over yourselves!

We all have our tribes and places of community and belonging. I enjoy belonging in a kind of way to quite a few, including a variety of expressions of christianity and of non-christian as well.

Get over the literalistic attitudes. There are many ways to look at Jesus, God, salvation and inspiration, nature. There is not just one true way - a literalistic evangelical type of one. I grew out of that years ago and it liberated me. Let go of the whole doctrinal approach to things.

If I belong to a group, I belong for my reasons - not what anyone else says it means to belong. So talk to me at that level, not at the level of what some people expect or assume or proscribe.

The scariest group of ex-Adventists (and christians and other religionists as well) I come across are the ones who want to convert me to their form of religion and who know how right they are and how wrong I am. Just shows how embedded they were in that kind of thinking when they were adventists. I'm much safer with the now-atheist ex-sda's - although some of them are dogmatic about how right they are and how we should all believe like them!

I'm over literalist approaches to any aspect of life. I'm over morals-approaches to life. I'm over anyone trying to tell me that if i belong in their group then I'm expected to think, believe, act or behave in certain ways.

Adventism is my tribe of origin and there are some things I enjoy about hanging with certain people and in certain circumstances. I'm never going to walk away from that or them. I also get involved with all kinds of people and experiences that are wildly out of the comfort zone of any mainstream Christians, and even mainstream people in society. I'm not going to give up all that is beautiful in those parts of my life that have filled me with joy, liberation and amazing tastes of life.

I never believed in seeing things in black or white. I'm more into spectrums of colours and vibrations (beyond what can be seen!)

To me Jesus represents the end of religion (and not just bad religion), the end of ideology, the end of dogmatism, the end of dividing walls and barriers, the end of "do it my way or else", the end of moralism. I'm not interested in hopping out of one "container" into another.

I don't think Jesus would recognise much of what passes as Christianity if he materialised in our midst. He'd not be the respectable Christian at all. He'd challenge and provoke and hang out with the so-called "sinners" and liberals and all kinds of people who never feel comfortable in most churches.

I teach at university, and the students who concern me the most are the overt Christians. They try to use their assignments to convert and push their ideas - often when the topic really doesn't have much relevance to that and their level of thinking ability and analysis is really poor. They sound like they've been brainwashed and are saying the "right" things. They aren't just in uni either. No wonder most of us in the world hope Christians never run the world! Or anyone with strong religious tendencies.

Get over trying to rationalise why you stay or belong anywhere. Get over trying to convince me or anyone else why we are wrong and should get out of something. We're grown up and can look after ourselves. "God" is much grander, bigger and mysterious than any of us can ever fathom. So please don't speak on God's behalf and think you know God's will - other than that we each become healthy, whole, alive, loving beings.

Be alive! Be free!

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

gwalter — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:23:19 -0000

Dear panors77,

I'm so sorry to hear you got caught up in the politics of the denomination. Unfortunately, with any large organization, politics happen. Many of us have had similar issues - but these are just people, doing their best, within their own brokenness, and trying to replicate Christ. Unfortunately, most of us do a very poor job at that.

As I read the comments above, I am more convinced than ever, that each of us has more work to do, in order to be Christlike. I don't say this to mock, or defame, the above commenters, it's just that sometimes we allow our own hurt, brokenness, dysfunction, and narrow-mindedness shine through too brightly.

Sometimes, for legal reasons, the "institution" is unable to share the details of any conflict or issue. I hate this - but it has more to do with the world we live in then it does with the church.

Thanks for sharing. I hope you can find some relief to your resentment - my guess is, there are nine-years worth of students who love you dearly!

G

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

panors77 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:44:56 -0000

I am not an SDA, former or otherwise but a Bible believing Christian, and please forgive my depression at this time for I had taught private music lessons at Loma Linda Academy for almost 9 years. This at the former band directors request who'd been there since the early 1960's. Now with the 2nd band director since the former's retirement, I have been banned from teaching there with no reason given. Somehow the principle of one of the schools has some kind of "power" over the band program?? He refuses to give me any kind of official answer to my question of why I am banned and was quite nasty to me over the phone. The current band director is afraid to tell me any reason as well as another contracted teacher there,etc. I'm tending to believe this may not have been the current director's deciscion or maybe he was forced into it, not sure. Again, they refuse to give any official reason,etc. If this is the way SDA operates I pray for either it's conversion to REAL Biblical Christianity(like the Worldwide Church of God did/went thru)or it's utter failure and closing. The way I was just treated and the way kids are forced into certain things leads me to beleive that LLA is not educating but actually indoctrinating thru force and intimidation. I had heard they had just fired/cut over 30 people over budget cuts(?), but the thing with ME is/was I was not paid thru the school so they were not spending or losing any money on me. I was there as a convenience for the parents/kids and their busy schedules,etc. Now maybe for some reason the higher ups(?) are threatened by me? Dunno....in almost 9 years I'd never had any problems. Obviously right now I'm pretty resentful of anything SDA.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

frankb — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:38:00 -0000

Marcel,
Congratulations on such a provocative letter. For the time it has been running you have certainly gained a lot of feedback. Are you a fly-fisherman? If you are not, I think you should take it up. You might be as natural as Brad Pitt was in the move, “A River Runs Through it.” You certainly know how to tease out a conflab!!
Greetings from Australia. I agree with some of the posters on the site however, that the tone of the letter was strange, and irritated me because it made judgments about my exit from Adventism. But then again, you had to assume so much in writing about people who leave the church for a whole bag of reasons. So I am going to be generous to you for that. I will just acknowledge my irritation and move on.

It is true I left in the end because I did “not gel with Adventism’s peculiar doctrines.” Well done. That is usually the case with a lot of exits. However the issue I left over had nothing to do with the gospel. I found the gospel in the Adventist church and my view on that matter has never changed. When I first joined the church in the early 1970’s I think the very first Sabbath School quarterly was on the book of Romans and I think there was one on Galations soon after. I memorised the book of Romans up to chapter 12, word for word (yes, I used the KJV because its text is so good for memorizing, just like Shakespeare). And that anchored me in the truth immutably. Even now. I rarely go through a week when on thinking of some issue, a text from those chapters does not come back to mind to confirm what I believe. At the same time I was studying the Sabbath School Lesson I bought Martin Luther’s commentary on Romans and Galations, the latter of which has wandered somewhere else since unfortunately. What an education that quarter’s study was!! What a baptism into the gospel. And with the furore over righteousness by faith, the nature of Christ, the Palmdale Statement, and 1888 that occurred in Australia during the 70s, I always had the book of Romans ringing in my head. So the short and skinny of this is that I have not “seen the light” since I left the church. There is so much good stuff in church publications on the gospel; and Ellen White’s writings have ample material to set people’s feet in the footsteps of Jesus. You don’t have to leave the church to be immersed into the gospel of Jesus. But you do have to find it for yourself, rather than having it served up in lesson study, magazine reading, sermon absorbing etc. And you don’t have to leave the church to do that. Even if you do join another church, you will have the same crosssection of spiritual screwups in the pews, just like the seven epistle’s in the Apocalypse—look at the seven different states of those churches and they were only a few kms from each other. Nothing has changed in the passing of time.
You said, “.I merely wonder about your intentions as seen in the postings of web forums and published testimonies by some of you former SDA's.”
I can understand your stereotyping of formers by the ranting that goes on on forums, but you must see these forums as the confessional, or at least as the centre where like-minded souls can pour out their issues knowing that they are among people who sympathise. When I got the letter back from the church my wife and I resigned from, the tone of the letter suggested that our souls were in peril (since the assumption is that no spiritually healthy person leaves the Adventist church). So there is little chance that these formers would find consolation from chatting with the likes of church folk who view them like they viewed us. So yes, there is a lot of venting on the forums, but in a lot of cases, it is just cathartic, as you, of all people, with your background knowledge should know.

You said, “as groupthink mentality. Know what I mean, Former Adventist? Basically that the opinion expressed by a dominant small group becomes the subscribed theme of the whole group and a means to a perpetual end. Sometimes, if one if not careful, the result can be fingers pointing to heresy that is blown out of proportion, out-of-context conclusions, or black and white blanket statements alluding to Adventism being a cultic denomination deceiving 12 million members worldwide”
This is just a generalisation. Of course, there are sheep who just baa at every negative post against Adventism, since it is another confirmation of their own choice; but there are others like myself who find much to be offered in Adventism that God can use to enrich the spiritual lives of others. And it is these contribution in these forums that tones down such tendencies. But of course with the plethora of forums around, not all of them have moderating contributors. So I am sure you will find some where their views are skewed to one perspective.

I totally agree with those sites that are arrogant and assume that the gospel cannot be found in Adventism and cannot be found in the writings of Ellen White. But there is always this reaction after a collision like this. And any collision gives off heat. And EGW takes some of this heat because she has so much material, it is easy to bend her stuff to say anything. And it does not help that the denomination as been whitewashing some of the real facts about her life. I laughed at the one I discovered recently –which is probably old hat to you—where one of the photos of Ellen White with the relatives, had a lady with a large necklace on during the photoshoot, and of course, they had to edit the offending necklace out of the photo for Arthur White’s books on the life of Ellen White. I mean how puerile is that? No wonder they take the mickey out of the denomination for the things they have failed to be frank about. And so they should. It is a misrepresentation of the facts. The portrait of the family gathering WITH the necklace says more in favour of Ellen White than without it. So let the chips fall where they will. It will eventually die down, especially as the primary source material becomes more accessible and the EGW Estate cannot hide the dirty linen any more. A more balanced view will come to light with less “manufactured” historiography from the hub of the church. It reminds me of Peter when he separated himself from Paul and the Gentiles when the Christian Jews came up to meet with them for fear of being accused by them of failing the expectations of the leaders down home. But Paul’s condemnation of Peter was justified. It was a false gospel that the Jewish Christians and Peter were living by; and Paul spoke out about it. And we are still benefiting from the contribution that Paul gave in his confrontation of this issue.

You criticise “No, I'm not calling you grace legalists, please. I'm suggesting and asking how often in your ministries of fellowship and outreach are you legalistically anti-legalistic, self righteously anti-self righteous, and ungraciously opposed to those who don't teach grace.” Yes, I agree that there are many “formers” presentations where they blanket the statement that the gospel is not presented in the church, especially while the IJ still lingers in its atmosphere. And yes, they seem smug that they have seen the light and are in a more advantageous position than others. Hey, but that is not new. Look at the Lutheran’s who felt they were in a better situation than other brethren who had not taken the idols out of their churches, so they went and helped them purge the church of idols (slaughtering innocent victims in the atrocities as well, and making themselves murderers—all for the sake of a bit of spiritual arrogance) But there are other formers who know others in the church who present the true grace of God from lesson pamphlet and pulpit. These who remain, we know, may disagree with the thrust of some pockets of power in the church, but we see them continue to worship in the church, uplifting the gospel against all the efforts of the Judaizers in Adventism. We know God has not left himself without witness.

You said, “We are deconstructing and reconstructing Adventist truth. We've moved beyond the griping and debates of historical fundamentalism, the interpretations of Daniel and Revelation, etc. Frankly, we'll leave that to you guys to debate with diehard SDA's because that stuff bores us out of our minds.”
Wrong. While you are in a church where this is propogated and pushed as the party line, you may be tolerated, or then again you may not. This is an ostrich-mentality. It is not healthy organisational psychology, as you know well. Would you say the same if the topic being debated was Arianism? Is it healthy to just let it fester for another decade or two and then have another uproar, because it has never been properly addressed? Is it not much more healthy to face the facts as they stand, assess the position of various sides on a position and map out a long-term program of dialogue over the matter, with open, non-judgmental dialogue, with contributions from all and sundry through publications, presenting both sides of a viewpoint, so that the cut and thrust is open, healthy and progressive, as it occurs in any other discipline of knowledge. The big hindrance here is that being in an organisation where the brokering of power is over the control of knowledge and world view, with its concomitant absence of any checks and balances over its own authority, there is no possibility of two way discussion. So people use other tactics to deal with it. Some, like you, stick their head in the sand, and wait for it to wash over, others go away and rant and rave because they could not rant and rave to the appropriate channels in the church. Others just give up any hope of seeing a solution, and just slip into the shadows. Some like me, do step out of the church but try and offer some constructive contribution to continue the debate that cannot be done healthfully within the organisation.
You know yourself, that if Neal Wilson had made good on his promise of open dialogue and developed an environment where scholars on both sides of the fence could continue to live in the church and openly discuss these matters without fear of reprisal, how different things would be today!! What an example of a Christ-filled church it would be. But the inquisition did its work, and church protagonists were inebriated with the taste of blood, and continued their baleful work, to the detriment of all. Everyone lost, the church, us, you, and most of all, Christ. What an account some will have to answer for.
The rest of your letter is excellent and is written in the right spirit. Well done.
Christian Regards.
Frank Basten
PS you can read my exit story at www.2300days.com along with some contributions in way of rebuttal to traditional SDA views. Not that they will have any effect.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

My Backyard Fort — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:33:00 -0000

The tone of this letter with its constant use of "former Adventist" is rather condescending and comes across not a little bit accusatory.

I don't think you can possibly know the reasons for every individual decision to leave Adventism. It's very presumptuous to attempt to do so, as only God can read hearts and motives.

As for throwing out a belief in the Investigative Judgment, etc., if Ellen White is a true prophet of God it seems to me that those who choose to remain Adventists have no business tossing out any of her teachings. If God revealed these doctrines to her, has He changed since the time of their being penned? It seems to me that one would almost have to be an old-fashioned Adventist, embracing the entire, complete teaching of its founding members, one of whom is believed to be a prophet, or not remain a member of the church.

As for flipping the finger at Adventism on the way out, that has never been true of me or of others I know who have left. Speaking for myself, it saddened and still saddens me today that it came to the point of feeling the need to leave. I wasn't feeling lofty, proud, self-righteous, rebellious--or any of the things so many current Adventists assume every ex-church member feels and cultivates.

I don't Ellen White bash. I wonder. I study, I pray. I dream. Sometimes I long to be able to once again embrace Adventism, because it was such a huge part of my childhood years. But it wasn't always a positive part; I got lost in its legalism and, what hurts most, lost any sense of a loving God.

It seems to me that so many here and on similar blogs are only concerned with throwing jibes and pointing fingers, whether they be Adventists or former Adventists. And I can't help think that if those of you still believing in the SDA church would reach out to those who have lost their way--for whatever reason--with compassion and empathy, instead of snide remarks, why just maybe some of us could heal. Maybe God could even use you to help someone's healing process.

And finally, not all my problem with the Adventist church revolves around doctrinal issues. Not every so-called Adventist home was what it purported to be. Hypocrisy and the basest of crimes take place in many a so-called Adventist home. I was raped for 8 years of my life by the man (my step dad) who brought Adventism into my life. It totally warped my ability to see God. I'm not some angry, bitter ex-member waving my fist at God, or the church. What I am is broken and hurting and going slowly but with great determination through the healing process.

Reading many of these comments hasn't helped me one bit.

And God is near to the brokenhearted--not to those who think they have all the answers.

(I admit I have none of the answers, except for the only one which counts: Jesus Christ the Righteous.)

http://babystepstochrist.bl...

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

sbrick — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:25:00 -0000

This is an old blog someone told me of recently. I don't have time to read all the comments, so I apologize if I'm redundant.

Former Adventists are people with as many faults as any other group of people. Many are stuck in vindictive bitterness, but many have worked through it and found a place of peace and deep concern for those trapped in ANY false religion. The forums you read are a place for them to work through those issues, so you are going to encounter a great deal of "bashing" as people process the lies they grew up believing. If you think it's "groupthink" you have not stuck around long enough for the lively arguments. Formers have landed in almost every sector of Christianity, so group think is not even possible, but loving each other is.

If the fundamentalist characteristic of "contending for the faith" as scripture commands bothers you, I can make no apology for that. Truth matters. I cannot be warm to the "good" elements in Adventism any more than I can for those found in Mormonism. It is a false system, and while they do good, I could never condone the organization in any way. Not because of what they have done to me, but because of the idolatry of the entire system, and preaching a different gospel. If you are preaching the true gospel, you are not in essence, an SDA and should call yourself something else, lest you lead someone back to the foundations and doctrines of demons. There isn't much "grace" in the NT when it comes to a different gospel, other than the one we have already received.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

marsena_cook — Thu, 22 May 2008 10:30:00 -0000

This blog is an answer to my prayers! I appreciate the vigorous and intelligent discussion of our beliefs and challenges as Seventh-day Adventists.

When it comes to the issue of former Adventists, I have to honestly scratch my head and wonder what kind of Adventism they are talking about. I am a 3rd generation Adventist, and I can truly say that my experience as a child and teenager was a positive one. I had a loving mother who was very balanced in raising me in our faith. I never got the impression that we lived the way we did to earn salvation.

I can understand the frustration some former Adventists have encountered, mainly because of fanatics among us (Shepherd's Rod, 'historic' Adventists) who are a disgrace to the Lord Jesus and to Adventism. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater surely doesn't help.

It's sad that there are so few blogs like this one, where we can talk all these issues out. I looked in the Google and Yahoo search engines trying to find encouragement for people who are considering leaving the Adventist church to STAY in the church. I find more websites telling us to run like the plague from the church than to stay. How sad for us! Are we that oblivious to the need to encourage each other to hold on to our faith that we don't think people need to be encouraged to stay? Or do we think that the ones who are considering leaving are spiritual weaklings anyway, and good riddance to bad rubbish? One would almost think that we don't really care whether people leave or not, except to tell them that they are lost if they do leave.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Thora — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:02:00 -0000

Thora

There is nothing wrong with setting aside time to spend with a loved one, especially if that loved one is Jesus Christ!! What is so wrong about worshipping on Saturday as we were commanded to. Ex-Adventist are blatantly disobeying God's commandment to "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, six days........ God never changes and if he said to "Remember", who are you to teach others to forget the Lord's command. Are the other commandments also not binding e.g. adultery, stealing worshipping idols? This appears to be open rebellion against God's command, remember where and who started rebelling. It was the devil himself, in heaven above.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

AT — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:01:00 -0000

Interesting reading!

Just jumping in from the other side as one who is now SDA by profession of faith. Why? The short answer is that my local church has people who love Jesus, a pastor who preaches grace, and structures that support outreach and service to others. Also, I am kind of hard to shock in regard to church failings.

*I've been in a number of other denominations and disagree with something in them all (could never be more than a 3 point Calvinist on a good day)

* Inauspicious beginnings for a church are nothing to someone who was in a denomination that split so it could support slavery during the Civil war (so I hear about the PCA)
*Prophets saying strange/untrue things is nothing for someone who belonged to a charismatic prayer meeting and has charismatic friends and relatives
*Legalism? Try some of the people I've met among (non-SDA)homeschooling families (Your wife doesn't wear a denim jumper? Gasp!)

I'll admit to being a slightly bitter ex-Presbyterian but I am working on it.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Angeline — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:01:00 -0000

I have read the letter and many of the first comments posted and I just have to say that the reason that I "stay" is because of the ground principles. Many stated that they left the church because of personal issues, or to "find Jesus", or they were "called out", or there are inconsistencies and I respect that opinion. But it is in my opinion that if you can state that there are inconsistencies in the church and that we are focusing on the wrong things and also state that there are inconsistencies in the bible and still be "christian" then my question for you is why stay? Why have you accepted that the bible has human fallacy and not accept that of the church? I have been an SDA all my life and I have read other doctrines as well as this one and the other ones in essence are the same besides health and keeping of ALL of the 10 commandments. But that can be done in any religion as well you would just be going the extra mile like someone stated they still kept the health message after going to Catholicism. For me it boils down to the stress of the bible, yes we have Ellen G. White but not every adventist faithfully reads her word and coins it law, after all her writing are SUPPLIMENTAL. Her writings are not meant to replace the bible but should be read with the bible and final interpretations made by YOU. This religion is fine for me because it stresses what the many other churches don't and that is to develop your own comprehensive interpretation of what the bible says. The doctrines simply keep you in the realm of what God stresses that we must do in order to live healthy, modestly, and get to heaven. Also I noticed that no one stated the fact that our religion is not the most strict religion out there and yes there are flaws but as long as you don't let others "shake" you from the church (meaning christianity as a whole) then you will be A ok. As for the comments about grace, I don't know what church you attended but grace is a big priority in all the churches I've been to, because without it we would be long struck down by God.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Ane — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:01:00 -0000

Andre

All I want is the texts in the Bible that state Believers will have to go through a time of probation before the 2nd Coming, in which they will have to stand before a Holy God without the Holy Spirit; and without our Intercessor Jesus Christ ... where does Scripture teach this?

Can you provide such texts?

Ane

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

TLJ — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:29:00 -0000

I am fascinated to the core that after over a year since Marcel's original letter people are still posting on this strand! Amazing! Marcel, although everyone didn't like what you had to say, it has got people talking and feeling things...and that's an awesome thing! After re-reading your letter and the more recent posts of others I am accepting the fact that perhaps it is a small group of ex-SDA's who fit the description in your letter. Although I must say that the only ex-SDA in my life, who is still an active Christian, does fit your description quite candidly. And sadly she is one of my closest friends (I say sadly not because she's no longer SDA but because I do feel some of that negativity when we talk church, and it's hard...I can't even tell her).

It's crazy that this strand has ended with a validity of EGW debate! That's not cool. Let's keep it going so it can end on a more productive note! Andre, I have to say I was confused by much of your posting. On one side I hear you proclaiming yourself as a firm believer and lover of EGW writings but on the other hand you talk about the liberal-progressive church that you attend, and how you visit many non-SDA churches due to your music, then I think I read something where you said that the way your church does it isn't necessarily the right way (please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have your direct quote). I'm not exactly sure where you stand and that can be confusing to a non-SDA or ex-SDA.

Faye, I'm sorry but you do sound angry. And perhaps you have good reason to be. It sounds like what happened back in 1968 really hurt you to the core and you're probably not over it...and I don't judge you for that. But I do agree with Marcel and I must say that the church has changed a lot since then. Well, I can't even speak as to what exactly it was like back then cause I wasn't even born, but I've heard the stories. My mom and her whole family joined the SDA church in the 60's. But I must ask you this: If you were to meet an SDA who was Bible believing, who rejected or was unconcerned about EGW's teachings, who was loving and kind, who had the spirit of service and did their best to exemplify Christ in his/her daily living, would you respect this person or would you still view them as a confused, half-stepper for still remaining in the SDA church? I feel that my friend sees me as that. She says that she appreciates "my brand of Adventism" but I sense that she doesn't really respect my choice to stay in the faith. She's often trying to get me to read these books and articles that discredit EGW just because she knows I don't hold her up there with the Bible and I have doubts about her prophet status. You remind me so much of my friend when you said what you did about belonging to a church and needing to believe in the foundation of that church (forgive my paraphrase). But I can't really go there. Does every church member non-SDA and SDA alike really know the foundations of their church and must they believe in them wholeheartedly to be taken seriously? Even when many churches were founded centuries ago and on principles/doctrines that hold little importance in today's Christian thought? Personally, I doubt it. And I'm not going to read the EGW bashing books because I don't think that's what God would have me invest my time into. I think he would have me read things that are spiritually uplifting and that would strengthen my walk with him.

So I stick to what I said in my post back in April. As long as I believe that I can grow in faith and serve God as an SDA, and that there are others in this church who desire the same thing, I'm staying put.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Andre — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:59:00 -0000

Ane, here's a discussion by a reputable SDA theologian on the Close of Probation

http://www.greatcontroversy...

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Ane — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:12:00 -0000

Andre

You said:

"We need to make a decision on whether the prophet must be considered false when his prophecies are not fulfilled during his lifetime or whether the prophet may have predicted something that transcends his/her lifespan."

That is one way to test a prophet. But we can also test the prophet based on whether or not they contradict Scripture, or change the meaning of Scripture, or add to Scripture.

You said:
"Based on the Bible, Ellen White is right when she says that Jesus will not make intercession forever, more specifically during probation."

Can you please show me where we are taught that in Scripture? Where are we taught there will be a probation, in which Believers will have to stand on their own, before a Holy God, without an Intercessor, during the time of trouble, before the 2nd Coming.
I need the references to those Scriptural teachings.
In His Grip
Ane

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Andre — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:00:00 -0000

Ane,

Your comment sheds light on the prophetic gift of Ellen White and I thank you for that.

We need to make a decision on whether the prophet must be considered false when his prophecies are not fulfilled during his lifetime or whether the prophet may have predicted something that transcends his/her lifespan.

If we hunker down on that concept, all Old Testament prophets were considered false by their contemporaries since their prophecies of Jesus’ birth were not fulfilled in their lifetime. Obviously that is not the case. In this scenario, Jesus would also be considered a false prophet since his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem was not fulfilled until 70 AD, almost 40 years after his death. Paul, Jesus and John and other NT prophecies on the end time would be false as well.

This argument is untenable for obvious reasons. Therefore, the example you gave on Ellen White as a false prophet is wanting, since we have not reached the specific period that she alluded in that particular prophecy. Based on the Bible, Ellen White is right when she says that Jesus will not make intercession forever, more specifically during probation. If you interpret ALWAYS in Hebrews as forever and ever, than: “Will Jesus be an intercessor when we are in heaven and then in the New Earth and throughout eternity? No”. Then you must reinterpret the word ALWAYS in Hebrews as continuous while necessary.

Furthermore, she has many prophecies and predictions that were fulfilled in her lifetime. A good source is the website found here http://www.ellengwhite.info....

I don’t mean to continue this discussion since it has been exhausted on this very post previously and people start construing differing perspectives as personal attacks. I’m also not trying to prove that SALVATION DEPENDS on a belief (or non-belief, for that matter) in EGWhite any more than it depends on the Bible. Salvation is a free gift offered by God through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Anything added (eg., acceptance or rejection of doctrines) must be anathema.

And, in my life, she has been a true messenger of God. It comes down to personal experience.

Having said that, I’m not ready to abandon my belief in the revelations God gave to Ellen White on the kind of argumentation being offered by former or current SDAs here and elsewhere, much less by the ludicrous diatribes found on websites gallore.

Finally, because I happen to have a more fluid position on revelation/inspiration and unabashedly consider her revelations as having the same quality as those of the Bible writers (i.e., thought inspiration, not verbal inspiration), an attack on her writings must also be accompanied by a cold and impartial look at the discrepancies, conditional prophecies and factual errors found in the Bible.

In his Free gift,
Andre

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Ane — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:34:00 -0000

Andre,

You asked, "Does the test apply while the prophet is still living or does it transcend their life-span?

Wouldn't that depend on how specific the prophecy time line is?

You also asked me for examples of how I would test a prophet. I think you've already been given many examples, but here is a test I'd love for you to reconcile for me, with one of EGW's teachings:

... If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. —Isaiah 8:20

EGW teaches that during the end of time the righteous will have to live during probation without an intercessor:

"In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor." —GC 613-614.

Scripture teaches something totally different:

... "He ALWAYS lives to make intercession" ... —Hebrews 7:22-25

"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying ... lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." —Matthew 28:18-20

So Andre which is it? Will Jesus be with me ALWAYS till the end of time as Scripture promises ... or is He leaving me during probation like EGW promises?

And Andre, why do you suppose the focus of this debate is about "where we worship and what organization we belong to." Rather than about "Whom" we worship and belong to!

Lastly I'm addressing these questions specifically to all those progressives who remain in Adventism who no longer view EGW as an authority ... where in Scripture are you told that it is ever okay to dismiss a prophet? Weren't all true prophets to be revered and listened to? Where are you told you are at the luxury of picking and choosing only certain aspects of a prophet's teachings? And if you have really determined that she isn't either an authority or a prophet, then how do you reconcile that with the command to separate from false teachers?

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Andre — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:19:00 -0000

Ane,

I'm curious what test of a real prophet are you referring to? ... Can you give some examples?

Also, does the test apply while the prophet is still living or does it transcend their lifespan?

Andre

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Ane — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:26:00 -0000

I did not base my decision to leave on whether or not individual SDAs believe in EGW. I based it on what the SDA denomination still maintains to be true.

If EGW is a false prophet then by Biblical authority we are commanded to separate from false teachers, no matter how progressive certain members may be. Until one takes that step of obedience, God is under no further obligation to provide you with more truth or light. He'll leave you where you are at.

For those of us who have discovered she does not pass the test of a prophet ... who have obeyed the command to separate from false teachers (again the denomination, not individual SDAs) ... God has graciously revealed to us the Truth that their are churches out there that are actually much closer to the truth and much more grounded in honoring His Word.

In His Grip!

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Andre — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:54:00 -0000

Folks,

I should probably point out that in all my years as a musician in Evangelical Churches, I’ve found the deepest kinds of legalistic attitudes, ones that would make our strict and exclusive SDA ways pale in comparison. You find Christians who are not followers of Christ in all communities. I even encountered legalism in Universalist churches, where you can’t sing about Jesus!!

Also, I want to clarify that although the SDA Church I’m a member of is “grace-oriented” and does not initially attract seekers through the distinctives of the Adventis faith, I feel it still is very much a Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Among other strictly SDA characteristics, we still worship on Saturday and Ellen White is still quoted from the pulpit as an inspired author by our 3 pastors.

I support the ministries of this particular church because I believe we’re on to something here… I’ve enjoyed the diverse expression of our faith in this community with its emphasis on relationships and a cutting edge worship style. The children’s program is probably the best in the area so my daughter has a blast every Sabbath. Consequently it’s a younger, well-accomplished congregation and the talent pool is vast. However, although the SDA distinctives are not a major emphasis (if at all) in this particular community, I don’t necessarily believe this is the ultimate way of expressing the Adventist faith. It may work well with a cross-section of the American/European populations today but it would be really narrow-minded to stamp this is THE solution for Adventist problems, past or present.

I also support financially Prophecy Seminars in South America because they’re still very effective third world countries. (What a shame we haven’t made them more Christ-centered in North-America). This is probably due to the cultural environment: in poorer countries where justice is trampled and one’s outlook in life is bleak, people seem to be attracted to an image of a loving and just God that the prophecies portray, One that has had a plan all along and is just patiently waiting to pour judgement on the wicked ones of this age (politicians and corporations) all the while reserving paradise for those who are faithful followers of the Lamb. The SDA church grows by leaps and bounds in Brazil, Africa and Southeast Asia using the Christ of the prophecies as their main theme. .

We should also keep in mind that Jesus not only spoke about Old Testament prophecies but he Himself was the subject of and fulfilled 360 of them. He was also a prophet who spent some of his last moments with the disciples talking about the endtimes prophecies. So it seems to me that followers of Christ, do-what-Jesus-did Adventists will not necessarily reject prophecies because they may be construed as fear-driven as one progressive Pastor put it. Our prophetic distinctives DO have Christ at the center, it’s just that we have lost Him in the details and missed the point.

So… we can’t paint the solution for our weak, modern outreach approach towards non-SDAs and former SDAs alike with broad post-modern brushes. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this blog, although very important, these postmodern, progressive discussions are irrelevant to a vast majority of SDA communities across the world. This is strictly a North American-European problem. Need I point out that even this blog has a worlwide readership.

Finally, TV and populist theologians are daily indoctrinating the masses about ancient “prophecies” (non biblical or eisegetical) and the afterlife and progressive followers of Christ should have an age-appropriate answer to those seekers as well, lest we breed a generation of loving, but confused and shortsighted Christians.

That’s my 2 cents…

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Marcel — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:06:00 -0000

Faye,

You are beginning to resemble the “former Adventist” the first letter was intended for, and the whole reason I wrote it. Think about it, Faye….do you honestly believe that the Adventism you left 40 years ago is the same Adventism today? Perhaps to some gray-haired congregations of a 10 member church in a rural Kansas farmtown, but seriously, Faye, this last argument was weak, reactionary and totally unfounded. Although the tenants of the “religion” remain from 40 years ago, the people have changed and the times have changed, and that’s the point you need to accept. It is not 1968! You speak of “joining” as if SDA is a club for privileged cult members. (ok, I set myself up here, there are splinter groups that are cultic, but they believe in a false gospel of salvation by works).

You wrote: “You all seem to belong to different religions where your only common ground is in the name, Seventh Day Adventist.”

I hope you can accept that for many Adventists, they are no different than you, and their most prevalent “common ground” is an allegiance to being a follower of Christ. Period. Those Adventists are the ones I encourage you to get to know.

You wrote: “If I'm going to "join" something, whether it be a religion or any other organization, I'd at least like to think I BELIEVE in it and I'm not sticking around just because I can't think of anything better to do.”

Show me a denomination/religion that believes the exact same thing, Faye. Do all Presbyterians believe in pre-destination? Do all Baptists believe in salvation through water immersion? Do all evangelicals believe in eternal torment in hell?

You wrote: “My reasons for leaving the SDA church 40 years ago remains. I do NOT believe EGW was or is a prophet. And, too many Seventh Day Adventists still believe they are somehow "better" than the rest of Christianity, even if they don't bother following their own church tenants and 28 Fundamental Beliefs.”

That’s true. There are many Adventists like that, unfortunately. Exclusivity in many Adventist circles still remains, yes. But that goes with any denomination, Faye, not just Adventism. I would hope that you haven’t, since leaving Adventism, turned into a right-wing evangelical condemning and judging the lifestyles of others. Many former Adventists, as described in my original letter, went from legalists to grace legalists, using the Bible as their weapon of self-righteousness and religiosity. The pendulum swung completely the other way, yet they maintain a cold and rigid heart.

Let me end with an illustration. Think of it as a scene in a movie:

I see traditionals setting out to prove their “belief” that EGW was a prophet. They do this by choice and forget the bigger picture – who they are called to be as disciples in the kingdom of God here and now. I see ex-Adventists setting out to prove their “belief” that EGW was NOT a prophet. They do this by choice and forget the bigger picture – who they are called to be as disciples in the kingdom of God here and now. The rhetoric is a perpetual cycle and both camps miss the point. And the rest? We tip-toe around the bar brawl trying not to get hit by flying bottles on our way out, shaking our heads, rolling our eyes in disgust and muttering, “get over it already.”

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

FayeHamilton — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:48:00 -0000

Prophecies are never preached, women wear jewelry abundantly, there are ashtrays at the door and there are at least 10 first-time visitor parking spots in the front of the church. What a concept!!

What a concept, indeed! Make sure those first time visitors get to park up close and pick and choose which tenants and beliefs of the church you wish to abide by or believe in and still call yourself and Adventist. Then tell me I'm somehow vilifying the church, all the while picking and choosing what parts of the church you yourself, want to believe in.

I was NOT vilifying the church. To do so would vilify those adventists I truly respect for actually BELIEVING in and PRACTICING their religion. My original question remains. If EGW is still a foundation of the church (which she is) and if EGW is still a prophet of the church (which she is) and if you call her writings "wacky" as the original poster, did, why remain members of an organized denomination when NONE of you seem to be able to or want to uphold the basic tenants and doctrines of the church? I can't even find agreement between some of the people on this blog, on what a Seventh Day Adventist believes. You all seem to belong to different religions where your only common ground is in the name, Seventh Day Adventist.

If I'm going to "join" something, whether it be a religion or any other organization, I'd at least like to think I BELIEVE in it and I'm not sticking around just because I can't think of anything better to do.

My reasons for leaving the SDA church 40 years ago remains. I do NOT believe EGW was or is a prophet. And, too many Seventh Day Adventists still believe they are somehow "better" than the rest of Christianity, even if they don't bother following their own church tenants and 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Andre — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 02:25:00 -0000

Armed2Win,

Thanks for your comments. I couldn't agree more when you say that we're "majoring in the minors". All my years in Theological Seminaries have been on that Major! Hopefully now in a PhD program in Theology at a non-SDA University, I may be able to show that SDAs are increasingly more interested in the major pillars of Christian faith…

You’re also right that this is not the venue to hold long theological discussions. As my previous comment stated, I simply tried to show that every story has other perspectives. I don’t see the point of trying to change one’s view if they seem to be satisfied in their newfound walk with Christ.

I disagree that there was anger in my comments, as you implied. I guess that’s because theological discussions end up being construed as personal attacks, when we’re simply probing ideas. I disagree that I’ve attacked anyone personally. If I was at times facetious, the comments are there for perusal.

For the record, I don't believe anyone is going to be lost for rejecting EGW or for wearing make-up, eating meat or pork, smoking or drinking beer, keeping Sunday or rejecting the Sanctuary doctrine. We are saved FREELY by Christ and are lost when we reject Christ. Period. SDA’s have spent decades trying to add to the FREE gift of salvation by piling works or Sabbath keeping on top of doctrines. That is a disgrace to the true gospel.

I’ve been revising my SDA beliefs that we are the sole remnant. God has a remnant and it includes many in the SDA church and other denominations, including the Catholic Church (yes…) I've frequented Evangelical churches for years as a musician and have found wonderful people there who I know love Christ sincerely and will be saved; so it's not a matter of what church I belong to or what I believe in as much as it is in Whom I believe. God will be the judge. How many SDA’s are lost because they haven’t found the joy of salvation in Christ?

In hindsight, we lambast the misplaced emphasis and unbalanced views of our church in decades past but it was because of the evangelistic zeal of some Adventists in the 70's that my family found Christ. Their love of prophecies opened the door for my mother to be exposed to the Gospel. Who knows, maybe I would be an atheist today without the work of those Adventists, legalistic and unbalanced as they may have been. God works in mysterious ways…

Today I’m part of a Progressive SDA church in the East Coast, a grace-oriented community of faith. It has been a tremedous journey for my family and me and we’re loving the light and accepting atmosphere, the open-mindedness and the emphasis on the ‘majors’ of the Christian faith. Prophecies are never preached, women wear jewelry abundantly, there are ashtrays at the door and there are at least 10 first-time visitor parking spots in the front of the church. What a concept!! My church makes me believe there’s hope for Adventism!

I believe God has a plan for the SDA Church and blogs like these might as well spark the beginning of a revolution in our ways of doing church and place our emphasis on the real gospel. This blog needs to keep former SDAs coming but I think the greatest impact will be on the ones who stayed.

As Marcel put it: “So why stay, you ask? Well, let me ask, why leave?” As far as I’m concerned, the villification of the SDA Church such as we’ve seen here further solidifies my decision to stay and make it right.

Happy New Year to all!

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

Armed2Win — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:58:00 -0000

Ugh! This conversation turned debate turned argument has now taken on a tone that I think Marcel did not intend. Honestly, I am disappointed at the vitriol coming from both sides of the EGW argument.

Andre, is it really that important for Faye to believe in EGW? Do you honestly believe her eternal salvation is at risk? The last I looked, Jesus is the only way to heaven, not EGW. And Faye, is it really necessary for you to try to disprove something Andre holds close to his heart and is vitally relevant and important to his faith?

It seems to me that both Faye and Andre have an ax to grind, both harboring anger, and majoring in something that is so minor to our being saved in and through the person of Jesus Christ. Truthfully, this is a problem that seems apparent in both conservative and progressive SDA circles. "Majoring in minors".

The truth is this, "By this will the whole world know that you are my disciples - if you have love for one another." Not the belief in or against EGW. Not even keeping the best day of the week (the Sabbath) will define you as a disciple of Christ (I bet that could spark a debate.) Neither will belief in the Investigative Judgment.

Instead of trying to prove a moot point (either pro or con), I would much rather hear how Jesus touched your life, how His Grace has freed you from the bonds of slavery to sin and/or legalism. Now there is something to shout about!!!!

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

FayeHamilton — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:23:00 -0000

One more thing, Andre. You should try reading the Bible just once, WITHOUT EGW. It's a very different book when you don't have her strange interpretation of the text. Pick any version of the Bible you want (except the Adventist "Clear Word Bible" since it is paraphrased with EGW writings, as if they are actually Biblical text. That in itself is totally frightening. When you publish a book called the Clear Word Bible and put someone else's writing in it to make it look like it is actual text of the Bible, it is wrong and I don't care how many times they state it is paraphrased. They made it look and read like a Bible. It is not. It is part Bible and part EGW.) Read the Bible. Study it. WITHOUT the EGW influence.

I'll also point out in answer to your last statement that all the criticism of EGW has been refuted, that the only people in all of Christianity that honestly believe all the attacks on EGW have been refuted, as you stated, are the White Estate and people like you. I have never seen one non-Adventist who ever believed she was correct in her interpretation of Daniel 8:14 but I've seen plenty of scholars INCLUDING Adventists scholars, who I'm sure are far more learned then you, who believe she was absolutely wrong on investigative judgment. I pointed one out to you yesterday. I notice you skipped right over that one.

Your answers to ANY of my posts have been to skip right over what you don't want to see and make blanket statements like, "that's already been refuted". By whom? An adventist apologist? The White Estate? Show me one scholar that doesn't have a financial stake in keeping EGW's version of Investigative Judgment alive that has refuted it. Anyone in all of Christianity will do. You can't because there are none. There is not one theological scholar anywhere (other than at the White Estate) that believes EGW was right. The Adventist explanation of how they got to October 22, 1844 is laughable. I showed you yesterday that by the Hebrew calendar, even if you accept that 2300 days meant the Jewish Day of Atonement in 1844 (as they now claim), it is still wrong as the Jewish Date of Atonement in 1844 was September 23. Did you take your head out of the sand long enough to even go LOOK at the Hebrew calendar?

Go do some research on Desmond Ford. He was one of the SDA's best scholars. A theological teacher. A theological scholar. He was fired by the church when he pointed out just how wrong EGW was on Investigative Judgment.

I have yet to find one non-Adventist scholar anywhere in all of Christianity that believes EGW was correct on Daniel 8:14. I have yet to find one non-Adventist scholar anywhere who believes Jesus went in some other compartment of heaven on October 22, 1844. Every other Christian in the world believes Jesus went to the right hand of God at the ascension, not close to 2000 years later, just to prove the Millerites right. I mean, seriously. They sat in two different compartments of heaven for 2000 years?

Don't even TRY to tell me all the criticism of EGW's writings have been refuted. You did no better job of refuting that junk than the White Estate has done. The circle talk you find there is amazing. Even good Adventist scholars such as Desmond Ford, Raymond F. Cottrell, Don F. Neufeld and Francis D. Nichol have NOT been able to defend Mrs. Whites writings, and being good Adventists, they actually tried. No reputable Christian scholar has ever accepted Adventism's sanctuary doctrine. Cottrell's (and Cottrell was an Adventist trying to prove White was right) research led him to exclaim: "Time and again non-Adventist Bible scholars have examined Adventist beliefs and have given all of them a bill of health as having some roots in Scripture. ... But without exception, and often in the most emphatic terms, they denounce our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as 'eisegesis of the worst kind' (that is, reading into the Bible something that is not there). Perish the thought, but the invariable rule appears to be that the more a non-Adventist knows about the Bible and how to study it, the less disposed he is to look with favor on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

So please don't bother trying to tell me that all the claims against EGW have been refuted. Even your own church scholars can't refute them and I'm willing to bet they are a whole lot smarter, a whole lot more scholarly and way better educated in theology than either you or I.

Get your head out of the sand and read something besides EGW. If you still believe her AFTER you've actually read the Bible without her interpretation, great. You are so EGW indoctrinated, I don't think you'll bother to do your own study. You certainly haven't given me any new research. At least I had the good grace to actually do part of my research on SDA websites and the White Estate Library. When I heard last week that EGW had plagiarized most of her work, I did not believe it. Mind you, I've been away from the SDA church for a lot of years and had not heard any of the ongoing controversy within the church over the last 25 years or so. I went and did my own research and read BOTH sides, including the SDA side and drew my own conclusions. I'm still doing research, which is how I came across this blog in the first place. All you do is stick with the SDA apologists view. You haven't got the guts to look at both sides.

Thank God there are others in your church that disagree with you. Thank God there are others in your church that do not elevate EGW's writings to the level of the Bible as you do. The minute you wanted me to defend the Bible, you gave yourself away on that one. People like you who make EGW into a prophet, the final word on par with the Bible are the reason the Adventists continue to be called a cult.

Re: http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2006/12/groupthink-of-former-sdas.html

FayeHamilton — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:53:00 -0000

Marcel,

Thank you for your comments. It sounds to me like you and I are at least worshiping the same God in pretty much the same way.

I also read your follow-up comment and it appears that you understand to a certain extent, why so many of us left or are leaving SDA.

Andre, you are the reason we left. No, I didn't answer you questions on the Bible. As I stated earlier, I do not need to nor will I defend the Bible. The fact that you need to attack it to a point about EGW just shows me that you hold HER up higher or at least on the same level as the Bible. I suggest you read the Bible more and EGW less. You are the scary Adventist cult I grew up with, that believed EGW was the final say on Biblical passages.

I never claimed what I posted was original. EGW claimed she received her plagiarized writings in a vision. I did not. EGW CLAIMED everything she wrote was from God . I did not. No one has ever stated in their Fundamental Beliefs that I'm some sort of prophet. The SDA's still hold her out to be a prophet with some sort of special gift.

Somehow, I don't think that YOU did your own original research either. You managed to cut and paste your answers much to quickly. I'll also point out that you didn't answer 90% of what I wrote. One of your first attacks on me was telling me to prove that EGW was a foundation of the church. When I did, you never bothered to answer it. I'd like to see some sort of apology on that if we're now going to demand apologies. I never called her wacky yet you accused me of calling her wacky. You never bothered acknowledging that.

Did you ever bother reading EGW's Last Will and Testament? Did you ever bother researching what she told others in the church about who they should leave their money to when they died? (She advocated leaving their estates to the church, not to some relative that didn't need it.) Did you see who she left her estate to? Did you notice it wasn't the church? Did you ever bother to research what your prophet stated about being in debt? Did you notice that she was so far in debt when she died that the General Conference had to take over her estate?

I'm sure you've read all of her "health edicts". Yet she ate meat and oysters herself for 30 years after she told the rest of the church not to. Yet when I mentioned that, you didn't bother answering it.

You seem to love to attack others for what you deem an unanswered question but you pick and chose what you want to answer and talk in circles.

I tried to respond to all of your questions (until you wanted me to defend the Bible). You went in circles around mine and just came up with more attacks.

Yes, you are the reason I left. The rabid Adventism is still as alive and well as it was 40 years ago when I left.

I don't think you have proven a thing in your posts on EGW other than to make me believe that there are still far to many in the Adventist church that can't see the forest for the trees. She has survived the attacks on her only because the Church in Silver Springs continues to put her up there in their Fundamental Beliefs and continues to make big bucks peddling her books and portraying them as some sort of "inspired gift from God" and necessary reading to be saved. Scholars far better than you have already proven she was wrong.

I hold no hatred for the SDA Church. I hold no hatred for EGW. I stated in one of my earlier posts that I believe she was a good Christian woman. I just think she was wrong and I think she knew it and duped a lot of people. There are many things about SDA's that I respect. However, I DO NOT believe that I have to go to church on Saturday to be saved. I DO NOT believe that I have to accept EGW as a prophet to be saved. I DO NOT believe I will receive the mark of the beast for NOT worshiping on Saturday as EGW taught.

And I will say once again Andre, you remind me way to much of those "Holier than thou, we're the ONLY right church and the ONLY church that knows the truth, and the ONLY people that will be saved" Adventists I grew up with, for me to even take you seriously.

Quite honestly, you sounded a lot more hateful towards me than I ever did towards the Adventists.

The difference between your Church and Marcels is astounding. If you both hadn't stated that you were current SDA's, I wouldn't even know you belonged to the same religion.