Doctrines define relationship in the church

There may actually be some hope that the Seventh-day Adventist church is waking up from their self induced delusions. Recently the Adventist Review in an article my Andy Nash actually admitted that Adventists are leaving the church due to not believing Adventist doctrine. Up until now he points out people left, and yes they left in a big way, over relationship issues. He writes of the past this way:

Past studies indicated that if someone left the Adventist Church, it was almost always because of bad experiences or relationships, not because they changed their beliefs.

In a 1998 report, “Why Do Adventists Quit Coming to Church?” prepared by the Center for Creative Ministry, Adventist researcher Monte Sahlin wrote: “Three out of four leave for reasons having to do with their relationships with people and groups, while less than one in five leave because they no longer believe in some teaching of the church.”

Then he goes on to write about a new study:

“The study, “Former Seventh-day Adventist Perceptions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” was conducted in 2011 by Southern Adventist University’s School of Business under the direction of marketing professor Lisa Goolsby. Goolsby was approached by Pastor Jerry Arnold and member Ken DeFoor of the Collegedale, Tennessee, Community church about exploring the reasons members are leaving the church. More than 600 former Adventists from throughout the U.S. were invited to answer questions online; 190 participated.

When asked why they quit attending the Adventist Church, 49 percent of respondents cited disagreement or disenchantment with Adventist doctrine, while another 10 percent cited their own lifestyle choices being out of harmony with church teachings. Only 38 percent of responses cited a bad personal experience or “other” reason for leaving. (The respondents were able to cite more than one reason.)

When respondents were invited to give open-ended feedback about their departure from the Adventist Church, 68 percent of the comments concerned Adventist doctrine, 47 percent concerned judgmental attitudes or other problems within the church, 31 percent concerned cofounder Ellen G. White, and 15 percent concerned legalism. (The respondents were able to submit multiple comments, which were then categorized.) “

Now for some analysis. First that last paragraph above. 68% of comments concerned Adventist doctrine and another 31% Ellen White. As most know Ellen White as a prophet is included in the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventism. So of the comments received it would be more telling to say that 68+11= 79% we related to doctrines of the Adventist church.

In fact it really appears that those claiming relationship issues as the previous reason for Adventists leaving the Adventist church is probably inaccurate as well. So if we search for the 1998 report “Why Do Adventists Quit Coming to Church?” we would probably find a similar gloss over the real reason for the relationship problems. But unless you are connected to some Adventist school you are not likely to find the 1998 report. So I can't really comment on its methodology or conclusions. But there is an article that seems to draw heavily from the report.

The Seventh-day Adventist church puts out a study guide, the Ifollow Discipleship Series in their lesson plan entitled Member Care: Reconnecting they write the following:

Here are some depressing statistics: In most Adventist Churches across North America, typical Sabbath attendance is equal to about 50 percent to 55 percent of the total num-ber of members on the books. A number of churches have completed a name-by-name analysis of their entire membership list and found that typically a third of the members have not attended even once in the past 12 months. “Shut-ins” were not counted in this percentage.

A survey of active members found that 72 percent report that they have a relative or friend who used to be an active member of the Adventist Church but has since dropped out. Dr. Roger Dudley, director of the Institute of Church Ministry at Andrews University, followed a random sample of 13 and 14-year-olds from Adventist families for 10 years, until they were 24 and 25 years of age. About 65 percent had left the Church over those ten years and only 10 percent had returned later, or a net loss of more than half of our young people. It is estimated that there are one or two million former, inactive and “fringe” Adventists in North America and about 500,000 active members who attend at least once a month. Why do we have such a big dropout problem? Ten major studies have been completed by Adventist researchers since the mid-1970s and much has been learned that can provide some answers. Most grew up in the Adventist faith, and were not converts from evangelism. The most common “dropout” is an adult under 50. The median age of drop- outs is 40. The median age of members is 51.

A survey of the general public conducted by the Center for Creative Ministry asked: “Have you ever heard of or read about the Seventh-day Church?” Seven in ten of those over 50 said “Yes,” but only 58 percent of those 30 to 49 years of age; 35 percent of those 18 to 29; and a disappointing 10% of those under 18. Clearly, the Adventist Church

is not connecting with new generations of Americans, even those raised in its own families and schools. And it’s likely that some of the above reasons, especially worship and music style, have something to do with it.

Another place where we’re clearly failing to minister effectively is when people face storms in their lives. Dropouts are three times as likely as active members to be divorced and remarried, and four times as likely to be divorced and single. They are more likely to report stressful life events and moves from one home to another. Yet surely the church is the place where someone facing a major life crisis can most expect to be truly heard, held, and comforted!

Six in ten former members had a non-member spouse as compared with 28 percent of the active members. Did members make a concerted effort to make friends with the non-member spouses, without making it look like they only wanted to add them to the books?

Here are some reasons these former members give for why they left the church: “There is too much politics in the Adventist church [and] church leaders are more concerned with the number of baptisms than the people baptized. The church has too many rules and regulations. Adventists think they can work their way into heaven, and the church is too organized.” They did not feel accepted by the other church members. “The coldness of church members influenced them toward leaving the church, also bigotry, hypocrisy, and judgmental attitudes.” They may express a lack of Adventist friends, and a lack of visits from church members and pastors.

A significant number leave because of dissatisfaction with local church leaders; there is a perception of a lack of sympathy by church leaders for their problems.

In other words, no matter what the life crisis or the reason for leaving, the bottom line is, dropouts are people who never bonded with the core group of their congregation. Two out of three, while they were active members, did not have an office or volunteer role in the congregation. They report few visits by church members or pastors, even while they

were still regular attenders.

Three out of four leave for reasons having to do with their relationships with people and groups; while less than one in five leave because they no longer believe in some teaching of the church. Often it’s for reasons that have already been outlined above. Problems arose which were not addressed, and the person just slipped away. The sad fact is, what most

likely happened back at church is that people shook their heads, assumed the person “wasn’t really committed,” and continued to bring names up as prayer requests, but did not do anything.

Here is the key, in their analysis 75% leave over relationship issues, the last paragraph above says that the reasons are mainly those outlined above and can be summed up as people at the church assuming the person “wasn’t really committed”. Why would they be assumed to not be committed? Because much of what they classed as relationship issues were doctrinally related and the relationship strain came because the person questioned or didn't tow the line of necessary belief in some perceived Adventist fundamental. Take a look at the reasons listed earlier in the quoted material from Ifollow. Let us list those reasons:

1. There is too much politics in the Adventist church

2. Church leaders are more concerned with the number of baptisms than the people baptized.

3. The church has too many rules and regulations.

4. Adventists think they can work their way into heaven,

5. The church is too organized.”

6 They did not feel accepted by the other church members. “The coldness of

church members influenced them toward leaving the church, also bigotry, hypocrisy, and

judgmental attitudes.”

7. They may express a lack of Adventist friends, and a lack of visits from church members and pastors.

There is something that seems to underline most of those reasons. The politics of the church is about agreeing with the church, that will affect how well you fit in the church if you are in or out. Leaders concerned with numbers instead of dealing with issues and questions is again related to doctrine. Rules and regulations are supposedly Biblically derived so again doctrinal. They did not feel accepted, which is again the politics of being in the right group, the one that assumes they have the truth if you are not part of them then those who think they have the truth treat the outsiders coldly. And lastly Adventist friends lacking because they have not been taken into the political power in the church that is endorsed and given power by the leadership of the Adventist church which naturally support loyalty. From my experience it does appear that since the 70's it has been doctrinally based relationship problems that moved people out of the Adventist church for the most part.

Now let me give you a very recent example of how this works using my favorite example of foolish Adventism. Stephen Foster on Atoday.com newest article.

It makes about as much sense (to me) for a Seventh-day Adventist Christian to challenge the inspiration and authority of Ellen White as it does for a Calvinist to challenge the theological authority/bona fides of John Calvin, or a Lutheran of Luther. Yet some members of the voluntary Christian sect or denomination which was co-founded by White—whose commentary on the Bible and whose exegeses and interpretation of the Bible are the result of a prophetic gifting of God—routinely reject her messages (and/or reject the reality of her gifting).

Contradictorily and ironically, some of these individuals believe that they have been given the same or similar gifting; and that, since they live in the present, their gifting is representative of present truth—even though their “truth” may deny or contradict some of what White wrote in great detail.

I view all such claims as bogus at best; and, quite frankly, actually have a much stronger negative opinion of them.

More candidly in my opinion, the ultimate purpose of all efforts to discredit Ellen White is the purposeful destruction of the Advent movement generally, and of its interpretation of the Third Angel’s message in particular.

(Now, of course, I could be wrong; but I’d wager everything that I’m not.)

Basically SDA’s and those who are not SDA have differences with regard to interpretations—and implications resulting from interpretations—of the books of Genesis, Daniel, and The Revelation. This is no different at all than the differences between Adventist conservatives and liberals.

So what are we to do when we fundamentally disagree with what ‘we’ represents? Can those who fundamentally disagree remain together? Can a divided house somehow remain standing?
 

Inspiration provides the following guidance:
“Christ's servants are grieved as they see true and false believers mingled in the church. They long to do something to cleanse the church. Like the servants of the householder, they are ready to uproot the tares. But Christ says to them, ‘Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.’ He then continues the Ellen White quote.

Now is there any question how such a person will treat those with questions about Ellen White or what the meaning Adventists put on the 3 angels messages or any other interpretation? Such people are tares, at best they are not committed at worst they are agents of evil seeking to destroy the church, after all loyalty to the church is the key to their thinking. To disagree with a doctrine, to acknowledge an old earth or realities of evolution etc is to attempt to destroy the SDA church.

It is rather simple doctrines inform how one relates to others. The remnant mentality, the we have the truth and unless you accept it you are evil will lead to broken relationships. But possibly the Adventist church is beginning to realize just what they have produced with all of the Stephen Fosters that they have filled their churches with. To late for millions of us though...then again just realizing they have a problem is far from actually fixing the problem.

What is the first prophecy

I keep reading the Adventist Today Blog, though I am constantly amazed at some of the material that Stephen Foster posts. For example he has an article entitled the Purpose of Prophecy. In it he writes:

"Prophecy is the God-inspired revelation of what He wants those who claim/believe Him to know. In the 66 books that comprise the canonical narrative, the first prophecy we come to is the one which encapsulates the entire remaining narrative writ large—Genesis 3:15. It is the prophecy describing God’s plan.

Is the first prophecy the prototypical prophecy? Does it reveal to us what prophecy is all about in terms of purpose? It tells us what will happen and why; but not how it will happen. Subsequent prophecies, particularly those of the prophet Isaiah, certainly do reveal, or detail, how. (Isaiah 7:14 comes to mind for example.)"

If the first prophecy is some kind of prediction of what will happen then it is certainly not Gen. 3:15 all though that verse is frequently cited by ill informed people as being a messianic prophecy. It of course is not and is never referred to in the rest of the Bible in anyway to the Messiah. But as with much of the first chapters of Genesis people read into it what they want.  But let us assume it presents a predictive prophecy, is it the first one? No it is not we read the following in Gen. 2:17

 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not 1eat, for in the day that you eat from it ayou will surely die.”

So what if it is meant to be Stephen's prototypical prophecy. Well that is open to question. It goes back to the old canard that the first use of a word in the Bible is supposed to be the key to understanding any and all uses of that word.

When ever I read Stephen I think how sad that there are so many Adventists who think so little and talk so much. They regurgitate their traditions and don't have a clue when their traditions are errant at all because as a tradition, they rarely question what they already believe. That is the biggest problem in Adventism and in religion in general.

More foolish predictions from AToday colunmist

As some of you know who follow this blog the Atoday Columnist Stephen Foster is one of my favorite targets. He is to me one of the greatest examples of myopic traditional Adventism. He presents false information as if it were true and true information as if it were false. Well yes that later could be said of numerous political leftists but since Foster embodies both myopic traditional Adventism and ill informed political progressivism he strikes just the perfect cord of absolute silliness. Unfortunately absolute silliness is becoming all to common in Adventism.

In the past Foster has declared in his comment section of one of his articles that “arbitrary” means making a decision. Therefore since God makes decisions He is arbitrary. It did not matter if I showed him the dictionary meaning as well as the synonyms for arbitrary he would not be moved. So I said he was being disingenuous and he was a mixed up guy. That got me banned from posting comments on Atoday. Well there is no way to educate the editor/moderator at Atoday, so I don't post there anymore as a columnist or commentor. Actually quite happy to no longer have to try and write articles that the editor has to approve, because frankly it is hard to do when the editor knows so little.

For instance in Stephen Foster's latest article he mentions Rick Santorum's statement about nearly throwing up after reading JFK's speech. Foster then quotes a statement from Santorum the day after he made the throw up comment. Yet Foster ignored the Santorum statement that his throw up comment was an over reaction. So it stands in Foster's article as if Santorum had never corrected himself, even if you don't believe him why would you not offer the reader the facts in the matter. Well the reason is because information is not the purpose of the article it is propaganda. And propaganda cares little for the facts. Propaganda is one of the specialties of the political left. I suppose the right will use it to some extent but it appears not to be used nearly as much as the political left. The Editor at Atoday probably did not even know that Santorum had corrected his statement the next day. Because another unfortunate problem of the Traditional Adventists and the political left is that they are poorly informed about current events. Their sources of information are often restricted to those that agree with their ideology, and they rarely hear anything to the contrary.

So Foster puts forth his opinion and his selected retelling of the facts carefully omitting things that don't work toward his preordained conclusions. Though he did kindly note in the first part of his article that if you don't hold to his view of Traditional Adventist Eschatology you will not likely agree with him. Apparently if you agree with him then you will agree with his article. You see how the myopic views work. Their information is not intended to be persuasive to those who may differ but to be persuasive to those who already agree with them. Again something very common in Traditional Adventism and political progressives.

The main import of his article however was put forth in his opening line: “Does anybody continue to believe that things are not lining up according to prophecy?” Prophecy to Foster being his traditional Adventist Eschatology where in the Roman Catholic church rises up and takes over in both church and state relations. Santorum is a Roman Catholic running for President, and Santorum does not think that Religious people should be silent as to the affairs of state. Thus to fulfill the prediction of the 19^th century Foster produces another prediction for what is happening now, even though Santorum has little chance of becoming the Republican candidate and even though Santorum says he will not enforce his religious ideas in the political realm just as he did not do so when he was a Senator. But the prophecy lines up, because the prediction in each case is the same and to most Traditional Adventists prediction is prophecy. But predictions are not prophecy they are interpretations someone has placed upon a prophecy. They are consistently proven wrong. Yet consistently trotted out again and again, because they are at least to the believer never proven wrong because they can always still happen just around the corner.

Prophetic Prognostication

I was prompted to address the subject of the “prophetic prognostication” because of Stephen Foster's recent article The Case Against Secularism - And For Prophecy Here is the line that Stephen wrote that interested me in this topic. “While history is a great teacher, it is difficult to quantify how much better it is, if at all, than is a “prophetic prognostication” on the same topic.”

Is “prophetic prognostication” better then history? Does history repeat itself as we often hear? For some reason this quote from Karl Marx has taken on a meaning that is far from accurate. Marxist.org writes: “Marx never believed that “history repeats itself,” but in a famous quote he said:

“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” [Marx, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonapatre, Chapter 1.]”

In fact history does not repeat itself, Napoleon is not the same as Hitler and Hitler was not the same as Stalin and Pol Pot is different then all the other leaders who created mass killing of people. History can teach us lessons that we can apply to our current conditions or movements, it does not repeat itself, whether in reality or in farce. Certainly people will continue to make the same mistakes, usually because they think they can do it right where the others failed but still history does not repeat itself and when we view history we have to interpret the data and analyze it for the best use we can make of it. History like most information is subject to interpretation.

“Prophetic prognostication” is equally subject to interpretation but unlike history there is no reality of actual experience to help with the interpretation. There is no history involved, no reality observed and no data from the occurrences to help the development of an interpretation. This moves prophetic prognostication into the realm of speculation. Speculation can be used to problem solve or run scenarios, such as making “what if” statements. The more variables in a scenario however means there are more possible “what if” statements that could be envisioned. The answers to those “what if” statements then branch like a tree into multiple possible additional “what if” possibilities of actions and reactions. This fact limits the application of “what if” statements or thought problems (thought experiments) to fairly simple options which are often not found in life's open systems (in terms of multitudes of interactions possible). “Prophetic prognostication” is not even in the useful “what if“ category because there are far too many factors then can be considered.

Adventism has seen the difficulties with “prophetic prognostication” in its application of Biblical predictive prophecy. Most famous in this list of  predictions is the of the end of the world in1844 the so called “Great Disappointment”. Adventists have from their beginning practiced prophetic prognostication on various topics. Most were thought to be fulfillments of some or other Biblical prophecy for example:

-- November 1 1755. The great Lisbon earthquake.

-- 1780 May 19. The unexplained dark day over New England

-- 1798 The Vatican fell because of the French Revolution, temporarily ending 1260 years of religious       and political domination

-- 1833 November 12-13. The great Leonid meteor shower

-- 1838 Josiah Litch used Revelation 9 to predict the fall of the Ottoman Empire around August of 1840

All of the above quoted from an Adventist teaching website.

 Adventists have been totally inaccurate in their “Prophetic prognostication” and interpretation of fulfillments. Earthquakes still happen, with more or less death and destruction then Lisbon, Forest fires and storms occasionally cause dark days, such as when Mt. St. Helens erupted. The Vatican did not fall in 1798 just because a Pope was captured once again, it had lost significant power for several hundred years before 1798, remember in just the area of religion there was the Reformation! There have been greater Leonid meteor showers since 1833 and they still come on their regular cycle. The Ottoman Empire did not fall in 1840 though it had been in decline for a hundred years, still nothing of significance even happened to the Ottoman Empire in 1840. Most of these formerly thought of fulfillments are rarely mentioned today in the Western World. The fact is that not only Adventists have failed with“Prophetic prognostication” but numerous other Christians have been completely unsuccessful with their interpretation and application of predictive prophecy from the Bible. Many have tried and all have failed. (Wikipedia even has a page on unfulfilled Christian predictions)

For Adventists this becomes even a greater problem because many try to use the “prophetic prognostication” of Ellen White as the general Christian community tried to use the Biblical predictive prophecies. Ellen White's predictive prophecies even in her life time also failed. The most famous probably being her statement that some of those at the 1856 conference would be food for worms, some would be subject to the seven last plagues and some would be translated.

"I was shown the company present at the Conference, Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Ellen G. White, 1 Testimonies, p. 131-132. May 27, 1856

When we look at what the Adventist denomination says itself about Ellen White's fulfilled predictions we see that they cannot really find any to point to with specificity. The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe ...  A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (1988) On page 225 writes of Ellen White

  

“2. The accuracy of predictions. Ellen White's writings contain a relatively small number of predictions. Some are in the process of being fulfilled, while others still await fulfillment. But those that can be tested have been fulfilled with an amazing accuracy. Two instances that demonstrate her prophetic insights follow.”

“a. The rise of modern spiritualism...”

“b. A close cooperation between Protestants and Roman Catholics...”

Both are actually very questionable, Ellen White wrote about the "mysterious rapping" as a phenomenon caused by Satan, the quote  appears to be a reference to the Fox sisters spiritualism hoax of her time. In her day Abraham Lincoln held séances in the White House. In other words she wrote about the spiritualism which was already popular. To say that what was popular in her day was a prediction of the  rise of modern spiritualism is not even a prediction of significance but even that has not proved itself true.  If you go by those who say they follow or practice spiritualism there would be a decline just as there is a decline in the Theosophists of her day, another brand of spiritualism. But spiritualism is somewhat vague in meaning and could be held to a wide array of interpretations thus it becomes a vague and meaningless prediction, fulfilled by anyone that wants to say it is being fulfilled any time something becomes popular, such trends as Transcendental Meditation or the New Age Movement for example.

The second supposedly fulfilled prediction is cooperation between Protestants and Roman Catholics, again a prediction based upon the current events of her time. In her time there was such animosity by the Protestants against the Roman Catholics (often reciprocated) it would be hard not to see them either come together and get along or become so divisive that they tore the country apart. As this article reports: “In 1850 Catholics made up only five percent of the total U.S. population. By 1906, they made up seventeen percent of the total population (14 million out of 82 million people)—and constituted the single largest religious denomination in the country.” When Ellen White saw this kind of immigration it would not take some kind of divine imagination to see that the anti-catholic hatred and distrust of 19^th century America was not going to last. But to be fair we can give her partial fulfillment on this issue as Protestants and Roman Catholics get along more as Christian brothers and sisters despite the rift of the Reformation. That Christians could have been that hateful of other Christians is a scar on Christianity. Still  the two are widely separate on many issues and here again the vague nature of the prediction plays a role, allowing who ever wants to interpret it to see some form of fulfillment.

If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that the value of “prophetic prognostication” is very close to nil. The vaguer the prediction the more leeway for the interpreter to see what they want as a fulfillment. But due to the wide range of possible fulfillments we are still usually left with nothing of value. Worse yet when other “prophetic prognostications” are added to our view of current events the speculation simply runs wild. Those speculations though (historically based upon the complete failure of Christians to predict anything) are most likely wrong. The speculative interpretations are artificially upheld as truth because of their claim of a prophetic nature. When such speculation is used to prejudice people against other people or organizations, not upon what they have done or said but upon what they are anticipated to do following a “prophetic prognostication” then we practice a most offensive type of chauvinism and a complete misuse of reason. Speculation should never rule the day!

The corruption of Adventist media

Recently I decided to stop contributing articles to Atoday.com. This was to some extent based upon the editor’s rejection of my article critical of the politicization in Liberty Magazine. I was critical of the assertions made in the opening paragraph of that article where there were accusations made against certain un-named Republican Presidential candidates, the accusations used no words of the candidates and did not mention or even footnote the candidates or their specific comments. You are just supposed to believe the author's assertions as the starting point for the article even though the writer is a fairly notorious political liberal writing about political conservatives and very evidently biased in his views. The Atoday online editor was incapable of explaining what should be changed in the article, just I should tone it down and rewrite it. Not particularly helpful editorial input and since I was feeling that the editor did not have the intellectual ability for his job or was consistent in how he did his job I quit writing for the column.

My thinking then was that he did not want to embarrass Liberty magazine by pointing out their terribly biased article. Then I saw on the Atoday website an article by Stephen Foster that did exactly the same thing as the editors of the Liberty article did. That is allow an article to publish anonymous accusations against a Presidential candidate without using or footnoting the candidate or the words or context of the statement. This kind of shoddy writing I have come to expect from Stephen Foster who is like the Liberty article a political liberal, writing against a conservative candidate. Here is what Stephen Foster wrote:

If you happen to be somewhat unclear as to what I mean about the religio-political class rhetorically lamenting the civil rejection of religion in order to reverse or undo the practice of conducting public affairs without a religious element; you should know that a well-known politician, who for now shall remain nameless, recently asserted that the United States is not a secular nation.
Now, look at those two definitions of secularism again. Is he right or wrong?

Here he asks for the decision to be made not upon what the candidate actually said but upon what Foster asserts the candidate was saying. With absolutely no context given or even referencing the candidate. Specifically saying: “religio-political class rhetorically lamenting the civil rejection of religion in order to reverse or undo the practice of conducting public affairs without a religious element;” That is a lot to assume, but assuming is what Foster does and apparently the editor finds such assumptions perfectly appropriate.

So as with the Liberty article  I researched and here is what we can ascertain Stephen Foster is referring to. Mitt Romney at a rally said:

“We are not a secular nation. We are a nation that believes in a provident hand.” [Edit: 3-30-23The link is no longer active]

For some reason Traditional Adventists like Foster seem to have a great fear of any political person who actually has religious beliefs even if those beliefs are well founded in the history of the United states. The belief in God is not something unfamiliar to Americans, not just a couple of words on money that say “In God We Trust” In fact 9 out of 10 Americans believe in God. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx

Traditional Adventists it appears have migrated to the atheistic side of politics because they fear people of their own belief system (Christians and theists). Not because of what those Christians have done but because of what they fear they will do based upon their rather silly eschatological beliefs developed in the 19^th century. These people can’t get past their traditions so they align with those raging against Christianity. The logic of their position is so poor that it requires making horrible assumptions which if anyone saw the actual quotes they were referring to they would laugh at their foolishness, as in the two articles mentioned above they hide the information and rely upon their biased assertions.  The people who should know better…the editors of these articles go along with it because they either don’t know the facts, and/or are so politically biased as to not even question this kind of manipulative writing.  

I can’t support these groups any longer, They are not behaving in any kind of accountable way and it is a tragedy to see this happen to Adventist media but it may be the inevitable consequence of having such a broken theological and eschatological system of beliefs where facts must often be ignored to hold to Adventist doctrine and traditions.

See the following quotes from famous American founders and their belief in providence.

George Washington was a spiritual man who recognized the paternal protection of God in not only his own life, but in the life of the country he was fighting to free from tyranny. His own witness of the many miracles that thwarted the victory of Great Britain over the often ill-equipped army he was leading likely inspired the following words he wrote in a letter to General Thomas Nelson in 1778: “The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-16-02-0373

“If it were not for my firm belief in an overruling Providence, it would be difficult for me, in the midst of such complications of affairs, to keep my reason on its seat. But I am confident that the Almighty has His plans, and will work them out; and, whether we see it or not, they will be the best for us.”

President Abraham Lincoln, Speaking to the Christian Commission during the Civil War

[Benjamin]Franklin maintained a firm belief, however, in "a Being of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power" (165) [3], a God who by "providence" [4] acts frequently in the world, a power who could and would suspend deterministic natural laws at will. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0090

Samuel Huntington

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT

It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.⁵⁴

Benjamin Rush

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SURGEON GENERAL OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; “FATHER OF AMERICAN MEDICINE”; TREASURER OF THE U. S. MINT; “FATHER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations! . . . My only hope of salvation is in the infinite tran¬scendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Noth¬ing but His blood will wash away my sins [Acts 22:16]. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly! [Revelation 22:20]⁹⁸

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.⁹⁹ Wallbuilders website