They mystery of reclaiming a prophet

Adventist Today recently offered this program 

Eric Anderson, “What Would Adventism Be Without a Prophet?”
Here is a 60-second snipped clip:

Well, I keep thinking about how we're defining prophet and I found that the definition that I offered in reclaiming the prophet was for some people a a tremendous watering down uh an evasion. 

Maybe I should quote that. Um, and I'm a little mystified. I still don't understand this. Why this is a bad way to define the term prophet. I wrote the authors of reclaiming the prophet will often employ the term  prophet to describe Ellen White. The point is not to mystify readers nor to hide ordinary thoughts or central historical context. Using non-technical layman's language is a prophet is a person who in God's name persuades a leader who changes people's behavior. And I went on to talk about her achievements and the ways in which uh we need to take those into account. That bothered some people and they thought that was um explaining away a prophet. That was a a bad definition of a prophet. I still don't quite get that a leader is a person who in God's name persuades. That sounds like a prophet to me. Quite quite an interesting approach 1:15:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLxn2k3WcoM 

I am unsure why he is mystified because, in fact, his definition is simply a slightly obscured meaning of prophet, but certainly covers what prophet means. A prophet in the Bible is someone chosen by God to speak for God, acting as a messenger to convey the message God wants to the people. So why do I say his definition uses an obscuring meaning? Because in his definition, the most important part seems to be glossed over. "prophet is a person who in God's name". 

So before anyone listens to "the persuades a leader to change other people," they would have to accept that the prophet is speaking in God's name, which parts are really the parts God wants to convey. That is the entire problem with Ellen White, someone with numerous false prophecies and a known serial plagiarist speaking in God's name at all. There is also the second problem with the redefinition in that it is addressed to leaders; it is up to the leaders to change people's behavior. If you had a prophet, should the information be limited to leaders? Why would that be?

The more I hear from these writers of Reclaiming the Prophet the more I think that what they really want is to be the academic leaders who explain Ellen White to the Adventist Church. They want to have the historical context to interpret Ellen White. So that the people in higher education, the Ellen White Scholars and the Adventist historians can tell the rest of us what Ellen White meant and did not mean. So they can tell us when Ellen White contradicts herself which principle will rule. Some will even say to take her only in a pastoral role. That may sound good, but if your pastor was plagiarizing others' sermons and using false history and numerous pieces of Biblical fiction, that is things that are not in the Bible but pretended to be part of the Bible. Would you really even take that person in a pastoral role? At best, you might see them as having some sort of devotional material that, if you can avoid all the problems, might be encouraging in some way. This seems to be the great hope of Progressive Adventists, but I don't see it as much to be hoped for, I think it is an attempt at church control, which I have for quite some time said is what Progressive Adventists have really wanted. But I don't think that a change in bureaucracy is really a cure for Adventists problems.

Revisionist history of Ellen White Reclaiming the Prophet

 I just watched the Adventist Today Donald McAdams, “A Review of the Ellen White Revisionist History Since 1970” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr10b-_UycA

This presentation had in attendance 3 of the authors of the new book Reclaiming the Prophet. The book was planned and written for the purpose as described by an AI app: “The book "Reclaiming the Prophet: An Honest Defense of Ellen White’s Gift" is a collection of essays by 11 scholars, edited by Eric Anderson, that aims to provide a balanced and historical perspective on Ellen White's role and influence within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The book seeks to address the increasing polarization within the church regarding Ellen White by offering a "new consensus" and "reconstruction" of her role and influence.

This presentation was given when the book was just about to be published by Pacific Press. The book was since withdrawn. You can read about the withdrawal of the book at the Atoday site. However, the presentation on May 25, 2025, was before that announcement, and those present expected the book to be available in June.

Donald McAdam's presentation was interesting, as he was present during the period when major changes occurred in Adventism. He then presents us with the premise of the book which seems to be based upon what he calls Revisionist Historians' work. I am quoting from the transcripts, and I have edited them for clarity. The time codes are provided at the start of each quote.

53:38

“So we don't need to throw out Ellen White We just need to understand her better And I think I can get to that point The revisionist historians of the last 50 years have have gradually fleshed out this picture”

First, a note about Revisionist history. I don't like the term, and even looking it up, we can see it is used positively and negatively. Among the few references I looked at I tend to agree with the statement that all history is actually revisionist. That is, any historian who finds something true that others may have missed is actually revising the story of history. See The Ever-Changing Past: Why All History is Revisionist History. So avoiding that distraction here is what McAdam's tells us about the Revisionist historians:

57:27

“Okay So let's talk about the revisionist historians first of all I need to define what I mean by a revisionist historian I mean one that will look at the primary sources and try to look at all of the primary sources not someone else's account but primary sources and to look at all of them and and then try to face the facts as they are there in these sources and then finally make judgments that are consistent with the weight of the evidence So let me say two things about the historical craft. Historians make statements of fact and those need to be based on a on a primary source and they should be able to footnote it if necessary. They also make judgments that is they look at a whole lot of facts that some disagree with Some some are this way some are this way some are this way And they try to draw together a conclusion and make a judgment about what really happened or what the real issues were. And those judgments are important and that that's why people read history And I can give you a lot of examples You know why did Wellington win the battle of Waterloo they're all different kinds of opinions Historians weigh all this evidence and they try to come up with some conclusion and that's a judgment And revisionist historians should come up with honest judgments based on the weight of the evidence Okay so that's what I mean by a revisionist historian Uh now I also want...” 58:57

Here is his statement about Ellen White and Revisionist historians:

1:00:02
Right so let's just take Ellen White for a minute and then I'll get into these revisionist historians If Ellen White says "I had a vision and I'm writing it out." There is no way to know whether she had a vision or not. And there's no way to know for sure if the vision was inspired or whether it was just a dream or a hallucination or a seizure or ecstatic experience, there's no there's no way a historian can do that right what the historian can do is show if what was written is true or not true or original or not original,Right so you can by faith believe that Ellen White had visions and that she had visions from God but you can't believe by faith that she didn't borrow because you can prove she did .And you can't believe by faith that she didn't make any mistakes because you can prove she did. So that's how faith and reason work. There has to be a reason for your faith Otherwise you can have faith in anything You can have faith in witches you can have faith in Joseph Smith you can have faith in Muhammad you can have faith in anything. The way you choose to have faith in something because overall it makes sense to you And then you feel it And you might be wrong but nevertheless you believe it by faith. Now the revisionist historians have not abandoned faith in Ellen White's inspiration. They can't there's no way to say "No she didn't see that in a vision," or "No God didn't reveal that to her." That's that's something historians can't do So the revision historians don't do that What they do, do is describe what happened And sometimes they leave it to the reader to make sense of it but they nevertheless stick with the facts and where the facts lead them they follow, now there's been a lot of revisionist work but it mostly didn't start until the 21st century And I have a whole list of the scholars who have done this And I want to critique each one briefly and then I want to go to where I think the church is today 1:02:09

So for McAdams the Revisionist historians must start and end with a belief in the inspiration of Ellen White. That seems a fatal flaw in his definition of Revisionist historians. They are all looking at the same facts, but their judgment of those facts is restricted to one outcome. 

Here he discusses the new book Reclaiming the Prophet.

1:26:50

“The premise of this book is something new and fresh and I'm going to conclude on this and I recommend you should buy this book It's not expensive It's online and it's short You can read it you know in an afternoon. the premise of this book is that the scholarship of the revisionist historians is settled We we don't want to dispute it We don't want to argue about it We don't want to deny it We accept it We accept it. But what do we do with it, what is the value of Ellen White to us today how is she relevant for the church and the answer is the Lord used her in ways that we may not be able to explain but he did use her. We believe that because of the power of the books themselves not only was she a historical force of great significance we wouldn't have a church without her. Her writings point us to the Bible They point us to the cross they uplift our spirits they bring comfort to us in times of sorrow and there the value for Ellen White to the church is not [does not finish the thought but goes to the quotation] here's a quotation that comes from one of the 1919 Bible conference leaders and I want to find this and read it to you this is H Camden Lacy who was one of the participants in the 1919 Bible conference and he says quote, in our estimate of the spirit of prophecy isn't its value to us, more in the spiritual light it throws into our own hearts and lives than in the intellectual accuracy, in historical and theological matters and I think we know what the answer to that is Yes.”

I find this fascinating that the value of the belief in the inspiration of Ellen White is found in the spiritual light that it throws into our hearts. If a person finds some value then they believe she is a prophet. I guess that would make a whole lot of people who believe Max Lucado is a prophet. But I don't think that is actually how the Bible teaches us to recognize a prophet. It seems that the Revisionist historians have, if McAdams is to be believed, so limited themselves as to be useless with their judgments.

McAdams believes Adventism is at a turning point.

55:40

But in 1919 and in the 1970s church leaders were afraid I think that's the right word They were afraid that the unity of the church would fracture if they opened this up. And in the 1919 they were able to keep it in [hidden in archives of the 1919 Bible Conference]. In the 1970s they couldn't [Spectrum's publication of the Ellen White section of the 1919 Bible Conference full version now available at the archives]and and so they recognizing that they couldn't you would think they would have made some attempts to try to cope with it because the revisionist historians have not gone away and what they've produced since is now an overwhelming body of knowledge. And I do believe that right now we are in another turning point. Right now we are in another turning point, And if the church leaders don't recognize this I think Ellen White is going to be lost entirely to the Adventist church not she just forgotten as irrelevant to keep her relevant in the church which I think is important and good for the church we need to understand her differently And this book is an attempt to do so which I will get to at the end and I think might be encouraging to some but I do think the church leaders in the 70s and the to be specific 1980 I think they failed I think they I think they made the wrong decision I think they should have tried to open it up 56:49

Here I am in some agreement, Adventism is at a turning point, it moves away from Ellen White as a prophet, or it moves into a cult that follows Ellen White for it doctrines. Maintaining her as a prophetic authority will lead to being identified as a non-Christian cult. Meaning the doctrines of the Church are based upon Ellen White rather than the Bible. The alternative is this middle path of the so-called Revisionist historians, which is that she is inspired in a relatively vague way that if you get a spiritual boost in some way from her writings, she is important to you and important to the church because the church has her in its tradition. This leaves the other option that I think is the best option; that she did not have any prophetic authority and her work was mostly borrowed from others, and that, contrary to the claims she makes, she is not a messenger of God. At least not any more than any other Christian who points to Jesus as our Savior and the Bible as inspired information about God and his dealings with people. Which I will say is a good thing about Christians, we don't have to be always right and loving and accurate, but we always should point to Jesus Christ, and we learned about Him in the Bible and develop our doctrines from the Bible.

There is one more interesting point that I will add as I am a follower on FaceBook of Steve Daily and there was this question asked in the above presentation. The question was asked:

2:08:53  

just do you have any thoughts or comments on Steve Daily's book i've heard a lot of negative about it I've not read it but I just wondered if you have and I hear it's pretty negative about Ellen White Just that's my question Thank you.

 Donald McAdams answer was:

 “I read the first chapter and I quit because I considered it a polemic not a work of history”

So a book titled Ellen G. White A Psycobiography was not history so McAdams put it down. It is a polemic that is true, It is an argument against the traditional SDA beliefs about Ellen White using psychology, reason, and history. But he has better companions now he has Revisionist Historians who will only rock the boat and not follow the history and reason to its logical conclusions. Again, if it does not make judgments acceptable, it cannot be history, even though most all history makes judgments about the facts of history. It is, to my view, a sad commentary on the scholarship of these authors of Reclaiming the Prophet.

Adventist Today falsely inspires fear for denomination employees

 Adventist Today's fundraiser newsletter asserts that denominational employees cannot talk to independent organizations. On Dec 6 2024 they wrote

 "A fundamental shift has occurred in our church that directly affects your right to know what’s happening within our denomination. This fall, the General Conference adopted item #6 — a GC working policy addition that makes it a disciplinary offense for any church employee, including pastors and communication staff, to share information with independent Adventist journalists. In simple terms, if a church worker speaks to publications like AT about important developments in our church, they could lose their job."

Most things on Adventist Today should be taken with a huge grain of salt. You can search the internet and you won't find this item 6, but Adventist Today wrote about it earlier in Oct. 19 2024 in an article entitled:

 Editorial: “Will Disciplinary Item #6 Be the Death of Us?” Item #6: “Unauthorized or improper disclosure of information–unauthorized or improper use or release of personal, confidential, private, or proprietary employer or denominational information by any means.”

Now when we read the quote we see that the question asked in the title does not in fact prevent employees from talking to independent organizations but says they are not authorized to relate improper disclosure or use personal, confidential, private or proprietary employer information. Which is pretty much the same thing that any large employer requires of their employees. 

You notice that in this editorial, the question is asked. It never states that the employee cannot talk to an organization like Adventist Today, it just asserts that maybe it will mean that. Then a couple of months later in their fundraiser letter, it has become a fact. "for any church employee, including pastors and communication staff, to share information with independent Adventist journalists." 

I heard this recently as if it was a new rule to keep Adventist Pastors from going on podcasts not run by the denomination. Item # 6 does not do that, once again Adventist Today shows they can't be trusted.

Conrad Vine and Adventist Today

 Once again Adventist Today gets it wrong. With the recent controversy involving Conrad Vine most of those criticizing him purposely misrepresent what he said. The Sept 3 article on Adventist Today says: 

...A recent example is Conrad Vine’s presentation at a Maine camp meeting, where he called for the resignation of any leader involved in the COVID-19 mandate. Vine suggested that traditional Adventists should form parallel congregations and divert their tithes to traditional conferences if the General Conference issued any further mandates. This would contradict Ted Wilson’s stance against congregationalism, and in favor of an enforced church unity. 

Did Vine suggest that Adventists should form parallel congregations and divert their tithes? No not at all. At 57 minutes Conrad puts up this slide

At 1:02 Vine says: 

I recognize this is when you touch the question of tithe this is the sacred nerve in the Adventist Church but Elder Wilson did say in his first sermon hold your leaders to account so we're going to hold our leaders to account and if more mandates are imposed that override your conscience and the church throws us under the bus once again I believe that someone somewhere will take the first steps to establish a parachurch movement and we'll say with modern Banking and modern legal systems we don't need the conference Union division GC hierarchy we can collect the tithes ourselves and allocate them to the conferences that are faithful to scripture it's a revolutionary idea it's kind of Crossing the Rubicon from many administrators perspective but it's what we can do as members because we were encouraged to hold our leaders to account by our current GC president when he was elected. 

This is about the only way we can do it so this may well happen if the GC supports future mandates over the consciences of members and the fourth thing we're not there yet is migrates to an underground house Church movement led by bivocational elders and pastors that's where we're going to be when the mark of the beast is imposed. the mark of the beast is imposed the conferences cannot bank because they won't receive the mark of the beast if they're if they're faithful to scripture that means the conferences cannot employ pastors they cannot employ teachers they cannot receive tithes and offerings therefore the conferences when the mark of the beast is imposed are basically history. so when the mark of the beast is imposed we will be in underground house Church movements led by bivocational house Church movement led by bivocational elders and pastors 

16:01 a religious liberty objection a religious liberty objection by definition is where the Holy Spirit convicts you not to do something when the church says that the holy spir that you cannot say that the holy spirit is convicting you not to do something this small group of men here are assuming the rights to override the holy spirit this is wrong doesn't matter what the issue is doesn't matter whether it's vaccinations or pork or beer or anything else in this passage here our church leaders assumed the right to override the convictions of the Holy Spirit upon each of your consciences and if they assume the right yesterday they've established a precedent that can be used tomorrow once again to hurt the members that is why we're talking about this.

He compares the GC session vote to the ADCOM statement

19:16 statement here if you put this statement this vote of the General Conference in full session next to the October reaffirmation statement you put them side by side the statement on the left is what we voted in full session and according to our constitution what is the highest Authority in our church is it the Adcom or is it the GC in a full session okay so therefore every decisions of the adcoms which are lower committee than the GC in full session must be consistent with the GC votes in full session and cannot overturn or undermine the votes of the GC in full session does that make sense absolutely so our GC vote in full session of February 1893 says we are and of right or to be free and independent of all connection Direction dictation interference or control of the government of the United States in matters of religional or religious observances or religious institutions of any kind or degree that would include offering your body as a living sacrifice for holy God that statement there overrides the October reaffirmation statement of 21 which says claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates that statement by our ADCOM goes directly against what our full session voted in 1893 therefore it's null and void because the Adcom cannot override a vote of the full Church in full session 

This is all pretty straight forward and easy to understand by why did the writer at Adventist Today get the story so wrong? Why did the others who wish to restrict Vine get it so wrong as well? The answer is in part 2 which deals with the underlying problem of this authoritarianism and the disregard to the truth. Look for Cultural Marxism and Conrad Vine in the next blog post.

 

Adventist Today on Abortion as a religious freedom

 Now that Adventist Today has blocked me from seeing their comments section on Facebook, I have decided to start writing more articles on the garbage that this organization posts on their website. It is now almost totally political progressivism and precious little Christianity let alone Adventism.

 The recent article Should Women Have Religious Freedom? By John B. Hoehn, MD is a prime example.

It begins with a seriously unintelligent premise that cells live and die. It has nothing to do with anything other than pretending the guy is talking science. That plant and animal cells grow and divide and die throughout the life of the organism is general knowledge and has nothing to do with his subject.

So beginning  where he gets to the meat of his argument Hoehn writes:

Religious Freedom?

If a woman does not agree with the religious doctrine forbidding “any abortion for any reason at any time,” where is her religious freedom? Why should a woman who lives in Washington State have the right to decide which religious teachings on abortion she will accept, but not if she lives in a state such as Alabama, Arkansas, or Oklahoma, where this dogma is enforced by state laws making her and her doctors criminals?

First of all Religious Freedom has a definition.  Religious Freedom is a synonym for Freedom of Religion:

Legal Definition of freedom of religion

: the right especially as guaranteed under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to practice one's religion or exercise one's beliefs without intervention by the government and to be free of the exercise of authority by a church through the government

— see also FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

NOTE: The freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment can be overcome by a showing by the government of a compelling state interest. On this basis, practices used in some religions, such as bigamy, are prohibited despite the First Amendment guarantee.

To be a free exercise of religion tenant it must be a core belief in your religion. I am pretty sure there is no religion that has a core belief in Abortion as a part of their religion. Even the church of Satan does not list Abortion as a part of their religion though they do say this:

Our position is to be self-centered, with ourselves being the most important person (the “God”) of our subjective universe, so we are sometimes said to worship ourselves. Our current High Priest Gilmore calls this the step moving from being an atheist to being an “I-Theist.” https://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-fundamental-beliefs/

 

It is also noteworthy that there are in fact no laws in any states that put forth the law as “any abortion for any reason at any time,” So if someone disagrees with something that no one is saying is that really in any way restricting their religious freedom?

The American people are not where the left is. Americans do not support any abortion for any reason at any time during any pregnancy.

A January 2015 poll found that only 9% of Americans want abortion available to a woman at any time during a pregnancy, and only another 8% want it any time during the first six months. Over 80% of Americans support some kind of restrictions on abortion (25). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-stake-abortion-debate-connie-marshner

The idea that abortion laws are simply religious doctrines is not at all true and as you can see from Hoehn’s article he does not even try to support his gratuitous assertion.

He writes:

The evangelical churches, then, have formed “an image-to-the-beast” when they use state governments to make laws enforcing their religious teaching that all abortion at any time (one day, one gram, three months) is not merely a sorrow or tragedy, but a murder.

As we see it is far from just evangelical churches that believe in restrictions on abortions. That is again simply an assertion from Hoehn without any backing.

He continues:

But why must dissenters be punished by civil penalties by the state? Why are Seventh-day Adventists not all voting to demand freedom from religious persecution in any state by any civil government? Can we be so fixated on some future “Sunday-law” that we are ignoring the ramification of allowing any state government to punish women and their doctors for a religious opinion?

This is where a little knowledge would help Hoehn. States get their power to make laws through the electoral process where they elect representatives to organize the state with laws and regulations.  It is not necessary for you to agree with all laws and regulations. For example, one may feel that they should not pay taxes for whatever reason. You can claim that you are not paying taxes because you disagree with how the money is spent but by our laws and constitutions (Federal and State) you still have to observe those laws. Just saying you have religious freedom does not change the situation. Nor does it mean that there is an unholy alliance. Very clearly those state laws are not religious persecution because there is no religion that says we must practice abortions, no women saying I must have an abortion as part of my religion, and no doctors saying I must perform abortions to fulfill my religious beliefs

There were a few good comments on the Facebook thread aside from the lick spittle’s with their “this is such a great article”. In his reply to one comment Hoehn writes:

Robert Broyles A moral issue proper for the state would be, thou shalt not murder. But is birth control by any method, or stopping gestation from proceeding at early non-viable stages "murder" is not a moral issue, it is a religious question.

Of course, it is a moral question and it certainly has enough science to support that it is human life; That Hoehn even asserts abortion as “birth control” is a horrible statement. To make it seem like the state has no say in birth control by any method is absurd. Should the state allow gut punch clinics for birth control, should a man be able to take a drugged pregnant woman to the birth control center of any method. “Get ‘em in the door and we will stop that gestation pronto” clinics! It is rather humorous that Hoehn quotes the Bible as the proper moral issue being thou shalt not murder but the question of murder of a fetus is a religious question.

His comment continues with:

Moral people who agree the state should stop murder are disagreeing that abortion at any stage before viability is murder. If I were to come to your home, attack you with a knife cutting off your arm, I would be guilty of assault and the state must deal with me. But if you come to my hospital and to improve or prolong your life, I remove your arm with a cancer, that is not assault, that is a medically necessary destruction, not a crime. The question of is preventing a life (abortion) murder is a religious opinion, not a loss of morality.

Really a rather silly statement as coming to a hospital means that the hospital and the doctors and nurses and lab techs are all operating on hundreds if not thousands of laws and state regulations both State and Federal. Again look at the previously mentioned polls the disagreement about it being murder is very small when the actual viability of the baby is considered. One also has to wonder why he continues to make statements like: “that abortion at any stage before viability” when he seems to be very accepting of even partial birth third-trimester abortions.

All in all, this is a completely fallacious article that makes assertions that are pretty ridiculous, you can tell easily how absurd the arguments are by the fact that the assertions are simply made and not supported with anything. Then the final nail in this coffin is that Hoehn wants in his concluding paragraph:

...I hope that pastor will now, before November 6 elections, remind his congregation of their duty before God to vote against any forms of enforcement of a religious opinion by civil governments in any state.

This is all about getting the political progressive agenda to take over the United States, all this is because everything the leftist wants is good and everything else is bad. Abortion is good and moral, pro-life is bad (not murdering babies) and religious bigotry. The only real religion is political progressive leftism, conservatism and traditional religious ideas are bad because they force; they have moral insights that can impact the decisions of a representative government's legislation.  I have not even gone into the hypocrisy of quoting Ellen White when he most certainly does not believe in her prophecies anyway and certainly not the way they are laid out in the Great Controversy book. You don’t need to believe in Ellen White's prophecies I sure don’t but to use her to make a case even though you don’t believe in her is just pure hypocrisy. But remember hypocrisy is fine, telling untruth is fine as long as it works toward the goals of leftism which is the new religion of Adventist Today.

 

 

Another Aunt Sevvy lie

Adventist Today's Another Aunt Sevvy Purposeful Deception or Illiterate Interpretation?

By Ron Corson

 It never ceases to amaze me how the writers over at Adventist Today lie so often. I suppose they write for a select group of people who will only agree with their writers and who won’t even bother to check out what they say. Take this for example from the anonymous Dear Aunt Sevvy:

If you don’t believe in 1844, why remain Adventist, Aunty?

One General Conference official has written that religious liberty in the church means you can leave if you don’t agree with what it officially stands for. Because he sees it only from the office at the top, he doesn’t understand what a church is. 

Here is what the article by Clifford Goldstein said back in 2013:

All this leads to the gist of what constitutes true religious freedom issues, and why I would, as Liberty editor, often tell those church members who wanted to drag us into their church disputes, "Sorry, wrong department."

Why? Because as already stated, at the most fundamental level, church affiliation is voluntary. You freely choose to be part of that body. The state, and the power of force it wields, has nothing to do with your membership. If something happens that you deem unfair, you are as free to leave that church body, just as you were to join. As long as no state coercion is involved, it's not a religious liberty issue in the classic sense.

So in fact the General Conference official was saying you can leave or join a church that is not the meaning of religious liberty. He states the meaning of religious liberty earlier in the article by saying:

This concept gets to the heart of religious liberty and church-state separation. In essence, people who join churches do so voluntarily. They are there of their own free will. They are not forced to join, and certainly not by the state. By joining a church, one publicly associates oneself, to some degree, with the teachings, mission, and goals of that church. What makes that membership meaningful is, however, the free association with that body. That association, and the public proclamation that comes merely by linking oneself to the name of the church, has potency only because one has freely chosen it. Forced membership would all but denude that proclamation of any public witness, of any testimony, public or private, regarding your convictions. You would be there because you had to be, not because you necessarily believed in what the church stood for.

John Locke, one of the patriarchs of religious freedom, wrote in 1698, in the context of religious liberty, that "I may grow rich by an Art that I take not delight in; I may be cured of some Disease by Remedies that I have not faith in; but I cannot be saved by a Religion I distrust, and by a Worship that I abhor."

It is hard to believe any thinking person could produce what the Aunt Sevvy column says. 
There was only one place in the Clifford Goldstein article that actually used the word "leave" and in that same paragraph, it says leaving your church is not religious liberty in the classic sense. Then she continues by saying that he does not understand what church is. To believe that this is just misinterpreting a fairly simple article is hard to believe. It appears that it is meant as an attack on Clifford Goldstein, without actually mentioning his name though he is a constant nemesis for the people at Adventist Today. So the answer is pretty clearly not a simple misinterpretation of the article that Aunt Sevvy linked to. No, it is an attempt to fool people into thinking someone at the General Conference said something very dumb. Of course, the writer who remains anonymous could have given the quote from the article linked to but as that would not work at all with the writer's intentions they only linked to the article hoping that if the reader actually opened the article they would see Goldstein's name and let their bias take over. 

 I am sure though if their comments section worked many would praise the column. But as of now perhaps the Adventist Today site was hacked as when you click on their link to comment it takes you to a page that says

This content isn't available right now When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.

It has been a few days and I don’t think they have even noticed!

 Update: 10-12-22

So it does turn out that I have been blocked from viewing the public posts of Adventist Today. I did not think that was possible but searching the internet led me to an article on how the administrator can do that even though it is not something mentioned on FaceBook's Help Center. It did sound like it would take a bit of time but since they apparently don't edit out errors in their articles they seem to have time to do it. It does appear from the first answer in the comments that the insertion of the false information had its desired effect.

G.W. 

"This is a great reply from Aunt Sevvy!

The flip side to this conversation is, "I don't feel comfortable around the leaders of my church, and those within their circles.

They seem to be looking for ways to exclude me.

I have no problem with doctrinal differences, but being at church doesn't feel comfortable.

Can I ask those people to leave?"

 

anonymous legal expert at AToday

 

By Ron Corson

Adventist Today has gone to a new low. It presents an anonymous article called:

Playing Hopscotch with Our Liberties by Sarah Kay Jones  |  29 July 2022  |

Here is an example of this so thoughtful piece of exposition:

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion. I’ve already heard that the separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, so it’s not legitimate. Included in the new civics training for Florida public school teachers is the statement that it is a “misconception” that “the Founders desired strict separation of church and state.”  

That’s the same argument given over the 2022 abortion ruling, which means that under the current Supremes majority, the establishment of religion is also at risk. That isn’t, however, what the founders of the nation taught, according to Middle Tennessee State University’s Free Speech Center:

The unknown and unintelligent author thinks that the Dobbs decision was the same argument as the rapid teachers training courses in Florida, that the wall of separation between church and state is not in the Constitution. Which of course it is not. At best it is a reference to Jefferson’s Letter: “ The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The separation of church and state suddenly became the argument in the 2022 abortion ruling that found the court had erred in the Roe and Casey decisions. Thus finding no Constitutional authority for the so-called right to an abortion,  that right suddenly appearing a 170 years after the Constitution was ratified and a good while after the 14^th amendment and its mention of liberty and subsequent claim to the right to privacy. The syllabus for the decision shows there was no establishment of Religion application at all in the decision.

Naturally, the comments on the Facebook page praised the article. Just another example of the complete lack of understanding by the Political Progressives. Their reasoning is flawed but always fearful.

Just for clarity, the founders desired strict avoidance of Federal involvement in religion, establishing or the exercise of that religion. What the progressives mean by "strict separation of church and state”  Is always the problem and why they like the term rather than using the Establishment clause as the Constitution does.

 

 

 

ATSS Charles Scriven not posted

 I had wanted to see the youtube version of this: 

ATSS: Charles Scriven – Are Progressive Adventists Deluded?

8 June 2022  |

But it does not appear that the Progressive Adventists even have the courage to post the presentation! I did notice that at the end of the comments on the Facebook page there was this comment from Loren Seibold: 

Loren Seibold

All presentations are recorded on AT's YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/AdventistTodayMedia

YOUTUBE.COM

Adventist Today - YouTube

Adventist Today - YouTube

• 1w
• 
  

Not there still. They even have last weeks presentation up but not this one from June 8. 

Since I was unable to listen to the above presentation I listened to Ted Wilson's Sabbath Sermon at the end of the 2022 GC Sesson. Which is basically the Bible reveals that the Adventist Church is God's remnant and we must "Hold fast what you have" 

 Of course the Bible does not indicate anything about the SDA church but when you read such things into the Bible it really makes a case...add that an a 19th-century prophet and you know the SDA church will not change and cannot change and maintain that prophet. 

Clearly, I am of the opinion that the so-called progressive Adventists are deluded about changing the SDA church and maybe that is what the presentation said. As it looks now I may never know as none of the comments on Facebook appear to even reference what was said at the presentation.