Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dedication]

Could it be that as long as the main concern of some of the Brethren at GC is to fight the ordination of women, La Sierra is "safe" from their influence?

I think this "battle" over ordination is a huge diversion!  It's a scheme to get people's minds off the real issues that are undermining the very fundamental doctrines of our church.

Evolution taught as the only plausible scientific explanation for human origin in Seventh-day Adventist universities and colleges?  How can that possibly be allowed by the leaders?

Yet, the ONLY way changes will be made is when the grass roots (the average members) get together and demand change, if people simply sit back and think the high level bureaucracy is going to set things right, they will not see it happen.  That is just sad but plain fact.
The only reason La Sierra was put under pressure to change was because MEMBERS and local people and church pastors  began to demand it,  not because any high authority saw this grave departure from truth and stepped in.
Yes, when people began to protest, they did studies, and had a big convention on creation studies, they even announced that creation is the truth, BUT have they done anything to impliment solid creation/science in our schools?
Has anything changed, or have people just been told a lot of "double speak" to lull them back into complacency so the colleges can continue their agenda in peace?



And sunday being proclaimed as the seventh-day Sabbath in the South Pacific islands, by Adventist leadership in that area.
The leadership is basically set in stone that sunday will be called the Sabbath, the GC basically says, talk to these "stones" to get your answers.   The only way change will come is when MEMBERS and local people start demanding it, and resisting (disobeying) the decision of the South pacific Division.

[Murcielago]

According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?

[Bob Pickle]

According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?

Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.

The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.

[Murcielago]

According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?

Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.

The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.

I see. Would you consider it rebellion if the PUC and the CUC decided that the IDL should be changed and make your Sunday their Sabbath?

[Dedication]

According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?

Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.

The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.

So basically maintaining church policies is what counts, while maintaining the basic pillars of our doctrines is not really that important?  As long as no detailed policies are made dealing with the doctrine, it's a free for all.

The week in Samoa is the same as the week in the rest of the world.  It doesn't take any "policies' to determine which day is August 25, when all the 7th day Sabbath Keepers the world over will worship.   It's August 25. 2012.

Not Sunday August 26.

[Daryl Fawcett]

MOD HAT ON!!!

Folks,

We already have a thread regarding the Samoa issue, therefore, let us continue our discussion of that issue in that other thread.

MOD HAT OFF!!!

[Bob Pickle]

According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?

Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.

The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.

I see. Would you consider it rebellion if the PUC and the CUC decided that the IDL should be changed and make your Sunday their Sabbath?

Not "rebellion against the GC," which is how you put it above.

So basically maintaining church policies is what counts, while maintaining the basic pillars of our doctrines is not really that important?

If the point being responded to is regarding "rebellion against the GC," then the response if narrow will naturally cite GC Session votes and GC Working Policy rather than basic doctrinal pillars.

[Murcielago]

According to firmly held doctrine, taking Sunday is the mark of the beast. Is there any more egregious rebellion in the history of this denomination than an entire country of SDA churches choosing to keep Sunday? Is there any greater split in the church than that? It would appear that the matter of keeping a Union from ordaining women is of far greater gravity than keeling a union or division from allowing the venerable day of the sun to be honored as the Sabbath. If they allow the mark of the beast without question, but take all measures to stop women from being ordained, it would seem that the mark of the beast is far more acceptable, and not in rebellion against the GC, or have they claimed it as rebellion yet?

Without excusing what is going on in Samoa, let me ask this: Have we ever had a GC Session that has taken a decided position on the question of how to reckon the days of the week for purposes of Sabbath keeping in the Pacific Ocean? If not, then the two situations are apples and oranges.

The only reference in GC WP to the international date line is C 05 25, where the territory of the NAD is described. Thus, there apparently is nothing in the GC WP that deals with the issue.

I see. Would you consider it rebellion if the PUC and the CUC decided that the IDL should be changed and make your Sunday their Sabbath?

Not "rebellion against the GC," which is how you put it above.

So basically maintaining church policies is what counts, while maintaining the basic pillars of our doctrines is not really that important?

If the point being responded to is regarding "rebellion against the GC," then the response if narrow will naturally cite GC Session votes and GC Working Policy rather than basic doctrinal pillars.

The following was voted into place by the GC in session. It is the 20th Fundamental Belief. Would it not be accurate to say that for a conference or church to decide to keep the 1st day of the week instead of the 7th, as specified in the quote, as Sabbath is in direct contravention of a ruling of the GC in session? Would knowing that the GC ruled thusly, yet going ahead with keeping Sunday not qualify as an act of rebellion?

20. Sabbath
Sabbath is an important part of the belief and practice of seventh-day Christians. These believers observe Sabbath on the seventh Hebrew day of the week, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, in similar manner as in Judaism, rather than on Sunday like a larger segment of Christianity. They believe that keeping seventh-day Sabbath weekly and physically is a moral responsibility, equal to that of any other of the Ten Commandments, that honors God as Creator and Deliverer. The requirement to keep the seventh day holy is found in the fourth commandment of God's Law in the book of Exodus chapter 20.

[Artiste]

The PUC and CUC were in marked rebellion in a way that has not come up with the Samoans.

General Conference President Ted Wilson appeared in person at both union meetings and pleaded with them to not vote what they were planning on, and in both cases, was treated with disrespect.

[Artiste]

Good quote from a comment on the ADvindicate site:

"The pro-women's ordination folk acted like disrespectful, naughty children at the meeting with 'you're not the boss of me' attitudes..."

[Murcielago]

The PUC and CUC were in marked rebellion in a way that has not come up with the Samoans.

General Conference President Ted Wilson appeared in person at both union meetings and pleaded with them to not vote what they were planning on, and in both cases, was treated with disrespect.

I agree with the vote that they took, but I also agree with you that Wilson was treated with disrespect by some, and there is no excuse for that.

Perhaps "rebellion" is the wrong word. "Apostasy" probably better describes a conference that chooses to keep Sunday as the Sabbath.

[Artiste]

Apostasy might be a good term...if it really is that and not just a semantic misunderstanding.

[Dedication]

Looks like the posters are all in rebellion against Daryl who was wearing a red hat and saying this thread wasn't about Samoa.  (Or women's ordination for that matter).

But this thread is about La Sierra and its evolution filled science classes.  And the resulting departure from fundamental basic beliefs of the chruch concerning mankinds' origin, fall, and salvation.

What should the GC do about higher education institutions who continue to teach evolution as "scientific fact", and creation as merely "non-scientific" "faith".

Yet, the ONLY way changes will be made is when the grass roots (the average members) get together and demand change, if people simply sit back and think the high level bureaucracy is going to set things right, they will not see it happen.  That is just sad but plain fact.
The only reason La Sierra was put under pressure to change was because MEMBERS and local people and church pastors  began to demand it,  not because any high authority saw this grave departure from truth and stepped in.
Yes, when people began to protest, they did studies, and had a big convention on creation studies, they even announced that creation is the truth, BUT have they done anything to impliment solid creation/science in our schools?
Has anything changed, or have people just been told a lot of "double speak" to lull them back into complacency so the colleges can continue their agenda in peace?

[Bob Pickle]

What should the GC do about higher education institutions who continue to teach evolution as "scientific fact", and creation as merely "non-scientific" "faith".

Depends on the institution. If it won't come into line, and if it gets funding, the GC could stop funding it. The Review could refuse to place advertisements for it.

If the institution is under the union and the union refuses to fix the problem, the union could be disciplined.

But it's not just the GC that may have a responsibility under such circumstances. Local churches might also have a responsibility to discipline the teachers and administrators that are promoting evolution.