| Author | Message | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
I was purusing another site and saw our friend Pheeki hard at work in a losing battle against some die hards. Anyway, she made mention of an article that was in the latest issue of the Review. I went looking for the article, but didn't find it. What I did find was another article that kind of puzzled me. I have mixed feelings about it. Check it out, and let me know what you think. It is called, "A Peculiar People." Here is the link: Adventist Review Doug | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Very strange, don't you think? It seems like he is really giving thought to a lot of different issues and he's under conviction to figure somethings out for himself. The quote:"Classically defined, a cult is "a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader" such as Jim Jones, Charles Manson, or David Koresh. 1 In most instances a cult will be committed to a few very highly regarded principles and will envision an "us versus them" mentality, with the rest of the world considered "infidels" or "unbelievers." The teachings of the cult leader, who soon turns into a messiah figure, become absolute truth and overshadow biblical truth. The leaders apply extreme pressure to coerce members into submission, often requiring members to leave their families and friends. Most teach that salvation is achieved through following the teachings, or methods, of the cult leader. They gain power when people surrender their minds and faith and lose their ability to critically evaluate what they are being taught."--end quote seems like he just gave the church an accurate self diagnosis. Extremist, false, live in unconventional manner, under the guidance of an authoritarian, committed to a few highly reagarded principle, invisions us vs. them, thinks the rest of the world is unbelievers, Good grief he could have put that paragraph in Webster's next to SDA. What does anyone else think? | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Yes Sabra, as I was readig the article, I thought the same thing. Its funny, but when I was an Adventist, I always thought of a cult as being extremist (aka David Koresh, Charles Manson, Rev Moon, Jim Jones, etc.). I never considered the thought that a actual denomination could be a cult--I wonder where I got that definition from. But, as I read Micahel Peabody's article, I thought to myself that he's describing the SDA church. Part of me says that he was attempting to step outside the Adventist box, but another part of me said that he had simply packaged the same legalistic message in more palatable terms. I'm curious as to how you and others viewed it. Doug p.s. Pheeki, keep up the good work. | ||
| Insideoutsider (Insideoutsider) |
Doug, I think you're correct in that he is re-packaging the same old "cannot be palatable" message. I think there was one small quote from scripture, but most of the lengthy quotes were from EGW. In fact, he had her saying that we could have joy in our salvation. Isn't that a contradiction of previous views she has extended. Wow! Reading the review, even on the net, was like going back into a dark, cobweb-shrouded basement. I think its best to stay in the Light! When the light of truth shines, nothing should look "peculiar". | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Hi Doug & Others, Following 6 (short) paragraphs is from some work that I self-published years ago, while still an adventist, attempting to demonstrate what cults are, but also trying to defend Adventism against the label. ___________________________________________ The word "cult" comes from the Latin "cultus" which refers to "a group of people." This group of people live in a subculture that is different in some or many ways from the superculture in which they exist. For example, when Abraham was called out by God to lead a wandering tribe of nomads in worship of Him, that group became a "cult." They eventually began living differently from the greater culture in which they found themselves. The early Christians were a cult. They lived and believed differently from those in the culture around them. We still do. The word "cult" is not to be seen as derogatory. It is a descriptive term indicating a subCULTure in the context of a larger CULTure. Since the 1940's the term "cult" has more frequently been designated to indicate specific religious groups. Evangelical Christians have always viewed groups like Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unification and others as groups living and believing differently in their subculture, than other (orthodox) Christians in the larger culture in which they are found. In the last half-century, the term cult has been the best term for orthodox Christians to use to identify groups with which they are at variance. __________________________________________ The author, Michael D. Peabody, does exactly what Sabra says above, re: self diagnosis. The "story" he opens with, is SDA through and through. The question, "How would you like to be part of the perfect church?" is how Adventism packaged itself in the past. It's become more sinister, as it uses Evangelical Christian terms so that it sounds evangelical, even while it is not evangelical. It now officially denies that it is the "perfect" church. However, once you're in, you eventually realize that since "everyone else is wrong" then it must be the most perfect of all the churches on the planet. The author gives a brief statement about the family in New Zealand. He states that he is bothered on a number of levels. THEN HE GIVES ONLY TWO STATEMENTS THAT BLAME OTHERS FOR THE PERCEPTION OF THE SDA CHURCH. He says that he could not understand how "intelligent people could let their child die a terrible death." SDAs have a horrible understanding of human intelligence. They give unredeemed, unregenerate people a greater amount of intelligence than they give regenerate Christians. It should be the other way around. THIS ACTION BY THIS FAMILY IS SUPPORTED WHOLLY BY THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH! Three years ago, at the La Sierra University Church in Riverside, California, an extremist female medical doctor, was allowed to speak in my sabbath school class. I was pretty pissed off when I found out. Many believe that her writings have resulted in some deaths (perhaps very few) advocating the proper diet, and avoiding medications that are prescribed by a doctor, including all forms of cancer chemotherapy. She agreed to speak on one condition: She would not allow anyone to challenge her, or to make a rebuttal to anything she presented in her talk. Those in charge of these things agreed, and she spoke. Therefore, I can safely draw the conclusion that the SDA church (specifically, the La Sierra University church) officially sanctions these types of teachings and activities. The author is WRONG. It is easily understandable. Humans are easily swayed, especially when lives are overturned with horrible medical complications. Most people, even "intelligent" people will resort to almost anything that offers the hope of a cure. The more "religious" they are, the more extreme their positions may seem. In light of that fact, his second statement is OFFENSIVE to me. He says, "...it irked me that our church is often put in the position of defending itself...". It sure better defend itself. As long as it allows these extremists to have a voice on and in SDA church property (including the likes of Pastor Jan Marcussen, who I heard speak in a church in San Diego in the 1980's) then it will have to defend itself against the likes of me who will accuse the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists as being guilty of these sorts of teachings and practices. Regarding Ellen G. White, the author (and the Seventh-day Adventist church, speaking through this official church organ, the Adventist Review) admit that her writings are Scripture. This is his statement: "Adventists are diligent students of the Bible who earnestly search its pages looking for signs of the blessed hope. We also read prophetically inspired writings for greater understanding. We believe that God's truth continues marching on, and we are open to learning more about His will as it is revealed. The idea that God continues to reveal His will is one of our central beliefs." (Is that a sick statement or what?!) His sidebar, External Behavior, Internal Belief is just as sick. On the one hand he admits that he is vegetarian because of his religion, NOT because of the health reasons. He then states that it's not a matter of salvation. Didn't he just state above that he reads EGW for "greater understanding?" Then he contradicts her directly by saying that it is not a matter of salvation. So far, he's illogical at best. In the next section, regarding "weird offshoots" he makes a GREAT statement. He quotes from EGW, Testimonies to Ministers: "How do men fall into such error? By starting with false premises, and then bringing everything to bear to prove the error true. In some cases the first principles have a measure of truth interwoven with the error, but it does not lead to any just action, and this is why men are misled. In order to reign and become a power, they employ Satan's methods to justify their own principles. They exalt themselves as men of superior judgment, and they have stood as representatives of God. These are false gods." Now if that isn't an indictment of Adventism, I don't know what is! In 1816 William Miller became a Christian. After two years of study, in 1818, Miller reached the conclusion that in about 25 years, Christ would return. [From William Miller, Herald of the Blessed Hope, published by Review & Herald, 1994.] Seventh-day Adventism started (and continues, as evidenced by the publishing of this and other books) "with false premises, and then bringing everything to bear to prove the error true." The Application of Truth When the author starts this section, he quotes from the Desire of Ages: "In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. 'Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.'" This statement is profoundly unbiblical. In an unredeemed state, I am not capable of discerning truth. Yet the author, and EGW, say that no one is to "merge his own individuality in that of another." OK, I'm trying to not vomit on my computer! When I prayed to Jesus to come into my life, I was asking Him to merge His self, via the Holy Spirit, into my self. As Paul says in Philippians, "Let this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus, ...". Only a Christian, who allows God to control his/her mind, is capable of knowing truth. Aside from that, it is not possible. Jesus never said, "Understand Me, and then come to Me." He only said, "Come unto me, all you who labor and I shall give you rest." The author of the article condemns the church in its continued failure with the youth regarding the wearing of jewelry. His example, as true as it may be, is miniscule in light of the massive and overwhelming volume of paper and ink devoted to the evils of wearing jewelry. And most of it published by SDA publishing houses! Near the end of his article, he again quotes EGW from the Desire of Ages: "While they trust to the guidance of human authority, none will come to a saving knowledge of the truth. . . . We need to study God's word for ourselves, and pray for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit." Have you ever been to a Revelation or Daniel seminar? I used to teach them. The exact purpose of those and other SDA seminars is to get the hearer to "trust to the guidance of human authority" from the General Conference of SDA, it is NOT to teach scripture. It is to teach SDA doctrine, and use bits and pieces of scripture (line upon line!) to "prove" their devastating doctrines of demons. The Seventh-day Adventist church fits the definition of a cult 100%. Even if we just took the "extremist" view of defining a cult, the SDA church fits in only too well. It harbors false teachers, false prophets, false authority. By allowing extremists to preach from its pulpits, it gives sanction to those who want to let their children die, rather than give a common therapy and let the children live. It would be better if a great millstone were hung around the neck [of the SDA leadership and General Conference,] and they were drowned in the depths of the sea (Jesus, Matthew 18.) Let the little ones come unto Jesus, for such is the kingdom of heaven. Steve | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Steve, Thank you for the excellent analysis of the article. You brought out a couple of points that I had not thought of. When I read the article initially, something just didn't "sit right." He appeared to be challenging the church to depart from some of its cultic practices, but at the same time he seemed to be defending them. It was a great example of Adventist "double-speak." It never ceases to amaze me the stuff that gets printed in the Review--I subscription expired about two years ago and I have not read it since. I would dare say that in every issue you could find at least one article that is thinly veiled as Adventist drum beating. It always seems more important to justify itself than to simply present the truths of the Gospel. Maybe you could write it off as being the works of an extremist offshoot movement were it not for the fact that it is the official church publication. I cannot count the number of times I have seen old copies of the Review and Herald quoted (usually with EGW's writings) as reference material. I still did not find the article that Pheeki was referring to, but this article seems to rate right up there next to the "Theological Landscape" speech by Jan Paulsen. You have to wonder why people cannot see this--but then we used to not be able to see it could we? Doug | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
The article is at my mother's house, it is one of the April 2003 articles and it is on the last page if I recall correctly. It so angered me that my Mother told me to calm down. Yes, I am losing the battle on the CARM forum b/c they come back with statements like, "My Bible (the KJV) reads differnetly." Or "You have just run into some legalists." or "that is presumption, not faith." or "EGW never said she was a prophet." and then a few insults thrown in. Doug, why don't you join in? I could use some moral support. By the way, they denied that the SDA preach perfection prior to baptism. One guy claims he never signed anything. Never heard of such a thing. Also one guy claims none of the SDA's he knows don't have assurance of salvation. I told him about my findings, most of my friends and family when asked if they know they are going to heaven say, "I hope I am good enough." or "who knows". I find this odd. I haven't met one yet who says without a doubt they are saved. Interesting. Must be a different breed of SDA where he lives. | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Pheeki, I used to be registered on that site. Something happened, and everyone had to re-register. I have had technical difficulty trying to get reregistered. I lurk on there from time to time, and have been tempted to post many times, but have been unable to. I said you were fighting a losing battle because the folks on there are die hards. You are right about the responses that you get. When people misrepresent what Adventists believe or do, its hard for you to have a productive conversation. Just one example is the person who said that re-baptisms are rare in Adventism, and that he has never seen one. At the church I attended, they typically accounted for nearly half of the baptisms each time a revival occurred. Some people were re-baptized as many as three or four times. This clear places the focus of baptism on the individual (and their behavior) rather than on the completed work of Christ. Essentially, the way they deal with the criticisms of Adventism is to either say that the accusations are not true, or if they are true, they are not representative of mainstream Adventism. There are also a couple of fomrer Adventists on that site, but they tend to hang on to many of the remnants of Adventist theology, and therefore do more harm than good. Anyway, keep up the good fight; but eventually you'll probably go the way of the lasat defender of the Gospel who frequented there and "shake the dust off your feet." Doug | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
I and my husband both were baptized twice, as well as my brother and many others I know. I know this goes on, alot! They turn aggressive pretty fast on that forum. Until the veil is lifted, all I or anyone else can do is plant seeds. I apprieciate your thoughts on this. I think Joel London posted to restate what I had already said...he did it well. Thanks Joel. | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
I found which issue that story is in...I recognized the cover, it is the April 3, 2003 issue but it is a small story that I couldn't find on line so you may have to aquire the hard copy to read it. It is on the last page. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I just read the Peculiar People article, and I agree with all your comments above. I really appreciated your in-depth analysis of it, Steve. I was especially bothered by a couple of comments, also. One is this one: "Some Adventists are probably very uncomfortable as ideas are challenged, but the very disagreement that is present on many issues in the church is evidence of our theological and academic vibrancy. We are not a monolithic cult that depends on the whims of authoritarian leaders, but are rather subjected to the Word of God alone.... "Christians should be masters at listening carefully and evaluating issues on a case-by-case basis in order to apply scriptural principles to new situations, not simply rely on "one fits all" answers. It is this ability to analyze, coupled with a close relationship with God, that prevents people from falling prey to the intellectual slavery of cults. " That "theological and academic vibrancy" the quote above mentions is, in reality, the continual struggling among the members to try to make intellecutal sense out of a clash between real life and deceptive doctrines. I find it ironic that they confuse this supposed vibrancy (read "confusion") with spiritual insight. This article is trying to show that Adventism can't be a cult because it doesn't teach rigid doctrines emanating from an authoritarian leader. In fact, the plurality of practice and even of belief that Adventism harbors inside itself is an evidence of its falseness. Here's the paradox: True evangelical Christianity also fits the defintion of a cult superficially. We believe in absolute truth found in the Bible, and we believe in the deity of Jesus and that he is the only way to be saved. Upon a closer look, however, it produces people who are free in a way that no other people are free. They have deep joy and peace, and they find freedom from habits and bondage that traps the rest of humanity. They have hope, and they exhibit love that cannot be explained in human terms. A true cult, however, denies personal freedom and creates non-thinking obedience to authority that no one can question. Christianity does not do that. So, the fact that Adventism claims an openness of thought and belief that keeps them from being a cult proves nothing. (Of course, we know they really DO have rigid beliefs and a "true" prophet, but that's beside the point!) True Christians will be accused of belonging to a cult, even though no one will be able to explain the happiness and personal freedom of those Christ-followers! Adventism's defense against being a cult actually indicts them as not really being true Christians. On one hand they scramble to look "evangelical" while covering up their cultic heart. On the other hand they continue to believe they have the only truth and the only true interpretation of the Bible. They have no consistent understanding of the gospel. Requirements are always mixed up with grace. They are not (as an organization, not as individuals) true Christians. Both arguments, in my mind, accuse Adventism for what it is: a deception, a fraud. It IS a cult, as many of us who have left have begun to understand. And it IS permissive and broad in its inclusion of members--as long as those members keep Sabbath and pay tithe. I understand Peabody's struggle, however; I used to try despearately to make Adventism make intellectual sense when I compared it with the words I read in the Bible. It was only when I surrendered my thoughts, anaylysis, and beliefs to Jesus for clarity, however, that the Holy Spirit was able to make things make sense to me that previously had been confusing. I thank God I grew up Adventist, but I praise him deeply for drawing me out! Colleen | ||
| Janice (Janice) |
Colleen, My sister took the liberty of getting me on the list to receive the Herald Review paper, and as I began to read it, I just thought to myself, no wonder my sister and mother are so confused with the things that I wrote to them about. Like I just read in a post here, it is a lot of "double-speak" and as we all know, the Bible says that a double-minded man is "unstable" in ALL his ways. The veil is still on their faces as they desperately seek for the truth as interpreted by EGW instead of GOD and his Holy Spirit. It is like everyone says too, until they come to terms with the fact that EGW was full of it, they will not see because it is "spiritually discerned" meaning the Holy Spirit and not the spirit of EGW that still lives in her lies that are printed out on a daily basis. I have been working on my web site and just can't seem to get it like I want it, it won't let me edit my study but cuts it off half way through, the support team told me that this was because of the load time that it took to pull it up on the screen, so, I guess I will have to figure out a way to put the studies in by creating a link to a file somehow. Anyone know how to do that? Guess I need to read the tutorial included with the download because I am getting very depression and feel defeated from my efforts. Janice | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Colleen, I'm glad you added your comments. I used to think of myself as a "vibrant" SDA. I always jumped into the middle of, or led, discussions about all the various minutae to which SDAs are so prone. However, it was all just a mental exercise. As you state, "...it IS permissive and broad in its inclusion of members--as long as those members keep Sabbath and pay tithe." That is so true. The myth of EGW was the real (though often unstated) foundation on which all discussion took place (specifically Sabbath, tithe and a few other odds and ends.) Therefore the "discussions" that took place were really just monologues. One person would have a monologue, while others listened. Then another would have a monologue. No one was interested in anyone else's opinion. No one I ever knew ever changed their mind about anything. People were as inflexible and apparently stuck (abandoned by God???) as I have ever seen. Ooops! I'd better be careful. Romans 2:1 just might condemn me if I take that any further! Steve | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Hi Doug, Yes, isn't it amazing! It is making so much sense to me now. But, as you say, "You have to wonder why people cannot see this--but then we used to not be able to see it could we?" The passage in 2 Corinthians 3:15-17 is REALITY in our lives. Paul states: 15 "But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart, 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." The Grace of God produces freedom, specifically freedom from Moses. The freedom allows us to see that we were listening to Moses, and not to the Holy Spirit. I guess that as long as I was an Adventist, I was listening to Moses and not the Lord. I thought I was listening to the Lord, but apparently I hadn't heard Him in over 15 years! Thank God I'm free to listen to Him again! Steve | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
I never tried to see, no one ever told me any different. I didn't have a reason to search the scriptures, it was all figured out already! We were so secluded, and it's a good thing we couldn't afford to send me to SDA college or I would propbably be working in an SDA hospital somewhere, secluded. What disturbs me is the people that I correspond with, right now the Dr. again, and they hear me and don't want to believe. They will argue with the doorpost. I'm about to tell him I was called to sow the Word, not tend the garden, water it, put up a scarecrow or weed it!(big eye roll) Doug, I was just noticing how nicely everyone is paragraphing, aren't you proud?? LOL | ||
| Doug222 (Doug222) |
Isn't it great? <smile> Thank you to everyone. We all appreciate it. | ||
| Janice (Janice) |
Advancing through Adversity is this month's theme from in touch, and here is a good devotional about it if you want to check it out. Got to go to work. Janice http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/devotional/index_76096.html | ||
| Gatororeo7 (Gatororeo7) |
Pheeki, Just an FYI, I am registered on CARM now and have been lurking around there for the past few days. I did make a post yesterday, but it received very little attention. I am foillowing your discourse with earnest and looking for an opportunity to say something. Right now I'm holding back to see how it goes, but I wont leave you stranded. Joel | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
Joel, I saw it and totally apprieciated it. Did you see the post about comparing EGW to 2 Chronicles 36: 15 and 16 (because he was upset people were mocking her.) 2 Chronicles 36: 15 The LORD , the God of their fathers, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. 16 But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. Look at my post...the Lord brought to mind Hebrews 1. I wrote, 2 Chronicles 36 was before Christ... Hebrews 1 came after Christ... 1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Then I restated that God has spoken to us by his Son in these last days...what more could EGW add to that? Probably won't sink in at all. | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
Has anyone seen this crazyness? Look at this website www.lrltv.org Claims things for EGW that the White estate has denied. |
