| Author |
Message |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 534
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |     |
Believe it or not Mitsy, I know a former SDA couple who became Mormons after leaving Adventism. Talk about out of the fire and into the frying pan!
But praise God, thanks to the influence of some former-SDA friends of ours, this Mormon couple have now left Mormonism and are worshipping at the Berean Church with our former-SDA friends.
God is awesome!
Chris |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 275
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 6:28 pm: | |
Somewhat less strange, I know of two former Adventists that converted to Catholicism. After all, the Adventist and Catholic (human/divine) partnership-in-salvation heresy is similar. Also, both groups have hierarchical forms of church government, many educational and medical institutions, extensive humanitarian services, etc. Last but not least, the similarity of Ellenology with Mariology should not be overlooked. Oh yes, both groups believe that they are the only true church on earth.
Dennis Fischer |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1210
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:01 am: | |
Dennis, I have pondered exactly the similarities between Catholics and Adventists that you list above. They are remarkably alike.
And did you ever hear people say, "Converted Catholics make such good Adventists!" No surprise there!
Colleen |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 910
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 10:03 pm: | |
My mother was raised Catholic and she practiced a different form of Adventism. She let us dance at family parties, she let us watch TV at our relatives houses, she let us read all kinds of books on Sabbath. I am not sure how much of EGW she read, so I do not know how much she knew of her. My mom was not a good Catholic and was not a good Adventist. I cannot tell you why, just believe me.
Diana |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 276
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 9:39 pm: | |
This evening I saw the movie "Luther" (VHS cassette) in the comfort of my recliner. As I watched this two-hour movie about the life and legacy of Martin Luther, I could repeatedly observe the similarities between exclusive, authoritarian groups throughout Christian history. Luther's linguistic abilities in translating the first Bible into the German language was indeed the turning point of the Protestant Reformation. Once the divine truth revealed in Holy Scripture became readily available to the average person, millions of lives were transformed through the influence of the Holy Spirit. More than 540 million people worship today in the tradition and battle cry of the Protestant Reformation of "sola scriptura" (the Bible alone). Thousands of people gave the ultimate sacrifice their own lives so that you and I can personally read and study the Word of God. Historically, information has been a serious threat to those hierarchical churchmen who are intent upon a closed theology that leads to closed minds as well.
It is not surprising that the SDA Church shut down their official, online discussion forum in the summer of 2000. Their official moderator was unable to control theological dissent among their own people--despite repeated sanctions and warnings. As the movie brought out very well, the Catholic Church maintained that salvation was only possible through their religious system. This is akin to many Adventists fearing that they will lose their salvation if they officially leave Ellen White's church.
This reminds me of an incident while I was a departmental leader in the Carolina Conference. A group of us departmental and administrative leaders went to dine out for lunch during some meetings. Since this was a cafeteria-style restaurant, I simply put down my tray beside a Conference officer. After all, this was supposed to be an informal lunch together--no reserved tables. However, it took only moments for a jealous, power-hungry colleague to tell me that I should not sit beside a Conference officer. It certainly wasn't my intent to usurp anyone's authority or position. I simply needed a place to park my tray and eat my lunch. Christian courtesy would not allow such a calm, informal lunch. Yes, I was a good boy and quickly relocated to another table so that a colleague's ego would not be threatened in any way. In Adventist politics, I soon learned, it is not only important what you eat, but also who you eat with and/or are seen talking with. Believe me, I don't miss these constant power struggles.
Like Martin Luther, we can boldly declare, "Here I stand, I can do no other." The movie also depicted the hostility and revenge of Luther's once loyal colleagues. Likewise, SDAs have started rumors that Walter Rea has recanted and is sorry that he ever wrote "The White Lie." Recently, Dr. Rea found it necessary to have a letter notorized that he was fully satisfied with his research on the plagiarism of Ellen White. This sounds identical to the repeated SDA rumors about Dudley Canright. Obviously, their commandment-keeping excludes, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Dennis J. Fischer
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 11:33 pm: | |
Amazing incident in the Carolinas, Dennis.
You're right about Walter Rea and the rumors that he has recanted. In fact, we are publishing his notorized letter in the next Proclamation. I talked to him on the phone re: his letter, permission to use it, etc., just before Christmas. I had to laugh at a comment he made:
I asked him for the info I needed to forward a slightly edited version of his letter for approval before printing it because we didn't want to do anything without his permission.
"My dear child," he quipped, "you have no idea of the things done around the world without my permission." I laughed--but the reality is that he has been badly slandered for years. It is ironic that the fourth commandment is so "important" that it generates massive Biblical twisting and outright untruths from it defenders--as they blithely/blindly bear false witness against Jesus and His fnished work and thereby break the ninth commandment in order to protect their sacred day.
Amazing.
Colleen
|
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 668
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 6:41 am: | |
Well, here's B's legalistic twist on the 9th commandment....that person is not his "neighbor". He has 3 neighbors, the person on either side of his house and the one behind...and he doesn't bear false witness against them. And so the SDA church doesn't bear false witness against non-SDAs with similar logic.
I remember when I first started talking about Walter Rea's book. B had 2 comments ... first was that Rea was very bitter ... and second was that Rea relied on EGW too much. If he had only used her in conjunction with the bible, he would not have been so obsessed with her. Now, I searched high and low where the "correct" balance on EGW/Bible was stated, but there is none (okay, not really...but I did wonder about it). I finally decided he was merely taking what someone else had said and not ever actually looked into Rea's book himself. It's kindof surreal reflecting on these arguments from the past. I wonder why I just didn't see the writing on the wall and move on. |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 539
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:58 am: | |
"Bitter". My, my that word is used a lot in SDA circles for anyone that disagrees with them. Rea is "bitter". Ford is "bitter". Brimsmead is "bitter". Ratzlaff is "bitter". Martin is "bitter". Cleveland is "bitter". Gladson is "bitter". Peck is "bitter".
.....and the list could go on. One wonders why in the world, according to SDAs, there are so many "bitter" formers.
Chris |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:34 am: | |
SDA termology defines "bitter" as any former SDA who actually moves on and embrases Christianity. The former who just live out their lives and never again step into a church or open a Bible are not bitter. Then are sometimes referred to as "still searching for the truth" or "They have gone astray for now but will probably yet come back". I, personally have hard these statements. As for the blatent, in your face lying, well, I honestly don't know about SDA's and their understandng on this but the JW's say a lie is not a lie if it's told to someone "who is not in the truth". The warped circular reasoning goes like this; The one being lied to is lost anyway, has no chance of eternal life anyway. It is not wrong to lie to satan. The unsaved are in satans bonds so the JW's are given a free pass to lie to anyone about anything if the person they bare lying to is not within Jehovah's organization too. Around 30 years ago I had an acquaintance who was in the WCG. I noticed this very same thought process with him. After several dates I never went out with him again. I think that is just how cults instill thinking into their devotees. |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 90
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:54 am: | |
I wonder did they never get the point of the story Jesus told of the Good Samaritan?
helovesme2 |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1216
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:08 am: | |
Ha! Good point, Helovesme2!
|
Pheeki
Registered user
Username: Pheeki
Post Number: 448
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:33 am: | |
"Discouraged" is another euphamism for leaving the "truth" of SDAism. I was described as discouraged on several occasions. One time by the pastor's wife in Olive Garden (popular SDA after church haunt) and I said, "I'm not discouraged at all in any way, shape or form, in fact I have never been happier." She just looked at me like I was crazy and went on her way. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 235
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:19 am: | |
Yes, former SDAs are either "discouraged," "bitter," or "questioning"/"having questions."
Isn't it funny how the SDAs think that if you've rejected EGW/Adventism you're "having questions"??! It's crazy.
Jeremy |
Praisegod
Registered user
Username: Praisegod
Post Number: 197
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:19 am: | |
The very few times I had reappeared at the church after they knew I was leaving for good, it was so difficult for them to understand me. You could see the looks on their faces when I walked in and the comments, "Oh, you look sooo goood." It was like that I obviously could NOT look good because I had "left the truth." You could just see the puzzled looks on the faces trying to figure out how to fit it all together. |
Bob
Registered user
Username: Bob
Post Number: 24
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 12:14 pm: | |
This discussion thread has reminded me of what Dale Ratzlaf has said: There are two kinds of SDAs, the deceived and the dishonest.
Their blindness and resistance continues to bother us "formers," because it reminds us that we ourselves were once deceived by the cult. Perhaps it arouses some of our own lingering "separation" issues. It takes several years to significantly eradicate the SDA "group-think" from our own minds. I think that to the degree we have fully made the break from Adventism, we are less bothered by their attitudes and behavior.
What remains after all, and the most important thing we can do for them, is to pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten them, as He did us. |
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 297
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 1:25 pm: | |
Here's another SDA "term" for us formers..."I'm praying for you...I know you are STRUGGLING..."
I've never had a better/happier "struggle"!
GIVE ME JESUS!! |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 916
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:46 pm: | |
An SDA minister friend of mine read my story here. In writing to me he said, "I did not know you were so hurt". I wrote back to him and told him I had always been truthful with him and I was being truthful now and that I was not hurt. I never heard back from him. He and his wife were very good to me and I could speak honestly with them. That is something I had never done with any SDA minister. So I just pray for them.
God is still in charge and is so awesome.
Diana |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 173
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 6:54 am: | |
Former SDA's are often labeled as "bitter", but can't you just imagine that term being used for the first Protestants of the reformation era! Can't you just hear the Catholics of that time period saying those who left the Catholic church did it over hurt feelings, and they are so bitter now because they have negative things to say about the established religion? (Maybe that doesn't work; I guess back then they usually got kicked out instead of left.) And I don't think we've come close to calling anyone "white-washed sepulchers"! There's nothing wrong with speaking up for the Gospel even if that means speaking against the organized religion of our culture. It seems to me that we've been much milder about it than Jesus was with the Pharaisees or than the early Protestants were with the Catholic church! |
Bob
Registered user
Username: Bob
Post Number: 29
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 9:14 am: | |
Excellent historical comparisons, Raven!
In our present culture we put much emphasis on being "tactful" when we disagree with others. As a consequence, I think we often are so mild in our statements that their meaning is not clearly understood by those with whom we disagree. When that happens, learning and truth are not advanced, only further misunderstanding and confusion.
Jesus understood that sometimes you have to speak plainly, even abruptly, to get the attention of complacent people.
If our own hearts are anchored in Biblical truth, and if we are confident of the protection and power of the Holy Spirit, we have an obligation to speak the truth clearly, even forcefully at times.
We must not be overly concerned about "hurting people's feelings." If you know people in a burning house is asleep, you don't whisper "tactfully" to them. You shout and bang on their door, because their lives are at stake!
|
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 175
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 8:20 pm: | |
I just found why it is that former SDA's are labeled as bitter. It's a prediction of EGW!:
quote:As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third message, but have not been sanctified through it, abandon their position, and take refuge under the banner of the powers of darkness. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they come to view matters in nearly the same light; and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side. Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren. When Sabbath-keepers are brought before the courts to answer for their faith, these apostates are the most efficient agents of Satan to misrepresent and accuse them, and by false reports and insinuations to stir up the rulers against them.
The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 4. 1870; 2002 (Page 426). Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association.
|
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 569
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 9:09 pm: | |
You know, some latch on to these statements as amazing predictive prophecies that are now being fulfilled to the letter (therefore EGW must be a true prophet). That fact is, EGW was reacting to what was happening in her own day and lashing out at contemporaries such as Canright that had recognized her for the fraud she was. So called "prophecies" such as this were her way of doing battle with her contemporary detractors.
She had detractors when she was alive, she had detractors after her death, she has detractors now, and she always will.
I'll make a prediction (or "prophecy") right now: As long as there is anyone willing to put EGW to the Biblical test of a prophet, she will always have those who recognize her for the false prophet she was.
It doesn't take a real prophet to make such an obvious prediction.
Chris |
|
