20 Years After the Waco Tragedy: What Have Adventists Learned?
by Adventist Today News Team
In 1993 incidents involving guns and multiple deaths were less familiar to Americans than they are today. Adventists were shocked when a shoot-out with Federal police occurred on February 28 at a rural outpost run by an ultra-fundamentalist Adventist splinter group. Four Federal agents were dead, 16 wounded and television helicopters began to circle over an army of police around the modest compound near Waco, Texas.
A stand-off lasted six weeks with constant bulletins on television and radio identifying the group as Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. There were interviews with a young man who was introduced as the group’s leader—he was born Vernon Howell and had assumed the name David Koresh—that sounded eerily familiar in tone and style to anyone who sat in Sabbath discussions of end-time events in the 1960s and 1970s. The news also reported that he had been charged with threatening people with guns and accused of child molestation; that he practiced polygamy, even with girls below the age of consent, while insisting on celibacy for the other men.
After the combined police forces overran the Mount Carmel Center on April 19 in an ill-conceived plan to end the stalemate, a total of 86 people lost their lives in this tragic incident. Four of these were the Federal agents shot on the first day, and 82 were residents from the Mount Carmel group, including 20 children, some as young as one year. After thousands of pages of testimony and forensic evidence, it is still debated how the fire got started as police punched holes in the walls and lobbed tear gas on that April morning two decades ago. Nine people went to prison. The May 3, 1993, issue of Time put the story on the cover.
“How could this have happened with Adventists? Were these people really Adventists?” These questions were never printed in the Sabbath School Quarterly nor even in any of the supplements, but they consumed considerable time and energy among Adventists across North America and in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. They were forced to confront the ugly reality that very pious and conservative, sincere Bible-believing people could let extreme views run away with their minds and lead them to do unthinkable things.
Vernon Howell had been an active member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church until he was disfellowshipped in 1979. A significant number of the people in the Branch Davidian group were still on the books somewhere as regular members of the Church. The Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists began in 1929 when Victor Houteff, a lay Sabbath School teacher in the Fullerton Church in southern California, felt that he had a message from God for the denomination and privately published The Shepherd’s Rod: The 144,000 and A Call for Reformation. He was soon kicked out and in 1935 moved to the Waco area and invited followers to join him in building an outpost on a ranch. When he died in 1955, Ben Roden took over leadership because—the group believed—the “spirit of prophecy” had selected him. By 1977 his widow, Lois Roden, was the leader and began to publish the concept that the Holy Spirit represents the feminine aspect of Divinity, which received wider attention than anything the small splinter group had done up to that time. Throughout all these developments, the group continued to believe in the prophetic gift manifested in Ellen G. White and honor most of the core doctrines of the Adventist faith.
Crisis Management and Apocalyptic Faith
At the time Pastor Gary Patterson was assistant to the president of the denomination’s North American Division (NAD) and just a few months prior to the incident he was part of a team that presented a seminar on crisis management at a convention for conference staff professionals. “Unfortunately, we did not follow our own advice,” he told Adventist Today recently. “When the event broke upon us, we were unprepared to deal with it. … It took two or three weeks to put the plan together before we had trained personnel and a central spokesperson to address the media.”
“There were those within the denomination who saw this event as an opportunity to receive national attention for their views on apocalyptic Scripture and theology,” Patterson recalled. “The news media was focused on a sensational story rather than … biblical interpretation and … the more [they] attempted to gain media attention for their views, the more the church became attached to the cult group in the media stories and in the minds of the public.” A crisis team was eventually able to disconnect the denomination from “the extreme views and actions of the Branch Davidians and remove the name of the Church from the news stories.”
By the following year a national telephone survey of the general public conducted by the Center for Creative Ministry for the NAD found only a very small percentage of Americans still associated the denomination with the events in Waco. Some have labeled the successful effort at crisis management as hypocritical because there are still evangelists who seem to the average American to be using bizarre images and themes.
Although the Second Coming of Christ is central to the Adventist faith, there is the risk that the idea that it could happen at any time “may be used in a manipulative, rather than in a motivational manner, attempting to control behaviors out of fear,” Patterson observed. “As the church deals with the fact that it is now 170 years from the 1844 date [which began the movement], it becomes obvious that although the expectation of the return of Christ always remains as a near-term immediacy, yet the purpose of the church is to establish the kingdom of God in the present world, while at the same time looking for its full coming in the ‘already but not yet’ concept.”
Interest in the apocalyptic has become widespread in both popular culture and secular literature in recent years. It is no longer unique to Adventists. “There are wide varieties of understandings of the future in the broader contemporary Christian world,” Patterson points out. “And in the secular world, notions of potential apocalyptic doom exist in both scientific circles and the media, as well as in the entertainment industry. The idea of apocalypse is not out of mainstream thinking, but views on the nature of the apocalypse vary widely.”
Lessons Learned from the Waco Tragedy?
“The church … must move away from … perpetual spiritual infancy,” wrote Dr. Caleb Rosado in a paper reflecting on the Waco incident that was presented to the 1993 meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, “to … spiritual and social maturity, where it no longer behaves as children, tossed about by every ill wind of spiritual deceitfulness, but as spiritually mature adults (Ephesians 4:13, 14).” An ordained Adventist minister and sociologist now on the faculty of Warner Pacific College in Portland, Oregon, Rosado predicted that “more apocalyptic cults will … emerge” in the future. “David Koresh was simply the 1993 model.”
Referring to the analysis of a number of scholars who have studied the Waco incident (and have concluded that Federal authorities did not understand how to deal with religious extremists, thus contributing to the tragic outcome) Rosado suggested that the church “might better serve” if it were “to take a proactive posture of serving as intermediary and assist in the negotiations, rather than merely creating distance between itself and the group.”
As the Adventist movement has grown to perhaps 30 million adherents around the world and significant cultural diversity, it has developed five distinct social dynamics or “operational value system” patterns. Each is developing in a different direction, Rosado told Adventist Today recently. There is a “traditional” church, a “militant” church, a “legalistic” church, a “corporation” church, and a “caring community.” The first three categories are “seen as a sect” by other Christians and the general public and that “has not changed all that much” in the last two decades. The Branch Davidian group came out of the “militant” vane. The “corporation” church tends to be seen by other Christians as an Evangelical denomination and is more middle class, “success-driven, technology savvy, and market-oriented.” This is the mainstream of the denomination in North America. The “caring community” segment is “more inclusive of ethnic minorities and immigrants,” said Rosado. It is “more relevant to society and has moved away from the apocalyptic approach and [the] attitude that we are right and the rest of the world is wrong.” Adventists in this category “see as more pressing the needs of the world, issues of justice, gay rights, women’s concerns, and [are] concerned with the poor, global warming, and the big social issues of the day.”
The result of Church growth and successful missionary efforts in so many nations around the world is that the Adventist movement is stretched between its apocalyptic roots, still present in some circles and even out of control on occasion, as in Waco 20 years ago this month, and its educated, professional, institutional communities, who are “making a contribution to the world” through the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), “our hospitals and universities.”
“In the long term, seeking to manipulate behavior or recruit new followers through the notion of impending doom produces both fearful and hostile people,” Patterson warned. “The long term motivation of the church is to establish the kingdom of God in the Earth and live in His will, all the while looking to the full coming of the kingdom. … The Church today must focus on living in the present with an expectation of a return at any moment.”
What does that mean? “We care for the environment because it is our home; we care for our bodies because it is the life we have been given; we work for peace in our world and communities,” Patterson told Adventist Today, “but we know that the only solution to the devastation in our world will ultimately be an apocalyptic event that … makes all things new.” He has been serving in recent months as interim pastor for New Hope Adventist Church in the suburbs between Baltimore and Washington DC.
Baylor University, a Baptist institution in Waco and home to one of the most prominent sociology of religion programs in America, will host a symposium next week reflecting on the events 20 years ago. Although no Adventist scholar is scheduled among the presenters, Adventist Today will have a journalist at the event and give readers a detailed report.
I look forward to seeing a detailed report of the symposium. I assume much of the discussion may focus on the beliefs and influence Koresh had on his followers. It would seem to this reader that an SDA scholar should give his view.
It would be helpful to know how current law enforcement experts would evaluate Janet Reno's leadership in the crisis. Hopefully political correctness will not prevail and an objective assessment of her leadership in this situation will be available.
Maranatha
There is another tragic aspect of what happened at Waco that has never been addressed by our church, in fact they have refused to and for reasons that reveal some real shortcomings in our church structure and the disparity between what we often profess and how we actually live our individual and corporate lives..
I had the privilege of pastoring a church attended by the parents/grandparents of some of the people who died in the fire/firefight. Vernon Howell recruited several members of the Branch Davidians from that church and fathered a child by one of them. When the standoff began, their parents flew to Waco and were there the whole time of the standoff – even speaking face to face with their daughters. The Adventist Church representatives who were present knew of their presence and never once made contact or offered any solace or support as events unfolded. They were so concerned that our church would somehow be connected with the Branch Davidians that they refused to provide support or even to acknowledge the existence of these grieving family members. After the fire, this family was never contacted or offered grief counseling, sympathy, solace or support – they were pariahs because their daughters were contaminated by who they chose to follow.
When I arrived at the church where they were members (they had quit attending because of their bitterness over how they had been treated by their church) and heard their story, I contacted a highly placed individual in the General Conference who I knew and asked him if there was any way that the General Conference leadership could reach out and rectify the terrible wrong that had been done. He called me back and, essentially, told me that it would never happen because of the concern by the people involved and the leadership that they would be sued if they admitted their callous disregard for these people and also that, doing so would open old wounds and would make the leadership at the the time look bad.
After a while, I contacted another individual at the North American Division who had known this family and asked him if he would reach out to them and try to bring some kind of healing. Repeatedly he assurred me that he would do so, representing the Division, and repeatedly, when he was in town, he chose to ignore them and when I would call and remind/chide him all I got was another evasive, empty promise.
After 20 years, the church I love has never made right a terrible wrong! More than one individual at the highest levels of our church structure has privately admitted how badly this family was treated – yet they have not been allowed in any official capacity, or even as individuals, to make the amends which would go a long way to healing the terrible pain this family experienced and continues to.
When will we ever learn the lesson that people really matter to God and that how we treat them and each other says more to them about Him than any sermons or platitudes we might proclaim.
i sympathise with Bro Moose. I believe the church should have reached out to these suffering members & former members, because of love & concern, as their world collapsed, not as a legal obligation. i personally knew a mother w/children, members of our church (we didn't disfellowship them), who voluntarily chose to live at the Waco facility, The mother was in food service. She returned to us for short periods, but eventually stayed in Waco. She was generally ignored by those who knew of her Branch Davidian association. She probably felt more accepted there. Afterward i heard the teenage daughter was incarcerated awhile. Our attempts to communicate met a stone wall.
Apocalyptic carnage never ceases. 'New Light' often involves murder & mayhem. Waco & Jonestown were graphic examples. Meanwhile, virtually all Fundamentalists have their own list for 144,000 membership. Elevating oneself to sainthood…nonsense, IMHO.
Memories of my SoCal childhood include SDA members being banned from church for distributing Victor Houteff's literature there. My saintly SDA gandfather lapsed into unsavory epithets when describing anyone supected of being a Shepherd's Rod sympathizer. I was too young to know what it was all about, but I learned the term 'heretic' at an early age.
That was a worthwhile memorial piece. The first issue of AT rolled off the press only a month later (May/June, 1993). In that issue, I recounted my experience meeting and making a video recording of a recruiting session David Koresh conducted in Los Angeles, almost exactly 7 years prior to the Waco shootout. The most scandalous part of that meeting and the subsequent Waco event, was not just that Koresh was recruiting SDAs, but that he was only successful with conservative, traditional minded SDAs who were ardent Ellen White supporters, as my article will show. Even my SDA minister father who loves Ellen White, was so impressed that after the meeting, I had to talk him out of having any further contact with Koresh.
When I heard of the Waco shoot out on the car radio, I pulled off to the freeway shoulder to listen. Because I knew of their SDA (Ellen White) apocalyptic mind set, it was obvious to me that Reno was dead wrong in treating them like bank robbers that could simply be intimidated by bigger guns and tanks, as that would only corroborate the correctness of their apocalyptic mind set.
So I naively called the BRI as soon as possible, then headed by George Reid, to explain how to avoid inevitable bloodshed. When I got him on the line, he told me the FBI had already called, asking for advice, but he told them the SDA church had nothing whatsoever to do with the Branch Davidians and therefore had no advice to give. He could not be persuaded to intervene despite my pleadings. I went on channel 4 with my video of the 1987 Branch Davidian recruiting session. Shortly after that, I got a call from one of the church’s information directors (a woman) telling me to basically shut up.
It was obvious to me that the church was more interested in covering up their theological relationship with the Davidians than with trying to prevent the inevitable coming disaster. While I was personally disgusted by such defensive behavior, from a pragmatic perspective, it made total sense. To paraphrase Caiaphas, is it not obvious that it is better that 82 more people perish, than that the reputation of the church be besmirched by association?
One question that perhaps we already know the answer to is what will happen when an event similar to Waco happens again–and it will, given the staying power of the traditional Adventist apocalyptic message which, even in the 21st Century, continues to be the standard fare in many classic Adventist mass evangelistic operations. When another Waco-like event occurs, to what degree should the responsiblity for what happens fall on Adventist evangelists who contiinue to advance standard Adventist apocalyptic themes on unsuspecting audiences which include highly sugestiable personality types?
Since, as was pointed out in the article, “interest in the apocalyptic has become widespread in both popular culture and secular literature in recent years [and] is no longer unique to Adventists” (which, of course, it never was), and since other evangelicals have made millions marketing this theme to Christians in America (e.g. Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey); why does Dr. Taylor ‘prophecy’ (verb) “an event similar to Waco” happening again thanks to “the staying power of the traditional Adventist apocalyptic message…;” as if we are the only Christians preaching/teaching Jesus’ return?
Would Dr. Taylor, among others, prefer that we take ‘Adventist’ out of our name?
The SDA evangelists are basically like the Japanese soldiers who continuedto fight the WWII, long after the war was over. How do you assign personal responsibility for such doctrinal loyalty, when those with critical thinking aptitude (not just “skills”) have been systematically weeded out of the potential ministerial pool since Academy days?
Ironically, in recent times, I interviewed a Japanese minister who claims (credibly in my view) he was fired for continuing to proclaim the soon coming apocalypse, despite being given orders from above (within the Japan Union) to cease doing that. In Japan, the public is so totally fed up with apocalyptic sects that the SDA church wants nothing to do that, lest they get painted with the same brush. That too, is pragmatic, given the anti-apocalyptic climate in Japan. But then, look at how miserable the SDA church is doing in Japan. That is what one might call, “Being between a rock and a hard place.”
The minister in question, by the way, refused to compromise his principles but had to join the SDA Reform Movement in order to be allowed to keep preaching the traditional SDA message. His story was actually heart wrenching, because he sacrificed so much for "truth." I actually admire his unwavering “faith” in one sense, while at the same time I roll my eyes.
I do agree with Stephen. We are 'Adventists' and to deny that would probably mean to shut up shop – as would becoming a Sunday-keeping Church given the other half of our name. Armstrong's WWC of God did it, but it isn't something I would want our Church to replicate.
Today I have been reading about the various 'Quests for the Historical Jesus.' What I found most interesting is that scholars have been divided since the 19th Century and still are today whether Jesus was essentially focused on an outward, apocalyptic message with an interim ethic (known as 'thorough-going eschatology') OR whether Jesus was primarily focused on an inward, spiritual message. The findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls supported the apocalyptic hypothesis whilst the finding of the Gospel of Thomas (with its focus on sayings of Jesus) supported the spiritual non-apocalytpic view. Today, scholars continue to argue but the truth is many think both aspects are true.
The fact is, there are clearly both outward, apocalyptic strands and inward, spiritual strands in Christianity. The SDA Church did not invent this – it reflects the Early Church and a cycle of different movements throughtout the last 2,000 years. Different strands take precedence for a while. However, we would be denying the 'essence' of Christianity if we suggested one strand in effect be cut away.
So I'm an Adventist and happy to say that this entails belief in the Second Coming of Christ. That all said, that isn't to say the apocalyptic strand doesn't lead to extremism as does the inward, spiritual strand.
The church acted appropriately in disfellowshipping Vernon Howell and had no responsibility in what happened to the Branch Davidians. There was no way of predicting the fiery outcome. Nothing is mentioned of how the government (FBI and ATF) bungled the whole thing. The very first article I read on the matter stated how Koresh travelled to town nearly every day and asked why the Feds didn't just arrest him in town, which would have saved a lot of bloodshed. The fact that some of the members were conservative in their EGW beliefs has no bearing on how we should approach the Spirit of Prophecy or Bible, nor is this incident proof that the church did anything wrong or bears any responsibility in the outcome. The church will be shaken in the end times; we know that. This is just one deception that drew people away. There are many others going on now and more to come, some less dramatic and even more enticing. We just need to be rooted and grounded in the truth and hang on, the ship will go through.
Kenneth Comstock: “There was no way of predicting the fiery outcome.”
This is a standard apologetic line that gives the church some plausibility deniability. After all, does not our own Dr. Rick Rice (The Openness of God…) teach that not even God can know anything about the future, since the future is not there to be known? (And yet, we somehow known that Jesus is coming soon?) But from my having personally observed their Bible study under the influence of paranoid books like Early Writings, I was confident (in early April, 1993) that they were, even then, “rejoicing in their faith,” because they were being persecuted by a government that was acting Satanic, hunting them down in the mountains like animals, just as Ellen White had predicted. And Vernon Howell, a.k.a David Koresh had sold himself to them as Ellen White’s successor, somewhat like Joshua had succeeded Moses, and would lead them through the final crisis. It was obvious to me, that the more the U.S. government continued to act “Satanic,” that would only increase their belief that Koresh’s apocalyptic paradigm was correct, and I told everyone that.
“Nothing is mentioned of how the government (FBI and ATF) bungled the whole thing.”
You seem to conveniently forget one thing. Much to their credit, the FBI had already come to the BRI, seeking advice on how to best defuse this crisis. But George Reid, who knows this Early Writings paranoia as well as anybody, shut the door in their faces, saying, “We know them not.” In his defense, I am sure he was acting on advice, if not orders from “above” (though not as high a source as some conservatives might imagine). So I can’t really blame the FBI for “bungling” by defaulting to the standard tactics they use against holed up bank robbers that respect overwhelming physical force.
In the end, though, the operation was a great success from BRI’s point of view, since the SDA church came out of it with their own reputation unscathed. Whew! That was close.
I wonder how the Jesus who said that the Law as He understood it involved loving God with all of our hearts and minds and souls and strength and our neighbor as we do ourselves views the discussion here. Why are we so willing to engage in theological and cultural bickering and totally neglect the human element and all of the pain that this incident caused. These were people that God cared very much about – even Vernon Howell – who died. Scattered all across our world are families and friends who were and probably still are broken heated about the loss of their loved ones. Is the discussion occuring here any different from what Jesus must have listened to as the Pharisees debated with Sadducees and the Herodians over the fine points of apocalyptics and theology.
For Jesus, people always trumped theology – not that theology wasn't important to Him; he was far more concerned about living it than arguing it.
I don't care, and I honestly believe He doesn't care a fig, which of you are most right in your theological yammering. What He cares about is if your theology leads you to a life that attracts and woos people to His Father. These are people who died, folks, people who Jesus died for; people he would have stepped into the flames and bullets for if they had just let Him. I think He and His Father must weep in heaven as they listen to all of our theological and apocalyptic wrangling.
Now that I have got that off of my chest, maybe I can go to church and preach Jesus today.
Happy Sabbath!
Moose wrote: “I wonder how the Jesus who said that the Law as He understood it involved loving God with all of our hearts and minds and souls and strength and our neighbor as we do ourselves views the discussion here.”
We don’t need Jesus for the above teaching, since he was merely paraphrasing Deuteronomy 6:5
(“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”) and Leviticus 19:18 ("Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.")
Moose also wrote: “Is the discussion occuring here any different from what Jesus must have listened to as the Pharisees debated with Sadducees and the Herodians over the fine points of apocalyptics and theology.”
If the Gospels got the story of Jesus right, then Jesus not only listened to others talk of apocalyptic theology, but he promoted apocalyptic theology himself. In the Synoptics, the disciples asked Jesus when the end would come, Jesus is quoted as saying, “ 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matt. 24:34-35) Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 basically repeat the same message.
Now, the Jesus Seminar infamously claimed all these apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus are bogus, and deny that Jesus ever said such things. Albert Schweitzer and modern scholars like Bart Ehrman concluded he did say such things, and therefore consider Jesus a deluded apocalyptic preacher, since many more than one generation has passed without world history experiencing such an incident as “the end of the world.” Please explain where you stand on what Jesus said or did not say regarding apocalyptic theology.
Has anyone asked whether religion has been a blessing or curse to this world? In the name of religion, wars have been fought, millions have been killed, but to what end? Has God been glorified in this?, Different religions claim that their god or gods have different requirements which should be evidence that religions are man-made and historically conditioned, but religious people think that this insight only applies to other people's religions, not their own. If the good vs. the evil resuls of religion were placed on scales, would they balance evenly, or not?
Yes, I have asked myself that question many, many times. Many bad things have happened in the name of religion, as you point out. Your observation that “Different religions claim that their god or gods have different requirements which should be evidence that religions are man-made and historically conditioned, but religious people think that this insight only applies to other people's religions, not their own,” is one of the 5 greatest “predicaments of belief,” according to Phillip Clayton, author of The Predicament of Belief.
However, just because bad things happen in the name of religion, does not logically imply that without religion, the history of civiliztions would have been so much better. Such a conclusion would be very naive, I think, as well as contrary to the the theory of evolution. In a manner analogous to biological evolution, ideas and beliefs that are successful tend to get passed on, whereas ideas and beliefs that fail, tend to be wiped out, or die out. “Religion” as judged by the criterion of success, is one of the biggest winners of all time, since every ancient civilization seems to have been founded upon some religion, whereas there are none that were founded upon atheism or skepticism. (Naturally, however, some religions are worse than others, and those that are worse, either die, or evolve.)
Furthermore, every civilization that attempted wipe out religion and operate upon atheistic principles in order to create a utopia, such as the France under the French Revolution, China under Mao, Russia under Lenin, North Korea under Kim Jong-un and his father, all seemed to be much worse off in terms of cruelty, lack of freedom, and inability to even sustain themselves economically.
So I have concluded, on the basis of empirical evidence, that as bad as religion is, humans do even worse without it. Therefore, on the basis of the historical evidence I have seen, I agree with Ed, (though I would not user the word “absolute”) who wrote, “I do see religion as an absolute requirement in the foundation of empires and reorganization of society…” Before I could change my mind about thes, Elaine, first show me some successful examples of atheist civilizations.
The old cliche, "if there wasn't a god, man would have created him" is abundantly clear. Man has created his own mental and emotional world, and religion is a vital part of that world. Man has always developed a transcendent being, often in the heavenly sphere, or the animal world to which he owes his life. This is why the sun was the first object of devotion and praise as a god, for without it, man could not live. There were also many other gods, each with their own territory: sea, plants, harvest, etc. Even the Israelites recognized the importance of nature in having harvest festivals, special meals, etc.
When one speaks of "God," what is meant? Jews and Christians assume that because they have created their own idea of God that it is the one and only god, which they can prove from their sacred scriptures: circular reasoning meaning nothing. The Muslim's god has different characteristics than the Judeo-Christian's god, but whose claim is authentic? What are the principled grounds for saying what is true and what is metaphor in the texts and traditions of a religion?
Religion and gods are all man made. There is no evidence refuting that. So when discussions, even disagreements regarding God's wishes, it is well to remember that whenever one speaks of God, he has his own unique understanding which most often disagrees with, and is sometimes very contradictory to your own.
What are "atheist" civilizations? "Everyone is an atheist about almost all gods, the difference betweeen true atheist and Christians or Muslims being that the latter still have one more god to go, one more god to stop to stop believing in," as A.C. Grayling has so astutely written in The God Argument.
How are "Christian" and "atheist" civilizations defined? Are Confucian and Daoist beliefs "atheist"? Shintoism? Hindusism? Was the Englightenment aided or hindered by religion? Was the Renaissance prompted by religion, or temporal rulers? What is meant by the often used definition of western Europe as Christian? Is it the same to call a individual a Christian as a government?
The Crusades were fought between believers in God; many of the wars in Europe have been fought between Christians–in fact, probably most. The Middle Eastern nations even today are fighting between those who claim God is on their side and are far more devoutly practititioners of their religion, praying to God 5 times daily. People who strongly disagree about their god, often become violent, while few agnostics have reason to argue unless physically attacked. Why fight, either verbally or physically about what is invisible and only in the mind?
I'm not certain of your assertion of atheism, as it is a rather new phenomenon. All peoples, so far as is known, had some sort of religion, and none of any significance, denied a god until recently.
Perhaps you have some in mind, but few declared in their official statements that there wasn't a god; and the government, not the people made such statements; and for them, religion has always been more certain rituals, behaviors, and far less doctrinal statements, especially in non-literate cultures which prevailed until fairly recently.
Elaine, I appreciate the vigor and thoughtfullness of your arguments, as always. You go, girl! While I am sympathetic to your arguments, my major reservation is that you write with the fundamentlist certainty and conviction of 22oct1844. The only apparent difference is that you begin reasoning from radically different presuppositions than “22" does. It is as if you too have your own “God” (ontological naturalism) by which you negatively judge everybody else’s “God-religion” in absolute terms. But if you do that, then you and your ontological beliefs are merely adding one more “God” to the cacaphony of competing Gods that you have described.
Now, you may argue, “Oh, but I have a right to do that, because my God (science) is stronger than all the other Gods, and my blief is really, really true, unlike all the other Gods!” But in that claim, you would still be doing the same thing as 220ct1844, but with a different definition of “God.”
The logic of induction is at the heart of the scientific enterprise, and at least ever since David Hume, there has been considerable debate about its ontological soundness. That debate has been called “the problem of induction,” and centers around validity of its main premise, the assumption of regularity or continuity in the universe. While I don’t think it poses a major problem pragmatically, I think it does prevent one from acheiving philosophical or ontological certainty in any scientific or historic conclusion, since there can be no guarantee that the universe is indeed regular for all time and places. We cannot even be absolutely sure that there is a real world outside of our own minds, which is why there is a school of philosophy called solipsism.
Then there is your assertion that “There is no evidence refuting that.” This challenge presupposes that the burden of proof rests with those who claim the existence of their God, and that only “public evidence” will count. While I agree that if they have to play the game on your terms, that you are right, who made up those ground rules by which your opponents have to play? They obviously play by different rules, in which “private evidence” counts. It is as if you came upon people playing checkers, and you are demanding they switch to chess rules half way through the game. While I personally prefer "chess," I don't impose those rules on those who insist on playing "checkers."
Religion seems to answer the essential question, "Where did I come from and where am I going?" For some years our missionary family lived in the highlands of the South American Andes, where the dominant native American people group (the Quichua) claimed that the "Incas" from their tribe leadership (in fact emperors) were literally children of the sun. The anthems written to extol that belief were in some cases exquisite pieces of art, and the cities built to celebrate that connection between the sun and the royal family are still some of the marvels of the new world. Frankly I do not see how "civilization" in organized, hierarchical fashion could have occurred without some kind of a sense of the transcendent—something beyond the here-and-now, a fundamental non-negotiable belief that explains everything.
It appears that in the case of the Incas of Peru and Bolivia, organized society simply did not sprout wings (as it were) until this one imperial family proclaimed through the priestly class that the rulership was directly descended from heaven (not altogether dissimilar to the belief that Adam and Eve woke up on earth ready-made by God and perfect in every way to produce offspring and fill the earth).
As Christians, Christ provides those answers for us, and we tend to view all other religions as pale approximations of what the Christian faith provides. It is not difficult to imagine that all religion on earth could have originated in one place, proclaimed by one prophet, and thereafter adapted according to tradition and conditions across the face of the globe as humanity spread widely and achieved civilized form in various city/nations.
I do not see religion as the primary precursor of war; but I do see religion as an absolute requirement in the foundation of empires and reorganization of society under empires that in many cases produce a kind of benign status quo where war is very rare…Pax Romana, or Pax Americana, if you will. It's the early stages of empire, or the declines of empires that call for the kind of armed conflict that horrifies us today by their brutality….
Pax Americana…when & where? A euphemism for certain. This country has been at war, or prpeparing for war as long as I've lived…3/4 of a century, and long before that. American genocide, however, was described as necessary 'pacification' for our divinely ordained Manifest Destiny. Native Americans use different terms, however. Except for an occasional land grab, like the Pacific Southwest, human warfare has almost always been motivated by religious fervor, and hatred for infidels. In the 20th Century, however, wars were fought between nations who were praying to the SAME God. Surely He/She/It tires of our collective lunacy.
Yes, during its building process in pursuit of Manifest Destiny, the US employed strategies for which it now roundly criticizes Third World leaders who engage in ethnic cleansing and mass deportation.
After these thought-provoking entries, a thorough evaluation of the SDA church as "remnant" would be helpful. Is it Biblical? How does it affect each member? How does it affect our relationship with other Christians in other denominations? Is it a positive, love thy neighbor concept? What part does arrogance play in this stand? etc.
"Man has always developed a transcendent being." Elaine, we must ask the right question here. Why is this the case???
I never cease to be mystified as to why from the materialist viewpoint it is so seldom recognized that the sense of and need for, a connection with the transcendent Creator is so basic to human thinking. The desire for transcendent meaning through origins and is coupled with our search to ground morality and ethics. This needs should not exist in a being of naturally selected survivalist origins.
So Evolutionist wisely see this fact. Michael Ruse then concludes that seeking ethics and God are play selective roles.
“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
Given the materialist viewpoint he is quite correct. Those who try to have it both ways are not being true to their faith.
There are times when an observation is recognized. But an accompanying reason is not so easy. It's like asking: why do people enjoy eating with friends or family, rather than merely eating alone? Why do we have an "eye" for beauty? Why do humans choose to form groups? Why do humans like to collect items, often not for food or essentials?
Maybe the resident anthropologist would like to answer.
Yes, many whys. Do we all agree with Dr. Ruse's answer?
The Branch Davidians and Davidians aren't Seventh-day Adventists per se. Their beliefs, although seemingly common, aren't in line with Adventist doctrine. The Adventist Church had no jurisdiction over them and was not obligated to step in and intervene. It is sad to note however that so many of them may have been murdered.
I for one strongly believe that Ellen White was an inspired writer and a recipient of the Gift of Prophecy, yet when I, like many others I suppose, hear the teachings if the Branch Davidians regarding 'successors' of Ellen White and their views on the hundred and forty four thousand, we aren’t so gullible and easily influenced by such, even if we may perhaps investigate what they teach.
Firstly, I think it should be noted that those who hold firmly to our historical positions as a Church (often labelled as conservatives and traditionalist or classical here on the boards), aren’t as easily swayed as some may presume. Cultural influences have had a much stronger influence and larger impact in my opinion in swaying the left more than the right are swayed by conservative doctrinal influences.
Secondly, yes, whilst I admit that a number of conservative Adventists may get caught up in the teachings of the Branch Davidians, it is more than just a strong belief in Ellen White that draws them away but rather a result of the extreme liberal positions and the abandonment of many of our historical positions which attract conservatives to the message of those who 'claim' to hold true to such positions. Conservatives aren’t told up front about the Ellen White 'successor' doctrine, among others, that are entrenched in Branch Davidian belief. It is the claim that they hold true to conservative views that draw conservatives away from Adventism primarily rather than just EGW alone. In other words it is the ‘worldliness in the church’ carrot that Branch Davidians dangle to attract unsuspecting Adventist conservatives. Those who are disgusted with the major cultural compromise found in certain pockets of Adventism will obviously be targeted more by Branch Davidians than liberals which is an added factor influencing those who sway.
Not many conservatives are swayed very easily though. So it simply isn't just a matter of intrigue and obsession over Ellen White that draws conservatives but the compromise within Adventism which does. The 'successors' of Ellen White doctrine or the actual Branch Davidian message when spotted by a conservative will be cause for some alarm and investigation but that wouldn't be the main driving factor influencing them. The same would apply to their 'hundred and forty four thousand' interpretation. Most conservative Adventists won’t easily succumb to it. I for one haven’t.
I'm going to disagree with you a bit. In my experience it has not been those taking the "liberal" points of view you describe who have become involved in splinter groups because it was so easy for them to simply leave the church. Most of them just disappeared. Rather, it was those holding the most conservative views who were most likely to join with a splinter group because the group voiced and reinforced their concept of what they saw as needing corrected. It made them feel empowered, that they were part of a group who were actually doing something. They were taking action. Over time this progressed into an elitist view where their self-identity changed from being the advocates of God's teachings into the self-appointed and often exclusive guardians of what they defined as true and correct. The irony has been that in their course of action they became as completely detached from God as their conceptual opposites.
1844 – to your second point of what draws people away from the SDA church toward Branch Dividians: "the extreme liberal positions and the abandonment of many of our historical positions…". When in fact it is the opposite – the very conservative – that get caught in the BD.
Bea-
I don't see any proof of your position nor any for 1844. I cannot prove my premise but surmise that gullible persons looking for the latest fad, no matter their leanings, are sucked in. I wonder whether educational level may be a factor. Anyone have any reliable stats?
I have enjoyed reading these comments, particularly those of Dennis Hokama. There are many people who take great pleasure in blaming fundamentalist/conservative ideologies for the pathological behavior of those who may have been reared in religiously conservative subcultures. It is fascinating that so many of those same folks are highly resistant to acknowledging an organic relationship between the religion of Islam and Muslim terrorism.
In the news feature, Rosado predicts that more apocalyptic cults will emerge in the future. Well duh!!! He also posits five sub-groups within Adventism – "traditional," "militant," "legalistic," "corporate," and "caring community." I don't know where he got these value laden categories, but clearly they are the product of the same mindset that generates push-polls. Rosado's obvious agenda is to move the Church away from beasts, divine judgment, fear and guilt, to a more confident, loving church that can be an agent of healing change in the world. I applaud that effort. But I think we have to be careful not to use fallacious reasoning and artificial, self-serving distinctions to get there.
Millions of Adventists around the world spent the better part of the 20th Century steeped in the same apocalyptic beliefs that Rosado and others seems to believe were a significant contributing factor to the Koresh cult. Yet there has been only one David Koresh. Most all moral belief systems, including secular ones, rely on fear and guilt to one degree or another, and hypothesize catastrophic consequences if the world doesn't heed the prophetic implications of their belief system (e.g., environmentalism, collectivism). As Sozhenitsyn observed, the dividing line between good and evil runs through the center of every human heart. There is no good that cannot be turned to evil. And in a sinful world, humanity has no real solutions – only trade-offs.
So instead of throwing the baby of apocalyptics (which is firmly rooted in scripture) out with the bathwater of extremism, perhaps those who believe that conclusions should be grounded in reason and logic might want to demand a bit more evidence that the historical apocalyptic message of the Adventist Church – with which I have issues – or any other feature unique to Adventism, was to blame for the Koresh cult. For those whose morality is preoccupied with blaming the evils of the past for the imperfections of the present, purging of which is blocked only by those who find the past to be a valuable moral guide – perhaps a good beginning point for explaining David Koresh and extremist cults would be a deconstruction of God Himself.
Nathan,
One aspect of splinter groups that has been overlooked so far in these discussions is how they appeal to those holding limited views of the Gospel where works are considered essential to salvation. I find this aspect very sobering when reading the comments posted here by those whose primary focus is on spreading the message of the Third Angel. Why? Because they are emphasizing only part of the message. They're focused on going out and spreading a message without considering whether or not it will be appealing. The predominant public concept of God is that He is a harsh judge who is looking to condemn people to hell where they will be tormented forever. Calling people to "come out of Babylon" sounds to their ears like more of what they've already rejected. So, while the message of the Third Angel may be our motivator for spreading the Gospel, we must remember that the message God wants us spreading is the wonderful news that God loves us and what He has done to save us. This can be done successfully only in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Splinter groups recruit from people who have an incomplete experience with salvation. Thus anyone whose primary focus is just spreading the message of the third angel is at considerable risk of being lured into splinter groups. Their only defense is experiencing the Gospel themselves and having a testimony about how God has worked to redeem them.
I don't recall reading that Dennis Hokama stated that, as Nate does, that the "apocalyptic message of the Adventist Church . . . was to blame for the Koresh cult." If I read him right, his logcal and reasonable assertion was that the apocalyptic message of the Adventist Church was a large factor contributing to a number of the specific features of the Koresh cult. I would assume that Nate would not disagree with that. Fortunately, both Nate and I are members of a local Adventist Church where we do not have to endure the 19th Century Adventist obsession, which seems to still be rampant in much of other parts of Adventism, with "end-time" prophecies which seem to have nasty habits of never come true. .
By the way, speaking of Adventists still wrapped up in a 19th Century time warp of obsession with end-time prophecies, the current GC president seems to want to position himself as the unique embodiment of such an obsession. He recently presented this in a sermon given in Battle Creek, Michigan during the uncelebration of the 150th Anniversary of the founding of the SDA General Conference. This sermon could have been delivered 150 years ago. The only difference was that it was telecast over a satellite network owned by the General Conference. Ted Wilson suggested that “Jesus is coming soon! All the signs point to the climax of Earth’s history. It is time to proclaim the three angels’ messages with Holy Spirit power.”
Then the GC President continued: “The General Conference will continue to stand firm for God’s truth as the overall supervising body of God’s worldwide work. It will not lessen its strong guiding and nurturing role over all Seventh-day Adventists worldwide until the very events of history occur when ultimately religious persecution prevents organizations from functioning. The General Conference, by God’s grace and His power, will not be decentralized, neutralized, or sidelined.” (I’m not making these sentences up. He actually said this in public)
Although I generally agree with him theologically and have been somewhat supportive of his administration; as someone who has never even been a GC delegate, I had been a neutral bystander with regard to the election of Ted Wilson as GC President.
However, the more I read of the esteemed Dr. Taylor’s 'criticisms' of him, the more strongly I favor his presidency; and am encouraged by the fact of it.
Wilson is apparently the ideal person at the exact right time. Praise the Lord!
Where do we sign-up for the reelection?
"The GC, by God's grace ect ", does the GC pres. know the mind of God? Is this not a most arrogant statement, inviting God to disprove it? Was he wearing his triple crown when he made this statement?
Earl-
You are being most disrespectful and it is *not* to the credit of AToday that they allow such.
Maranatha
"that the apocalyptic message of the Adventist Church was a large factor contributing to a number of the specific features of the Koresh cult." We must not forget that David Koresh was a diagnosed manicdepressive (Bi-polar I)with psychotic features. This was the overwelming determinate of his behavior and delusional mind.
Many of the group were very ignorant and impressionable
Does Classic Adventism create them or attract them?
Erv, I wasn't responding to Dennis Hokama's comments earlier today. I was expressing appreciation for them, and then I proceeded to comment on the news feature, particularly the reported analysis of Caleb Rosado.
And no, I do not think that David Koresh was reliant on the Adventist Church for his warped apocalyptic message in any more significant way than every sick, twisted megalomaniac must of necessity construct his evil framework from pre-existing elements of his own mind and experience. Neither the Adventist Church nor its historical apocalyptic message were, in my opinion, any more responsible for David Koresh than The Beatles were responsible for Charles Manson's Helter Skelter apocalyptic message.
Well Dr. Taylor, I would have to admit from my own experience in public evangelism that the teaching of prophetic material does attract people with a Paranoid bent little. But CNN's coverage of North Korea's nuke program and world Jehadism is attractive as well to a paranoid personality. In fact, "ideas of reference" for a paranoid person can come from watching the Mr. Rogers show.
We have often misused prophecy to create panic, but not preach Christ and His message of love and goodness.
If this is what you might mean by 'classic adventism,' then this is a wrong on many levels.
The comparison between Mr. Manson and Mr. Howell is well taken, for both men were of compulsive appetites, musically ambitious, failures in normal life pursuits, disdainful of authority, conspiratorial in their outlook on life, ravenous in search of a bonded group of followers, self-declared supernatural religious leaders (Manson proclaimed himself the Son of Man; Howell saw himself as King David destined to resume the throne in the promised land.
On the question of whether Adventism attracts apocalyptic types, the consensus among public evangelists in the early 1980s whom I worked with professionally in advertising (about the time of Howell's power struggle for the property in Waco) was that this was indeed the case, but that those who came to evangelistic meetings in response to beastly brochures did not stick around for any length of time as Adventists—they imbibed the information they could, and moved on, or if they stayed on as Adventists, they would be attracted to an independent group such as the Branch Davidians that absolutely immersed itself in a near-constant menu of prophetic speculation and date-setting.
The Beastly Brochures certainly had a great deal to do with attracting people consumed with apocalyptic speculations. But for reasons briefly mentioned above, they did not seem to bond readily with mainstream parishioners in Adventist church pews.
Timo: ‘Of present active posters on these boards, its is rather evident that the most disrespectful are in fact those posting incognito. NOT excepting present commenter above by any means.’
Timo, you and Ervin have noted this on several occasions, and I have to say I totally 100% agree with you both. I really think the AToday team should consider revisiting its policy re posting incognito under anonymous titles. I recall reading somewhere that making people post in their actual names has shown to work in promoting civility and reducing trolling on internet sites.
If, however, we have some real ‘Sevy celebrities’ or paid Church employees, who fear they may end up on the unemployment line as a result of comments they make, then surely AToday can introduce a system whereby an exception can be made on a case-by-case basis. Presumably AToday has all of our own real names and email addresses on record anyway, so it is not like our persecution-complex commentators are completely anonymous?
Something to think about. At the very least, AToday could make it clear in its ‘If you are a visitor’ box that posting in one’s real name is the preferred option, but otherwise leave it to people’s conscience to do the right thing.
What Adventists have learned 20 years down?
1] Apostasy in all its forms will still always bring ruin.
2] The violence and arms that Koresh was keen to aquire and bent on using to kill his adversaries was never a part of our History as Adventists. (Abortion cannot be included here as it is largely linked to the fanaticism of the liberal left wing).
3] The Branch Davidians aren't Adventists but an off-shoot of the Davidians who had also apostatised and were subsequently removed from Adventist church membership years earlier. In fact they were quite defunct and dormant for a long while and I still think they are. The Branch Davidians seem to have made a surge of late but try and distance themselves from the Koresh Massacre and the Apostasy and Fanaticism surrounding what had happened.
4] The fact that Koresh took 'Ma' Howell as a consort and all the rest of the woman as his own when he separated them from their husbands and acted out his fantasy of being king, shows no resemblance of what we practice and teach as a Church except that it reflects what the terrible results of sin can bring into the lives of those who wish to have their own way.
5] The fact that Koresh drank alcohol freely, dealt suspiciously with his selling of arms, his stockpile of high calibre weapons and modified guns, grenades and the target practice he had as 'lay activities' hardly can be blamed on any Adventist conservative views at all.
6] That because the police handled the matter so poorly, the Adventist Church should not be held liable in any way for contributing to such dispicable behaviour and the awful outcome of the massacre. The Church has never encouraged such uncouth and violent militant behaviour as this and still does not.
7] There have been a lot of grey areas in this matter as there were survivors who say they were shot at from above, through the rooftop, which has been denied by police.
8] Koresh preached a foreign apocalyptic message from what Adventists believed. He taught that he was a messiah and a lamb which would be mortally wounded. He taught (and thought) that the police and the state were Babylon and that his was fighting a just war. This is what the CNN reporter said Koresh implied when Koresh spoke on the telephone after he was wounded from what I have gathered.
9] The massacre is indeed scary, but this should not be used as a scare tactic to coerce Adventism into denying our historical positions as a church in order to please the crowd.
10] You can't outrun the long arms of the Law (… and the long arms of the Lord too!).
OK, 22, I expected to see this list of contradictions between SDA practices and David Koresh’s BD practices as evidence-proof that the two organizations are not really related. Superficially, that is true. But you seem to forget the doctrine that legitimized the theological “innovations” that early SDAs made to orthodox Christianity. It was the doctrine of “Present truth.” Because Ellen White had divine visions, she was supposedly authorized to update the theology of Paul to the present time. There is no such criterion as “to the law and to the testimony,” once the doctrine of Present Truth is invoked.
According to Paul, no food was unclean. At first, EW accepted that, as do most Protestants. But then EW got a health message vision, and so pigs were again declared unclean. Thus she was able to contradict Paul (and therefore scripture) with impunity, all the while claiming to be biblical. Paul in turn, had contradicted the book of Leviticus, which Christianity considers inspired. But Paul presumably had the right to cancel Leviticus on the basis of “Present Truth,” much to the dismay of James of Jerusalem.
In the New Testament, Matthew takes the text of Isa. 7:14 and declares it to be a prophecy of Jesus, despite the fact that in its historical context, that would make absolutely no sense. Matthew was presumably authorized to make this anti-historical assertion on the basis of “Present Truth.” If he is not, then there is no prophecy of Jesus anywhere in the Old Testament.
I heard (and preserved on video)Vernon Howell, a.k.a, David Koresh ask us,
“If it (EW successor) is not me, then show me who it is, and I will go follow that person (I am only paraphrasing, as I have not looked at that material in almost 20 years).”
The notion that God provided God’s people with the a real prophet EW, way back in the 19th century, but has left his people without one in the “real” last days of the 20th-21st century is an under-estimated non-sequitur in SDA theology, given that she was originally touted as the prophet for the last days. This is why historic SDAs were so vulnerable to his appeal. This is why even my seminary trained father felt that appeal in his gut. (EW’s supposed answer that “my books will continue to speak for me,” (paraphrase) rings hollow, since Protestants claim the same thing for the Bible, in arguing for the closed canon.)
So once Koresh is accepted as a prophet who has the mantle of EW, then he also has the authority to dispense “Present Truth” that may contradict any prophet (including EW) that preceded him. This is a “new dispensation” with new rules. It might be called an “interim ethic,” which only holds until the new dispensation takes over. If this new dispensation idea is invalid, then so is Christianity itself, since it presupposed its validity. The question is, if you open the door to new dispensations, then how do you pull up the ladder and say “From now on, more!!”?
So I asked Koresh if he had divine visions.
He said, “Yes!”
I asked him if they were like dreams.
He replied, “They seem more real than real life! It seems more real than you and I talking now!”
Because of the doctrine of Present Truth, it is nonsense to argue that if the Branch Davidians have practices that SDAs disapprove, that it can have no theological relationship. If one denies Present Truth, then EW has no leg to stand on. These are the two horns of the dilemma. Which do you prefer?
Sorry. Let me correct a typo: I should have written, “From now on, no more!!”?
What religions or ideologies can you name, Timo, that have not spawned fringe, cultic extremists?
Should law abiding environmentalists blame themselves for eco-terrorists? Was the pro-life movement responsible for Eric Rudolph? Was the pro-choice movement responsible for Kermit Gosnell? Healthy diet movements really attract kooks. Maybe we could find a way to blame the Adventist health message for both Hitler and Koresh. Evil always attaches itself to good causes. Do you then blame the good cause for evil?
As I've said before, I'm no fan of traditional Adventist eschatology. I'm just asking us to be somewhat disciplined in our reasoning. Apocalyptic movies from Hollywood are legion. Are the creators and distributors of Dark Knight Rises responsible for James Holmes? Come on! Get a grip! I know that many of us who love AToday want to see the Adventist Church change for the good; and it certainly has changed, both for better and for worse in the past 45 years. But let's not use fallacious reasoning and sloppy logic to reach our goals. As I said before, millions of Adventists, including most of us, were steeped in the same apocalyptic messages that were drummed into Vernon Howell. How many other Waco's have had Adventist roots? That's right – zero! So how can one rationally infer a causal relationship between traditional Adventist theology and the twisted religion of David Koresh?
One of the strengths of Western philosophical liberalism – not political liberalsim – has been its capacity for self-criticism. But during the past Century, political liberalism created a moral vacuum by repudiating traditional sources of moral authority. Simultaneously, political liberals filled that vacuum with the neoplastic morality of secular puritanism. The intellectual framework for this project (no, it's not a conspiracy) has been "critical theory." And one of the outward manifestations of secular puritanism, which plays out in Adventist liberalism, is a morality of Western self-hatred that thrives primarily on distortions and caricatures of the elements of one's own culture that the liberal believes are in need of purification.
One of the problem with secular puritanism and the faulty logic it employs is that sooner or later, others outside the group, with political power, may not share your affection for the group you love to rag on, and they may use your own reasoning and logic to conclude that your group poses a grave danger to the health of society; and that, for the greater good, it must be suppressed, exterminated, or shaped by a benevolent state. After all, if the Adventist apocalyptic message is a significant contributing factor to gun violence, polygamy, and child molestation, and if the Adventists aren't prepared to jettison that message, doesn't the state have a compelling interest in protecting the public from that danger?
Nathan,
I agree with you. Every good, legitimate idea turns into a bad idea when it acquires the suffix “ism.” I am a big fan of science, and scientific thinking, but am opposed to “scientism,” and spend a substantial part of my time fighting it. There is no idea of which I know that encompasses all of reality and therefore does not need to be qualified.
My issue with the SDA treatment of Waco was not that “we were responsible for their bad theology,” but that we knew that FBI intimidation tactics would fail, given that we understood their apocalyptic mind set. I would blame Reno for being stupid, except that I know the FBI had already taken the INITIATIVE to come and ask for our advice and we had turned them away claiming (feigning) complete ignorance.
I also understand and appreciate the fear of bad publicity that might result from admitting enough expertise on the subject of their theology to give them some advice. But as long as they were sacrificing principle on the altar of pragmatism, they should also have feared the backlash of feigning complete ignorance when so many lives were at stake. They could have used some back channel to give that needed advice.
I wholeheartedly agree, Dennis, and very much respect and appreciate the leg work you have done to achieve that perspective.
It does appear that some evangelists are riding on the coattails of the extreme apocalypticism shown in movies and on TV to garner interest in the biblical explanation. There are TV programs showing those "Preppers" who are preparing for a major apocalyptic event. Why were the Tim LaHaye books such best sellers if not to feed the hysteria and conspiracists among us?
I will add some background to my 1993 Waco piece and the fallout, especially regarding my retired SDA missionary-preacher father. He is now 89 years old, and still full of the Advent faith, though his eye sight has dimmed, his hearing requires a strong hearing aid, and his memory is no longer dependable. He has been a towering role model of faith for me all my life (though it obviously never took), and evangelism is always on his mind, even though he also loves sports. Even last week, he was enthusiastically promoting the last quarterly “Origins” to me, and the wonderful book behind it, encouraging me to read it. But he is not an SDA traditionalist in that he no longer believes that the SDA ban on unclean foods is biblical (and hinders evangelism), and he believes that the literal miraculous healing ministry of Jesus should continue to this day on the basis of John 14:12.
Back in the summer of 1994, (the year after my Waco piece had appeared) Sakae Kubo confided in me that I had made my Dad look bad by writing that he was almost persuaded by Koresh. Sakae Kubo and my Dad have been friends for ages. Back in 1954, when my dad was attending the Seminary, our two families lived in the same apartment complex, and he even helped my Dad get a part time job. So Sakae was a good family friend.
My response to Sakae was that I was just telling the story accurately, and my brother Mory is a witness. But why tell the story at all? I thought that it was important that people know that Koresh’s argument was very appealing to sincere SDAs who bought into the “EW, the legitimate latter day prophet” idea. If she was a prophet of the last days, then it makes no sense that, because of the passage of time (failed prophecy?), she has now become another “former days” prophet, (not unlike Paul) and that God’s people actually facing the last days has been left with no prophet at all.
From that perspective, hearing Koresh make his argument was apparently like a “Eureka!” moment. The great discontinuity in SDA theology had been fixed! I glanced around at all of his followers that accompanied him to that meeting (I believe there were about 15, and got all their signatures), and they were all nodding their heads triumphantly. When I asked them what they thought about his argument, they said, almost in unison, “That is pretty basic!”
More than a decade earlier, I had done my own research on EW’s shut door teachings, and had some articles on my findings published in Doug Hackleman’s "Adventist Currents." (http://www.hacksplace.com/magazine.html). In vol. 1, #4, there was an issue that was devoted to the “shut door.” That research made me unable to accept the premise that EW was a divinely inspired prophet, so Koresh’s arguments based on the premise that she was, did not impress me in the least. I of course had previously informed my father of all that research, but his strong suit is “faith;” not critical thinking. How else could his faith remain as strong today as it was when he was a new convert more than 70 years ago?
Again, Dennis, really interesting commentary. What you are saying is true. Falsehood is very seductive, because it so closely resembles truth. Now I do not mean by that to say that the Adventist message is true – merely that those who believe that they have the Truth, and are purifiers, are more easily swayed by that which appears to be an even purer version of the truth.
But to my mind, it does not follow that true believers who encourage firm convictions and deep commitments are to blame when members with mental illnesses go postal, and conscript elements of their past to feed their psychosis. Doesn't it tend to negate Church responsibility when you realize that the same folks who believed in traditional Adventist theology also recognized the danger posed by Vernon Howell.
I have a couple of questions, Dennis: Do you really think the U.S. Government would have welcomed the assistance of Church leadership? Did the Goverment use former SDA associates of Koresh to negotiate? It seems as though they would have been more insightful and effective than institutional Church leaders. And given the fact that Koresh was mentally ill, how much difference do you think someone who understood his religious roots would have made? I intuitively tend to think that Koresh was way past being rationally appealed to on theological grounds. What do you think?
Nathan,
Let's not overlook or minimize the direct role of demons in such groups as the Branch Davidians. It takes but a step outside the safety of Jesus to come under the rule of Satan.
To understand the interaction of federal law enforcement with church leaders at the time of the standoff with the Branch Davidians, you need to know what change was taking place inside the law enforcement agencies. After disastrous standoffs at places like Wounded Knee, SD and Ruby Ridge, ID, FBI leaders began searching for better ways to handle standoffs. A small group in the agency named the Psychological Crimes Unit (PCU) suddenly gained prominence because of their skill at analyzing the behaviors of individuals. While they were typically focused on understanding the mindset of those who commit horrible crimes, their studies were applicable in many directions. But in order to understand how someone will behave you must first understand the person's fears, motivations and desires. If they can't interview someone who has done it before, they interview people who know them, or who can provide clues to their thought patterns.
Such research has proven to be highly effective at both solving and preventing many crimes. In my former years as a newspaper reporter I saw three crimes solved by local police with the assistance of analysis from the PCU. When investigators laid-out the case for me, I was amazed by the insights of the analysts using such things as crime scene photos (which, in one case, I had taken for the small local police department). I have read books by the FBI agents who were at Waco. By their account they used considerable input from the PCU. I do not remember any specific mention about the sources of the information used. If you will remember, it was ATF that conducted the initial raid using the old "assault with force" law enforcement concept. The FBI surrounded and did a number of things over many days to wear-down the resistance of those inside the compound and persuade them to leave. Their injection of tear gas was not to force a showdown, but in response to learning through listening devices about Koresh's orders to spread straw in various places through the building and set the place afire with no chance for anyone to escape. Injecting the tear gas was a desperate attempt to drive people away from the points where fires were being started and breaching the walls to provide paths for escape. Unfortunately, it did not work.
Very interesting, William. Yes, I believe in demons, though I have no idea who or what they are. In our efforts to mitigate evil, it is important to always keep in mind that evil cannot be reasoned with. And, like good, evil is often not motivated by concerns about self-presevation.
Blaming "demons" is a way to excuse human behavior, no less than the old excuse "The Devil made me do it." Doesn't hold up well at home or in courts; pretty hard to convince either.
Not all demonic possession leaves a person writhing on the floor, foaming at the mouth, speaking in a strange voice and exhibiting superhuman power. The enemy of souls is far more subtle than that. I've had several encounters with people under the control of demons who were church members.
Good questions, Nathan. I will do my best op answer them.
1. I have a couple of questions, Dennis: Do you really think the U.S. Government would have welcomed the assistance of Church leadership?
I am going by George Reid’s response to me that the FBI had already called him (as Director of the SDA Bible Research Institute) asking for his advice. My reaction upon hearing Reid tell me that was, “Wow! The FBI is on the ball!” I obviously cannot tell you whether they really would have been willing to follow Reid’s advice if it had gone counter to their default strategy of intimidation.
But I felt really confident that I could convince the FBI that by bringing in all the tanks and overwhelming fire power, making weird sounds, etc, that they would only be confirming their delusional apocalyptic theology, and therefore was totally counter-productive to a peaceful resolution. They had this weird sound that they played over loud speaks that went all night to deprive them of sleep. That could only have been interpreted by the Koresh followers as confirming the demonic nature of their opponents.
Consider also what a tough position the FBI would have been if someone like Reid had told them what I (and I think anybody who knew SDA eschatology) would have strongly advised, and they totally ignored it, only to have it blow up like it did. I think Reno is pragmatic enough to know that would make them look too bad to survive politically. What a field day her critics would have had! (They had a good enough day criticizing her as it was.) So their own selfish CYA instinct would have been a strong incentive to make them back down.
2. Did the Goverment use former SDA associates of Koresh to negotiate? It seems as though they would have been more insightful and effective than institutional Church leaders.
Well, there was Marc Braeult who had been Koresh’s first Lieutenant when I met him in Hawaii in July of 1986, and was my contact to Koresh, but who had rebelled and abandoned the sect in 1990. It turns out that the FBI also contacted him only a few hours after the unsuccessful ATF raid, just as they had contacted the BRI. And it turns out that he gave them the same advice as I would have given the FBI, and that I am sure Reid would have given, had he been honest and open.
“Hours after the raid, an FBI agent calls Breault for his take on the siege. “It was pretty chaotic,” Breault will later recall. “I talked with an FBI negotiator for half an hour. He asked what I thought Koresh would do. I said I thought it would end in massive death, a mass suicide. I explained Vernon’s belief about the fifth seal of Revelations, which said there had to be a certain number of martyrs before the end could come.” [Conway and Siegelman, 1995, pp. 255]
“Breault will claim to have told BATF agents that fire was very much a part of Davidian prophecy. “There’s a Scripture in Daniel 11 that talks about how the righteous will fall,” Breault will say. “Some are taken captive; some die by the sword; and some die by the flame. Two parts of that prophecy had already been fulfilled, according to their beliefs. That was the problem. The Davidians thought they were seeing prophecy fulfilled before their very eyes. Flames were the only thing left.”
In view of their subsequent tactics, however, Breault concluded,
“…I think they decided Vernon didn’t believe any of this stuff. They thought he was a con man. They failed to take into account the level of his belief and that of his followers. They couldn’t believe there was anyone that dedicated to an apocalypse.” (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=marc_breault_1)
So, apparently Marc Breault didn’t have enough credibility and lost the argument. That is why the cumulative weight of an insider and the support of institutional, theologically sophisticated church scholarship was sorely needed, and so tragically lacking in this case. I believe it was a lead pipe cinch argument that any competent church theologian would have thought obvious.
Before I leave the subject of Marc Breault, I think I should briefly explain my connection to him.
It so happened that my whole family (My parents (born and raised in Hawaii), my wife and family, my brother Mory and his family, my sister and her family) went on vacation to Hawaii in the summer of 1986. On Sabbath, we split up and went to different SDA churches to maximize our exposure to any interesting developments in SDA churches. My brother and I went to one of the Japanese SDA churches, and we split up going to different SS classes. It just so happened that I ended up in the same SS class as Marc Breault, and during that class we ended up having a fairly intense argument (as might be expected). So we got acquainted and I remembered him very distinctly.
Then, during the announcement period between SS and the worship service, Marc Breault got up to announce that there would be an afternoon meeting in the Diamond Head church dealing with current bible prophecy (I forget the exact words he used, but my ears perked up immediately, as that was the kind of thing my Dad likes to keep tabs on). Although I did not know it then, this was the church where Steve Schneider was an SS teacher (and resident Revelation expert), and Vernon Howell would be speaking. After church, I got Marc’s phone number and we debriefed my Dad when we met that afternoon. We couldn’t attend that afternoon, but my Dad called Marc Breault and made arrangements for a meeting to be held in Los Angeles after we got back.
That meeting turned out to be Feb 28, 1987, at a boarding house my Dad then ran called the “Better Living Center,” and Vernon Howell showed up in place of Marc Breault with some of his followers. In order to humor my Dad, I showed up to videotape it, and the rest, as they say, is history.
3. And given the fact that Koresh was mentally ill, how much difference do you think someone who understood his religious roots would have made? I intuitively tend to think that Koresh was way past being rationally appealed to on theological grounds. What do you think?
The issue is not Koresh, but the 82 additional lives that were lost as collateral damage. And just because he was deluded does not mean he was unable to use public evidence to confirm his delusions. In order to control his followers, he needed to provide THEM with some confirmation of his apocalyptic theology. And it seems the FBI did everything they could do provide him public evidence that seemed to confirm his most paranoid, apocalyptic fantasies, and narcissist delusions of grandeur. Surrounding the compound with government tanks and playing loud demonic music 24 hours a day? This allowed him to tell his followers, “See? I told you so!” That was an absolute crying shame because their strategy should have been to isolate him!
As for Koresh, remember, he had openly prophesied beforehand that he would be martyred, and having been born on 8/17, 1959, he would be 33 years old until 8/17 of 1993. Since he thought he was the Messiah, when do you suppose he thought he should be martyred? He was begging to be martyred on his own time table, and the FBI played right into his hand! That should have been used against him and his followers by loudspeaker. Instead, they gave him what he wanted all along.
Really interesting information and insights, Dennis. Thank you very much!
Dennis,
Very interesting. Though I would offer with regard to item 3 that a person whose mental state prevents them from considering information at variance with their view will alway see everything through that lens. They will attribute everything that is done as contributing to that view regardless of whether that is the intent of the action they are observing. The intent of the FBI was to wear-down the resistance of those inside the compound and persuade them to surrender peacefully. Obviously those actions were perceived very differently by those inside.
We see a variation of this same mindset in people who are always seeing news headlines as fulfillments of prophecy.
“…They will attribute everything that is done as contributing to that view regardless of whether that is the intent of the action they are observing. The intent of the FBI was to wear-down the resistance of those inside the compound and persuade them to surrender peacefully.”
I agree with that. But I was observing the tanks, guns, and weird sounds being piped in from the outside, and I did NOT have to do any mental gymnastics at all to see how that would have been perceived by those inside as a fulfillment of their apocalyptic theology. Was I delusional? All I had to do was reason from their starting premise, and it was obvious that all this would be perceived as fulfillment.
The intent of the FBI?? The whole point of my criticism of the FBI’s strategy was that they could NOT treat this group as if they were like some generic bank robbers who could simply be worn down and then be persuaded to surrender peacefully. So their “intent” was based on a false premise, and the falsity of that premise was obvious to Marc Breault, to me, George Reid, and to anybody else who has ever known a “true believer,” or specifically Vernon Howell. And by April 19, his fanaticism was well known because all of the tabloid coverage. More leverage was needed by those who knew the meaning of “true believer.” They certainly didn’t get it from the church.
"Waco…on smaller personal levels…repeats over and over, even here on the boards."
HUH??? No hyperbole there, right? I have no idea what you mean, Timo. So I'll just ignore it.
Yes, Timo. I am positing an extreme potential result. But it is only extreme because the argument – that Adventist apocalypticism is responsible for David Koresh and that it has ongoing accountability for his twisted ideology – cannot be taken seriously. The proponents make the argument to frighten, intimidate and shame. It is demogoguery. Anyone who seriously believes that Adventist eschatology bears any culpability for David Koresh's ideology and practices should be screaming for legislation to ban apocalyptic images and messages, and should be lobbying for legislation making it a crime to expose children to such images or messages. My hyperbole is really no more extreme than were arguments, twenty-five years ago, that gay rights legislation would lead to demands for gay "marriage" and homonormal grade school textbooks. Is it really so far-fetched, in our regulatory state, to imagine a government that would regulate, deny tax exempt status to, and censor expression of religious beliefs that threaten the general welfare??? – especially if members of the religion teaching that belief give them the rope…
Here is the problem with puritanism, whether it is secular or religious. Puritans see all of life through absolutist moral lenses. Those who oppose their values and policies are viewed as sowing the seeds of evil. False premises, data mining, and selective retrieval will locate evil in the opposition and demonize the opposition. When the puritans, who once may have spoken truth to power, seize the reins, they are exempt from having to confront their fallacies, hypocrisy, and the tendentiousness of their arguments. The same crowd that wants to saddle traditional Adventism with the corpse of Waco would be justifiably indignant if conservatives used the same logic and reason to hold Adventist progressivism responsible for the problems in the SDA Church.
I'm only asking for intellectual honesty and consistency. Are we willing to subject our own beliefs to the standards of logic and reason that we apply to those we oppose?
Timo,
I agree that the SDA church has been too eager to distance themselves from Waco, and therefore has not learned the lessons that could or should have been learned. However, I don’t think it is fair to blame only SDAs for their efforts to believe in the imminent (apocalyptic) return of Jesus. That apocalypse seems to be described in all three of the Synoptic Gospels unless we have misread them all. The Great Disappointment is Christianity’s great scandal, and 1844 is only one iteration of that perennial embarrassment. The trouble is that the SDA church can’t even protest being the “whipping boy” for Christianity’s problem, because that only casts more negative light on the premise of collective Christianity, ie, that “Jesus was here and promised to come again soon to redeem us,” and therefore only causes them more problems.
There have been many incidents in my lifetime where individuals in my church have “gone off the deep end” because they thought that this apocalypse would happen in their day. Medical students dropped out of school and ran away to the mountains after a Revelation seminar; doctors heeding EW, suddenly pulled up stakes in the city and moved out to the country and lost most of their money.
In fact, in my Junior year in Academy, we were approaching 120 years (analogous to Noah’s 120 years building the Ark) since 1844, so that was a scare that caused me to believe that I would not live to be a college graduate, get married, have children, and have to work in any profession. Instead of the twin certainties of “death and taxes,” I thought it was my fate to be born in an era where the only certainty was taxes and the “time of trouble such as there never was.”
That mind set did not make me a spiritual person who became the “class chaplain” type of person, but given that I was immersed it that subculture, I was resigned to the fact that one day we Adventists would all be hunted down like animals in the mountains by a demonic government. That scare frankly altered the course of my entire life, since I did not really get over it completely until the late 1970s, more than 15 years later, a time when one normally builds ones foundation for the future. So you might say I lived my own “Waco” experience in my head, whereas I did not act it out. I am sure my own experience can be multiplied by many thousands of Adventists over many generations. You might call this a “subjective Waco experience” that happens again and again in the history of Adventism, as well as the history of Christianity.
In fact, Erv and I both happen to know a very earnest Adventist layman who is even today confidently advocating the view that the second coming will happen within 15 years. His date setting is based on an EW statement in Prophets and Kings in combination with its publishing date (1915). He paid his way to the General Conference in 2010 (where I spoke with him on many occasions) to advocate this view, and even attempted (but failed) to get an appointment with Ted Wilson to teach him “Present Truth.” Erv and I were both unable to talk him out of this nonsense. So this cycle of apocalyptic fever never ends. Waco was just the most spectacular recent manifestation of it.
However, as I said earlier, I can’t lay the blame for this on Adventists alone, because unless the Jesus Seminar scholars are right and Jesus never taught anything apocalyptic, Adventists are just taking the Gospels seriously. To get rid of apocalyptic fever, somebody needs to create a “Jeffersonian” Bible where all the apocalyptic stuff is just cut out.
Nate says he beliives in demons though he says he has no idea who or what they are. I guess I am having a little problem in someone of above average intelligence and sophistication such as Nate in saying he beleives in something he doesn;t know anything about. Ah., is this just me or does that not compute? How can you believe in "something" that has no known form or characteristic to the person saying he believes in it?. I suppose one could believe in those who believe in demons. Then, the "belief" part is in the person believing in something they call "demons," and not in postulated reality of "demons" as such. I guess the place to get started is to ask Nate if his postulated "demons" have a physical body or are they like radio waves which exist and are real but can not be viewed directly by any of our senses? I wish that Nate and anyone else who saya they believe in "demons" could help me out here.
Sorry, Erv. Didn't mean to blow your circuits there. Probably just "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato." There…now do you feel better?
Well said. Was Marly's ghost "real" or a figment of the imagination of Scrooge? I guese we don't have to worry about that, since it is a work of fiction. Right? Spekaing of ghosts, are they not a form of "spirits?" I thought good Adventists were not supposed to believe in them. Since I am a good Adventist, I am happy to affirm that I do not believe in ghosts. Now when it comes to "evil spirits" . . . Hmm. Are the people who believe in those not good Adventists? This discussion is getting way beyond my pay grade.
Ervin, you have voiced some ridicule of how anyone "of above average intellect & sophistication" could possibly believe in demons. How could you??!!!!. You & Elaine have questioned me on this same issue of my belief of "evil spirits", in the same put down fashion. It isn't expected by us of those we respect, and consider of above average intellect & sophistication. It is insulting.
i have never seen a demon or a evil spirit. But i know they exist in great numbers. i have witnessed the results of their evil demonic deeds. At end of WWII i toured the Dachau death camp. i saw the gas chambers, and the ovens with the last victims skeletons & scorched tissue. i saw the barrels of human hair, of gold teeth, of warehouses full of suit cases & clothing. Nurenberg was close to my bases, in Bavaria. i submit the scope of this murderous unspeakable horror could only have been perpetrated by evil spirited demons, as no humane people could have tolerated the stench and the slaughter of innocent babes, children, old men & women, by the millions, in these Nazi death camps.
Earl,
As a personal matter, people may of course use any criterion they wish to believe anything they wish, or anything they feel compelled to believe. But on a discussion blog like this, I don’t think bloggers have a right to demand that their beliefs or assumptions not be questioned or challenged, even when that challenge may be perceived as a “putdown.”
Rather than complaining about feeling insulted when challenged, just explain that it is an a priori presupposition, provide a justification for that belief, or just ignore it and go on, as you please.
As for your apparent attempt to justify your belief in demons, you argue,
“i submit the scope of this murderous unspeakable horror could only have been perpetrated by evil spirited demons, as no humane people could have tolerated the stench and the slaughter of innocent babes, children, old men & women, by the millions, in these Nazi death camps.”
I accept that as your opinion. But I don’t see that as some universal fact that proves the existence of demons to anybody else, as it seems to rest on the premise that “there can be no such thing as an inhumane person.” Why can’t there be inhumane people? Aren’t there gas masks such that for those who wear it, there is no stench at all? Didn’t there have to be people wearing gas masks in order to clean up that horrible mess, or was that too done by angels or demons?
There is a universal methodological rule that most people follow called the “law of parsimony,” which states that when faced with multiple hypotheses, we should choose the one that does not unnecessarily multiply the number of entities in which we have to believe. Since the existence of inhumane people and the existence of gas masks is an explanation that does not require us to believe in supernatural entities like demons, that hypotheses that use them are the preferable hypotheses to accept. People like Erv and Elaine are actually saying your beliefs do not conform to the law of parsimony.
If you reject the law of parsimony, then you cannot consistently reject the existence of tooth fairies, Santa Clause, hob goblins, trolls, and leprechauns, etc, etc. If you now say you believe in demons because the Bible stories take their existence for granted, (as it now appears you are doing) then what you claim to have seen in the extermination camps was actually irrelevant.
I regret that I was not aware of the sensitivity of Mr. Calahan on the subject of demons and evil spirits. I was perhaps not clear in my question to Nate that gave Mr. Calahan the impression that I thought that those of "above average intellect and sophistication" could not believe in demons and evil spirits. If Mr. Calahan would reread my original comment, he will note that my statement was in the context of Nate's comment that he believes in something about which he knows nothing about. I still don't understand how that is possible.
With regard to the Nazi death camps, there is no question that they define what is meant by evil in the modern world. That is not the issue. The issue is what caused that particular group of humans to commit such evil acts. I would submit that we do not need to posit the existence of demons and evil spirits to explain what happened. Humans, and I mean all humans, under a certain set of conditions, are capable of rationalizing and explaining all kinds of evil acts. That scary enough. We can act the part of demons and evil spirits. They don't not make us do it. They don't need to. We can do it all by ourselves.
The Allied Forces that entered the remains of the German concentration camps never saw demons, and they were not fighting demons but humans; humans that are capable of evil acts almost unthinkable, but they contrived and planned those actions without the help of extra invisible forces.
Ervin, Luke 8: 27-33 Do you believe this tale is allegorical? Jesus, the devils, the swine? Hitler, the madman who directed this holocaust was a devil incarnate. As was Joseph Stalin, and the atheistic henchmen who carried out the orders. Definitely a throwback to the Barbarians. Obviously you do not believe that Lucifer & a third of the angel host are alive & active on planet Earth. You, and all, of course have the right to choose your beliefs, however, how you know for a certainty, i would like to hear of your evidence on the subject.
Erv,
Remember the line from the movie “The Usual Suspects” (spoken by/about ‘Keyser Soze’), “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist…”?
You believe there is a God whom you haven’t seen and whose body and physical characteristics you haven’t experienced with any of your senses. What’s the difference?
I’ve given the question I’ve posed (“What’s the difference?”) some further consideration and conclude that the only difference between believing in God and believing that demons exist is that you can perhaps be saved not believing that demons exist, but you can’t be saved while disbelieving that God exists.
The devil (either satan himself or one of his demon cronies) manifests himself in a ghostlike form in some instances. I can only describe it as a 'dark inky cloud of blackness' that envelopes those he seeks to possess. satan tried to attack me like this once but when it happened I called on the name of J-E-S-U-S which immediately caused this 'dark inky cloud of blackness' enveloping me to disappear. I've later heard others (even from different parts of the world say the same thing), just like a Pastor from Germany who also experienced this himself whilst still a student). [Luke 10:17].
Demons manifest themselves in diverse ways it seems and may do so in an unsuspecting manner in parts of the world where there will be cause for alarm causing people to turn to God should these demons be exposed. satanism and other occult practices are active in secret societies and associations that stay out of the public eye. Many of these practices involve being possessed by demons. The real danger it seems is that demons can take possession of human beings and remain dormant or unsuspecting to others or even the person themselves. Demon possessed persons may also present themselves as madmen too. And we have plenty of mad people around I would say who commit gross atrocities all over the planet. satan must have a hand in it: he is the great deceiver of mankind after all. [John 8:44]
The issue of demonic influence and possession is a topic I believe modern Christians would benefit greatly from studying. We've been lulled into an easy existence that has diverted our attention away from the spiritual warfare being waged in our world. We've lost our ability to perceive clear lines of distinction between good and evil. We've forgotten that we are either followers of God or followers of Satan and that there is no neutral ground or grey zone between. We either choose to be under the protection and guidance of God or the control of Satan. We generally consider demonic possession in terms of dramatic confrontations or a scene from the movie "The Exorcist" when reality is far more subtle.
Earl, if your real reason for believing in demons is because "the Bible says it; I believe it (literally); that settles it!" then that is what you should have confessed in the first place instead of talking as if the gas chambers was some kind of public evidence for that belief. Once you confess to that, everybody will understand you. But then don't talk about public evidence as if it proves something to you. That only makes people think that you base your beliefs on scientific evidence, so they challenge you on that basis.
Why is Ockham's Razor seldom applied to such topics?
What would Ockham's razor about notions that the speed of light is essentially fixed, that time is not universal but relative, that quatum particles suddenly pop into existence and then out again, or that the universe was made in a Big Bang from nothing? All of these things seem completely counterintuitive, and yet many scientists believe they are fact.
Dennis, thanks for your suggestion. In 1945 my knowledge of evil spirits was not Bible based. The foreboding atmosphere was heavy with a sense of fear & death, it seemed my hair was standing up. It's presence of evil so thick you could smell it. In 1981 while visiting my student missionary daughter in Haiti, i experienced a somewhat similar feeling, though not anywhere near the first experience, when the voodoo drums started their nightly beating, for hours.
Elaine, i assume your lack of belief in demons & evil spirits is the reason you are negative toward any
consideration that they may exist, and therefore exclude it out of hand. i am familiar with Occam's,
understand logic, and have used Occam's in my engineering practices. It seems to me that my statement
in "one stated belief", no squabbling, is in tune with Occam's Razor.
Do you also offer counseling for those who fail to accept that there are demons? I do not believe in "another world" outside of what I can see with my own eyes. For those who have that ability, carry on. But to dismiss others who do not share those unseen spirits (both good and evil?) as the reason for rejecting them, is based on the need for evidence and reason.
Anybody,
Earl writes: "It seems to me that my statement in "one stated belief", no squabbling, is in tune with Occam's Razor."
I don't have time to read through all the threads on which Earl may have posted something that will eplain what he means. Can anybody help me on that?
Elaine: 'I do not believe in "another world" outside of what I can see with my own eyes.'
Do you believe in black holes? I am pretty sure you haven't seen them with your own eyes.
How about atoms, quarks and other subatomic particles – seen them with your own eyes?
There is plenty of things in this universe that we haven't seen with our own eyes, yet be accept as fact.
In fact, things like gravity, time, the wind or love we haven't actually seen either in a tangible way – we only see their effects. We infer their existence from whole things we can see are affected.
The ability to "see" something is not always the physical ability of one's eyes, but is commonly used as a metaphor of understanding or recognition that based on well-found evidence. I have never seen the North Pole, I have never been to South America, but I firmly believe that there are such places, so I could remark when someone talks of these places, "Oh, yes, I see that there is nothing growing there, but all ice." Surely, you have used "seeing" as a metaphor, "I do not see how that suggestion would work."
II
True and thanks for the admission then. I would say the basis by which you earlier said you don't belive in 'another world' other than the one you can see with your own eyes is much diminished. Who says for example there is no such place as heaven? It seems just as plausible as Dawkin's and Hawking's multiple parallel universes.
And I should just say who is to say what the citizen of others worlds are like. It always makes me laugh when scientists, including famous atheists like Dawkins and Hawkings reject belief in angles and demons, but then write article as to why they believe in the possibility of aliens and time-travellers.
Stephen,
Belief and possibility are not the same. Hawking is speculating, based on his knowledge of space that far exceeds ours, that there might be other beings out there. This cannot be settled now, and is really only a matter of one's belief, and beliefs only become fact when they are undisputable.
Elaine, i did not dismiss your right to not believe in evil spirits, as a fact i stated "all, of course have the right to choose your beliefs". The hypothesis of belief that evil spirits & demons are a reality on planet Earth is straight forward, not requiring multi additional study or further hypothesis'es. i provided reasoning for my beliefs. i have not ridiculed others for their beliefs for the subject. Ervin is always asking questions, but doesn't seem to answer questions. His questions are usually coached as though coming from a lofty ivory tower, and as such come across often as a bit arrogant to some of us here.
But peace to all, i have no malice toward anyone.
Dennis, it's very obvious the FBI's gameplan was faulty. Koresh was known to frequent Waco often.
They had evidence sufficient to arrest him, but didn't. They could have had a search warrant issued,
arrested Koresh in town, then entered the compound and confiscated the weapons. A thorough ensuing
investigation would have revealed the truth of further charges to be filed on him & his other subordinate
members. The power siege set up was as you say, just the motivation that caused Koresh to resist & set
in motion that all would "go down with the ship.
Earl,
A little clarification. The case was being handled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The FBI was not involved prior to the standoff. The failures of the ATF have been thoroughly documented and critiqued. The failure of the FBI was not that they didn't try different tactics and try to find a path to a less violent resolution, but that nothing would change the self-apocalyptic views of David Koresh.
William, the gameplan here was a joint venture by the ATF & the FBI (as was other operations in the past). The ATF initially making the assault, and the FBI managing the followup siege & destruction of the Branch D. complex. The FBI seems always to have the intelligence gathering & surveillence info to use or share with other US policing systems. Hoover's domestic power control of everything, still seems to be working in the FBI. Have i missed something here?
Yes, but it isn't worth going down that rabbit hole.
Philosophy asks questions not expecting answers but for provoking thought. Teachers who make statements without questions are ineffective; the purpose of questions is to invite thinking and forming one's own answers; answers that should never be rote (as in math), but thoughtful, deliberate, and with the ability to offer reasons that others can understand.
I agree that there is no way to study demons, nor is there a possible hypothesis for study. It is a belief that cannot be rational, although firmly held. It is in the same category of the beliefs that there is an Abominable snowman; a Bigfoot; flying saucers with aliens landing on earth, faces of Jesus in a tortilla.
While I disagree with the assumptions offered in many of the comments on this thread, I am happy to witness a discussion of the Waco tragedy devoid of so much of the knee-jerk, anti-apocalyptic rage of theological liberals so common in other conversations regarding this topic. I especially appreciate Nathan Schilt's comments, thoiugh unlike him I am very much a believer in classic Adventist eschatology–in case anyone hasn't noticed! And while I am not sure Nathan's critique of political liberalism is entirely fair, I welcome his cautions regarding the unsound reasoning of those who fault classic religion for its dogmatism, yet indulge much the same penchant in their zeal for presumably secular causes.
I have long held the Waco episode to be perhaps the most demagogued event in Seventh-day Adventist history. The demagoguery came, from what I observed, from at least three different directions. The first was the paranoia of theological liberals in the church that such extremism was the inevitable product of Adventist apocalyptic theology. Nathan has rightly noted the utter absence of any David Koresh "lookalikes" at any time in Adventist history. Mention has been made of the foolishness of blaming the Beatles for Charles Manson's horrific behavior. Along similar lines, why don't theological liberals blame such causes as economic justice and civil rights for the tragedy of Jonestown? It was liberal social causes, not fundamentalist preaching of any kind, that drew the followers of Jim Jones to the People's Temple and eventually to Guyana.
The second example of this "Waco demagoguery" was the dire warning of certain opponents of self-supporting ministries in the church, who alleged that these ministries could easily turn into Waco copycats. After all, it was darkly noted, these ministries often live in compounds, with parents who homeschool their children, etc etc. Waco thus became a convenient bludgeon with which to hammer any group or ministry in the church which taught a message certain folks deemed uncomfortable, for whatever reason.
The third example of this demagoguery came from extremists in the conservative camp, who immediately saw the federal attack on the Koresh compound as proof that the government was out to butcher the homeschoolers, take guns away from law-abiding citizens, and stop people from holding Bible studies in private homes. Certain people I knew who worshiped in independent, separatist congregations spoke to me of black helicopters supposedly hovering over their homes, presumably at the behest of a meddlesome federal government determined to enforce the so-called "New World Order" of right-wing conspiracism.
I actually met David Koresh in the fall of 1986, when he still called himself Vernon Howell. He was hanging around the campus of Loma Linda University at the time, during the academic year when I served that campus as student body president. I remember his absurd reasoning and mind-control tactics, as well as a confrontation he had with my former roommate and his girlfriend, who was serving as religious vice-president that same year. When the tragedy broke seven years later, those incidents came back to my mind. It was terrible, any way you look at it. But only a mindless vendetta against Adventist prophetic interpretation and theology can justify blaming apocalyptic interest for the Koresh debacle.
Messianic figures whose work ends in catastrophe typically have enough truth in what they say to be appealing, yet enough falsehood to lure their followers into destruction. Satan used scripture when he tempted Jesus, but Jesus knew the scriptures. Koresh used Adventist apocalyptic views to prey upon and deceive those whose limited knowledge of scripture left them unable to see the dangerous deception he was promoting.
I assume that not even Elder Paulsen would not disagree that the classic Adventist apocalyptic metanarrative played some role in the way the affair turned out. I would suggest that to say it played absolutely no role would be as incorrect as arguing that it played the only or even the principal role.
Ervin, I am no more prepared to acknowledge a legitimate role for Adventist apocalyptic teachings in the Koresh tragedy than I would be willing to acknowledge a legitimate role for civil rights and other social justice causes in the Jonestown tragedy. Apocalyptic interest was the drawing card Koresh used for a bizarre distortion. Civil rights and social justice were the drawing cards used by Jones for a similar distortion. In both cases, the drawing card bore no blame for the disastrous outcome.
Erv, you make the same suggestion to Kevin Paulson that you made to me several days ago – that he concede that the Adventist apocalyptic metanarrative played some role in the road to Waco. Why is this important to you? If I asked you to concede that the game of golf played some role in the events leading up to the breakup of Tiger Woods' marriage, you would rightly question my intelligence and/or my agenda. Once you satisfied yourself that I am not daft, you would then be forced to conclude that I want to hold the game of golf in some way responsible for Tiger Woods moral decisions, or lack thereof. We know you are intelligent. So perhaps you might explain your agenda.
A number of arguments and analogies have been offered to underscore the absurdity of assigning responsibility for Waco or Koresh to Adventist theology. You have offered no counter. Until you are prepared to do so, you have no reason to suspect that any logical, thoughtful person would still conclude that the Adventist apocalyptic narrative played any meaningful or significant role "in the way the affair turned out." I presume of course, when you use the word "some," you mean "significant" or "meaningful." Otherwise, you are making a meaningless statement.
In my experience, Adventist evangelists especially in years past (three decades ago) purposely sought to attract those Christian individuals already predisposed to the study of apocalyptic. The evangelists recognized then that some thus attracted would stay in the fold for only a very short period of time, and/or also stress the congregations they joined, however temporarily. But for lack of a better system, as of 20 or 30 years ago this tended to be the normative approach. The capable evangelist's job was to "move the people along" away from complete absorption in apocalyptic to a more balanced view of Christianity, and this happened in a fair number of situations. Undoubtedly some participating in these comments here today are descended from family members who at one point were absolutely overwhelmed by what they saw as the absolute, sure word of prophecy.
Perhaps there is bitterness among some on this count. In my experience, Adventist evangelism tended to target the apocalyptically inclined, the curious, and the receptive to this line of study. That said, during the past 30 years or so, strides forward have been made to broaden the appeal of evangelistic advertising to attract a broader cross-section of people open to changing denominational affiliation for more conventional reasons.
I might also add that there is a small group of "historical" Adventist congregations that dwell very profoundly in apocalyptic studies. I have less background with such congregations, but I believe that the intensity of interest in apocalyptic among these historical Adventist congregations could lead some to cross the barrier into profound fanaticism. But I would defer to those among us who know more than I do about what is happening today in the historical Adventist movement.
Dear Edwin:
For starters, it is quite clear to me that many, many more in our society besides conservative Adventists and "apocalyptically minded" evangelicals are interested in Bible prophecy and its rapid fulfillment in our day. I lived for seven years on Manhattan's Upper East Side, during the time the infamous "Left Behind" novel series was outdistancing every other book–religious and otherwise–on the New York Times bestseller list. At the Barnes & Noble store five minutes from my apartment, piles of those Left Behind books were stacked up, only to be gone in a few days.
When I visited the town of Breckinridge, Colorado, a number of years ago, I saw similar prominence given to these books in a bookstore very secular in nature, with no other Christian books in sight. If people in these kinds of overwhelmingly secular communities are this interested in apocalyptic prophecy, one wonders why so many Adventists presume the subject to be incapable of drawing thoughtful 21st-century people to the church.
Regarding what you call the "historical Adventist" movement, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Many conservative Adventists have shied away from that label in recent times, simply because it has often been associated–among other things–with persons who choose to leave the church as a protest against liberal trends in recent decades. If that is the group to which you refer, I tend to believe their momentum has slowed rapidly since the last General Conference session, since it has become so clear that Bible-based, Spirit of Prophecy-affirmed Adventist theology is now driving the agenda of denominational leadership.
Having myself had extensive exposure to the more militant elements of conservative Adventism in the past quarter-century, I can attest to the fact that while apocalyptic fanaticism is a real thing, it tends to die out quickly, even among the most conservative and apocalyptically-focused groups. (When I speak of fanaticism in this regard, I am specifically talking about date-setting, the reapplication of time prophecies, conspiracy speculation, and similar tendencies which move outside the purview of strict Biblical or Spirit of Prophecy emphasis.) The great majority, even in the militant conservative ranks, have little time for such diversions. And the principal reason for this is that careful study of both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy writings is sufficient to defeat these ideas, particularly in minds well versed in those materials. I have seen it happen repeatedly.
In the interest of time and length, I confined my comments to what I had experienced, primarily in the Pacific Northwest. We do understand that the evangelistic modalities that work best in New York (for example, its health van and other work in the city) are not always readily replicatable here in cities such as Spokane, Seattle, and Portland. We've tried, and the same dynamics don't bring the same results here.Another area of the US with which I am less acquainted is the Bible Belt, where mainline Christians (for that area) seem far more attracted to apocalyptic-based promotional materials than on the West Coast. I suppose this is why Ellen White recommended that unions should determine the approach to evangelism appropriate to various sectors of the North American continent, and some are now extending that organizational counsel to the matter of ordination of women…. Truth is truth, but we can also paraphrase and say "People are people," and people tend to look at things at least in part in context of the the customs of the societies where they have grown up or currently live….
Ed,
That is one of the most important factors in evangelizing: know your customers.
My dad, in the 30s and 40s, was an evangelist in the Bible Belt South where everyone was a Christian and regularly attended Sunday School and church. Only a few "reprobates" stayed home. The apocalyptic message was thrilling to them as they saw all the beasts portrayed and it became very believable.
Now, imagine the same message, with a few more modern twists of video and bringing it up to date, politically, and expect similar results and it would be an abysmal failure.
This is why the method of giving "throw-away" books such as the abridged, redacted, and re-edited Great Controversy has not been met with great success.
Elaine,
You've said it right! You have to know your customer to know how to reach them.
More than that, you need to know how the Holy Spirit has equipped you so you will be able to perceive the spiritual needs of others and address them using the power God has given you.
I continue to be amazed that Nate really wonders why "any logical, thougful person woujld still conclude that the Adventist apoclypic narrative played any meaningful or significant role 'in the way the affiar turned turned out." Nate wonders about my "agenda" and I, in turn, wonder why he can not see the logical connection between Korash's behaivor and the religious environment (SDA) in which he grew up. We all agree that many other factors were more central in his seriously pathological behavior. I wonder if Nate (and Elder Paulson) are prepared to argue that Korash would have behaved exactly as he did if he had been socialized in his young years as, for example, an Anglican? If so, I really do wonder about Nate's "agenda" here. I already am aware of the perspective of Elder Paulsen due to his clear presentation of his opinions on theology, church polity, and other topics.. (By the way, I really do hope that Elder Paulsen continues to express his views on the AT web site. We need the entire spectrum of Adventism represented here. He presents these views in a clear manner and writes very well.)
Dear Erv:
You ask whether in my view, David Koresh would have acted differently had he been socialized as an Anglican. Again I think of Jim Jones, who was a Disciples of Christ minister–a very liberal and social-justice-conscious denomination. There is often a peculiar charm in speculating whether or not a particular person might have behaved differently if his or her background had been something other than what it was. The bottom line is that any good cause can be perverted by an unbalanced mind. Jones did this with social justice, and Koresh did it with apocalyptic prophecy. In neither case can the drawing card be fairly blamed for the tragedy that later unfolded.
Would Koresh have behaved exactly as he did if he had been raised, for example, as an Anglican?
How about this question? Would Adam have behaved exactly as he did if God had not created Eve?
Surely, Erv, you recognize these questions as belonging to the same category – nonsense. Would Tiger Woods have behaved exactly as he did had he been raised, for example, as an ice skater? The fact that the obvious answer to these questions is "no" gives us no ability to say how the lives of either David Koresh or Tiger Woods would have been different had you changed some of the "determinants." What if David Koresh had not been suffering from indigestion during the week before the assault on the compound…? Randomly changing the elements enables no meaningful cause and effect conclusions, much less ascriptions of moral responsibility. You cannot blame Adventism, or its apocalyptic message, for David Koresh's moral behavior, any more than you can blame the game of golf, or great teachers like Butch Harmon, for Tiger Woods' moral indiscretions.
For one whose ostensible "higher authority" is sola ratio/ sola logica, you, Erv, seem refreshingly sensitive, at least in assessing the Waco phenomenon, to the reality that some moral conclusions and propositions cannot be reached or supported by logic and reason alone. This reality will, hopefully, give you pause when you weigh the conclusions of others on the scales of reason and logic. Since you have not yet offered a logical, meaningful connection between Koresh's behavior and the religious system in which he grew up, perhaps now would be a good time. Perhaps you could start by explaining why the multiple analogies I have offered are inapposite. The fact that you are amazed is neither argument nor evidence, except for those who need neither to accept your incredulity as prima facie proof that what you believe must be true.
"For want of a nail" logic is a good motivator of human behavior. But as an a posteriori analysis of phenomena within dynamic, complex systems, it is arrant nonsense. Erv, you are normally a fierce defender of the necessity and sufficiency of reason and logic to test truth claims. But in this case, rather than actually produce evidence and sound reasons to support the proposition that Adventism's apocalyptic message and David Koresh's psychosis are causally linked, you have taken flight from reason and logic, incredulously insisting that we who say "Show us the beef," bear the burden of acquitting Adventist apocalyptics of your unfounded libel. Most Adventist fundamentalists, and most anyone who believes in justice and fairness, would blush to employ such "logic."
Denying our past is like saying we sprang as adults here in this world. All our previous experiences cannot be erased anymore than denying our parental genetic inheritance. Everything in our past has contributed to who we are today. What we do with those experiences is up to the individual and is tempered by many events occurring later in our life.
Exactly right, Elaine. That's my point. Therefore, it is meaningless to say that a person would not be what he became were it not for his past.
But if you seek to demonstrate a link between a person's present psychotic/delusional behaviors/beliefs (effect), and external influences to which that individual was subjected (cause), you had better be prepared to provide evidence that the effect is observed with statistically significant frequency in a large population subjected to the same causal influence. How would you describe folks who insist that a link exists, despite the absence of such supportive evidence?
Obsessive compulsive disorder is a common condition seen by psychologists quite frequently.
Such behaviors accompanying this are usually harmless but can be even dangerous. What "trips" them into becoming delusional is a question to ask psychologists (I'll try to remember to ask my granddaughter next month).
If such an individual is convincing he may find those who follow him. This has been seen in such cases as Koresh, Jim Jones, and others. We are all, inevitably linked to our past, and in the same way, we are all influenced by the present. Individuals react very differently to the same stimuli.
Who has called Koresh delusional? If there was delusion, it was more likely in his followers.
What I haven't seeing mentioned or stressed in most news and other articles relating to the showdown at Waco, is that nothing major would have happened (for a while at least) had the police not stormed the compound.
So – It was not the apocalyptic obsession or militant position and religious views of Koresh and crew, but the action of the police (that provoked and triggered resistance and retaliation) which led to so many lives being lost.
Why should Adventists take the rap for the police action against Koresh and crew?
One of the two brothers allegedly involved in the recent Boston Marathon bombing was shot and killed by police when he apparently made a run for it. Can we blame the Adventist Church for the bombings or for the death of the terrorist? Hands up please! Who says No? Good – Correct answer. So too with Koresh.
Allow me to enthusiastically recommend a brilliant essay that was posted yesterday on Public Discourse. The title is Terrorism Triangle in Boston.
Bryson borrows a model from the world of botany to suggest a way of looking at complex causality. Plant pathologists use a plant pathology triangle to explain the interrelationship among host, pathogen and environment. "A pathogen only causes disease when the environment (e.g., rain, wind) makes it possible for it to travel to a host (e.g., tomato or potato plant) that is susceptible. Disease results when there is a confluence of the right pathogen, a susceptible host, and a pathogen-freindly environment."
Of course Bryson, erroneously in my opinion, sees the Boston terror attack as an example of complex causality. I see it as a pretty simple matter of host, environment, and pathogen all wrapped up into Islamic ideological extremism. But I think her model is actually very helpful to explain the complex causality that clearly must be used to understand people like David Koresh.
Koresh was a classic Manic Depressive (ala Napoleon,Stalin, Hitler). This Mania seeks absolute control
of their realm, and has no limits to which it will go to achieve. The maniac utilizes it's most knowledgeable base to exploit it's power. Rather obvious that Koresh's SDA background was his base.
Perhaps society was spared a greater loss in that he was isolated at Waco. Think of the potential loss
of life if he had a platform like Grace Temple (San Francisco) as Jim Jones.
I'm curious, Earl, coming from my perspective as a historian, as to what your basis is for concluding that Napoleon and Stalin were "manic depressive." From what I've read of Hitler, this makes sense in his case. I guess I'm not sure why one would say this about the other two.
Just curious.
Earl, you run the risk of "demonizing" (no pun intended) those estimated 1-2% of the population who suffer from bipolar disorder and never harm anyone. (Yes, that's the correct term, although I know "manic depressive" sounds more dramatic.) Acts of evil can be committed by people with every known type of mental illness, as well as by those without a diagnosable psychiatric condition.
Earl, you run the risk of "demonizing" (no pun intended) those estimated 1-2% of the population who suffer from bipolar disorder and never harm anyone. (Yes, that's the correct term, although I know "manic depressive" sounds more dramatic.) Acts of evil can be committed by people with every known type of mental illness, as well as by those without a diagnosable psychiatric condition.
Excellent point!
For Nate to argue over and over again so dramatically that Koresh's behavior had absolutely nothing to do with his Adventist background strikes me as belonging to the category of "Mehinks he protests too much." No one is arguing that it was the principal factor, but to continue to say that any suggestion of it as one of many contributing factors as "nonsense" makes me wonder what is really being argued here by Nate. It can't be the facts. So what might it be?
Erv. I don't believe I have ever said that Koresh's Behavior had absolutely nothing to do with his Adventist background. What I have done is to neutralize the arguments blaming Adventism by citing examples of how absurd it is to infer causation when all you have is correlation. Those who argue in favor of a significant causal relationship have produced no evidence to support their claim. I keep asking you to produce some evidence to support the claim that Adventism was a significant causative factor, and you keep wanting to shift the burden of proof to me to disprove a conclusion you have not built from evidence. I think the ball is still in your court, Erv.
Read the essay by Jennifer Bryson that I cited, and I think you will be able to move away from your quest for oversimplification.
I thank Nate for now saying that he does not think that Koresh's behavior "had absolutely nothing to do with his Adventist background." That means that Nate does now think that Koresh's behavior was indeed, to some degree, influenced by his Adventist background. I guess now the issue is how much of a degree. I assume that Nate would agree that we don't have enough evidence to quantify it. As for my supposed quest for "oversimlification," I am attempting to get some balance here, while Nate seems to have a need to set up straw distinctions that throw rhetorical dust around. But perhaps we have an agreement here–Koresh's destructive behavior has more to do with his seriously pathological personality characteristics with some part of the contents of his idealogy derived from selected elements of his Adventism upbringing. How's that Nate?
For 70 years History has been my love. By observation & study. i refer you to the book:
"A BROTHERHOOD OF TYRANTS" (1994) by D. JABLOW HERSHMAN & JULIAN LIEB
In the epilogue they also present the pathologies of David Koresh,Jeffrey Dalhmer,Jim Jones, & Colin
Ferguson.
Thanks, Earl! Sounds like a book worthy buying!!
eremophila & Nate, have you been "demonized" by my reference to known global tyrants?
Pun intended. :)) eremophila, this is first time i've had the pleasure of your company here at Atoday, and will need a few more inputs from you to square my comprehension of your modus vivendi. But i am suprised to have you seconded by Nate. my methodology is to never cause aspersions on any person or grouping. In my speaking of manic/depression (bi-polar) of known world tyrants, there were names attached, not a general statement that all bi-polar people are tyrants. if you guys are serious, you may wish to give second thought to how i made the statement. In making a specific statement in this blog or any other, would think that making a point of issue of a theme, we would get nowhere unless we speak clinically descriptive of the truth. Interestingly i have had a close relational experience with bi-polar people. Personally, i have spent a few days in a psychiatric hospital & a couple of months in group therapy (not bi-polar). No malice. Welcome eremophila.
(Sigh…) I have been absent from this site for about a week because of other commitments. Now I see comments being made as if I had never made any comments at all.
For example, 22 writes:
"What I haven't seeing mentioned or stressed in most news and other articles relating to the showdown at Waco, is that nothing major would have happened (for a while at least) had the police not stormed the compound. So – It was not the apocalyptic obsession or militant position and religious views of Koresh and crew, but the action of the police (that provoked and triggered resistance and retaliation) which led to so many lives being lost. Why should Adventists take the rap for the police action against Koresh and crew?"
The above is a complete denial or ignorance of everything I have posted previously (my guess is denial). Should I post the same information every week so that the factual information doesn’t get old???
Let me summarize briefly what I have already written almost two weeks ago. Soon after the initial shoot out, I called the church (BRI) and got George Reid, telling him that, based on a previous interview with Koresh and a video recording I had made if his recruiting bible study he had given 7 years previously, he was promoting himself as the successor to Ellen White, and their outlook was apocalyptic. So the FBI was taking a totally wrong course in their attempting to intimidate Koresh and his followers with brute force, as such actions would only reinforce their paranoid theology, and make them more confident in their resistance.
But Reid told me that the FBI had already called, asking for advice. He had told them the SDA church knew nothing about the Davidians, since they were heretics and refused to give then any advice. I argued with him, saying we knew their outlook on the basis of books like Early Writings, and that the FBI was only making the situation worse. But Reid refused to do anything, apparently (obviously) because the admission that the SDA church knew anything about their theology would make them look bad by association.
Now, admittedly, the FBI had a default strategy of intimidation, and needed to be talked out of it. But to their credit, the FBI had come asking for advice, and Reid had pled complete ignorance, whereas any SDA who has read early Ellen White material would have known that government brute force would not work against such a mentality.
So when the FBI stormed the compound, they did so without the advice of the SDA church, which the FBI had come to seek. I believed then and now, that the church could have talked the FBI out of that foolishness, had not a complete denial of association been higher on their list of priorities.
This does not mean “Adventists should take the complete rap for the police action against Koresh and crew,” because I don’t know for sure if Reid and co. could have convinced the FBI to abandon their strategy of military intimidation. But being more anxious to deny any theological association with the Davidians than with trying to prevent unnecessary massive bloodshed means they deserve partial blame, IMO.
Dennis,
You wrote: "But being more anxious to deny any theological association with the Davidians than with trying to prevent unnecessary massive bloodshed means they deserve partial blame, IMO."
Apparently you feel that the final outcome could have been altered or prevented because sharing the information you had would have convinced the FBI to pursue a different course of action. Please, let go of that burden of prideful regret. There were so many factors involved that it is highly doubtful what you propose would have had the result you wish had come. Koresh was a madman so it is highly doubtful anyone could have changed the outcome.
Something largely overlooked by the public is that the FBI was able to clandestinely plant listening devices in many places inside the Branch Davidian building. It is no joke that the listening agents knew when he relieved his bodily needs and what songs he sang while in the shower. They listened to his sermons where he told his followers that their encirclement by law enforcement made their deaths certain and since they would be given new bodies in the resurrection there was no problem with them choosing how they died. Would they prefer to die in a hail of bullets, or in flames that would consume their bodies? Since God had promised to destroy the world by fire, Koresh preached that their deaths should be by fire. Agents listened and watched as his followers then planted bales of straw near potential exits to prevent people from escaping once they were set afire. Negotiators who tried to talk Koresh out of his plan felt like they were talking to an absolute madman, even a demon. They listened in absolute horror as he commanded that the flames be lit. Contrary to the opinions of many, the FBI's action of punching holes in the walls and spraying in tear gas was not a planned act of provocation: it was a last-ditch attempt to create paths by which some might escape.
By the way, at least one of the FBI agents who was listening that day later had to be hospitalized for a time because of the emotional trauma from hearing parents holding their children back from leaving and the Davidian elders shooting some who were trying to escape. Two others took early medical retirement due to the onset of disabling alcoholism. Koresh did not die from the flames or smoke inhalation. Apparently he died by his own hand of a gunshot to the head after killing two of his "wives." A handgun of the same caliber used to kill all three and with a matching number of rounds expended was found in close proximity to his body.
Noel,
If you had actually read my previous posts (and had them in mind while you were writing your response), rather than depending on just my bare summary to tell the whole story (a contradictory notion if there ever was one), then you would understand that you are only supporting my argument, while imagining you are dismissing it.
That being said, nobody can ever know for sure that history could be other than what actually happened.
OK, here is an example where Noel unwittingly supports my argument while thinking he is refuting it. Noel writes,
“Something largely overlooked by the public is that the FBI was able to clandestinely plant listening devices in many places inside the Branch Davidian building. It is no joke that the listening agents knew when he relieved his bodily needs and what songs he sang while in the shower. They listened to his sermons where he told his followers that their encirclement by law enforcement made their deaths certain and since they would be given new bodies in the resurrection there was no problem with them choosing how they died. Would they prefer to die in a hail of bullets, or in flames that would consume their bodies? Since God had promised to destroy the world by fire, Koresh preached that their deaths should be by fire.”
So, while Koresh himself may have been hopelessly deluded, he was reasonable enough to use the public evidence that the FBI provided him on a platter to convince everyone in the compound that:
“… their encirclement by law enforcement made their deaths certain and since they would be given new bodies in the resurrection there was no problem with them choosing how they died. Would they prefer to die in a hail of bullets, or in flames that would consume their bodies?”
So the FBI provided Koresh with the argument that his followers only had a choice between “a hail of (FBI) bullets” or “flames.” Why should the FBI have done all they could to help Koresh convince his followers of the truth of his apocalyptic theology?? It was obvious to me that this was exactly what they were unwittingly doing, and it was not just my opinion. As I stated in my previous postings, Mark Breault, Koresh’s former Lt. gave the FBI exactly the same advice. I maintain that anyone who knew early SDA apocalyptic thought would come to the same conclusion, including Reid, or Wilson. It was a “no brainer.”
Who is to say that the SDA church speaking up could not have turned the tide? If they had, the fear of “I told you so!” after a bad outcome would have given Reno some serious cause for CYA. Regardless of potential outcomes, though, there is a principle involved here. That is: CYA and PR ought not be the first (if not the only) priority of an organization that takes any pride in being ethical.
Yet all I have seen from church apologists is the omniscient statement, “Oh, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway!”
It doesn't matter all the "what ifs" that babies and small children were killed? The ATF and FBI acted
preemptively and as they continue to do so. Just notice how the FBI and CIA have taken over the military killing machines.
The government pushed extremists to the extreme and forever it will be a blot on U.S. history: killing its own citizens when it was totally unnecessary. The Reformed LDS communes practicing polygamy and child brides did not bring in armament to capture Jefferds, nor should they have. In order to prevent child abuse, they execute the worse child abuse: death.
Erv, I just noticed your comment four days ago, in which you congratulate me – erroneously – for finally conceding that indeed, Adventism was to some dgree responsible for Koresh's behavior. I can't for the life of me figure out why some intellectuals love to posture and play word games. We've been through all this Erv. First of all, refusing to say that Koresh's behavior had "absolutely nothing" to do with his Adventist background is quite a different matter from affirmatively believing that Adventism did in fact have some material influence on his behavior. Can't you see, Erv, how illogical your conclusion is?
More importantly, as I have said on more than one occasion, some influence has no relevance. Everyone's past experiences have some influence on what they do, how they think, and who they are. So, why would I make a meaningless concession, and why would a meaningless concession – that Koresh's Adventist upbringing had some influence on who he became, what he believed and what he did – produce an "aha -gotcha" frisson in you? You apparently want to twist my refusal to say that Adventism had absolutely nothing to do with Koresh's behavior into an admission that Koresh's Adventist background was a significant factor in the pathological features of the David Koresh of Waco fame. I have of course repeatedly refused to concede such, and have repeatedly challenged you to support that factual assertion -which you obviously believe – and you refuse to do so.
It would make as much sense for you to argue that growing up Baptist in Hot Springs, Arkansas had something to do with Bill Clinton's serial marital infidelities. It is a meaningless statement unless you are prepared to infer a causal relationship. And if you want to infer a causal relationship, you better be prepared to offer persuasive evidence.
I see that, for some reason, Nate seems to be obsessed with this microtopic. He continues to make a major issue about, if I may quote him, "refusing to say that Koresh's behavior had "absolutely nothing" to do with his Adventist background is quite a difference matter from affirmatively believing that Adventism did in fact have some material influence on his behavior." I'm going to assume that Nate's strategy of reasoning must be successful in a court room. I guess in court rooms it works to make distinctions about that which makes little actual difference in the real world. I refuse to draw attention to the similarity between Nate's point and the possible number of angels who can stand or sit on pin heads. That would simply be too dismissive. I will let someone else make that comparison. I can't bring myself to do it.
Actually, Erv, I have experienced quite a high success rate in court. Perhaps it is because I understand that the assertions I make will be judged by the same standards of logic and proof that I apply to the assertions of others. I suspect, if you actually had to state what you believe, rather than simply question and tear down the beliefs of others, that you likely would refuse to deny that God exists or that He had nothing to do with the natural order. But then, if I said, "Ah, so you admit that there is some evidence that God exists and/or that He had something to do with the natural world," you would vigorously protest that you mean no such thing. This is logic 101, Erv. You cannot infer a positive from the inability to disprove a negative. You are confusing sufficient conditions with necessary conditions in order to reach a conclusion that is not supported by your premise.
I know you, as a scientist, understand these principles very well. What I do not understand is why poltically and religiously left leaning scientists, when they step out of the world of scientific truth, and into the world of moral, political, and historical truth, so often borrow from the mental toolboxes of fundamentalism to reach conclusions that would quickly collapse if subjected to the rigorous methods by which scientific claims should be tested.
Dear Mr Hokama
Sir, you write in your comment above under the auspices of "IMO" yet you criticise my comments as though what you say is written in stone and that I must get with the program in terms of how you say it should be. That is rather opinionated for my liking. The fact is that my point only highlighted that the massacre at Waco was clearly a result of police action. This aspect is obviously being marginalised by most of the reviewers of this incident where focus is drawn primarily to the fanatical beliefs of Koresh which is coupled with a deliberate attempt to drag Adventism into the foray, clearly in a negative light, rather than the deal with the fact that the actual standoff with police was chiefly responsible for the situation which eventually claimed many lives. You may have missed this!
Dear 22,
The “fact” is that you seem to pick and choose only convenient facts that support your ideology, (which so far as I can tell, is virtually indistinguishable from die hard church apologists like Ted Wilson, or a George Reid) while ignoring or suppressing any facts that would undermine it. By picking and choosing only convenient facts, while suppressing or ignoring the inconvenient ones, virtually any ideology can be, and is, defended: Islamic jihadism, Klu KLux Klanism, Nazism, Marxism, Branch Davidianism, etc, etc. It goes without saying that you have the freedom to follow suit and use “picking and choosing” of only convenient facts to defend any ideology you please, including traditional SDAism. Any idea can be made to look appealing and credible if you suppress all the contrary evidence.
But I also have the freedom to point out that you are cherry picking only convenient facts in order to defend and support your pet ideology. Whether or not you “like” my exercise of freedom of speech to point out that you are an ideological “cherry picker” of facts, is neither here nor there.
My “opinion” (which happens to coincide with the concept of fairness) is that the necessity of picking and choosing one’s facts in order to defend one’s ideology is evidence that the ideology which requires such a biased treatment (if not cover-up) of all the facts is evidence of its flaws if not failings in terms of correspondence with the real world.
You write in your defense, “The fact is that my point only highlighted that the massacre at Waco was clearly a result of police action.”
Let me give you an analogy. Suppose that you happened to be a secret witness to a vicious rape and murder by a gang member, but you decides not to call 911 at the time, because you are afraid of gang retaliation, and therefore “didn’t want to get involved.” Then you also remain silent and don’t come forward when the trial occurs, so the gangster is acquitted for lack of evidence. Could you shrug your shoulders and say, “The decision is the result of legal due process” with a clear conscience?
I hope the answer is “No!” Neither the judicial outcome in this hypothetical case, nor the “police action” in Waco are independent of those “in the know” that could have changed the outcome of the legal decision, or the “police action” by speaking up at the appropriate time.
This is especially true when the FBI comes knocking on your door, asking for advice on how to handle the Branch Davidians, and you claim you “know them not.” Nobody knows if the outcomes in either case could have been changed, but that is not the point.
Maybe the woman would have been raped and murdered anyway and the rapist would have gone free, even if you had called 911 and testified at the trial. Maybe all the Branch Davidians in the compound would have all died anyway, even if the Reid, or someone from the church the FBI respected would have said instead,
“Hey, FBI, pull back immediately or you are only going to help Koresh confirm their most paranoid apocalyptic delusions, and you will have a major disaster on our hands! And if you ignore me, tell your boss Reno that I will tell the media that I gave you this advice!”
While we will never know what could have happened, what is the principle involved here?
Finally, I did not “drag Adventism into the foray.” The FBI came knocking on their door asking for their advice. Adventism “ran away” as fast as they could, and ordered me to keep quiet as well.
Though Adolf Hitler was raised as a Catholic by a devout Catholic mother, we don’t attribute/designate this association as either responsible for or contributing to his evil; do we? Is Erv suggesting that we should?
Based on Erv’s thinking, I would like to hear an explanation why we shouldn’t.
Terrific point, Stephen! Examples abound. Don't hold your breath waiting for Erv's explanation.
I am not sure why it should come as a surprise to anyone that the first five years of one's socialization in a family environment will influence life-long choices in very subtle ways. Clearly, many other factors can enter into why someone makes certain choices for both good and evil, but the imprinting from early childhood never leaves us. This is not rocket science.
"…the first five years of one's socialization in a family environment will influence life-long choices in very subtle ways."
What has anyone said, Erv, that makes you think that assertion is being questioned? The same could be said of one's environmental influences at ages 5-15, 15-20, 20-25, etc. The problem comes when one tries to explain anti-social behavior as an adult by pointing to the fact that the perpetrator watched Tom and Jerry cartoons as a child; and then, when the proponent of that assertion can produce no supportive evidence or logical argument to substantiate the claim, he retreats to the meaningless redoubt: "Well, surely you can't say that watching Tom and Jerry cartoons had absolutely nothing to do with his behavior." At the point, he becomes a fugitive on the lam from the laws of reasoned discourse.
Goodbye and good luck.
"Goodbye and good luck." What wonderful words to close off a discussion with someone who wishes to make pseudo-distinctions that lack any meaningful difference in the real world. Moving on.
The problem, Erv, is that you were unwilling to engage in a discussion. I didn't close it off. I just gave up. How many evasions by you does it take before I can safely conclude that you are unwilling to argue your case? You were asked multiple times to support the claim of a causal relationship between Adventism – particularly its historical apocalyptic message – and the behavior of David Koresh. Yet you refused to do so. Why don't you simply admit that you have no proof of a meaningful causal relationship, and that your opinions are simply a matter of faith, rather than trying to put others on the defensive for merely asking that you to substantiate your opinions with evidence and reason?
SDA Responsibility?
Are SDAs responsible in any way for the Branch Davidians under Koresh? I have thought about this for a long time. The fact that Howell and his followers were disfellowshipped from the SDA church can be interpreted as a denial of responsibility for their subsequent behavior. Legally, I am confident that this is the case. Apologists, of course, like defense attorneys, take this to be an absolute barrier to any further responsibility.
Then there is the question of whether even our best campmeeting evangelists can actually infuse their audience with an apocalyptic belief that was alien to their “genetic” makeup. Nathan seems to be saying that they can only mold the “form” that such a belief takes. The implication seems to be that there is no such thing as a convert to Adventism by preaching or teaching. Adventism only molds the way that the converts “native adventism” emerges?
The 1964 Generation
I was born and raised in traditional Adventism, and went to SDA schools from K-16. Although I have already posted this before, since nobody reads earlier posts before feeling justified in pontificating, let me repeat this story. While I was not particularly religious, in 1964, while I was a junior in Auburn Academy, there was a major apocalyptic scare. All the talk was about how it was 120 years since 1844, and just as the flood came 120 years after Noah began to build the Ark, maybe this was the year the world would end.
I pretty much bought that line, and assumed that the time of trouble would soon be upon us. I remember thinking that 1964 would be the last year of major league baseball. We would soon be hunted down in the mountains like dogs, by the FBI because of our refusal to accept the mark of the beast, etc. I realized that marriage would no longer be appropriate in this age, and that certainly having children would be out of the question, since the time of trouble would soon be upon us. There was no point in thinking about an occupation, or graduate school, since we were all going to be persecuted for our faith. I know I was not the only one who thought this way. Ask anyone who went through our educational system in 1964.
Even when I got married in 1971, we did not dare to have any children for the first five years because of our fears of the time of the imminent trouble. Now, was this kind of paranoid thinking in my DNA, or in the water we drank in the state of Washington, or did SDA teachers, preachers, and evangelists put it there? (I know that we can say, “That’s what the Bible teaches!” But that is not all the Bible teaches, and there are many different ways to interpret the same biblical material) I did not really exorcize the apocalyptic demon until the late 70s and early 80s with my study of Ellen White’s “shut door” visions.
By 1987, my perspective on the Vernon Howell-Koresh type bible study was completely different than it would have been in 1964. But I was able to recognize it as the kind of paranoid thinking I had once embraced.
Correlation Versus Cause
Causal relationships are notoriously hard to prove; some philosophers argue that there is no such thing; there is only contiguity of events. After the fire, I studied each victim’s background and found that almost all had conservative-traditional SDA backgrounds. In the Koresh bible study I taped, apocalyptic prophecy and Ellen White was the focus, and only my father, an SDA minister and Ellen White fan was attracted. If you study the history of each SDA church in which Koresh or Mark Breault recruited, you will find the same pattern, I believe. Still, that is only a correlation that falls short of cause establishing that the SDA church “was responsible.”
A Discontinuity that Cries Out for Fixing
As I explained earlier, there is a logical discontinuity in modern SDA theology regarding latter day prophets that the Branch Davidians exploited. Put bluntly, the SDA church believes in latter day prophets up until Ellen White and then we seem to have done an about face when EW died and now claim that there are to be no more prophets, even though this is more “latter days” than when Ellen White was a prophet, which from today’s perspective, was ancient times. That does not make any sense once you grant all the SDA biblical arguments that have been used to justify EW as a latter day prophet. It is said that whenever there is a vacuum created, something is bound to rush in to fill it. The same thing might be said of theological discontinuities.
Historically, once there is a discontinuity created in theology, you can count on someone coming along later (inevitably a fanatic) attempting to “fix” that discontinuity and getting support from “true believers.” (Of course the discontinuity was inevitably created by an invalid idea in the first place that has been papered over.) In the case of the Protestant doctrine of “sola scriptura,” Karen Armstrong (The Bible, chapter 7) argues it was the Munster rebellion of 1534, which was based on “sola scriptura” with a vengeance (To read more about this gory episode, see “Munster rebellion,” Wikipedia) that was the “David Koresh” of the Protestant Reformation and “sola scriptura.” The Munster Rebellion carried the idea of sola scriptura to its logical end. It horrified even Luther, the promoter of sola scriptura, who is quoted as asking in horror,
“Is every fanatic to have the right to teach whatever he pleases?”
The same question might be asked regarding apocalyptic theology. Maybe we need to require background checks and register all apocalyptic theology students and believers (just like the liberals want to do with gun owners), just to make sure that these teachings don’t get into the minds of lunatics or fanatics? Then Vernon Howell could have been disqualified from being taught this stuff. Just joking, Nathan.
While I stop way short of blaming the church for Koresh, I think Nathan is being extremely defensive in arguing that,
“It would make as much sense for you to argue that growing up Baptist in Hot Springs, Arkansas had something to do with Bill Clinton's serial marital infidelities.”
Correction. I did not mean to imply that Karen Armstrong mentioned “David Koresh” in connection with the Protestant Reformation. Sorry!
Mr. Hokama,
Thanks for the memories of 1964.
I remember being scared ****less about persecution, being saved, etc. etc.
Regardless of any baffle with brilliance or befuddle with **** **** argument, those who believe the SdA church can claim any "plausible deniability" regarding Koresh and Waco live in a bubble deniablity world.
Whew, Dennis! You had me going for a second there toward the end of your comment. Glad you were just joking. Thanks for engaging. Your story brings back ghosts of the past from my own childhood. I think it is quite standard for Adventists who grew to adulthood in the 20th Century. So again I ask the question: "Where are the other Koreshes that Adventist apocalypticism has been spawning for the past hundred years?"
I am not defensive for Adventist apocalypticism. I am defensive against the purifiers, be they religious or secular. Purifiers don't acknowledge trade-offs, and they dismiss or demonize anyone who dares to critically examine their assumptions and conclusions They identify something they think is pathological in a group or belief system (e.g., a fear-inducing apocalyptic message), and then, abandoning any pretense of intellectual discipline, they try and discredit the group by pointing to bad behavior or negative attitudes in isolated group members as proof that what they have identified as a pathogen is the cause of the bad behavior or disillusionment.
If we are, as you suggest, Dennis, going to "stop way short of blaming the Church for Koresh," why raise the innuendo that its apocalyptic message is somehow responsible for Koresh's bad behavior, or even that Koesh's eschatology was responsible for his bad behavior? I'm fine with arguing that the Church needs to modify its historic apocalyptic message. But that argument should rest on whether the message is Biblically supported, not whether it motivated Koresh's behavior. David Koresh should have nothing to do with that discussion. Waco is an emotionally charged red herring.
Without the shootout and catastrophic intervention by the DOJ, we wouldn't even be talking about Koresh. Let's stipulate that crackpots are an inevitable complication of the human condition. And let's also acknowledge that one David Koresh in several million Adventists is cause for commendation rather than condemnation. And then let's focus our attention on belief systems that actually do harbor and nurture statistically significant numbers of dangerous fanatics, rather than fomenting self-blame and faux guilt over one bad apple in a basically very good faith group.
I might also point out that those who wish to purge fear and guilt from Adventism can do so only by deconstructing scripture. The anticipation, and even the appearance of the Divine, is often, if not usually, attended by fear and anxiety in the Bible. If Adventists could be blamed for David Koresh, it surely would not be due to the Church's apocalyptic teachings, which basically have fairly deep scriptural roots. It would be for the failure of David Koresh's faith community to demonstrate the kind of love that casts out fear, and that draws people into relationship with Christ. It would be for the failure of that community to communicate the assurance of salvation by faith in a crucified, risen Lord.
You make a good point Nathan; actually you’ve made several good points.
The Christian religion contains apocalyptic eschatology in its theology. Jesus taught it directly to His disciples. Adventism, by definition, emphasizes it.
The question is to what extent does any emphasis on any Scriptural theology responsible for any exploitative distortion of it by the delusional?
Another question to Dennis would be wouldn’t any prophetic voice during the past millennium qualify as a latter day prophetic voice? EGW hasn’t been dead 100 years yet. Since when has 100 years been considered a long time for relative historical purposes?
Correction: “…to what extent is any emphasis on any Scriptural theology responsible for any…
It is sickening to realize how such fragile, immature minds of children who have been sheltered from the "world" in a very closed Adventist system (school, church, friends), and not expect to be greatly influenced by the very teachers and pastors they have been told were warning them of what was to come and to expect these events imminently. My son, many years later, said that he would awaken in the night, fearful of seeing that "little cloud in the east" that meant the final end.
Elaine, are you serious?? Are Adventists now responsible for nightmares? Newsflash! Fear and bad dreams didn't originate with Adventists. What human cultures or systems can you name where fear is not a motivator?
One thing I do have to concede though, Elaine: You're on a promising track. Dream analysis will provide just as much insight into mental/emotional disturbance, and aberrant behavior, among Adventists as looking backward toward Waco. I bet you could get a federal grant to study this angle. Anyone want to share what we can learn about the insidious dangers of Adventist theology from reading tarot cards and rabbit entrails? After that, maybe we could re-examine how phrenology can teach us about why Waco should trump the saving relationship with Jesus, and hope of His soon return, that millions have found through the SDA faith, and its eschatology.
Nate,
I was referring to children, children who have nightmares. If you never experienced that as a parent, you may be the exception, or norm, I do not know. But children have irrational fears that their dreams "concoct" of which they have no control.
I know you were referring to children, Elaine. Perhaps if you had told your son that the "little cloud" meant good news for those who know Jesus, it might not have been so traumatizing for him. I had nightmares as a child too. Nightmares happen. And I don't know that it has anything to do with whether one's conscious fears are rational or irrational. If a "cloud in the east" was your son's worst dream, he was very fortunate.
Nate, He KNEW that meant the coming of Jesus. That is no consolation AFTER the nightmare, as nightmares cannot be rationally explained. I also have occasioal bad dreams which I can't control nor understand the meaning. Dreams are the mind's way of solving problems in our subconscious. They take different shapes but when there is fear, it is usually a reasonable occurence in our waking time, but takes very different manifestations in our dreams.
"He KNEW that [the little black cloud] meant the coming of Jesus."
Yes, Elaine. But that wasn't my question. My question was whether you had raised him to believe that what he KNEW was good news or bad news. When God appears, it's usually only bad news for those who do not know Him or have rejected Him.
Your assertion that dreams are the mind's way of solving problems in our subconscious strikes me as a nice theory that allows experts to offer plausible speculation as learned wisdom, instead of admitting that they know next to nothing about the subconscious mind, and still less about the causes and purposes of dreams.
And of course I have zero idea how the "cloud in the east" or bad dreams have any bearing on David Koresh's behavior. Are kids who "solve" scary theological issues through their dream life more or less prone to pathological, anti-social religious behavior? You're losing me here , Elaine.
Elaine,
I had one of those "small dark cloud" nightmares myself when I was about 12. It was without doubt the worst nighmare I ever have had in my life, and I will never forget it. Never was daylight so sweet as that morning.
The church i attended in Ontario, in the 70's, had a single mother & 2 children who became involved with Koresh. The mother was a very friendly lady who was generally shunned by the congregation, because of her promotion of the Branch. She earlier became involved when the lady was the leader.The daughter was a very sweet young girl of approx 12 yrs of age at the time, and was one of those tried & convicted at the end of this tragedy. The mother's name was brought to the church business committee for dismissal from membership, however the motion was defeated. The mother spent several summers at Waco, serving as a cook. She eventually moved there full time.
The fact remains that many news agencies and reporters readily use sensationalism to attract attention. The Waco tragedy is no exception. What more does one need than attributing Koresh's extremely distorted apocalyptic views and beliefs to Adventism in order to feed those hungry for this kind of unsubstantiated malicious sensationalism which seeks to portray our church in a bad light by playing the ‘blame game.’
Michael Jackson, for example, (which the sensationalist tabloid media called 'Wacko Jacko') was a Jehovah's Witness at one time until his 'Thriller' Album fallout with them. Were they blamed for his eccentric behaviour or his eventual death? I haven't read one article suggesting this. What about Koresh? Nooo, some want to still insist that an ex-member, holding non-Adventist beliefs, should be the responsibility of the Adventist church. The guy portrayed himself to be a Messiah, for crying out loud, whose death wish was to die in a blaze of fire, even going to the extent of convincing (and forcing) others to do the same. A local Waco newspaper called him ‘The Sinful Messiah’ and not surprisingly; he broke US law and was sought by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. No one has shown a shred of evidence that Koresh was under police surveillance as a result of his beliefs? It was his criminal activities that got him into such a mess.
A CNN report about the incident said on the internet that “Federal agents had been watching the Davidians for some time, suspecting them of stockpiling military-style weapons with the intention of building an "Army for God." It further explained that CNN’s live coverage during the incident included calls from Steve Schneider (Koresh’s right-hand man) and later from a wounded Koresh himself. Both Koresh and Schneider didn’t even mention Seventh-day Adventists during conversations with both CNN and the FBI, from what I have gathered, except talk about their own Branch Davidian beliefs. The only mention of Seventh-day Adventists comes up in the context of Branch Davidian history which news reports mention they were off-shoots of.
The FBI were really peeved that CNN was on the line with Koresh and indicated they needed the lines free for their use, which made sense, even though they told the FBI that they had received the calls from the compound. It gets more interesting. Check this out:
"We were not going to become the story," Furnad recalls.
So can we not blame CNN for the tragedy when they refused to get themselves involved in the incident? The FBI asked them to help after all. Who else can we blame? Can we blame those who sold the guns to Koresh? CNN covered the stand-off nationally during this time, for over fifty days. The whole country knew. Both Koresh and his right-hand man called CNN. They wanted publicity. They didn’t call the Adventist Church nor did they request to CNN or the FBI that the Adventist Church should be involved in what was going on. It therefore is outrageous for anyone to force the issue of getting Adventists involved firstly and worse still trying to blame them for Waco.
Twenty years later we should have learnt that whilst sensationalism may sell news, there’s no valid reason to drag Adventism into the Waco tragedy just for some added sensationalist kicks.
(sigh…) You are just repeating yourself for about the third time or fourth time. I have already answered all your arguments more than once on this thread.
Timo – I hear you suggesting that, regardless of what conclusion we reach, it is valuable – even vital – to have a forum where Adventists can openly raise questions that challenge the Church to change and/or grow. If so, I heartily agree. Even if I disagree with ascribing culpability for Waco or Koresh to the Church, I recognize the importance of being able to raise the possibility that Waco does offer a teachable moment for the Church, without fear of moral judgment or censure. This is why an independent journalistic voice and outlet for Adventists is important.
As to your initial point, the refusal to accept moral responsibility for a tragic outcome does not mean there is a cover-up or handwashing. Nor is it safe to conclude that self-blame is the primary herald of true mourning. Whenever people die, the lives of God's children are extinguished. I don't think the case has been made that Waco should have excited greater teeth-gnashing at G.C. headquarters than any other tragedy where lives of Adventists or former Adventists are extinguished.
Nathan wrote: “I don't think the case has been made that Waco should have excited greater teeth-gnashing at G.C. headquarters than any other tragedy where lives of Adventists or former Adventists are extinguished.”
So, GC headquarters should have had no sense of responsibility or teeth-gnashing over a fatal 747 plane crash on which those same individuals were passengers than if they burned to death in Waco after being besieged by federal agents with tanks and guns outside their compound for weeks while playing morbid taped recordings of dying rabbits? I find that an incredible denial that would make 22Oct1844 deliriously happy!
I have previously posted a statement by Marc Breault (former Koresh 2nd Lt) who had made the same argument in advance to the FBI as I did, to the effect that, in the end, the FBI
“… decided Vernon didn’t believe any of this stuff. They thought he was a con man. They failed to take into account the level of his belief and that of his followers. They couldn’t believe there was anyone that dedicated to an apocalypse.”
Anybody who knows SDA history of the Early Writings era, or anybody who lived through the recent SDA apocalypse scare of 1964 (as I did), or anybody who had seen their bible study (as I and many others who saw my video did), would know that Howell was not just a con man, and that his followers were in the apocalyptic mind set, and could not be intimidated, but would only see the FBI tactics were only delusional belief confirming! So I am not contending that I was smarter than anybody else with that knowledge who watched what was happening.
It just so happens that in an afternoon public meeting on May 18, 2013, at the Damazo Amphitheater in Loma Linda (the first Dalton Baldwin Memorial Lecture series, delivered by John B. Cobb), David Larsen was chosen to deliver a response to Cobb, whose title was “The Importance of Being Radical.” By that title, Cobb meant that we should never be afraid to challenge the politically correct, or authorized view. As an example, Cobb challenged the official story on 9/11, saying he thought it was a coverup of a deep conspiracy.
In his response, Larsen argued that SDAs had a history of believing in conspiracies, especially of the apocalyptic kind, because of our very acceptance of Great Controversy and its conspiratorial motif. Then he specifically mentioned Koresh as an expression of that apocalyptic paranoia. He also said that the FBI used exactly the wrong tactics, because they only confirmed that paranoia.
(According to Jim Walters, the LLU department of religion will have a transcript of that meeting available in a few days.)
Now, I personally know that the GC and the BRI knew the situation because I personally called George Reid on the first weekday after the initial shootout (as I have already posted), and begged him to tell the FBI to back off immediately. Reid absolutely refused, though the FBI had already beaten me to make call to him for advice. The GC and the BRI fiddled until Waco burned down to the ground using tactics that virtually guaranteed that outcome.
So I utterly reject your premise, which you apparently share with 22oct1844. The point is not whether or not the FBI would have listened to Reid or somebody with his academic credentials. The point is that when you have knowledge that makes it obvious that the FBI is pursuing the wrong strategy that will lead to disaster, and they come knocking at your door, asking you for expert advice, then you are MORALLY obligated to give it.
(It seems that no matter how many times I post the same material, when I come back a few weeks later, it has been effectively scrubbed clean by the apologists like 22oct1844)
Dennis, I don't mean to disrespect your perspective. I simply don't believe that what you have offered consitutes very compelling evidence to indict the Church for the Waco outcome. After all, you admit that Marc Breault, who surely had more credibility than George Reid would have had, was unable to convince the F.B.I. No one doubted at the time that David Koresh was a deluded religious cult leader. What credible evidence do you have to suggest that Janet Reno saw him and his followers more as common criminals than as true believers?
More importantly, you are placing George Reid and the G.C. in a liberal no-win situation. You think the G.C. should have said, "Hey guys, this Koresh dude is really serious. We teach this stuff and we know that our members are deadly serious about being willing to die for their convictions. Believe us, we know a fanatic when we see one. You need to treat this guy with kid gloves." Liberals would have loved to see such a smoking gun. It would have been a tacit admission that Koresh is not just a mutant believer, but a true fruit of Adventism. That's really what liberals want to believe. Here is the reality: THE CHURCH HAD NO EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS TO OFFER ADVICE TO THE FBI.
By refusing to give advice, assuming George Reid would corroborate your version of the conversation, the Church wisely said, "Look, who and what this guy is constitutes a question for psychologists and cult experts, not theologians. We can tell you what the Church teaches, but we know nothing more about what Koresh believes or what makes him tick than you do." Had the Church agreed to give advice, it would have been implicitly admitting expertise that it did not have into what made David Koresh tick. It would have been admitting that there is something unique in Adventist theology that was driving Koresh's behavior. And wouldn't the liberals have just LOVED that?
The fact of the matter is that Church leaders had no "expert" advice to give that would have assisted the F.B.I. The only experts that might have helped were psychologists and psychiatrists. If the F.B.I. wasn't inclined to take Marc Breault's advice, they certainly would have paid no heed to advice from S.D.A. ecclesiastical panjandrums. Liberals love nothing better than using tendentious moral arguments to put their opponents in no-win situations, and the obsession with pinning the tail of David Koresh on the S.D.A. Church abundantly demonstrates this reality.
Nathan,
First, I am not “indicting the church for the Waco outcome.” They were handed a golden opportunity to make a difference, and they ran away from it, despite the fact that they had to know the apocalyptic mindset of traditionalist SDAs who Koresh recruited.
I will not accept your unqualified assertion, which you call “reality,” that they had no useful information or guidance for the FBI prior to the conflagration, which is an insult to the intelligence of the GC, self serving though it is on this occasion. Many SDA pastors had dealt with Koresh and his recruiting in their churches in the many years preceding this event. I know that one of them was the Diamond Head SDA church in Hawaii, pastored by Charlie Liu, where Koresh successfully recruited about 14 church members including Steven Schneider and his wife Judy, who were prominent members there. Schneider was known as their expert on Revelation. Do you suppose that 7years later, the GC, BRI, and George Reid had not been informed about that huge and spectacular defection?
While I have not done the research on that specific question, I have virtually no doubt that the GC had been debriefed by then, so your absolute denial (“Here is the reality: THE CHURCH HAD NO EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS TO OFFER ADVICE TO THE FBI.”) that they had any expertise on the matter is simply irresponsible and absurd. Do you have negative proof for that absolute assertion, Nathan? Would you like to bet on the accuracy of your unqualified assertion? You come across here like F.D. Nichol reincarnated.
There is no such thing as proving that the battle would have ended differently, had only the nail in the horse shoe of the horse carrying the messenger not come loose, which resulted in the lost shoe, which crippled the horse, which delayed the messenger, which prevented the general from changing strategy, etc, etc. And I have specifically refrained from making any such claim, so you should not ask for proof of what I have not claimed.
The only thing a person (or institution) can do is make ethical decisions when they have a chance to influence historical outcomes. Sometimes ethical decisions are hard, because there are real costs to being ethical. Telling on your boss, turning in your brother who is a terrorist, or rapist, coming forward as a witness to a mob “hit,” the number of examples of inconvenient ethical actions are endless. Nobody said being ethical was always easy or convenient.
But you seem to think that if there are costs, then ethical considerations automatically fly out the window, so it is unfair (or even evil?) to expect anybody (especially a church!) to be ethical. How dare dastardly “liberals” expect the church to make ethical decisions when it is so politically inconvenient! How dare “liberals” expect anything other than completely Machiavellian actions from the church? Indeed. You appear to be even more cynical than I am, Nathan.
Because of my respect for science, I am theologically liberal, but am politically and fiscally a conservative, and consider myself a “pragmatist;” far from an idealist. There are many sophisticated alternatives to the false dichotomy you have offered up. It is even possible that there was a back channel that was used by the GC to communicate their concern for the FBI’s complete mishandling of the case, but the FBI simply would not listen.
But I would be extremely skeptical of that, because it was an easy case to make, and as I have said earlier, the government would have had too much to lose had the case blown up like it did, and they had gone completely against the advice of an “expert” who had reason to know how they thought. Arguing that they ignored a nobody like Marc Breault is not sufficient reason to argue that the government was completely immune to anti-intuitive advice from a respectable institution.
Dennis –
If a former Sierra Club member, turned eco-terrorist, was in a standoff with law enforcement, threatening to blow up an oil refinery, do you seriously think that the Sierra Club would have any expertise to offer law enforcement? Church leaders are former pastors and, occasionally, theologians who have zero qualifications to offer opinions on the psychopathologies of individual church members, much less former members who jump the rails of reason and sanity to become cult leaders. Tell me what the Church knew about Koresh's apocalyptic mindset, or the mindset of his followers, that was not equally apparent to anyone who listened to Koresh or read what he wrote. And please explain how the possibility that G.C. leaders were debriefed by the FBI – a possibility which strikes me as highly speculative and unlikely – would turn G.C. leaders into experts – prophetic experts no less. I assure you that, in a court of law, G.C. officials would have been precluded from offering expert opinions regarding Koresh's future actions and reactions on the grounds that they were unqualified; that their opinions lacked a foundation in personal knolwedge; and that their opinions would at best be based on hearsay opinions of others.
What I, as a GC official, would have said is, "Look guys, we're a church, not a mental health institute. We only know about Koresh through the Church grapevines. We have no idea why this guy is behaving this way, or what he is likely to do next. What we can tell you is that we have millions of members who have not been radicalized by our apocalyptic message over the past hundred years. So we're assuming that the radicalization of Koresh is the result of hard wiring or programming that is alien to Adventism as we teach and practice it. What we believe is what you folks have hopefully already figured out: Koresh isn't operating with a full deck." Then I would have told the FBI that they would probably get more insight into Koresh by talking to his family members and others who knew him best.
Your argument, Dennis, seems to rest on two beliefs: 1) that the G.C. bore some moral responsibility for David Koresh; 2) that the apocalyptic seeds sown by his Adventist upbringing made David Koresh's nutty actions and reactions uniquely predictable and understandable to G.C. leaders. Only if one accepts these tenuous premises can one see the moral mandate that you seem to see so clearly.
I just love it when folks who perfervidly repudiate the moral authority of the Chruch, and the competency of Church leaders, suddenly profess great belief in the Church's moral duty to explain that its theology contributes to delusional thinking, and will likely have a "suicidal" denoument in the actions of psychotic former church members.
Nathan,
First, I have already challenged you to produce documentation for your absolute assertion that “Here is the reality: THE CHURCH HAD NO EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS TO OFFER ADVICE TO THE FBI.”
Instead of responding to that challenge you simply repeat it:
“And they had none. They had, at best, nothing but what you, David Larsen, I, and thousands of other Adventist Americans had – just lay opinions and conjecture, nothing more.”
So I repeat: How did you acquire that absolutely true knowledge that the GC in fact had absolutely nothing useful to give to the FBI when they came calling? Did you acquire this knowledge by divine inspiration which is above challenge by the ordinary mortals like me? Or did you acquire it by an exhaustive search of all the GC archives and exhaustive interviews with all people where were there at the GC 20 years ago? I am not accepting anything less, since you imply that you have absolute knowledge of the matter by the use of repeated, unqualified assertions. If you can’t back up these absolute assertions with solid documentation, then you need to toss your whole line of argument in the trash and start all over again with a lot more epistemological humility.
You write:
“I assure you that, in a court of law, G.C. officials would have been precluded from offering expert opinions regarding Koresh's future actions and reactions on the grounds that they were unqualified; that… ”
Secondly, this was not a court of law, so your hypothetical is utterly irrelevant. This was not a judicial proceeding, but an emergency, so the FBI came calling, seeking more information.
Thirdly, the Sierra Club member turned eco-terrorist analogy is ridiculous and inapplicable. I highly doubt that Sierra Club members are normally born into a family of Sierra Club lifers, and that they pay private tuition to go to Sierra Club parochial schools K-16, and study divinely inspired Sierra Club texts written by the Sierra Club prophet. At least I have never heard of a Sierra Club University or Academy, or a Sierra Club prophet. Did I miss something? If you are going to use analogies, why not use one that has some real parallels?
Fourthly, I once testified as an expert witness in a court trial regarding the fairness of a promotional exam for the LAC Sheriff’s department. My supposed expertise on that occasion was in the job requirements for Sheriff Lieutenants, and that was based on just a three month study of their practices. The requirement then was that one should be expected to know more than the “average man on the street,” and I just checked to confirm that that has not changed.
So I am confident that being in the SDA system K-16 could arguably qualify one as an expert witness to know what a typical, earnest SDA thinks about how the end time and the time of trouble unfolds. The GC has a ton of those SDA lifers that dwarf what you, Dave Larsen, me and others know by virtue of having lived our lives in the system. Besides being former pastors, and theology majors (who read Early Writings) they also are in a position to get reports from all over the world regarding any troubles encountered. Even though I have no direct knowledge about whether that would include the defections at Diamond Head and other churches, I think it reasonable to assume that such knowledge was passed on, and almost absurd to assert that such a troubling event would not have aroused intense interest at the GC, and that the BRI in particular would have been informed.
Fifthly, your apologetic strategy is to focus only on Koresh, and never on his 80+ followers. But they were not robotic automatons who merely did his bidding. Even if Koresh was beyond reach, they still needed to get confirmation for their apocalyptic world view. The FBI tactics did exactly that, by acting exactly as they would expect a Satanic government to act. Piping in sounds of dying rabbits?? Who but Satan would think of that?
What is absurd, Nathan, is that even after the fact, as the proverbial Monday morning quarterback, you seem unwilling to admit that it was wrong for the FBI to embark upon a plan that would only confirm the group’s apocalyptic world view. Can’t you admit this after the fact?
If you say yes, then I have some follow up questions for you, but I will wait.
Sixth, you argue that my position rests on two premises (see below). I will address then one at a time, though in a different order than you list them:
2) that the apocalyptic seeds sown by his Adventist upbringing made David Koresh's nutty actions and reactions uniquely predictable and understandable to G.C. leaders.
You are here again trying to isolate and demonize Koresh to the point where his logic so screwed up as to be indecipherable to anyone. But even crazy people act logically once you understand their premises. Furthermore, it was not just Koresh, but the 80+ people in that compound that we must deal with, and almost to a person, they were formerly conservative SDAs who took EW very seriously, as can be seen on my video, and my transcription of their comments.
Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to draw parallels between what we find in time of trouble scenarios we find in Early Writings and how they would perceive the government tactics used in Waco. In hindsight, that this was a valid comparison to make is irrefutable. But to anybody who has been through the system K-16, and countless weeks of prayer, it should have been just as obvious beforehand. That is my argument, and it ought to be yours also.
You seem (conveniently) oblivious to the doctrine of “present truth” which I have mentioned many times previously. This SDA doctrine gave Koresh the right to make up his own rules for the new covenant, which may contradict the rules of the old covenant. Thus, there was more continuity with Adventism than might appear.
1) that the G.C. bore some moral responsibility for David Koresh;
You again focus only on Koresh, apparently for apologetic convenience, as he is admittedly a character for whom few, if any, have much sympathy. But your tactic is just apologetic “spinning.” My focus has always been on the other 80 individuals who burned to death, perhaps needlessly, IMO.
I do not say that we can know that the GC could have made a difference. We can always be cynical and justify shirking our civic responsibility by refusing to vote, serve on juries, or testify as witnesses to horrible crimes, by arguing, “Oh, people are going to get screwed over anyway, and truth will be covered up and squashed whether or not I participate in the process, so I am just going to ignore it all and just mind my business.”
The church did not do its civic duty in this case, and let the process go on without them, and the reasons for that are obvious to everyone: they effectively invoked the fifth amendment.
I would suggest that you begin your response by answering my point #1 first. Have fun with that one, Nathan. 🙂
Dennis, I have made no "absolute" assertions. You made the initial assertion that the G.C. had expertise to offer the F.B.I., and I questioned that by stating as a negative what you failed to prove. Rather than saying "The Church had no expert qualifications…," I should have said. "There is no evidence to support your assertion that the Church had expert qualifications…" You offered conjecture, speculation, and "reasonable assumption" as proof that the G.C. had unique knowledge about the mindset of Koresh and his followers. So let me throw your words back at you: "Unless you can back up your assertions with solid documentation, then you need to toss your whole line of argument in the trash and start all over again…" You seem to have forgotten an elementary rule of debate: The proponent of an affirmative proposition has the burden of proof. And you are the proponent of the claim that the Church had expertise to offer the DOJ. "Reasonable assumptions" are not evidence, much less proof.
Therefore, I ask you for the umpteenth time, what unique, relevant knowledge did any official G.C. representative have about Koresh's mindset or the mindset of his followers that would have qualified him as an expert? Until you are able to offer evidence of such knowledge, my opinion – not an absolute assertion – that the G.C. had no expertise on David Koresh's mindset, or that of his followers, seems the only rational conclusion offered by logic and reason.
As you say, there were tens of thousands raised in the SDA system that knew Adventist apocalyptics by heart. When tens of thousands of lay people know something, its a pretty good bet that what they know is not a subject of expert opinion. The fact that I speak English does not make me an expert on English. The fact that my grocer sells bananas does not make him an expert on the mindset of people who eat bananas.
I have only focused on Koresh because that has been your focus. Did the other 80 individuals have a different mindset that you can identify? Was the G.C. more qualified to offer expert opinions about their frame of reference, and the influence that Koresh had over them, than it was to offer opinions about the elements of Koresh's psychopathology?
You're amazing, Dennis. Please point out where I ever said that the FBI acted correctly? And hmmm…let's see…you certainly haven't done any Monday morning quarterbacking, right? I've got no theories here, just a lot of questions about the holes in the Swiss cheese Monday morning quarterbacking being done by others. Of course, in hindsight, things went wrong. But what evidence do you have that the DOJ's bungling of the situation had anything to do with their failure to understand Adventist apocalyptic teachings? Was a fire that killed everyone in the compound part of the FBI strategy? I don't think so. Do you know for a fact that the FBI thought Koresh was something other than a psychopathic religious fanatic completely devoted to his apocalytiptic vision? Or is that just another "reasonable" assumption in your chain of evidence?
Yes I am an apologist. I am an apologist for intellectual honesty and rational methods of proof. I have no dog in this fight. I simply have a very detached interest in analyzing the logic of the arguments. You have deep personal investment which makes it difficult for you to see that your theories have far less evidentiary support than 911 truther theories. Your utilization of the precautionary principle to create a moral imperative on the part of G.C. officials is exactly what scientists like Stephen Schneider used to create their moral imperatives for climate change political action. "We might be wrong; our evidence might be weak and ambiguous. But our theory is plausible. Therefore, there is a moral duty to act.
Nathan now:
"Dennis, I have made no "absolute" assertions."
Nathan earlier:
“Here is the reality: THE CHURCH HAD NO EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS TO OFFER ADVICE TO THE FBI.”
I think that qualfies. Enough said.
Nathan writes:
“You seem to have forgotten an elementary rule of debate: The proponent of an affirmative proposition has the burden of proof. And you are the proponent of the claim that the Church had expertise to offer the DOJ. "Reasonable assumptions" are not evidence, much less proof.”
OK, let’s try out these elementary generic rules for debate on another subject. Atheism vs. Theism. Although there are many other problems with Nathan’s response, I will focus just on this issue in this post:
Once upon a time, there was a great debate between the champion of atheism and the champion of theism, and Nathan was the arbiter for that debate. Here is the transcript of that debate:
Champion Atheist (CA): “ Here is the reality: There is no God.”
Champion Theist (CT): “How can you responsibly make such an absolute pronouncement until you have exhaustively searched every nook and cranny of the universe? You can’t ever accomplish that exhaustive search, so you will never be able to make that pronouncement with any integrity!
Nathan: “Tut tut, CT. You seem to have forgotten an elementary rule of debate: The proponent of an affirmative proposition has the burden of proof. And you are the proponent of the claim that there is a God. Therefore, the burden of proof is all on you! Produce empirical proof for the existence of God, or toss your whole line of argument in the trash.”
CT: “Well, wait just a minute! I don’t have empirical proof, but it is reasonable to assume that…”
Nathan: "Reasonable assumptions" are not evidence, much less proof!”
CT: “So CA gets to make unqualified assertions about his world view, and that is perfectly OK, but I have to provide empirical proof before I can make any proposal to the contrary?”
Nathan: “Exactly! It is an elementary rule of debate that any reasonable person should know and accept. Now, put up empirical proof for the existence of God, or shut up!”
Epilogue: CT was unable to put up any hard empirical proof of God that day, so theism suffered a humiliating defeat in front of millions of viewers. With the universal application of Nathan’s debate rules, and the defeat of their champion, theists began scurrying away from any debate with atheists, and within twenty years following that debate, theism became as ridiculed as flat earthers, and secular atheism came to rule the earth.
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander, no?
I'm not sure, Dennis, what the point of your fictional debate is, particularly since I never said anything about "empirical" evidence as the be all and end all. I simply quoted back to you your demand that "documentary" evidence be produced. It was you, not I, who offered the "put up or shut up" challenge.
There are different types of evidence that can legitimately be used to prove different types of propositions. If only empirical proofs were permitted into the debate about the existence of God, the theist would surely suffer a humiliating defeat. But then, we're not talking about the existence of God are we? We're discussing something much more terrestrial: What did the G.C. officials know, and when did they know it? Propositional assertions of what they knew is readily subject to evidentiary inquiry for which assumptions are no substitute.
“I'm not sure, Dennis, what the point of your fictional debate is…”
OK, I will play your game. It is indeed ironic that a certain OT prophet (who shall remain unnamed) also had to explain a parable of his.
When I precede my response with a quote from you, it is a good bet what I post below it will be to address that passage of yours I am quoting. I am merely following the rules of debate that you yourself invoked on me, but changed the subject of the debate. (That should not matter, since the same rules of debate presumably apply to all matters of debate, right?)
Then I merely substituted your absolutist claims on one subject (what the GC knew regarding the Branch Davidians in 1993) for absolutist claims on another subject (what radical atheists claim about God).
Presto! You are then making the very kind of absolutist assertions that you despise (rightfully, I think) when they are uttered by others on a different subject. I, by contrast, always oppose absolutist real world assertions that cannot possibly be based on actual empirical evidence.
Here is the point of that parable: You are here exposed as being a “house divided against itself,” depending on your parochial interests. I would much prefer that you took stands against irresponsible absolutist assertions based on principle, rather than only when they run counter to your own apologetic interests.
I don’t even object to that elementary rule of debate, and even relish it. But that kind of irresponsible absolutism you insisted on repeatedly declaring needed to be challenged, because it is unworthy of you.
Okay, Dennis – Take a deep breath and count to ten. It's going to be okay…really. That straw man you are attacking doesn't exist, and he won't hurt you!
Now, let's remind ourselves of what got this exchange started. You conceded that your claim regarding the G.C.'s special knowledge and expert qualifications was based on assumptions. I said that "assumptions" are a pretty flimsy basis for disparaging G.C. leaders, and went on to opine, since you offered no evidence to support your assumption, that the G.C. had no expert qualifications on the subject matter in question. You then huffed that, if I couldn't back up my absolute assertion with solid documentation, then I needed to throw my opinion in the trash.
This seemed incredibly silly to me. So I assured you that I was not making an absolute assertion, but was simply offering an opinion that, absent evidence of G.C. officials' special knowledge or expertise, it was fair and reasonable to conclude that they did not have special knowledge or expertise. It's sort of like saying they're innocent until proven guilty – or, in this case, until you at least produce some evidence of guilt beyond assumptions. Does that make sense? When a jury says, "Not guilty," is it making an absolutist staement of fact? Of course not. It is simply saying, "Not proven." That is what I meant and intended by my statement. Why do you persist in refusing to accept that? I then suggested that you might apply the same standard of proof to your accusations that you wanted to apply to my denial of those accusations.
And then the wheels kind of came off. You refused to acknowledge my clarification that I did not intend by my statement to be making an absolute statement of fact, and then you proceeded to construct parables and arguments to demolish your straw man assumption that I had made, and was sticking to, an absolute assertion of fact.
Dennis, do you understand that structurally, an opinion about reality and an absolute statement of fact about reality can look the same, but in fact be very different? How do you know that I intended my statement as an absolute statement of fact, and why do you refuse my attempt to clarify that I was simply emphasizing the importance of the issue of special expertise, which I believe the G.C. leaders did not have?
Believe me, as a human, I am not really capable of making absolute statements. I could not even say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the G.C. leaders had no special knowledge or expertise. If I had to put a number on it, I'm probably about 85% confident that they didn't. If you produced evidence that the G.C. did have unique knowledge and perspective that would have assisted the FBI, I would have no reluctance about altering my perspective.
I simply think it's fair, when someone makes scurrilous claims about the state of mind and moral responsibilities of another, to say: "Unless and until you offer substantial evidence to support those allegations, I'm going to take the position that they are untrue." Don't you think it's fair, Dennis, for the burden of proof to be on those who accuse others of wrongdoing, and who seek to impose moral responsibility on the alleged wrongdoers?
Nathan,
First things first. You seem to be finally backing into a more tentative position that I can accept as at least being somewhat intellectually responsible, even though I do not think it is likely at all.
OK, so it is your mere “opinion” that perhaps nobody in the GC had any expertise to offer the FBI regarding Koresh and his group?
Now that is a good defensive, lawyerly opinion, though I consider that possibility virtually impossible, given the tremendous shock to the World church regarding the developments in the Diamond Head SDA church. Could it be that I as a tourist, who just happened to be visiting Hawaii at the time when Howell, Breault, and Steve Schneider were wreaking absolute theological havoc in that church in 1986 was virtually the only one who knew about that event 7 years later? Could it be that Pastor Charles Liu, who lost 14 members to the Branch Davidians did not mention his problem to the Conference officials, and that they in turn did not inform the GC, and that they did not take an interest in that problem?
Anything is possible, but it is extremely unlikely that they did not attempt to understand the event and stop the bleeding, if for no other reason than that the GC wants to avoid major embarrassments in the future. If I do research on Charles Liu, I am virtually certain I will find that he made sure he covered all his bases by calling in the denominational big guns to solve his problem. Since CYA is a universal behavior among institutions and denominational employees, I think my assumption that they had some expertise on the subject (at least much more than the FBI) is at least 99% likely to be true.
In addition, it has already been admitted that there was probably few if any SDAs that thought that the FBI strategy of demonstrating overwhelming force would make the Davidians throw up their hands and give up. Your reply has been that if most SDAs thought that, then it was not expertise, but that is just defense lawyer rhetoric. First, SDAs are only a tiny minority in the US, so that knowledge is not available to the typical “man on the street” which is one definition of expertise. Secondly, that view lost out to the FBI’s “bank robber” model, so obviously, more weight was sorely needed on the opposite side of the argument. The GC certainly had at least that much knowledge and almost certainly had more weight than any single individual.
That is the basis of my "reasonable assumption," and so I reject your assertion that “…it was fair and reasonable to conclude that they did not have special knowledge or expertise.” All they had to be was no dumber than all the rest of SDAs who thought that the FBI was following a ridiculous strategy.
You say in regard to your opposite opinion,
“If I had to put a number on it, I'm probably about 85% confident that they didn't.”
Given the facts above, (which you can verify online at http://library.puc.edu/heritage/bib-DKoresh.html, or many other sites), what in the world gives you 85% confidence that such a disruptive and embarrassing church event had no interest to the local conference enough for them to pass on this event to the GC such that nobody had any more information than the man in the street? I dare you to some up with a good reason to doubt the reasoning behind my assumption. I would love to see that. Give me something other than that it would be inconvenient for them to admit that they had such information.
Secondly, your persistent inability to admit your earlier absolutist statements like a man, instead of denying you ever made them in the first place on the basis that you have retro-actively turned them into personal opinions is disappointing to say the least.
How many times have you made flat denials like:
"Dennis, I have made no "absolute" assertions."
What do you call:
“Here is the reality: THE CHURCH HAD NO EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS TO OFFER ADVICE TO THE FBI.”
This is an absolute statement by any reasonable definition, and that has been documented on this thread beyond reasonable doubt. So any “assurance that you were not making any absolute statement” is simply compounding the problem of totally unwarranted absolutism with a false denial.
Now you write,
"It's sort of like saying they're innocent until proven guilty – or, in this case, until you at least produce some evidence of guilt beyond assumptions. Does that make sense? When a jury says, "Not guilty," is it making an absolutist staement of fact? Of course not. It is simply saying, "Not proven." That is what I meant and intended by my statement."
No, it is NOT “sort of like that” unless you qualify your statement in that way when you make it. There are occasions when one has personal knowledge of a situation that qualifies them to make absolute statements, so we cannot just assume any old absolute assertion actually means only “not proven” according to judicial standards. So I presume you were just trying to intimidate me with absolute statements until you realized it wasn’t going to work, but when it backfired, you wish to do some post hoc historical revisionism, despite the fact that it is on the record. What would you have done if I had simply caved to your absolutism? Would you have said to yourself, “Aha! I used my lawyerly rhetoric again to intimidate another opponent into submission!” Or was it all an inadvertent accident due to your "sloppy" writing skills? (I am being sarcastic, of course. You are a very sophisticated writer and thinker.)
Take responsibility for what you have written, Nathan. When you do that, and make a clear retraction instead of engaging in a lot of double talk to disguise it, then of course I will accept it.
You also write:
"Why do you persist in refusing to accept that? I then suggested that you might apply the same standard of proof to your accusations that you wanted to apply to my denial of those accusations."
If you had made a simple retraction, I would have accepted it. But when you preface a concession with a flat denial and then engage in a lengthy false analogy and filibuster, then I am not no so easily inclined to do so. I do apply the same standard of evidence to my suspicion as I do to your denial of that suspicion. I have explained why I am 99% confident that the GC had information that could have helped the FBI. Now I would like to see yours.
You write:
“Believe me, as a human, I am not really capable of making absolute statements.”
Then always qualify your assertions, even when it is apologetically inconvenient. After all, you call liberals out on their absolutism all the time (and I applaud you for that).
You write,
“If you produced evidence that the G.C. did have unique knowledge and perspective that would have assisted the FBI, I would have no reluctance about altering my perspective.”
I have little doubt that I could produce it if I made it one of my major research projects, but before anyone devotes any substantial resources to a research project, they must first have probable cause to believe that the effort to confirm that hypothesis will be successful. I believe I have probably cause to pursue it, but it is unreasonable to demand that I should have proof before I even begin that research or write of my opinion on a blog. Someday, I think someone will make that their historical thesis and get to the bottom of this question.
You write,
"I simply think it's fair, when someone makes scurrilous claims about the state of mind and moral responsibilities of another, to say: "Unless and until you offer substantial evidence to support those allegations, I'm going to take the position that they are untrue."
First, you presuppose that it is “scurrilous,” which is defined as “Given to the use of vulgar, coarse, or abusive language; foul-mouthed.” Please any sentence I have written that meets that definition, as I am unaware of any sentence of mine that qualifies.
Secondly, saying “I'm going to take the position that they are untrue" would be entirely reasonable, but that is not what you have been doing. You have been making absolute denials of the facts, and then compounded the problem by denying those absolute denials after the fact with the curious rational that in your mind, you actually meant only to express you fallible, uninformed opinion.
You write,
Don't you think it's fair, Dennis, for the burden of proof to be on those who accuse others of wrongdoing, and who seek to impose moral responsibility on the alleged wrongdoers?
In a court of law, certainly. And I also accept that one can personally take that position in all walks of life as well; even on blogs, but that is a philosophical position that cannot be unilaterally imposed on everyone else. And even if one takes that position, that does not justify making absolute assertions that one is not personally qualified to make.
However, I think that blogs should be more informal and open to speculative inquiries than the court system, as we have no authority whatsoever to enforce any decision. And whenever one makes an irresponsible assertion, or offers an unreasonable argument, then others should call them out on the merits of that statement, or lack thereof. But to argue that one should not even voice an unflattering thought short of hard proof that will stand up in court, I think, is ridiculous. Furthermore, I think you apply that rigid standard only when your pet institutions are being attacked.
All that being said, as you know, I still agree with you most of the time, and greatly appreciate what you bring to this blog.
Sorry! That should read: "Please produce any sentence I have written that meets that definition, as I am unaware of any sentence of mine that qualifies."
Wow!. “S.D.A. ecclesiastical panjandrums.” Shades of the vocabulary of my good friend Cliff Goldstein. I guess I’m too much of a liberal to know what “panjandrums” means. I had to look it up in a dictionary. “panjandrums. Noun. A powerful personage or pretentious official. First used in 1856 as a burlesque title of an imaginary personage.” Thus we can rewrite this phrase as “Pretentious Seventh-day Adventist ecclesiastical officials.” Hmm. I wonder who might fit into that description?.
“S.D.A. ecclesiastical panjandrums”
Hmmm. …If advice from “S.D.A. ecclesiastical panjandrums” are the best the SDA church can offer, then why should anyone, including SDAs, (let alone the FBI) give them any heed?
OTOH, if the “panjandrums” are NOT the best the church can offer, then why offer only the “panjandrums” to the FBI when so many lives are at stake?
Just wondering about the underlying logic of Nathan’s argument.
The FBI wanted to listen in on CNN's calls in order to 'resolve' the standoff. CNN wouldn't cooperate with them – and for good reason too. Had the Adventist Church 'assisted' the FBI in this matter, the church would have been dragged into the fray in a bad light, seeing how the FBI assault on the compound turned out. It was definitely not appropiate for the church to get involved in the Koresh criminal investigation and eventual shootout. It was a catch 22 and I don't blame them for not getting involved.
22oct1844:
“The FBI wanted to listen in on CNN's calls in order to 'resolve' the standoff. CNN wouldn't cooperate with them – and for good reason too.”
I accept CNN’s reasoning (assuming this claim to be accurate), but what does that have to do with the church’s refusal to give the FBI any information on the apocalyptic mentality of the Branch Davidians? All the GC had to know is what the GC officers would have experienced in the course of being educated in the SDA system as I was. But I have little doubt that Institutes like BRI had already been briefed about what had happened in churches like the Diamond Head SDA church in Oahu, Hawaii which had lost many members to the Branch Davidians.
“Had the Adventist Church 'assisted' the FBI in this matter, the church would have been dragged into the fray in a bad light, seeing how the FBI assault on the compound turned out.”
This is circular reasoning. The whole point of assisting the FBI would have been to prevent such a worse case scenario from happening in the first place.
“It was definitely not appropiate for the church to get involved in the Koresh criminal investigation and eventual shootout.”
This is a total non-sequitur. Who said anything at all about getting involved in the “Koresh criminal investigation and eventual shootout”??
These are desperate arguments to extract one from a logically and ethically untenable situation. It accomplishes nothing of the kind, but only further exposes the unethical behavior of the church in that situation.
That being said, I am still not blaming the church for what happened. My point again is that they did not act with integrity and honesty when the situation begged for someone to step up and tell the FBI they were making a horrible mistake in their tactics. By implication, organizational CYA has the highest ethical priority for conservatives.
Finally, as to the negative fallout that might result from admitting that the church knew the apocalyptic mentality of the Davidians, this would have given the church a chance to tell the world about the correct version of their wonderful doctrine of the Imminent Second Coming of Jesus, which conservatives presumably would love to preach from the rooftop, so that would only be another evangelistic opportunity!
Or is that now a doctrine that they want to hide under a bushel? Maybe that is the real problem.
The FBI has dossiers on every organization, private or religious. They have psychological reports on the
uniqueness of each. Doubt seriously they would have trusted an SDA analysis of Koresh, in as much as
he & his followers were current or former members of SDA. Did SDA leadership explore or have in contingent readiness, planning for contact or rescue of members, seduced by aberant theology known to be divisive and dangerous?? Yes, Timo, a tragic loss.
How do you suppose the FBI prepares those dossiers except by asking people who they think ought to know those things? Unless Reid was lying to me, (I have no reason so suppose that) he told me the FBI had come inquiring about that very thing, and he sent them away empty handed. Are you saying that the FBI came inquiring to Reid and BRI with the presupposition that they would ignore anything he told them? That makes no sense to me, and you have no way of knowing such things. Naturally, however, it goes without saying that they would evaluate Reid's information very critically.
I am with you, Timo. I am totally disgusted with the conservatives shameless equation of “political posturing” and doing what is “politically convenient” with being morally upright and ethically responsible. I am far from an idealist, but I expect more than shameless Machiavellian reasoning being equated with righteous behavior from the church.
I disagree with Nathan’s notion that it took “great expertise” on the inner workings of the Koresh circle to know that the FBI was pursuing exactly the wrong course of action. That is apologetic nonsense.
Dave Larsen had it exactly right in his 5/18/2013 public response to John Cobb in Loma Linda. I would say that virtually every SDA who has read Early Writings, and believes in the Great Controversy motif, or has been in contact with traditionalist SDAs, knows how paranoid they are about how things are supposed to be during the time of trouble, with true SDAs being hunted down in the mountains by a Satanically controlled government. The FBI could hardly have created a scenario closer to what SDAs fantasize about if they had tried. Hasn’t 22oct1844 or Nathanb read Early Writings?
Where did I say it took "great expertise" on the inner workings of the Koresh circle for Church leaders to offer opinions, Dennis? Any expertise will do. And they had none. They had, at best, nothing but what you, David Larsen, I, and thousands of other Adventist Americans had – just lay opinions and conjecture, nothing more. What makes you think the FBI did not believe Koresh was paranoid and delusional? Surely they were not so stupid that they did not have a pretty good understanding that religious cult leaders are always paranoid and delusional, with a strong apocalyptic beliefs. Just because someone bungles a job doesn't mean they are lacking in data or knowledge.
As I asked an hour ago, in reponse to your posting yesterday, tell us what G.C. leaders knew about Koresh's mindset, or the mindsets of his followers, that was not readily apparent to anyone who listened to Koresh or read his writings.
Nathan writes:
"…tell us what G.C. leaders knew about Koresh's mindset, or the mindsets of his followers, that was not readily apparent to anyone who listened to Koresh or read his writings.
Truly, this is a self defeating challenge!
The Branch Davidians could not be intimidated by the FBI show of force (contrary to FBI expectations), so the whole place went up in flames and basically everybody inside died. Certainly the FBI “listened to Koresh and read his writings,” yet, by the benefit of hindsight, they obviously employed the very opposite strategy as that which could have succeeded.
Nathan, do you suppose anybody in the GC, or anybody who knows how traditional SDAs think, thought,
“If only the FBI had brought a few more big tanks, more guns, or played the tapes of dying rabbits a little louder, then Koresh and his followers would throw down their weapons come running out with their hands up, pleading,
“Oh, please don’t hurt us! We give up! Satan just has too many tanks for us to fight off!”
Show me one GC officer who thought that more guns and bigger tanks could have succeeded, or went on record with thoughts to that effect.
What do you mean, Timo, by "…we did, and continue, to lose credibility…" Credibility with whom? And what is your evidence for this assertion? If, as you seem prepared to concede, the church bore no moral responsibility for Koresh's mindset and behaviors, and if the church had no expertise to opine on his possible course of conduct, on what basis do you conclude that there were any moral or ethical failures, much less severe ones?
Corporate institutions have to be very careful in choosing when to speak and how to speak. The fact that there may be qualified individuals employed by an institution who have something relevant to offer does not create an obligation on the part of the institution to make those individuals the institution's mouthpiece, especially when there are likely to be differing perspectives within the institution among Board members, employees, and officers of good will. We must be careful about imputing to corporate bodies the personal characteristics and moral obligations that apply to sentient, moral beings.
I remember last Fall being invited to participate in a vigorous email discussion with various denominational attorneys about whether the SDA Church should file amicus briefs in the gay marriage/DOMA cases pending before the Supreme Court. I strongly argued against it despite the fact that I am a firm supporter of both DOMA and Proposition 8. We need to be careful to remember that not every opinion that we should be a moral opinion, and what we perceive as a moral issue for ourselves does not necessarily create a moral mandate for others, or for the institutions with which we are affiliated.
Grieving for those lost doesn't make you a lib, Timo. But grief often finds an outlet in misplaced blame and anger. This is why analysis, assignment of responsibility, and corrective measures, if necessary, are best carried out by those who have no personal stake in the events which are at issue, with clearly defined principles and standards for data gathering, fact-finding, and proof.
I must say that I would second Dennis suggestion that Nate and anyone else who questions that a large part of Koresh's mind set came directly from classic Adventism read EGW's Early Writings and then come back and say that there is no connection. How about if GC leaders could have given a copy of Early Writings to law enforcement people?
"How about if GC leaders could have given a copy of Early Writings to law enforcement people?"
Now there's a capital idea! And how about some vegelinks and soy milk to make it more digestible? And you think religious people are particularly prone to irrational thinking, Erv. Wow! How about having them read the book of Revelation? There are some pretty wild images there. A large part of David Koresh's mindset came from classic Christianity as well. Again, Erv, you refuse to connect the dots on the picture you seem to think is there.
Knowing that a large part of Koresh's DNA was Adventist – a claim I have never disputed – does not help us to understand the nature of the psychopathogen which attached to the Adventist host. Do you think that giving a mountaineering guide to someone planning to climb Kilamanjaro would help them to understand, much less predict, volcanoes? You, Erv, seem to reflexively default to the simplistic conclusion that Adventism must bear some culpable responsiblity for David Koresh, without bothering to consider whether Adventism might simply have been a host rather than the pathogen. Of course Adventism was a more vulnerable host to the Koresh pathogen than say Universal Unitarianism. But then Unitarianism has is uniquely vulnerable to a completely different group of pathogens.
Clumsy logic may well resonate well with the chorus which assumes that everything bad that can be associated with religion in general, or Adventism in particular, is the Church's fault. Such thinking not only plays into the hands of those who would make the church subservient to state interests, but it underscores the reality that those who subscribe to it are simply true believers of another stripe.
Clumsy, rather than fuzzy. i like that Nathan.
Koresh's 'crackpot' behavior, to me, could largely be attributed to social influences and experiences rather than Church Doctrines focused on Apocalypse. It is in this area of his life that one cannot help but find some reasons explaining his mindset and outrageous behavior. It is Society that produces all sorts of 'crackpots' – not the Church. The Church through Christ seeks to remedy this – but not by force. This is one good reason the Adventist Church stayed out of the Koresh fracas.
Koresh's story is a tragic one. His mom had him at fourteen as a single mom. His father left them for someone else. He never knew his father and was raised by a harsh stepfather. He described his early childhood as lonely and it has being is alleged that he was once raped by older boys. Dyslexia caused him to do poorly at school and he later dropped out of high school as a result. At nineteen he made a sixteen year old pregnant. She left him because she considered him unfit to raise a child. Koresh later became a Born Again Christian in the Southern Baptist Church but soon thereafter joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church where his mom worshipped. It should also be noted that in his early twenties Koresh went to Los Angeles for a short spell in order become a rock star. He was somewhat of a sex pest and on his return hounded the pastor for his daughter to be his wife, citing Isaiah 34 as a basis for his antics. He was expelled from the congregation as a result of his unacceptable behavior.
Koresh wasn’t an Adventist for such a long time as many would presuppose. Yeah, sure he may have had a stint but that was it. Branch Davidian is where Vernon Wayne Howell eventually saw himself as a militant ‘David’ of the Davidic Kingdom and an ‘anointed messiah’ (Koresh) who together with his gun toting followers was charged with attempted murder for the shooting of George Roden as a result of a power struggle within their ranks. As a self appointed ‘messiah’ he also chose the name Koresh in order to signify death. So he had a death (suicidal) wish too. It is for good reason therefore that The Davidian’s were expelled from the church in the thirties from which the Branch brand later emerged. Koresh also married teenager Rachel Jones with whom he had three children. He left behind a legacy of hurt, abuse and bad experiences for all those who got in his clutches including his children.
Add to this his child abuse charges, his affair with Lois Roden, gun running, violent behavior, twisting of bible teachings to suite his own sicko behavior and temperament, the shootout with George Roden, his sexual relationship with fourteen year old Karen Doyle and twelve year old Michelle Jones, among many others, showed without doubt that Koresh had major behavioral and psychological issues which could hardly be attributed to his brush with Adventism.
Was it societal influences coupled with harsh social experiences that created such a menace? I would say yes…
Dear 22,
You are basically repeating again the argument you made about two months ago, and cherry picking the data to find as many non-SDA elements as you can, and you of course always find only what you are looking for.
What I appreciate is that you properly qualify your statements as being subjective opinions. I have no quarrel with that.
Ok Mr Hokama
You assert that I have cherry picked 'non-SDA elements.' So just what are the SDA elements you say I have missed? You tell me sir.
Dear Ms, Miss, or Mr. 22,
I have already directly answered your challenge in several previous posts about two months ago. (I regret that this website does not post the exact date of previous posts, making it difficult to find specific posts.) Since you obviously missed it or have forgotten it, I suppose I could post it again, even though it insults the intelligence of those who have actually read the history of this blog. Let me apologize in advance for those who have actually been following this blog from the beginning.
The short answer is that what you have left out of your calculus is the dynamics of the doctrine of Present Truth.
From here on this is a reprint of a previous post:
According to Paul, no food was unclean. At first, EW accepted that, as do most Protestants. But then EW got a health message vision, and so pigs were again declared unclean. Thus she was able to contradict Paul (and therefore scripture) with impunity, all the while claiming to be biblical. Paul in turn, had contradicted the book of Leviticus, which Christianity considers inspired. But Paul presumably had the right to cancel Leviticus on the basis of “Present Truth,” much to the dismay of James of Jerusalem.
In the New Testament, Matthew takes the text of Isa. 7:14 and declares it to be a prophecy of Jesus, despite the fact that in its historical context, that would make absolutely no sense. Matthew was presumably authorized to make this anti-historical assertion on the basis of “Present Truth.” If he is not, then there is no prophecy of Jesus anywhere in the Old Testament.
I heard (and preserved on video)Vernon Howell, a.k.a, David Koresh ask us,
“If it (EW successor) is not me, then show me who it is, and I will go follow that person (I am only paraphrasing, as I have not looked at that material in almost 20 years).”
The notion that God provided God’s people with the a real prophet EW, way back in the 19th century, but has left his people without one in the “real” last days of the 20th-21st century is an under-estimated non-sequitur in SDA theology, given that she was originally touted as the prophet for the last days. This is why historic SDAs were so vulnerable to his appeal. This is why even my seminary trained father felt that appeal in his gut. (EW’s supposed answer that “my books will continue to speak for me,” (paraphrase) rings hollow, since Protestants claim the same thing for the Bible, in arguing for the closed canon.)
So once Koresh is accepted as a prophet who has the mantle of EW, then he also has the authority to dispense “Present Truth” that may contradict any prophet (including EW) that preceded him. This is a “new dispensation” with new rules. It might be called an “interim ethic,” which only holds until the new dispensation takes over. If this new dispensation idea is invalid, then so is Christianity itself, since it presupposed its validity. The question is, if you open the door to new dispensations, then how do you pull up the ladder and say “From now on, no more!!”?
So I asked Koresh if he had divine visions.
He said, “Yes!”
I asked him if they were like dreams.
He replied, “They seem more real than real life! It seems more real than you and I talking now!”
Because of the doctrine of Present Truth, it is nonsense to argue that if the Branch Davidians have practices that SDAs disapprove, that it can have no theological relationship. If one denies Present Truth, then EW has no leg to stand on. These are the two horns of the dilemma. Which do you prefer?
Sorry! That should have been: "Dear Mrs, Miss, or Mr. 22,"