A Stillborn Presentation?
by Andrew Hanson
By Andy Hanson, November 29, 2013
Could this be Ted Wilson’s outline of the presentation that Orville Parchment persuaded him not to give at the last meeting of the Executive Committee?*
“Of course Adventists believe all the other Christian stuff about loving your neighbor, etc. However, SDAs, not to be confused with the Seventh Day Adventists or the Seventh Gay Adventists, or any other corporate entity, are God’s remnant people because:
“We go to church on Saturday except on certain islands in the South Pacific.
“We eat kosher as far as meat is concerned.
“We do not work on Saturday, with the exception of preachers, ladies who prepare church potlucks, Herbert Blomstedt, and employees of Adventist medical and educational facilities.
“We believe the Patriarchal Timeline chronicles actual historical events, including the construction of the Tower of Babel in 2242 B.C.
“We believe that Jesus is currently in a Heavenly Sanctuary deciding which human beings deserve to be saved; this heavenly research began in 1844.
“We believe Ellen White’s words, included in the Clear Word Bible, are the world’s final and authoritative prophetic voice.
“We believe that Jesus’ Second Coming is imminent and will occur in my lifetime when a Heavenly determined number of SDAs experience Revival and Reformation. In addition, Jesus will appear as pictured on the cover of the Centennial Special Edition of the 1944 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald.
“I also believe that 20j3h wy08oe h05 g3 04reqh3e.”
Apparently, this last “belief” was considered so controversial that it was encrypted. However when I accidently placed my hands on the keyboard with my index fingers on the “f” and “j” instead of the“r” and “u”…..
– – –
*A copy of this outline, purportedly handwritten, was discovered by an anonymous AT mole at GC headquarters stamped “NOT A GOOD IDEA/op” in trash being collected for shredding. I cannot vouch for its authenticity.
For satire lovers, this is a very good one!
No, I did not write this article. I swear! If I was to use a pen name, I wouldn't borrow it from a nice fellow like Andy Hanson, it would be Bugs, or something akin to that. Anyway, I am not clever enough to create the encryption at the end nor do I have access to GC dumpsters. Watch out, Andy, Kevlar protection is required, incoming missiles from humorless launchers!
Bugs for those of us who don't know you, why would we suspect you to be working at the GC HQ?
It's my feeble humor attempt stemming from my criticism of Adventism, on some of my posts on this forum that weren't satire. I "ruffled some feathers" and figured I might be suspected of any post containing even the appearance of judgment. I've never visited the GC headquarters and have no interest in dumpster diving there or anywhere!
I do wonder about the GC dumpster. I think one could do a PhD going through all the various trash. There could be anthropological aspects on the food waste, looking at the types of food the SDA Princes of the Church are eating – are they subscribing in their own lives to the health message? Then we could look theological aspects, such as Andy's discourse above.
I know archaelogists consider ancient garbage sites social and cultural goldmines. I reckon looking through the GC dumpster would give us a very honest look at the SDA world leadership.
Or if we could break through their server firewall and read their deleted items…
This fine satire will test the hypothesis that fundamentalists have no sense of humor. Let's see if we can collect some data here to test that hypothesis.
I think there is an Ellen White quite they like to tot out about not being sarcastic. Supposedly Jesus was utterly devoid of humour. Of course, we probably don't realise we may well be the heavenly joke.
I wonder if Mr. Ferguson would please provide a source for the view that "Jesus was utterly devoid of humour." I hope it is not something that EGW wrote.We have enough problematical statements associated with her name. I trust this is not another one.
I don't think they have a biblical source. With most ultra-conservative Adventist stances, the support is tradition (i.e. 'historica Adventism' of 19th Century American pioneers) and the oral commentary on the law (i.e. Ellen White). I think the White quotes they go off is as follows:
Latitudinarian
Registered: 06/21/00
Posts: 6570
Loc: Silver Spring, MD, USA
"Sarcasm and playing upon the words of an opponent are all out of God's order." – GW 156
"When tempted to say sarcastic things, refrain." – GW 467
"The cold, critical, sarcastic spirit which has found place in your hearts has driven out the love of Jesus. Expel this spirit which is not of Christ, supply the vacuum with the spirit of Jesus, and you will then be vessels unto honor, workmen for God who need not to be ashamed." – {1888 937.1}
"When in your discourses, you denounce with bitter sarcasm that which you wish to condemn, you sometimes offend your hearers, and their ears are turned from hearing you further. Carefully avoid any severity of speech that might give offense to those you desire to save from error; for it will be difficult to overcome the feelings of antagonism thus aroused. . . ." {Ev 304.2}
Come on folks. You have to admit there is a lot of wisdom here, even if it is in 19th-centurey language.
Yes if we understand Sister White's point, she was not suggesting Jesus (or we) had no humour. Her point is about the danger of mocking sarcasm. Jokes can be funny, but when we become the but of other people's jokes they don't seem so funny any more. For example, you no longer see white men dancing around on stage on the TV going around with boot polish on their face (making fun of black entertainers) – do you?
Good shot, Stephen! We might the be the terrestrial version of the ground hog pop up-game at Chucky Cheese where kids strike the heads of toy animals back into a hole for points as they pop up!
The God I have come to know has a wonderful sense of humor and is the absolute master of pulling-off a good joke that also delivers a rebuke.
For example, several months ago my team was headed-out to do some heavy yard work and tree-trimming at the home of a member family. I had made specific promises to two people about bringing certain tools for them to use. But when I arrived, I quickly realized that I had forgotten them. My solution was to call my wife and ask her to bring them. She could bring the smaller ones. "But I really don't think I can fit the wheelbarrow in the van," she said. As she spoke those words a couple arrived to help. Tied to the trailer behind their car was a larger wheelbarrow than the one I had forgotten. I looked up and in my mind could see God looking down at me with a big smirk on his face, suppressing his laughter and shaking a finger at me as he said, "Didn't I tell you I had everything under control?" All I could do was apologize for having not trusted him. As we worked over the next several hours we saw God work in some amazing ways.
Its pretty hard to not love a God who does things like that.
"SDAs, not to be confused with the Seventh Day Adventists or the Seventh Gay Adventists"
I didn't understand this bit. How are SDAs (Seventh-day Adventists) different from Seventh Day Adventists – except a capital 'D' and a hyphon? Or is that the point?
“I also believe that 20j3h wy08oe h05 g3 04reqh3e.”
———
If I am correct in decoding this it would be that the blog writer is taking a swipe at GC President Pastor Ted Wilson in saying that he believes that 'women should not be ordained' (although the number 0 on my traditional 'qwerty' keyboard isn't quite in the same place as the self appointed progressive one possibly used by the encripting agent). Firstly, the GC President has a right to his belief as an individual and secondly, as far as I know, he has not stated this officially as a member of the church nor as a representative of the world church. If he does believe that 'women should not be ordained' (I'm assuming that the agent writing the blog is referring to ordained in terms of being ordained as a Pastor) then he will be in line with our historical position as a church and a biblically based one which is not swayed by cultural perceptions guided by the secular man-made laws of the US Government or their First World counterparts.
Trevor Hammond
oops encripting was supposed be encrypting…
Satire? Rather ambitious to call it that I would say – but depending of course on which side of the fence one sits, or whether one is on the receiving end of something denigrating – and that would include (and influence) what one finds humourous. Racist jokes, for example, may be deemed pretty funny by some but nonetheless distasteful to say the least. All the points listed in this blog seem to intentionally misrepresent Pastor Ted Wilson and the world church, and that, I would say, is no laughing matter.
Dr Taylor has put forth his hypothesis that fundamentalists have no sense of humour – which to me is a strawman. Fundamentalists just have better taste. In his hypothesis Dr Taylor is most likely referring to conservative Christians which I assume is used in a derogatory way – a trademark of so-called progressives. But aren't we all fundamentalists in one way or another? Even fundamentalist does have some 'fun' in it!
An example of something funny yet one-sided in humour would be this:
A deacon wishing to put his church members faith to the test hires a devil's outfit with horns, pitch fork and tail. He gets in through the window of the church and shouts: "I'm the devil and I've come to get you!" Very quickly the all church membes run for their lives except for a few huddled in the corner. The deacon seeing them says: "Not afraid of me are yer!" One chap at the front of the group says to the devil: "Sir please don't harm us – we're progressives. We've been on your side all the time."
22 – This is probably the best post that I have read from you.
"Sarcasm and playing upon the words of an opponent are all out of God's order." – GW 156
Yes if we understand Sister White's point, she was not suggesting Jesus (or we) had no humour. Her point is about the danger of mocking sarcasm. Jokes can be funny, but when we become the but of other people's jokes they don't seem so funny any more. For example, you no longer see white men dancing around on stage on the TV going around with boot polish on their face (making fun of black entertainers) – do you?
Usually the rule of thumb is you can mock yourself and your own but not 'the other'. For example, social convention now suggests that black comedians can use the 'N word' but white people cannot.
So the question is, can we mock the GC and President Wilson in particular as our own – as 'us' – or are they part of the 'other'?
Religion is a perfect system almost created for saracasm. If we are unable to laugh at ourselves we are too deadly serious, and no one wants to be around a deadly serious religious believer for long.
Religious discourse is not a life and death matter!
Right on, Elaine. A very successful car sales manager friend once told me you can say whatever you want to a customer as long as you do it with a smile on your face. He lived it with great success. I have a smile on my face when I write on this forum, especially when a critique is sprouting forth. Hopefully it shows in my writing. Yes, I LOL (laugh out loud) when I am critiqued. Re
Right on, Elaine. A very successful car sales manager friend once told me you can say whatever you want to a customer as long as you do it with a smile on your face. He lived it with great success. I have a smile on my face when I write on this forum, especially when a critique is sprouting forth. Hopefully it shows in my writing. Yes, I LOL (laugh out loud) when I am critiqued. Re
You can't be a thin-skinned true believer without getting lots of bruises and scars; or you can learn to laugh at foolishness wherever it may be.
Yes and no.
You could say the same about, say African Americans or Jews. When you were young Elaine, words like the 'N' word or 'kite' were common. African Americans and Jews, as well as many other groups, indeed had to be thick-skinned.
Or to take gender. When you were young Elaine, back in the 'Mad Men' days, it wasn't uncommon for men to tap the bottoms of their secretaries. To make it in the then man's-world, women had to be thick-skin. Just ask Margaret Thatcher.
And yet today, those sort of excuses don't fly anymore. We expect respect now on the basis of race and gender. Why do you think mocking degredation is ok when it comes to religion then?
Again as I said above, today's social convention is you can only mock yourself or your own group. Thus, African American comedians can and commonly do use the 'N word' but there is hell is a whitr person used that term – and rightly so.
So as far as mocking the GC and President Wilson goes, only those who consider him 'their President' would, by polite social convention, be entitled to mock him as 'one of us'. I can complain about my family but you better not say a bad word against them.
Thus, it really depends on who is doing the mocking. I presume Andy considers President Wilson 'his' President, which would make his satire entirely appropriate. But I don't think it necessarily polite for ex-Adventists to do so.
Mr Ferguson: "I presume Andy considers President Wilson 'his' President, which would make his satire entirely appropriate. "
———–
Or maybe not? If one considers himself a Christian then would it be appropiate to mock Jesus? I don't think so!
Not appropriate to mock Jesus? Does Jesus have a quick temper, a short fuse? Maybe sensitive feelings? Is he waiting with a hammer for any chance to raise a knot on our heads, teach us a lesson? Would he be embarrassed by taking him lightly? Sounds like a crotchety old grump, Super Guy at his most sensitive!
There is a real danger in mocking Allah. His agents will kill you.
Try your worst, you can't actually mock Jesus, make him angry. Angering his agents is not difficult but they represent no (Islamic type) danger.
Any God that is affected by my anger, mocking, disbelief, ridicule, or skepticism, is way too small, not worth one second of speculation in my short life, about his possible tantrums or passive aggression displays.
I'm not advocating mocking in any form (except feel free to mock me!). The God of Love is way too big to be concerned about universe creation and itty bitty carp that emits from orifices of mankind.
Surely, you are not equating Pres. Wilson with Jesus?
Dear Mrs. Nelson
The fact that you would say this implies that you have entirely missed what I said.
I consider myself a Christian but not a Wilsonian. I do not mock Jesus nor do I mock Ted Wilson. I pray to Jesus and I pray for Ted Wilson. At my baptism I took a vow of loyalty to Jesus. So far I have not been asked to take a vow of loyalty to Ted Wilson.
I did see this article as satire, employing the insider's jargon that can make for good satire. I do hope that Ted Wilson is not beyond the point of being able to laugh at himself. Beyond that point is not a healthy place to be – we all need to be able to laugh at ourselves. I could also show you many plays on words in the Bible including examples of both "potty humor" and "porn sarcasm" (1 Kings 22:24-25, Ezekiel 23:20, Galatians 5:12).
For myself I would actually agree with much of the content of this "speech". Being an SDA PK and still a practicing SDA, I do like to joke about my church. I often tell people that in our Preacher's home Sabbath was our day of worship and Sunday was our day of rest 8-). My dad certainly worked harder on Sabbath than any other day of the week, as did my mother and sometimes the rest of us (eg during evangelixtic crusades). And to my Jewish friends it makes no sense that I avoid pork and shellfish, but do not practice other aspects of Kosher (yes they have explained to me how to look for the Rabbinical symbols on processed foods). Or perish the thought that for "historical" SDAs the IJ is an "Adventist Purgatory" that we go through before death to avoid hell later, whereas the Catholics wait until after death to go through Purgatory 8-). Or that most Christians get to go to heaven when they die, but Adventists have to wait for Jesus to come back 8-). Or that it is only swimming on Sabbath if you go in over your knees 8-). Or that a Catholic friend used to call one of my wife's house plants a "Wandering Seventh-day Adventist" 8-).
So I guess I also fail to see your point, Trevor. Do you ever make a joke at your own expense or laugh at yourself? Do you ever find any humor in our quirky SDA culture or beliefs? When was the last time you had the pleasure of discovering that you were wrong, and learning from your mistake? Or does the slightest possibility that you or Ted might be wrong simply make you angry?
Possibly.
God's ways are not mans ways. It bothers me not if God ever laughs. i don't recall that while on Earth, Jesus ever laughed, even when Peter attempted to walk on water. Although we are told that Jesus wept. We are informed that there is joy in heaven, when a sinner repents, accepts everlasting life, by faith in the Light.
Psalm 100, "make a joyful noise unto the Lord; Serve the Lord with gladness: come before His presence with singing. It is a human trait to be happy, joyful, and yes, definitely enjoy humor. Humor that is in good taste, that can cause belly laughs in some. I've read on the internet, statements, that if God can't, or won't laugh, what good is heaven? Such an attitude, i suggest comes from those who already have made their minds up about the Almighty. Take the world, but give me Jesus.
Jim: 'I did see this article as satire, employing the insider's jargon that can make for good satire.'
That's the key for me. Only 'insiders' can use satire. To mock 'outsiders' on the basis of race, gender, disability and yes, religion or creed, is just plain wrong and not acceptable in the 21st Century.
Again, satire by Andy and other 'insiders' is fine. In fact, strong and healthy democracies are very much based on satire. I have often thought political cartoonists in the newspapers are the biggest protectors of democracy. I don't see why it should be any different?
In fact, crticising one's leaders, including with satire, might arguably it is a type of ancient prophetic role. But again, to let 'outsiders' mock us is another story (you listening you ex-Adventists), as Balaam discovered.
Mentioning Balaam: remember it was the ass that spoke!
Yes, and the ass showed what an ass Balaam was, for attempting to mock in God's name Israel, to which he didn't belong.
The best comedians today: Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and many others are not "insiders" for most of their material. Stewart, a Jew, satirizes all religions; Colbert, a Catholic, also makes fun of the Pope and other religions. It's all in good fun and religion offers such a wealth of topics for satire and it is not derogatory, just laughable. Mormons even made a hit show on Broadway about their religion. Great fun!
The 'best' comedians are not always in good taste. It might all be 'good fun' to 'outsiders' but not so good to 'insiders'. It's not always that much fun being the but of other people's jokes.
If you want to see comedians who push the boundaries, I suggest watching the Jeslenik offensive. It makes fun of the most inappropriate things – deliberately. It makes fun of Sep 11 victims, victims of rape, victims of sexual abuse etc. Go watch that and tell me if you think there should be a line in comedy, and that some things really are beyond the pale.
Again, do you think it is ok for comedians to ever use the 'N' word today? Yes or no? And if yes, who can use it – black comedians of themselves and of other African Americans? Or do you still have a pre-Civil Rights mindset, that it is ok for white people to call black people 'N*gg*ers'?
And if you don't think it is ok to be overtly racist, to make jokes about people on account of race, why do you think it is ok to openly and deliberately mock other religions? Shouldn't a modern tolerant society respect everyone as much based on religion as race? What about religions that are also races – are you ok with anti-semetic jokes also?
Is it ok to make fun of Barak Obama's race, like people who wear those T-shirts with monkeys on the front and then suggest that is Barak Obama? What about drawing the President of China as a squinty-eyed China-man characterture? If the answer is no, why do you think it is similarly ok to lampoon Ted Wilson, also a President, but this time of a religious group?
What century are you living in? Could I say perhaps the 19th Century, on account of your age? Is it ok if I made agest jokes, or jokes about how dumb Americans are with your simplified spelling and tendency to bomb any country that looks at you funny? Do you understand how the rest of the world understands and lampoons you all?
So where do you say we draw the line on satire – or do you think there are no lines? I know it is a difficult and sometimes fuzzy question, but I think there are lines based on common decency and respect – don't you think?
Is it possible to satire someone's beliefs or opinions or actions without attacking one's person? That depends a lot on the person. But you are satiring things where they presumably have a fair amount of control and are prepared to take responsibility, otherwise they cannot be a leader.
Attacking Ted Wilson's race or ethnicity or appearance or gender or dress and grooming would be dis-respectful in my opinion. He has no choice over the first three and limited choice over the last two given the demands of his position. Attacking a person's private life in general should be off-limits unless it relates directly to their public values or actions. Unfortunately this happen all too often behind closed doors if not in public (ask Jan Paulsen).
Unfortunately when you are a public figure, to the extent that you publicise your personal preferences and habits and lifestyle and values they will become an object of satire (fairly or unfairly). The Adventist Review might want to consider this when deciding whether to promote Ted as a model for parenting, lifestyle, leisure and home hobbies. Beware where the cult of personality might lead. What you (or others) brag about becomes fair game. Consider carefully what you serve as you must be prepared for the return volleys. Consider what can happen if (God forbid) one of your children stumbles in a public way despite your best parenting, or if despite your scrupulously healthful habits you become debilitated? Or if you are jet-lagged and forget which day it is when you mow your lawn (ask Don Schneider). This is the world we live in. Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. And be prepared to laugh or cry when you do (Don laughed).
PS – I think most frequent travelers have at least once awakened in a strange bed, having no idea where they are, or why they are there, or what time or day it is. I certainly have. Once when I was sleeping in a strange bed I had a vivid dream that there was a strange woman in my bed. At first the dream was rather pleasant, but then I began to wonder what my wife would think if she found out, or my family or friends. Imagine my consternation as I gradually awakened from this dream and realized there was a stranger in my bed. Imagine my great relief when my panic subsided and I realized that the strange bed was in my own bedroom and the strange woman was my wife!
Why would you even think that I would want to watch a show you find so offensive? Do you watch it? Is comedy expected to always be in "good taste" for every listener who might be offended? Those are the people who shouldn't watch such shows.
As for Stewart, he pushes home the inequity in our government system and how small time felonies receive long sentences while the Wall Street CEOs who have robbed us all of billions, got scot-free! Bill Maher wrote that he is mad that we taxpayers must subsidize the minimum wage worker for companies who are reaping huge profits; effectively making up a living wage for them because those corporations do not.
Have I ever given any reason for you to ask my reaction to racist jokes and questioning whether I have a pre-civil rights mentality?
I am deeply offended that you have asked such questions with the hidden accusations. We all appreciate different types of comedy and you only know my preferences which I have mentioned and the assumption that it includes all those you drag in is insulting.
'I am deeply offended that you have asked such questions with the hidden accusations.'
Elaine, perhaps then you were missing my own satire? And unlike Pres Wilson, at least you can defend yourself here. As I said, you seem to be upfront to mock others, which you say is just 'great fun', but don't enjoy being mocked. Have a little think about that. Something about planks and splinters perhaps?
If I recall correctly, and Mr 22 and others will back me up on this one, for someone who thinks such mocking is just 'great fun', you always seem to be the first to ask for the AT moderators to censor the comments of others.
'Have I ever given any reason for you to ask my reaction to racist jokes and questioning whether I have a pre-civil rights mentality?'
Elaine I am simply making a hyperbolic point, which you still haven't answered. My point is I WOULDN'T expect you to find racist jokes funny, because I HAVEN'T ever had cause to think you are racist. My point, then, is why you think mocking people on the basis of religion is just 'great fun'?
Why is racism = bad
But religious biggotry and religious mocking = great fun
As a young boy, in the latter 1920's and 1930's, i was generally a loner reclusive type, as i am still. i did a lot of observing and listening, it was so obvious living in the Southern states of the racial, black/white problems. The bigoted uneducated whites, who thought they were far superior to the blacks. Even the educated whites were equally biased, while not as openly vocal, but more deadly, as they organized and urged on the simple minded, while they slinked out of sight. This was a cultural inbred crime against humanity, taught by parents to children. And i'm sure the black folk taught their children how best to avoid the white man, so as to escape as much as possible the sometimes occasions when without notice they became a victim. Segregation was a constant daily struggle for the blacks, church, school, street cars, buses, resturants ball games, everything public. When walking downtown, on the sidewalks, young white punks walking several abreast, so the blacks would have to step down to the street to avoid contact. On the buses, the blacks had to always sit in the rear seats, and if the bus was full, they were to get up and give their seat to a white person. There was a sign in every bus stating "COLORED FOLK SIT TO THE REAR". In those days they were either referred to as Colored Folk, or the "N" word by whites. It was so surprising to me when they indicated a preferencefor Black? i have rarely ever seen a truly black pigmented person. Every possibleshade of brown, which interestingly, whites spend millions of dollars each year getting a tan. The most beautiful women i ever laid eyes on, for only a fleeting moment, was mulatto women, in NYC, as my car was going the opposite direction than an open roofed truck with perhaps 8-10 young beautiful women seated in the rear. We stopped for a few moments next to them. That was in June 1948, and their beautiful smiling faces haunts me even to this day. Turning the car around as soon as possible, i was never able to find them.
My uncles were racist. My grandfather was what i called a benevolent racist, he was a leadman over colored workers, had respect for them, and never to my memory used the "N" word, but, once he said to me, as we set off down the hill for a Sunday afternoon Bible study, "there's nothing wrong with a colored person, as long as they stay in their place".
Back in those days, there were many other derogatory nomenclatures for people of all ethnics, and supposed classes, ie: Dirty Irish or Micks, Dagos, Polocks, Okies Arkies, Hermans, White trash, Rednecks, Packies, Prunepickers, Pachucos, etc.
And there are still those who feel a need to feel macho and superior, to show their ignorance or lack of brotherly love, by resorting to baiting others.
Now, even now, since the successful legal victories of the 1960's, animosity is still hot and dangerous, by blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians, etc etc. Class struggles are always with us, seemingly no peace ever, on Earth. And it is most intense within the different groups, especially in ghettos, and Turf zone wars protected by highly organized gangs, of violence, dealing in drugs, robberies, violence, rape, murder. Often innocents are gunned down, while in the line of fire. One of the latest pastimes is "group crime", groups of young people, upwards of 50-60 assemble and then target a store, run in, grab, and run out with all they can carry, while the store help and customers step out of the way; and now the latest, three or four guys together walk along and suddenly one will strike a stranger as hard as possible trying to knock the stranger out, both males and females have been targeted, this has spread to cities all across the US, and there have been several fatalities.A black man by the name of Rodney King, said it all,"Can't we all just getta long".