Skip to content


  1. Elizabeth Wilson
    12 February 2015 @ 11:34 pm

    There is lots of food for thought in this “interview.” It’s amazing how much “Jim” White accomplished, at a relatively young age, in those horse-and-buggy days with the old printing press and the light of an oil lamp. Imagine if instant online publishing / blogging had been available to him.

    We should take his advice to heart, to treat the young people as a treasure in the community of faith: “Treat them well, listen to them well, bring them forward as quickly as possible into positions of strong relevance in your churches.”

    As Jim said, “Every generation has to rediscover Christianity for itself, and this is why I am set against long creeds and required lists of beliefs.” Amen.

  2. Bill Sorensen
    13 February 2015 @ 6:19 am

    Whether we like it or not, EGW has defined the basic fundamentals of what she and James White would call “bible Adventism”. And she stated some non-negotiable positions that can not be abandon nor changed by any future generation. Namely.

    Jesus entered the MHP in 1844 and began to judge the church.
    The 7th day is the Sabbath and will be the dividing issue between believers and unbelievers before the close of probation.
    The state of the dead.
    The 1000 year gap between the second and third coming of Jesus.

    We may name a few more, but these are non-negotiable positions that both her and James held that they perceived were not subject to change. Discussion, yes, change no. A more comprehensive view perhaps, but change, no. So you can talk about “big tent” and change and a more liberal view of the law of God.

    But along with the above list, we must added that she defined the IJ as being a judgment according to works of the moral law and this would be the deciding factor in salvation as to whether you were go to heaven or not. She and James held a high view of the human factor in salvation and when this is abandon, the heart and soul of bible Adventism is abandon and undermined by a false spirituality about the gospel and its meaning and application.

    You can no more “change” this concept than a Catholic can “change” their church to abandon the final authority of the Pope in spiritual matters to subject the church to the bible as the final authority.

    • Bill Castro
      13 February 2015 @ 9:41 am

      E.W. was not the “pope” of Adventism. It would be easy to change certain doctrines that she happened to believe in. The General Conference could simply modify the fundamental belief about spiritual gifts to make it clearer that her interpretation of scripture is not the only possible interpretation, and then any of the other doctrines could be changed (if they were to determine that the Bible actually supports a change or different doctrines). The General Conference this summer is already likely to revise the belief on spiritual gifts, and it will likely be watered down even more in 2020. However, on the other hand, to some degree there may be some place for distinctiveness among the denominations. You wouldn’t expect the Methodist Church to change its core Wesleyan doctrine and adopt Calvinism.

      • Bill Sorensen
        13 February 2015 @ 2:41 pm

        As soon as it was changed, Bill Castro, it would no longer be Adventism. Nobody changes EGW nor the SDA church. If they do, they are apostate SDA’s. If you can prove from the bible that she is wrong, then the SDA denomination was simply a cult from the beginning. But the fact is, modern Adventism is becoming a non-Christian cult because the church is abandoning not only EGW, but historic Protestantism.

        People like Kevin Paulson who attack the doctrine of original sin, and claim you are not born a sinner, and many like him, have abandon Protestantism. EGW endorses the doctrine of original sin just as she endorses the Trinity. She does not use the phrase, nor does she use the word “Trinity”. None the less, she clearly endorses both concepts.

        So, it is true that GYC is less than commendable in its spirituality on several issues. But the One Project is even more destitute of true bible Christanity. GYC perverts the law, and the One Project perverts the gospel. In which case, they may yet find a basis of unity outside scripture. And it may be on the false idea of the “infallibility of the church”. More than a few people worship the church and could never be persuaded that loyalty to Christ and the bible is not necessarily loyalty to the church. So they assume that loyalty to the church is, ipso facto, loyalty to Christ. And in this, they emulate Roman Catholicism.

        If the church departs from basic bible Adventism, and it is, then it will eventually be beyond usefulness for God to finish what He intended in the beginning. Few are willing to admit this.

  3. Bill Sorensen
    14 February 2015 @ 1:55 pm

    By the way, I am not specifically picking on Kevin Paulson. He simply represents many influencial people who hold the same view he does. And he is a public figure who posts on a number of forums. So I mentioned him as an example of one who holds the view he does.

    As for EGW, in her day she simply ran out of the church anyone who opposed what she considered a biblical view on any subject. Such as Kellogg, Canright, Conradi, and even Jones and Waggoner to name a few. Obviously, today we have no one with the same authority or spiritual insight to do what she did. The church did threaten Andreason, and run Brinsmead out and some of his advocates. And we all know about Dr. Ford who was perhaps the most influencial within the church organization.

    After the Ford fiasco, it was apparently decided that Pluralism was the best method to deal with diversity in doctrine. In which case, it is now impossible to discipline false doctrine on any level. So now we have “every wind of doctrine blowing” as EGW stated would happen.

    I don’t think the final outcome is discernable in every detail. Two parties have developed as she predicted. But I believe God will create a situation or allow one to develop that will eventually make clear who stands where and why. There will be no middle ground as our church now advocates in ministries like the One Project. It is a political move to hold the church united based on the idea that the dividing issues are not salvational anyway. Those who accept this evaluation will support the church no matter what. Those who think otherwise will continue to divide claiming the issue are salvational. We will soon see what materializes by way of the GC session later on this year.

  4. RonCorson
    14 February 2015 @ 2:32 pm

    Wow That list of beliefs he had is huge: “we had no list of Fundamental Beliefs, other than the Second Coming, the Pre-advent Judgment, the Law of God and Sabbath, and the Old Testament sanctuary service as a microcosm of the Plan of Salvation.”

    So that would be The soon second coming very imminent, The IJ and all its connections including the supposed timeline, The Law of God…which is what exactly is that all that they meant when they said the law and the testimony, that one is really big. The Sabbath…I assume by that they mean as opposed to the Sunday Sabbath but that is only because I know the Churches history, at least it is smaller. And last and certainly not least The old sanctuary service as the plan of salvation. That one is big and very subjective. So if he is against creeds it must mean he is against saying something specific because he has a terrible list of demanded beliefs!

    • Elaine Nelson
      14 February 2015 @ 3:15 pm

      And very difficult to explain. How do you explain to an interested individual the importance of the IJ which inextricably tied to 1844?

      Or how does one explain the ultimate importance of (code word meaning Sabbath) the Law given the Jews when there the Law has been replaced by Christ and there is no instruction to Christians that any day of the week is to be sacred?

      Or how to make the Israelite sanctuary service of offering animals relevant for Christians today?

      Today, with many added “Beliefs” there are many more requiring explanation: Why is EGW THE prophet as interpreted by Revelation and why is she of lesser importance than Joseph Smith, another prophet about the same time?

      Those are only a few that all bapismal candidates must first affirm for getting in the tank–not to become accepted as a Believer, but as an Adventist, which is much more difficult.

  5. Bill Sorensen
    14 February 2015 @ 6:34 pm

    “And very difficult to explain. How do you explain to an interested individual the importance of the IJ which inextricably tied to 1844?”

    Very easy, Elaine. I have a jail ministry and often explain the issue and its meaning. How is it many readily discern the point I teach and you, raised a SDA, don’t seem to have a clue?

    Since the IJ takes place in heaven, it must necessarily be a moral influence that stimulates those who listen to take seriously their relationship with God in light of a soon coming Savior and the close of probation before this event.

    If you don’t see the point, I could wonder how you see any relevance to the cross since for us who were not there, it was an historical event we did not witness and must accept it by faith according to scripture and some obscure historical accounts.

    There is no difference in principle. The main affirmation is found in the bible for both events. So, do you believe in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus? If so, why is the IJ obscure?

    All I can say is many who have never heard this explained see the issue clearly if someone knows the bible well enough to not only affirm the 1844 event, but explain its meaning and application. As a pastors daughter, you state you don’t know what it means? That’s really a sad commentary on your SDA education.

    As scripture says, “The way is so plain, wayfareing men, though fools, need not err therein.” It seems you reject the bible for the same reason you reject the IJ. I think PK’s often have a more difficult time because of all the hypocracy they see in the church. Look at J.R. Layman. He reflected the skeptcism people develop because of the church and the duplicity he saw all around him on a continual basis. I think he loved truth, but hated the duplicity. But don’t we all.

    • Serge Agafonoff
      14 February 2015 @ 11:44 pm

      Say Bill…… whatever did happen to JR? We used to have great chats on AT back in its early days. He once quoted an EGW reference to ‘tall majestic beings on planet ?Jupiter?’ I’ve not been able to find that in her published writings. If you’re reading JR, hope all is well, and can you enlighten us on that reference? Cheers, emonk with a laptop!

      • Bill Sorensen
        15 February 2015 @ 8:19 am

        JR died several years ago. He had the Adventist of Tomorrow forum but after his passing, it seems to have lost any traction or relevance. I enjoyed our dialogue and I used to close my forum comments with (The last Brinsmead standing.) It was kind of a joke between him and me.

        I stated the law was in effect 100% of the time, and thus the gospel was in effect 100% of the time.

        He agreed, and so I said I would not call him an antinomian if he would not call me a legalist based on our mutual affirmation of law and gospel. I never met him personally, and I think he drank too much, but I still hope by God’s grace to see him in heaven.

      • Elaine Nelson
        15 February 2015 @ 12:42 pm

        Are you speaking of J. Layman? I was on that site for several years and always enjoyed his comments. He died several years ago.

      • Serge Agafonoff
        15 February 2015 @ 4:06 pm

        Thanks for letting me know Bill, Elaine. I think we took each other a little less seriously back then. It was more, ‘fun?’ Guess now I’ll never find out where that ref is to the ‘tall majestic beings on Jupiter.’

        Say Bill, if you were the last Brindsmead standing, was that Mk 1 or Mk 2 or other? Bob is capable of learning and change. I say ‘is’ because he continues to thrive here in New South Wales, Australia. But I doubt he bothers with AT.

  6. RonCorson
    14 February 2015 @ 8:09 pm

    “Since the IJ takes place in heaven, it must necessarily be a moral influence that stimulates those who listen to take seriously their relationship with God in light of a soon coming Savior and the close of probation before this event.”

    What!? would not any statement of judgment do the same thing? You would hardly need the IJ or 1844.

    • Bill Sorensen
      15 February 2015 @ 8:22 am

      While the principle you stated is correct, Ron, it was the historical timing of this event that stimulated people to seek more earnestly to determine what was necessary for a fitness to be there. They only discovered the Sabbath, state of the dead, and other dynamic relevant truths after they understood the 1844 scenario of judgment.

      • RonCorson
        15 February 2015 @ 12:12 pm

        Well the Sabbath had been discovered well before by the 7th day Baptists and the state of the dead really has no significance to salvation. so I don’t think your theory really works.

        • Elaine Nelson
          15 February 2015 @ 12:43 pm

          Neither the state of the dead nor Sabbath obervance has anything to do with salvation although the church’s teaching say otherwise.

        • Bill Sorensen
          16 February 2015 @ 10:19 am

          But it was declared to be the final test of loyalty to God vs. Sunday. So, as I said, they dynamic of some truths were highly intensifed by the 1844 IJ. Thus, the 1844 event is non-negotiable for a knowledgeable SDA. Many still claim the name SDA today who EGW would call nominal Adventists. That is, Adventist in name only.

  7. JIM
    14 February 2015 @ 9:11 pm

    Wake up Seventh Day Adventist pull your head from the sand — Can’t you tell that you are teaching the Gospel plus Ellen G. White. This summer you will discover that God called many of us real and true Bible based Christians including well known Bible scholars to research the Seventh Day Adventist Church past and write a real and factual book because none of us researcher and investigators have an AX to grind. Attention: William Miller’s false prophecy concerning his prediction that Jesus was returning on October 22, 1843 and he did it again one year later because he said that he missed the true date by one year… of course Jesus didn’t return so he predicted another date of October 22, 1844… and Jesus didn’t return again… Maybe William Miller and his cohorts should have read Matthew Chapters 24 and 25 it would saved them a lot of embarrassment departures front their Church and Ellen G. White should have read Revelation 22: 18 and 19 and maybe she would not have written so much fiction and trash that was not supported by Scripture… for-instance the Seventh Day Adventist Doctrine and the 28 Fundamental Beliefs and much more that are also not supported by the Bible.
    Your SDA Church preaches the Gospel plus Ellen G. White and this why your church will be dead very soon you are teaching a lie and because God is tired of all your lies and your worshiping of Ellen G. White giving her the last word compared with the Bible and this goes on and on. You knot heads put your faith in Ellen G. White instead of Jesus Christ and why do you do that can’t you read the Bible? Remove everything that was said and written by Ellen G. White and rewrite your doctrine and your 28 Fundamental Beliefs… Hurry, but you still have Time… I hope? Look folks I know that Ellen G. White told you guys to not challenge her writings and spoken Word, did you ever wonder why it was only Ellen G White that was so arrogant to say such a thing. How stupid can she be for even saying such a thing and how st? and We have spent over 4 years in support of the Bible and have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the Seventh Day Adventist Church is not Biblical. This of course makes your Church a Cult. Ellen. G. White, her fiction writings, her input into the Seventh Day Adventist Church Doctrine and 28 Fundamental Beliefs are bogus at best. One of the most comical SDA Belief is Ellen G. White ignorant lie that the SDA Church is the Remnant Church which again is ridiculous. You guys spend most of your time defending all your ridiculous claims and boastful intentions and arrogant false beliefs and further your fiction writings of Ellen G. White the dead False prophetess that has an Estate that covers up much of Ellen G. White’s contradictions of the Bible and even herself. The Bible says that when you identify a false prophet or false prophetess you are to ignore them. The Seventh Day Adventist Church did not do that they glorified those that were false prophets and…

    • Jim Hamstra
      16 February 2015 @ 6:52 pm

      Well if that is the quality of your research on Miller, then I wonder about the rest of your book as well.

      It was not Miller who set any of the specific dates for the return of Jesus. This was done by some of his leading followers. The final date predicted by Joseph Bates was October of 1851.

      Miller did predict the Second Advent in or about 1843 and he was wrong – it didn’t happen. But don’t blame him for the excesses of some of his followers.

  8. Ervin Taylor
    15 February 2015 @ 8:47 am

    JM certainly uses the word “false prophet” many times in his criticism of EGW because she held theological views with which JM disagrees. On this basis, a number of biblical writers would be false prophets. For example, most of the New Testament writers believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. Sorry, that did not happen. Does JM view them as “false prophets”? Like them, EGW was human, believed in things to which many of us take great exception, had convenient lapses of memory about what had happened in the early years of the development of the SDA denomination, etc. etc. She exhibited many of the behaviors of many Biblical and post-biblical prophets–Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Luther King, Jr. and so on and on. Thus one might ask JM and other, what does that demonstrate about prophets?

    • Edwin A. Schwisow
      15 February 2015 @ 9:28 am

      I grew up in the Church during a time when imperfections of leadership had to be diminished, and if possible denied, because even one misbehavior could keep any of us this side of the Pearly Gates, and conduct of an Adventist leader by every count would be scrutinized with even greater diligence in the Investigative Judgment because of the great light bestowed and the larger inventory of spiritual power vouchsafed by the Holy Ghost.
      This now appears to be changing, and we seem to be willing and able to accept a less sanitized pioneer leadership, perhaps in part because with the advent of the Adventist independent press, we have come to recognize that current lay and professional leadership in our Church often falls blushingly short of Christlike diligence in doing good, practicing mercy, and walking humbly. Our pioneers, as we increasingly realize, had in some cases serious behavioral and moral issues, and as far as I can tell, throughout life Ellen White continued to engage in foot-washing at Communion, a reminder that in treading the pathways of ministry she could become soiled by the very contamination she rhetorically deplored.

  9. Bill Sorensen
    16 February 2015 @ 8:51 pm

    There never was a ministry that God called into existence and ordained that did not hold various errors on some level. Abraham took Hagar and had a son by Sarah’s handmaid. But the bible points out every error of the past saints and re-affirms the basic truth of God’s kingdom and the fulfillment of prophecy as it unfolded.

    Adventism is no exception. Many errors were held by our pioneers on various doctrines. Some of these errors were corrected in the ongoing development of the church. Some errors are still held by more than a few, even in responsible and influencial positions.

    None the less, there are non-negotiable positions that were established that defined the basic identity of the movement. 1844 and the IJ is so fundamental to a viable SDA identity, that to deny and/or abandon this doctrine is to deny the basic identity of the movement. The whole validity of the movement is based on this doctrine. EGW affirmed this many times and never varied throughout her ministry of many decades.

    The church’s final usefulness as a God ordained movement will depend on its affirmation of 1844 and the implications of this doctrine as explained by EGW in “The Great Controversy.” God has used the movement in the past. But we see that Pluralism has set the church on a course of self destruction and will eventually become useless to fulfill God’s mission unless a clear and definitive explanation of what the church believes and why is stated. Our official evangelism has diminished considerable and our historic message is being presented far more effectively by independent ministries than the official organized church. And even these ministries are far less than perfect or clear on sin, atonement and salvation.

    One thing is certain, pluralism in doctrine will never be effective to prepare a people for the close of probation and second coming. I think we can expect the church to get a lot smaller before it can do the work God intended.

    • Edwin A. Schwisow
      16 February 2015 @ 10:16 pm

      Let’s agree that there are certain non-negotiable positions and now ask if with the passage of time it is to be expected that the impact of each of these doctrinal teachings and counsels must remain at the same ratio of prominence given them, say in 1862, or 1932, or even 1980? Is there an effective “Present Truth Rating” at play in all of this, and if so, how can it be expressed, if at all?

      Let’s look specifically, (for example) on the relative importance of preaching the life and love of Jesus and His saving righteousness, as compared to 1888? How about the need to proclaim from the mountaintops the importance of literally interpreting the first chapters of Genesis, as compared to 1936 or 1859? And emphasis on the Spirit of Prophecy today; is it as vital today to spread those books as it was in 1915 or 1919? And should we continue to set standards for clothing sizes, patterns, and accessories for all Advent-professing women? How about women who don trousers and seem to favor masculanized styles? And while we’re at it, how important is it today to drum home the morally debilitated plight of those who accept spices, coffee—and, yes, the secret sins of the lonely bedchamber—as regular ingredients of their benighted lives?

      But enough. Are these traditional teachings of the historic church as equally vital in today’s US, British, and Australian societies as they might have been 100 or so years ago? Perhaps some should be preached even more fervently today than in days of yon?

      I would challenge a skilled Adventist pollster to see how we rate some of our historic teachings on a current scale of Present Truth. I suspect the variance on the spectrum of opinion would be amazingly broad and would illustrate the difficulty of requiring consistent levels of support for both fundamental and non-fundamental beliefs in today’s world and the relevance of culture and education in determining which to emphasize, and where.

      • Bill Sorensen
        17 February 2015 @ 10:38 am

        You named a lot of things, Edwin. No one should deny that certain things are negotiable on some level. This is also obvious in the bible. So, to discern with spiritual perception what is negotiable and what is non-negotiable is demanded to maintain what is relevant in any given situation. In which case, the bible itself will define what is, and what is not negotiable. EGW does the same. People seek obscurity to justify their rejection of truth. A classic example is the male headship vs. WO in the church today. No objective scholar with an open mind can deny male headship. In one sense, it is easier to prove than the 7th day Sabbath. But if people want to deny the obvious, they must first obscure the obvious and create as much confusion as possible. Church members are easily bewildered because they are lazy students and are generally willing for someone else to tell them what to believe and what to do. Thus we see the tremendous success of Catholicism based on this situation.

        Adventism is equally afflicted with this mentality coupled with the ongoing affirmation of some “unconditional election” for the SDA church just as Rome and the Jews still hold today. In the end, every individual must decide what is non-negotiable and not let someone else define it for them. This is the heart and soul of our world evangelism historically. We expect people to abandon their fellowship and accept the Sabbath. Amazing, we don’t expect our church members to follow the same agenda. We expect people to set aside their personal convictions all for the sake of unity and loyalty to “the church”. This is what the “One Project” is all about. So, I don’t care about pollsters and popular opinion.

        My evaluation is that the church will get a lot smaller before God can use it for His final intended purpose.

        • Edwin A. Schwisow
          18 February 2015 @ 7:12 pm

          We all agree that leading up to the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, the Millerite leadership for whatever reason chose to overlook the clear biblical statement that no one could know the day and hour of the Master’s return, except God Himself.

          Would it then be fair to say that these same Adventists neglected consideration of Male Headship in adopting as prime visionary and teacher of the Advent, the woman Ellen White?

          It is clear historically that within Christianity as a whole in the post-1844 world (long before Gloria Steinem was born, incidentally), women were achieving greater and greater purchase among the educated, substantiating in fact that there was indeed a great running to and fro during this time in search of information and education. Women became a primary resource for staffing elementary and Sunday schools, and made headway in secondary schools and colleges, rising to sustain this Great Awakening of knowledge and the Christian education needed to sustain it.

          During this time (within the Adventist community) there seemed to be no stigma against women as teachers, no Scripture was raised to counteract a movement that seemed to be salutary and entirely Christian. Ellen White had broken the barrier definitively in our Church, and we could discern no ill effects of the decision to accept women as teachers, writers, and preachers. Clearly God’s Spirit was being poured out on women as predicted for the end times by the prophet Joel.

          Then comes a reactionary movement primarily from conservative Sunday-keeping elements of Christianity that a few years before had fought tooth-and-nail against abolition. These retrogressive voices announced that for women to teach (at least in certain selected capacities) was counter to the will of God.

          Now, it bears inquiring, does not the wide acceptance of Ellen White as an anointed Advent leader in the early Adventist Church as thoroughly shatter Paul’s Male Headship prohibitions, as Paul’s teachings shattered circumcision in his day, and Peter’s teachings opened the doors of Christian worship to Gentiles in his? Or shall we now inspect the genital endowment of all who ascend to the pulpit, to winnow out those poseurs pretending to be potent males, but lacking the power and equipment thereof? And do we now reject not only Ellen White, but the concept of an end-time pouring out of the Spirit on male and female flesh alike?

          We live in the time of the End, so let’s proclaim it and by all means let’s invite our sopranos and altos to join in the anthem that proclaims Christ’s coming, and his preemptive special presence among us by His Spirit.

  10. Bugs/Larry Boshell
    17 February 2015 @ 6:36 am

    While a Bible teacher forty years ago at Sunnydale Academy some students and I traveled to Missouri State University to visit with university students hoping to interest some in Adventism. I realized during the discussions that Adventism had nothing to offer them. A prophet? An investigative judgment? Sabbath? A coming Catholic persecution? An understanding of the little horn of Daniel? Three angels messages?1844 disappointments? A wonderful medical system? The second coming! Death as sleep?

    Not long after that, I accepted that Adventism had nothing to say to me either, so I departed. Lo and behold, in my mail several days ago a brochure announcing meetings at a “church auditorium,” covered with wild unknown animals and a promise to alert me to prophecies, but no sponsorship. Bait and switch. Whoever mailed this exercise in ancient methodology to “Resident” (me) still has nothing to offer, else why this approach?

    According to the Jimmy White “visit” to Silver Spring things were different in his day. And now we see his tendered hope of impeding the flow of the young out the church door doomed since the rambunctious nature of the early days he describe have long ago atrophied. The young today see only the millennial drip drip drip of stalactite formation in a church fossilized by its history.

    A new, different, confession is needed. Confession, it is said, is good for the soul. Adventism could use some confession. Its soul is tarnished by its history and it cannot turn an honest face to the world. Youth aren’t stupid. They know blah blah blah when they see it. There is nothing attractive to hold them. In fact, being an Adventist has an embarrassing aspect that makes cloistering attractive and leaves them without invitations for their non-Adventist friends.

    What to confess? Most Adventist doctrines have run their course and are dead, at best, irrelevant. It all started on a misstep (a lie, perhaps unintentional, but still a lie) 1844. So, confess. Creationism per Genesis. Every youth today is presented with contrary science. (There goes Sabbath). So confess. Misunderstanding of the “second coming.” So confess. Superguy “god” is our creation, death to him. So confess. Much more.

    And replace it with what? The magnetic power of God as love, revealed and illustrated by Christ, as a daily advent in human life, broadcast by proclamation from every SDA pulpit on every Seventh Day as a festival of celebration of hope, joy, love and for the refitting of human souls for a new week to come, and weekly Advent of Christ into human life so powerful it could be openly, loudly, proudly advertised as our local Seventh-day Adventist Church in a brochure, address supplied, transportation offered, for observers to come and see for themselves!

    Might there be something in that milieu for the intellectual offspring of Jimmy White? Could that be “present truth?”

    PS. That preacher in Houston attracts tens of thousands weekly in person…

    • Bugs/Larry Boshell
      17 February 2015 @ 6:44 am

      PS. That preacher in Houston attracts tens of thousands weekly in person and on TV with his version. Wouldn’t a better true, version do even better?

      • Bill Sorensen
        17 February 2015 @ 10:47 am

        You did the right thing, Bugs. But it is a sad commentary on the spirituality of yourself and many who emulate your spirituality who hold positions of influence and authority in the church. Especially those who would teach our young people bible Adventism. I had three brothers who attended Sunnydale in the 1950’s. I never did since we lived on the west coast when I was that age. I now live in the mid-west again and so hear about Sunnydale occasionally. I think they probably represent the basic spirituality of modern Adventism.

        • Bugs/Larry Boshell
          17 February 2015 @ 12:05 pm

          Bill I have approximately 25 of those students as “friends” on Facebook. As nearly as I can ascertain, most are loyal SDA. They know I’m not and they don’t care. I taught them nothing but Adventism, which was the core value of Sunnydale. Several have said I was their favorite teacher there. Two have recently visited me. I was ethically loyal to the writers of my paycheck. It was actually from chaplaincy four years later when I made my exodus. Only two or three inside the church knew of my analysis and intention at that time. I was not a “rebel,” just a thinker.

          As to my spirituality, it was top notch when I was a loyal SDA and it was its fine condition that enabled my move to elevated levels of faith which I could only achieve outside the Adventist soundproof chamber. You seemed to have missed the point of my post. It addresses the long-term bankruptcy I estimate and detail as the “basic spirituality of modern Adventism,” from my exterior pedestal. Why don’t you address the issues I raise rather than pelting me and the imaginary Sunnydale ghosts with stones?

  11. Earl Calahan
    19 February 2015 @ 10:03 am

    WOMEN!!!!Bless them. Raise them up to the equality that God, their Creator holds them. He
    made the woman a warmer gentle compassionate creature more so than the male, as she was to be the nurturing mother of “all Earthly” children.
    Her physical body fashioned so as to birth children, and was made of less strength and softer than the male, so the male physical domination of the woman still persist to this day. Although the woman is equal to the male in intellectual power. The male feels threatened by this fact, emasculated, so to speak, and the male has enforced his leadership physically to maintain his macho false superiority. This has been the situation from Creation. But in the 20th century, things started to change, and women, in the West, finally rebelled and challenged the male. They are fighting a good fight, they are successful, they are contesting every previous stronghold of male domination.