tMoA

~ The only Home on the Web You'll ever need ~

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Share
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:14 am


    "What Are We Going To Do About Orthodoxymoron??"

    Nehemiah 1:1 The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah: In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa, 2 Hanani, one of my brothers, came from Judah with some other men, and I questioned them about the Jewish remnant that had survived the exile, and also about Jerusalem. 3 They said to me, “Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire.” 4 When I heard these things, I sat down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven. 5 Then I said: “LORD, the God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments, 6 let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel. I confess the sins we Israelites, including myself and my father’s family, have committed against you. 7 We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the commands, decrees and laws you gave your servant Moses. 8 “Remember the instruction you gave your servant Moses, saying, ‘If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the nations, 9 but if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name.’ 10 “They are your servants and your people, whom you redeemed by your great strength and your mighty hand. 11 Lord, let your ear be attentive to the prayer of this your servant and to the prayer of your servants who delight in revering your name. Give your servant success today by granting him favor in the presence of this man.” I was cupbearer to the king.

    Nehemiah 9:1 On the twenty-fourth day of the same month, the Israelites gathered together, fasting and wearing sackcloth and putting dust on their heads. 2 Those of Israelite descent had separated themselves from all foreigners. They stood in their places and confessed their sins and the sins of their ancestors. 3 They stood where they were and read from the Book of the Law of the LORD their God for a quarter of the day, and spent another quarter in confession and in worshiping the LORD their God. 4 Standing on the stairs of the Levites were Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani and Kenani. They cried out with loud voices to the LORD their God. 5 And the Levites—Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah and Pethahiah—said: “Stand up and praise the LORD your God, who is from everlasting to everlasting. ” “Blessed be your glorious name, and may it be exalted above all blessing and praise. 6 You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you. 7 “You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham. 8 You found his heart faithful to you, and you made a covenant with him to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Jebusites and Girgashites. You have kept your promise because you are righteous. 9 “You saw the suffering of our ancestors in Egypt; you heard their cry at the Red Sea. 10 You sent signs and wonders against Pharaoh, against all his officials and all the people of his land, for you knew how arrogantly the Egyptians treated them. You made a name for yourself, which remains to this day. 11 You divided the sea before them, so that they passed through it on dry ground, but you hurled their pursuers into the depths, like a stone into mighty waters. 12 By day you led them with a pillar of cloud, and by night with a pillar of fire to give them light on the way they were to take. 13 “You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. 14 You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses. 15 In their hunger you gave them bread from heaven and in their thirst you brought them water from the rock; you told them to go in and take possession of the land you had sworn with uplifted hand to give them. 16 “But they, our ancestors, became arrogant and stiff-necked, and they did not obey your commands. 17 They refused to listen and failed to remember the miracles you performed among them. They became stiff-necked and in their rebellion appointed a leader in order to return to their slavery. But you are a forgiving God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. Therefore you did not desert them, 18 even when they cast for themselves an image of a calf and said, ‘This is your god, who brought you up out of Egypt,’ or when they committed awful blasphemies. 19 “Because of your great compassion you did not abandon them in the wilderness. By day the pillar of cloud did not fail to guide them on their path, nor the pillar of fire by night to shine on the way they were to take. 20 You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst. 21 For forty years you sustained them in the wilderness; they lacked nothing, their clothes did not wear out nor did their feet become swollen. 22 “You gave them kingdoms and nations, allotting to them even the remotest frontiers. They took over the country of Sihon king of Heshbon and the country of Og king of Bashan. 23 You made their children as numerous as the stars in the sky, and you brought them into the land that you told their parents to enter and possess. 24 Their children went in and took possession of the land. You subdued before them the Canaanites, who lived in the land; you gave the Canaanites into their hands, along with their kings and the peoples of the land, to deal with them as they pleased. 25 They captured fortified cities and fertile land; they took possession of houses filled with all kinds of good things, wells already dug, vineyards, olive groves and fruit trees in abundance. They ate to the full and were well-nourished; they reveled in your great goodness. 26 “But they were disobedient and rebelled against you; they turned their backs on your law. They killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you; they committed awful blasphemies. 27 So you delivered them into the hands of their enemies, who oppressed them. But when they were oppressed they cried out to you. From heaven you heard them, and in your great compassion you gave them deliverers, who rescued them from the hand of their enemies. 28 “But as soon as they were at rest, they again did what was evil in your sight. Then you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies so that they ruled over them. And when they cried out to you again, you heard from heaven, and in your compassion you delivered them time after time. 29 “You warned them in order to turn them back to your law, but they became arrogant and disobeyed your commands. They sinned against your ordinances, of which you said, ‘The person who obeys them will live by them.’ Stubbornly they turned their backs on you, became stiff-necked and refused to listen. 30 For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you warned them through your prophets. Yet they paid no attention, so you gave them into the hands of the neighboring peoples. 31 But in your great mercy you did not put an end to them or abandon them, for you are a gracious and merciful God. 32 “Now therefore, our God, the great God, mighty and awesome, who keeps his covenant of love, do not let all this hardship seem trifling in your eyes—the hardship that has come on us, on our kings and leaders, on our priests and prophets, on our ancestors and all your people, from the days of the kings of Assyria until today. 33 In all that has happened to us, you have remained righteous; you have acted faithfully, while we acted wickedly. 34 Our kings, our leaders, our priests and our ancestors did not follow your law; they did not pay attention to your commands or the statutes you warned them to keep. 35 Even while they were in their kingdom, enjoying your great goodness to them in the spacious and fertile land you gave them, they did not serve you or turn from their evil ways. 36 “But see, we are slaves today, slaves in the land you gave our ancestors so they could eat its fruit and the other good things it produces. 37 Because of our sins, its abundant harvest goes to the kings you have placed over us. They rule over our bodies and our cattle as they please. We are in great distress. 38 “In view of all this, we are making a binding agreement, putting it in writing, and our leaders, our Levites and our priests are affixing their seals to it.”

    Nehemiah 10:1 Those who sealed it were: Nehemiah the governor, the son of Hakaliah. Zedekiah, 2 Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah, 3 Pashhur, Amariah, Malkijah, 4 Hattush, Shebaniah, Malluk, 5 Harim, Meremoth, Obadiah, 6 Daniel, Ginnethon, Baruch, 7 Meshullam, Abijah, Mijamin, 8 Maaziah, Bilgai and Shemaiah. These were the priests. 9 The Levites: Jeshua son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel, 10 and their associates: Shebaniah, Hodiah, Kelita, Pelaiah, Hanan, 11 Mika, Rehob, Hashabiah, 12 Zakkur, Sherebiah, Shebaniah, 13 Hodiah, Bani and Beninu. 14 The leaders of the people: Parosh, Pahath-Moab, Elam, Zattu, Bani, 15 Bunni, Azgad, Bebai, 16 Adonijah, Bigvai, Adin, 17 Ater, Hezekiah, Azzur, 18 Hodiah, Hashum, Bezai, 19 Hariph, Anathoth, Nebai, 20 Magpiash, Meshullam, Hezir, 21 Meshezabel, Zadok, Jaddua, 22 Pelatiah, Hanan, Anaiah, 23 Hoshea, Hananiah, Hasshub, 24 Hallohesh, Pilha, Shobek, 25 Rehum, Hashabnah, Maaseiah, 26 Ahiah, Hanan, Anan, 27 Malluk, Harim and Baanah. 28 “The rest of the people—priests, Levites, gatekeepers, musicians, temple servants and all who separated themselves from the neighboring peoples for the sake of the Law of God, together with their wives and all their sons and daughters who are able to understand— 29 all these now join their fellow Israelites the nobles, and bind themselves with a curse and an oath to follow the Law of God given through Moses the servant of God and to obey carefully all the commands, regulations and decrees of the LORD our Lord. 30 “We promise not to give our daughters in marriage to the peoples around us or take their daughters for our sons. 31 “When the neighboring peoples bring merchandise or grain to sell on the Sabbath, we will not buy from them on the Sabbath or on any holy day. Every seventh year we will forgo working the land and will cancel all debts. 32 “We assume the responsibility for carrying out the commands to give a third of a shekel each year for the service of the house of our God: 33 for the bread set out on the table; for the regular grain offerings and burnt offerings; for the offerings on the Sabbaths, at the New Moon feasts and at the appointed festivals; for the holy offerings; for sin offerings to make atonement for Israel; and for all the duties of the house of our God. 34 “We—the priests, the Levites and the people—have cast lots to determine when each of our families is to bring to the house of our God at set times each year a contribution of wood to burn on the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the Law. 35 “We also assume responsibility for bringing to the house of the LORD each year the firstfruits of our crops and of every fruit tree. 36 “As it is also written in the Law, we will bring the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, of our herds and of our flocks to the house of our God, to the priests ministering there. 37 “Moreover, we will bring to the storerooms of the house of our God, to the priests, the first of our ground meal, of our grain offerings, of the fruit of all our trees and of our new wine and olive oil. And we will bring a tithe of our crops to the Levites, for it is the Levites who collect the tithes in all the towns where we work. 38 A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they receive the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the house of our God, to the storerooms of the treasury. 39 The people of Israel, including the Levites, are to bring their contributions of grain, new wine and olive oil to the storerooms, where the articles for the sanctuary and for the ministering priests, the gatekeepers and the musicians are also kept. “We will not neglect the house of our God.”

    Psalm 78:1 My people, hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth. 2 I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old— 3 things we have heard and known, things our ancestors have told us. 4 We will not hide them from their descendants; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD, his power, and the wonders he has done. 5 He decreed statutes for Jacob and established the law in Israel, which he commanded our ancestors to teach their children, 6 so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born, and they in turn would tell their children. 7 Then they would put their trust in God and would not forget his deeds but would keep his commands. 8 They would not be like their ancestors— a stubborn and rebellious generation, whose hearts were not loyal to God, whose spirits were not faithful to him. 9 The men of Ephraim, though armed with bows, turned back on the day of battle; 10 they did not keep God’s covenant and refused to live by his law. 11 They forgot what he had done, the wonders he had shown them. 12 He did miracles in the sight of their ancestors in the land of Egypt, in the region of Zoan. 13 He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand up like a wall. 14 He guided them with the cloud by day and with light from the fire all night. 15 He split the rocks in the wilderness and gave them water as abundant as the seas; 16 he brought streams out of a rocky crag and made water flow down like rivers. 17 But they continued to sin against him, rebelling in the wilderness against the Most High. 18 They willfully put God to the test by demanding the food they craved. 19 They spoke against God; they said, “Can God really spread a table in the wilderness? 20 True, he struck the rock, and water gushed out, streams flowed abundantly, but can he also give us bread? Can he supply meat for his people?” 21 When the LORD heard them, he was furious; his fire broke out against Jacob, and his wrath rose against Israel, 22 for they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance. 23 Yet he gave a command to the skies above and opened the doors of the heavens; 24 he rained down manna for the people to eat, he gave them the grain of heaven. 25 Human beings ate the bread of angels; he sent them all the food they could eat. 26 He let loose the east wind from the heavens and by his power made the south wind blow. 27 He rained meat down on them like dust, birds like sand on the seashore. 28 He made them come down inside their camp, all around their tents. 29 They ate till they were gorged— he had given them what they craved. 30 But before they turned from what they craved, even while the food was still in their mouths, 31 God’s anger rose against them; he put to death the sturdiest among them, cutting down the young men of Israel. 32 In spite of all this, they kept on sinning; in spite of his wonders, they did not believe. 33 So he ended their days in futility and their years in terror. 34 Whenever God slew them, they would seek him; they eagerly turned to him again. 35 They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. 36 But then they would flatter him with their mouths, lying to him with their tongues; 37 their hearts were not loyal to him, they were not faithful to his covenant. 38 Yet he was merciful; he forgave their iniquities and did not destroy them. Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath. 39 He remembered that they were but flesh, a passing breeze that does not return. 40 How often they rebelled against him in the wilderness and grieved him in the wasteland! 41 Again and again they put God to the test; they vexed the Holy One of Israel. 42 They did not remember his power— the day he redeemed them from the oppressor, 43 the day he displayed his signs in Egypt, his wonders in the region of Zoan. 44 He turned their river into blood; they could not drink from their streams. 45 He sent swarms of flies that devoured them, and frogs that devastated them. 46 He gave their crops to the grasshopper, their produce to the locust. 47 He destroyed their vines with hail and their sycamore-figs with sleet. 48 He gave over their cattle to the hail, their livestock to bolts of lightning. 49 He unleashed against them his hot anger, his wrath, indignation and hostility— a band of destroying angels. 50 He prepared a path for his anger; he did not spare them from death but gave them over to the plague. 51 He struck down all the firstborn of Egypt, the firstfruits of manhood in the tents of Ham. 52 But he brought his people out like a flock; he led them like sheep through the wilderness. 53 He guided them safely, so they were unafraid; but the sea engulfed their enemies. 54 And so he brought them to the border of his holy land, to the hill country his right hand had taken. 55 He drove out nations before them and allotted their lands to them as an inheritance; he settled the tribes of Israel in their homes. 56 But they put God to the test and rebelled against the Most High; they did not keep his statutes. 57 Like their ancestors they were disloyal and faithless, as unreliable as a faulty bow. 58 They angered him with their high places; they aroused his jealousy with their idols. 59 When God heard them, he was furious; he rejected Israel completely. 60 He abandoned the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent he had set up among humans. 61 He sent the ark of his might into captivity, his splendor into the hands of the enemy. 62 He gave his people over to the sword; he was furious with his inheritance. 63 Fire consumed their young men, and their young women had no wedding songs; 64 their priests were put to the sword, and their widows could not weep. 65 Then the Lord awoke as from sleep, as a warrior wakes from the stupor of wine. 66 He beat back his enemies; he put them to everlasting shame. 67 Then he rejected the tents of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim; 68 but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loved. 69 He built his sanctuary like the heights, like the earth that he established forever. 70 He chose David his servant and took him from the sheep pens; 71 from tending the sheep he brought him to be the shepherd of his people Jacob, of Israel his inheritance. 72 And David shepherded them with integrity of heart; with skillful hands he led them.

    Psalm 89:1 I will sing of the LORD’s great love forever; with my mouth I will make your faithfulness known through all generations. 2 I will declare that your love stands firm forever, that you have established your faithfulness in heaven itself. 3 You said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant, 4 ‘I will establish your line forever and make your throne firm through all generations.’ ” 5 The heavens praise your wonders, LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. 6 For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings? 7 In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. 8 Who is like you, LORD God Almighty? You, LORD, are mighty, and your faithfulness surrounds you. 9 You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. 10 You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies. 11 The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it. 12 You created the north and the south; Tabor and Hermon sing for joy at your name. 13 Your arm is endowed with power; your hand is strong, your right hand exalted. 14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you. 15 Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you, who walk in the light of your presence, LORD. 16 They rejoice in your name all day long; they celebrate your righteousness. 17 For you are their glory and strength, and by your favor you exalt our horn. 18 Indeed, our shield belongs to the LORD, our king to the Holy One of Israel. 19 Once you spoke in a vision, to your faithful people you said: “I have bestowed strength on a warrior; I have raised up a young man from among the people. 20 I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him. 21 My hand will sustain him; surely my arm will strengthen him. 22 The enemy will not get the better of him; the wicked will not oppress him. 23 I will crush his foes before him and strike down his adversaries. 24 My faithful love will be with him, and through my name his horn will be exalted. 25 I will set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers. 26 He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.’ 27 And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth. 28 I will maintain my love to him forever, and my covenant with him will never fail. 29 I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure. 30 “If his sons forsake my law and do not follow my statutes, 31 if they violate my decrees and fail to keep my commands, 32 I will punish their sin with the rod, their iniquity with flogging; 33 but I will not take my love from him, nor will I ever betray my faithfulness. 34 I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered. 35 Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness— and I will not lie to David— 36 that his line will continue forever and his throne endure before me like the sun; 37 it will be established forever like the moon, the faithful witness in the sky.” 38 But you have rejected, you have spurned, you have been very angry with your anointed one. 39 You have renounced the covenant with your servant and have defiled his crown in the dust. 40 You have broken through all his walls and reduced his strongholds to ruins. 41 All who pass by have plundered him; he has become the scorn of his neighbors. 42 You have exalted the right hand of his foes; you have made all his enemies rejoice. 43 Indeed, you have turned back the edge of his sword and have not supported him in battle. 44 You have put an end to his splendor and cast his throne to the ground. 45 You have cut short the days of his youth; you have covered him with a mantle of shame. 46 How long, LORD? Will you hide yourself forever? How long will your wrath burn like fire? 47 Remember how fleeting is my life. For what futility you have created all humanity! 48 Who can live and not see death, or who can escape the power of the grave? 49 Lord, where is your former great love, which in your faithfulness you swore to David? 50 Remember, Lord, how your servant has been mocked, how I bear in my heart the taunts of all the nations, 51 the taunts with which your enemies, LORD, have mocked, with which they have mocked every step of your anointed one. 52 Praise be to the LORD forever! Amen and Amen.

    Psalm 103:1 Praise the LORD, my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name. 2 Praise the LORD, my soul, and forget not all his benefits— 3 who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion, 5 who satisfies your desires with good things so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s. 6 The LORD works righteousness and justice for all the oppressed. 7 He made known his ways to Moses, his deeds to the people of Israel: 8 The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. 9 He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever; 10 he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. 11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; 12 as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. 13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him; 14 for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust. 15 The life of mortals is like grass, they flourish like a flower of the field; 16 the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more. 17 But from everlasting to everlasting the LORD’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children— 18 with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts. 19 The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all. 20 Praise the LORD, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word. 21 Praise the LORD, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will. 22 Praise the LORD, all his works everywhere in his dominion. Praise the LORD, my soul.

    Psalm 111:1 Praise the LORD.I will extol the LORD with all my heart in the council of the upright and in the assembly. 2 Great are the works of the LORD; they are pondered by all who delight in them. 3 Glorious and majestic are his deeds, and his righteousness endures forever. 4 He has caused his wonders to be remembered; the LORD is gracious and compassionate. 5 He provides food for those who fear him; he remembers his covenant forever. 6 He has shown his people the power of his works, giving them the lands of other nations. 7 The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. 8 They are established for ever and ever, enacted in faithfulness and uprightness. 9 He provided redemption for his people; he ordained his covenant forever— holy and awesome is his name. 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.

    Psalm 112:1 Praise the LORD.Blessed are those who fear the LORD, who find great delight in his commands. 2 Their children will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed. 3 Wealth and riches are in their houses, and their righteousness endures forever. 4 Even in darkness light dawns for the upright, for those who are gracious and compassionate and righteous. 5 Good will come to those who are generous and lend freely, who conduct their affairs with justice. 6 Surely the righteous will never be shaken; they will be remembered forever. 7 They will have no fear of bad news; their hearts are steadfast, trusting in the LORD. 8 Their hearts are secure, they will have no fear; in the end they will look in triumph on their foes. 9 They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor, their righteousness endures forever; their horn will be lifted high in honor. 10 The wicked will see and be vexed, they will gnash their teeth and waste away; the longings of the wicked will come to nothing.

    Psalm 119:1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. 2 Blessed are those who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart— 3 they do no wrong but follow his ways. 4 You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed. 5 Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees! 6 Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands. 7 I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws. 8 I will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me. 9 How can a young person stay on the path of purity? By living according to your word. 10 I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands. 11 I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you. 12 Praise be to you, LORD; teach me your decrees. 13 With my lips I recount all the laws that come from your mouth. 14 I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches. 15 I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. 16 I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word. 17 Be good to your servant while I live, that I may obey your word. 18 Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law. 19 I am a stranger on earth; do not hide your commands from me. 20 My soul is consumed with longing for your laws at all times. 21 You rebuke the arrogant, who are accursed, those who stray from your commands. 22 Remove from me their scorn and contempt, for I keep your statutes. 23 Though rulers sit together and slander me, your servant will meditate on your decrees. 24 Your statutes are my delight; they are my counselors. 25 I am laid low in the dust; preserve my life according to your word. 26 I gave an account of my ways and you answered me; teach me your decrees. 27 Cause me to understand the way of your precepts, that I may meditate on your wonderful deeds. 28 My soul is weary with sorrow; strengthen me according to your word. 29 Keep me from deceitful ways; be gracious to me and teach me your law. 30 I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I have set my heart on your laws. 31 I hold fast to your statutes, LORD; do not let me be put to shame. 32 I run in the path of your commands, for you have broadened my understanding. 33 Teach me, LORD, the way of your decrees, that I may follow it to the end. 34 Give me understanding, so that I may keep your law and obey it with all my heart. 35 Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight. 36 Turn my heart toward your statutes and not toward selfish gain. 37 Turn my eyes away from worthless things; preserve my life according to your word. 38 Fulfill your promise to your servant, so that you may be feared. 39 Take away the disgrace I dread, for your laws are good. 40 How I long for your precepts! In your righteousness preserve my life. 41 May your unfailing love come to me, LORD, your salvation, according to your promise; 42 then I can answer anyone who taunts me, for I trust in your word. 43 Never take your word of truth from my mouth, for I have put my hope in your laws. 44 I will always obey your law, for ever and ever. 45 I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts. 46 I will speak of your statutes before kings and will not be put to shame, 47 for I delight in your commands because I love them. 48 I reach out for your commands, which I love, that I may meditate on your decrees. 49 Remember your word to your servant, for you have given me hope. 50 My comfort in my suffering is this: Your promise preserves my life. 51 The arrogant mock me unmercifully, but I do not turn from your law. 52 I remember, LORD, your ancient laws, and I find comfort in them. 53 Indignation grips me because of the wicked, who have forsaken your law. 54 Your decrees are the theme of my song wherever I lodge. 55 In the night, LORD, I remember your name, that I may keep your law. 56 This has been my practice: I obey your precepts. 57 You are my portion, LORD; I have promised to obey your words. 58 I have sought your face with all my heart; be gracious to me according to your promise. 59 I have considered my ways and have turned my steps to your statutes. 60 I will hasten and not delay to obey your commands. 61 Though the wicked bind me with ropes, I will not forget your law. 62 At midnight I rise to give you thanks for your righteous laws. 63 I am a friend to all who fear you, to all who follow your precepts. 64 The earth is filled with your love, LORD; teach me your decrees. 65 Do good to your servant according to your word, LORD. 66 Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I trust your commands. 67 Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word. 68 You are good, and what you do is good; teach me your decrees. 69 Though the arrogant have smeared me with lies, I keep your precepts with all my heart. 70 Their hearts are callous and unfeeling, but I delight in your law. 71 It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees. 72 The law from your mouth is more precious to me than thousands of pieces of silver and gold. 73 Your hands made me and formed me; give me understanding to learn your commands. 74 May those who fear you rejoice when they see me, for I have put my hope in your word. 75 I know, LORD, that your laws are righteous, and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me. 76 May your unfailing love be my comfort, according to your promise to your servant. 77 Let your compassion come to me that I may live, for your law is my delight. 78 May the arrogant be put to shame for wronging me without cause; but I will meditate on your precepts. 79 May those who fear you turn to me, those who understand your statutes. 80 May I wholeheartedly follow your decrees, that I may not be put to shame. 81 My soul faints with longing for your salvation, but I have put my hope in your word. 82 My eyes fail, looking for your promise; I say, “When will you comfort me?” 83 Though I am like a wineskin in the smoke, I do not forget your decrees. 84 How long must your servant wait? When will you punish my persecutors? 85 The arrogant dig pits to trap me, contrary to your law. 86 All your commands are trustworthy; help me, for I am being persecuted without cause. 87 They almost wiped me from the earth, but I have not forsaken your precepts. 88 In your unfailing love preserve my life, that I may obey the statutes of your mouth. 89 Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. 90 Your faithfulness continues through all generations; you established the earth, and it endures. 91 Your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you. 92 If your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction. 93 I will never forget your precepts, for by them you have preserved my life. 94 Save me, for I am yours; I have sought out your precepts. 95 The wicked are waiting to destroy me, but I will ponder your statutes. 96 To all perfection I see a limit, but your commands are boundless. 97 Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long. 98 Your commands are always with me and make me wiser than my enemies. 99 I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statutes. 100 I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts. 101 I have kept my feet from every evil path so that I might obey your word. 102 I have not departed from your laws, for you yourself have taught me. 103 How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 I gain understanding from your precepts; therefore I hate every wrong path. 105 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path. 106 I have taken an oath and confirmed it, that I will follow your righteous laws. 107 I have suffered much; preserve my life, LORD, according to your word. 108 Accept, LORD, the willing praise of my mouth, and teach me your laws. 109 Though I constantly take my life in my hands, I will not forget your law. 110 The wicked have set a snare for me, but I have not strayed from your precepts. 111 Your statutes are my heritage forever; they are the joy of my heart. 112 My heart is set on keeping your decrees to the very end. 113 I hate double-minded people, but I love your law. 114 You are my refuge and my shield; I have put my hope in your word. 115 Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God! 116 Sustain me, my God, according to your promise, and I will live; do not let my hopes be dashed. 117 Uphold me, and I will be delivered; I will always have regard for your decrees. 118 You reject all who stray from your decrees, for their delusions come to nothing. 119 All the wicked of the earth you discard like dross; therefore I love your statutes. 120 My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of your laws. 121 I have done what is righteous and just; do not leave me to my oppressors. 122 Ensure your servant’s well-being; do not let the arrogant oppress me. 123 My eyes fail, looking for your salvation, looking for your righteous promise. 124 Deal with your servant according to your love and teach me your decrees. 125 I am your servant; give me discernment that I may understand your statutes. 126 It is time for you to act, LORD; your law is being broken. 127 Because I love your commands more than gold, more than pure gold, 128 and because I consider all your precepts right, I hate every wrong path. 129 Your statutes are wonderful; therefore I obey them. 130 The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. 131 I open my mouth and pant, longing for your commands. 132 Turn to me and have mercy on me, as you always do to those who love your name. 133 Direct my footsteps according to your word; let no sin rule over me. 134 Redeem me from human oppression, that I may obey your precepts. 135 Make your face shine on your servant and teach me your decrees. 136 Streams of tears flow from my eyes, for your law is not obeyed. 137 You are righteous, LORD, and your laws are right. 138 The statutes you have laid down are righteous; they are fully trustworthy. 139 My zeal wears me out, for my enemies ignore your words. 140 Your promises have been thoroughly tested, and your servant loves them. 141 Though I am lowly and despised, I do not forget your precepts. 142 Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is true. 143 Trouble and distress have come upon me, but your commands give me delight. 144 Your statutes are always righteous; give me understanding that I may live. 145 I call with all my heart; answer me, LORD, and I will obey your decrees. 146 I call out to you; save me and I will keep your statutes. 147 I rise before dawn and cry for help; I have put my hope in your word. 148 My eyes stay open through the watches of the night, that I may meditate on your promises. 149 Hear my voice in accordance with your love; preserve my life, LORD, according to your laws. 150 Those who devise wicked schemes are near, but they are far from your law. 151 Yet you are near, LORD, and all your commands are true. 152 Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever. 153 Look on my suffering and deliver me, for I have not forgotten your law. 154 Defend my cause and redeem me; preserve my life according to your promise. 155 Salvation is far from the wicked, for they do not seek out your decrees. 156 Your compassion, LORD, is great; preserve my life according to your laws. 157 Many are the foes who persecute me, but I have not turned from your statutes. 158 I look on the faithless with loathing, for they do not obey your word. 159 See how I love your precepts; preserve my life, LORD, in accordance with your love. 160 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. 161 Rulers persecute me without cause, but my heart trembles at your word. 162 I rejoice in your promise like one who finds great spoil. 163 I hate and detest falsehood but I love your law. 164 Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous laws. 165 Great peace have those who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble. 166 I wait for your salvation, LORD, and I follow your commands. 167 I obey your statutes, for I love them greatly. 168 I obey your precepts and your statutes, for all my ways are known to you. 169 May my cry come before you, LORD; give me understanding according to your word. 170 May my supplication come before you; deliver me according to your promise. 171 May my lips overflow with praise, for you teach me your decrees. 172 May my tongue sing of your word, for all your commands are righteous. 173 May your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen your precepts. 174 I long for your salvation, LORD, and your law gives me delight. 175 Let me live that I may praise you, and may your laws sustain me. 176 I have strayed like a lost sheep. Seek your servant, for I have not forgotten your commands.

    Proverbs 2:1 My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, 2 turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding— 3 indeed, if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, 4 and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, 5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. 6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. 7 He holds success in store for the upright, he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless, 8 for he guards the course of the just and protects the way of his faithful ones. 9 Then you will understand what is right and just and fair—every good path. 10 For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. 11 Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you. 12 Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse, 13 who have left the straight paths to walk in dark ways, 14 who delight in doing wrong and rejoice in the perverseness of evil, 15 whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their ways. 16 Wisdom will save you also from the adulterous woman, from the wayward woman with her seductive words, 17 who has left the partner of her youth and ignored the covenant she made before God. 18 Surely her house leads down to death and her paths to the spirits of the dead. 19 None who go to her return or attain the paths of life. 20 Thus you will walk in the ways of the good and keep to the paths of the righteous. 21 For the upright will live in the land, and the blameless will remain in it; 22 but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the unfaithful will be torn from it.

    Proverbs 3:1 My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart, 2 for they will prolong your life many years and bring you peace and prosperity. 3 Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. 4 Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man. 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil. 8 This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones. 9 Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops; 10 then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine. 11 My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline, and do not resent his rebuke, 12 because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in. 13 Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding, 14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. 15 She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her. 16 Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. 17 Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her; those who hold her fast will be blessed. 19 By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; 20 by his knowledge the watery depths were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew. 21 My son, do not let wisdom and understanding out of your sight, preserve sound judgment and discretion; 22 they will be life for you, an ornament to grace your neck. 23 Then you will go on your way in safety, and your foot will not stumble. 24 When you lie down, you will not be afraid; when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet. 25 Have no fear of sudden disaster or of the ruin that overtakes the wicked, 26 for the LORD will be at your side and will keep your foot from being snared. 27 Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act. 28 Do not say to your neighbor, “Come back tomorrow and I’ll give it to you”— when you already have it with you. 29 Do not plot harm against your neighbor, who lives trustfully near you. 30 Do not accuse anyone for no reason— when they have done you no harm. 31 Do not envy the violent or choose any of their ways. 32 For the LORD detests the perverse but takes the upright into his confidence. 33 The LORD’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous. 34 He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed. 35 The wise inherit honor, but fools get only shame.

    Proverbs 4:1 Listen, my sons, to a father’s instruction; pay attention and gain understanding. 2 I give you sound learning, so do not forsake my teaching. 3 For I too was a son to my father, still tender, and cherished by my mother. 4 Then he taught me, and he said to me, “Take hold of my words with all your heart; keep my commands, and you will live. 5 Get wisdom, get understanding; do not forget my words or turn away from them. 6 Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. 7 The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. 8 Cherish her, and she will exalt you; embrace her, and she will honor you. 9 She will give you a garland to grace your head and present you with a glorious crown.” 10 Listen, my son, accept what I say, and the years of your life will be many. 11 I instruct you in the way of wisdom and lead you along straight paths. 12 When you walk, your steps will not be hampered; when you run, you will not stumble. 13 Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life. 14 Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evildoers. 15 Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. 16 For they cannot rest until they do evil; they are robbed of sleep till they make someone stumble. 17 They eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence. 18 The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day. 19 But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble. 20 My son, pay attention to what I say; turn your ear to my words. 21 Do not let them out of your sight, keep them within your heart; 22 for they are life to those who find them and health to one’s whole body. 23 Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. 24 Keep your mouth free of perversity; keep corrupt talk far from your lips. 25 Let your eyes look straight ahead; fix your gaze directly before you. 26 Give careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your ways. 27 Do not turn to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil.

    Proverbs 7:1 My son, keep my words and store up my commands within you. 2 Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye. 3 Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart. 4 Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” and to insight, “You are my relative.” 5 They will keep you from the adulterous woman, from the wayward woman with her seductive words. 6 At the window of my house I looked down through the lattice. 7 I saw among the simple, I noticed among the young men, a youth who had no sense. 8 He was going down the street near her corner, walking along in the direction of her house 9 at twilight, as the day was fading, as the dark of night set in. 10 Then out came a woman to meet him, dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent. 11 (She is unruly and defiant, her feet never stay at home; 12 now in the street, now in the squares, at every corner she lurks.) 13 She took hold of him and kissed him and with a brazen face she said: 14 “Today I fulfilled my vows, and I have food from my fellowship offering at home. 15 So I came out to meet you; I looked for you and have found you! 16 I have covered my bed with colored linens from Egypt. 17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon. 18 Come, let’s drink deeply of love till morning; let’s enjoy ourselves with love! 19 My husband is not at home; he has gone on a long journey. 20 He took his purse filled with money and will not be home till full moon.” 21 With persuasive words she led him astray; she seduced him with her smooth talk. 22 All at once he followed her like an ox going to the slaughter, like a deer stepping into a noose 23 till an arrow pierces his liver, like a bird darting into a snare, little knowing it will cost him his life. 24 Now then, my sons, listen to me; pay attention to what I say. 25 Do not let your heart turn to her ways or stray into her paths. 26 Many are the victims she has brought down; her slain are a mighty throng. 27 Her house is a highway to the grave, leading down to the chambers of death.

    Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon: A wise son brings joy to his father, but a foolish son brings grief to his mother. 2 Ill-gotten treasures have no lasting value, but righteousness delivers from death. 3 The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked. 4 Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth. 5 He who gathers crops in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. 6 Blessings crown the head of the righteous, but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked. 7 The name of the righteous is used in blessings, but the name of the wicked will rot. 8 The wise in heart accept commands, but a chattering fool comes to ruin. 9 Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out. 10 Whoever winks maliciously causes grief, and a chattering fool comes to ruin. 11 The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence. 12 Hatred stirs up conflict, but love covers over all wrongs. 13 Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of one who has no sense. 14 The wise store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin. 15 The wealth of the rich is their fortified city, but poverty is the ruin of the poor. 16 The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death. 17 Whoever heeds discipline shows the way to life, but whoever ignores correction leads others astray. 18 Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool. 19 Sin is not ended by multiplying words, but the prudent hold their tongues. 20 The tongue of the righteous is choice silver, but the heart of the wicked is of little value. 21 The lips of the righteous nourish many, but fools die for lack of sense. 22 The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, without painful toil for it. 23 A fool finds pleasure in wicked schemes, but a person of understanding delights in wisdom. 24 What the wicked dread will overtake them; what the righteous desire will be granted. 25 When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone, but the righteous stand firm forever. 26 As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so are sluggards to those who send them. 27 The fear of the LORD adds length to life, but the years of the wicked are cut short. 28 The prospect of the righteous is joy, but the hopes of the wicked come to nothing. 29 The way of the LORD is a refuge for the blameless, but it is the ruin of those who do evil. 30 The righteous will never be uprooted, but the wicked will not remain in the land. 31 From the mouth of the righteous comes the fruit of wisdom, but a perverse tongue will be silenced. 32 The lips of the righteous know what finds favor, but the mouth of the wicked only what is perverse.

    Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come and the years approach when you will say, “I find no pleasure in them”— 2 before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars grow dark, and the clouds return after the rain; 3 when the keepers of the house tremble, and the strong men stoop, when the grinders cease because they are few, and those looking through the windows grow dim; 4 when the doors to the street are closed and the sound of grinding fades; when people rise up at the sound of birds, but all their songs grow faint; 5 when people are afraid of heights and of dangers in the streets; when the almond tree blossoms and the grasshopper drags itself along and desire no longer is stirred. Then people go to their eternal home and mourners go about the streets. 6 Remember him—before the silver cord is severed, and the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, and the wheel broken at the well, 7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. 8 “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Everything is meaningless!” 9 Not only was the Teacher wise, but he also imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. 10 The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true. 11 The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one shepherd. 12 Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. 13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.

    Isaiah 48:1 “Listen to this, you descendants of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel and come from the line of Judah, you who take oaths in the name of the LORDand invoke the God of Israel— but not in truth or righteousness— 2 you who call yourselves citizens of the holy city and claim to rely on the God of Israel— the LORD Almighty is his name: 3 I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. 4 For I knew how stubborn you were; your neck muscles were iron, your forehead was bronze. 5 Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you so that you could not say, ‘My images brought them about; my wooden image and metal god ordained them.’ 6 You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? “From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. 7 They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, ‘Yes, I knew of them.’ 8 You have neither heard nor understood; from of old your ears have not been open. Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth. 9 For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to destroy you completely. 10 See, I have refined you, though not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. 11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another. 12 “Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last. 13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together. 14 “Come together, all of you, and listen: Which of the idols has foretold these things? The LORD’s chosen ally will carry out his purpose against Babylon; his arm will be against the Babylonians. 15 I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him. I will bring him, and he will succeed in his mission. 16 “Come near me and listen to this: “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there.” And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, endowed with his Spirit. 17 This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go. 18 If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your well-being like the waves of the sea. 19 Your descendants would have been like the sand, your children like its numberless grains; their name would never be blotted out nor destroyed from before me.” 20 Leave Babylon, flee from the Babylonians! Announce this with shouts of joy and proclaim it. Send it out to the ends of the earth; say, “The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob.” 21 They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for them from the rock; he split the rock and water gushed out. 22 “There is no peace,” says the LORD, “for the wicked.”

    Daniel 9:1 In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. 3 So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. 4 I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: “Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments, 5 we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our ancestors, and to all the people of the land. 7 “Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. 8 We and our kings, our princes and our ancestors are covered with shame, LORD, because we have sinned against you. 9 The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; 10 we have not obeyed the LORD our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. 11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. “Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. 12 You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing on us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. 13 Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come on us, yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. 14 The LORD did not hesitate to bring the disaster on us, for the LORD our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him. 15 “Now, Lord our God, who brought your people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made for yourself a name that endures to this day, we have sinned, we have done wrong. 16 Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our ancestors have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us. 17 “Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, our God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 Lord, listen! Lord, forgive! Lord, hear and act! For your sake, my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.” 20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill— 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision: 24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place. 25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

    Amos 2:1 This is what the LORD says: “For three sins of Moab, even for four, I will not relent. Because he burned to ashes the bones of Edom’s king, 2 I will send fire on Moab that will consume the fortresses of Kerioth. Moab will go down in great tumult amid war cries and the blast of the trumpet. 3 I will destroy her ruler and kill all her officials with him,” says the LORD. 4 This is what the LORD says: “For three sins of Judah, even for four, I will not relent. Because they have rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept his decrees, because they have been led astray by false gods, the gods their ancestors followed, 5 I will send fire on Judah that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.” 6 This is what the LORD says: “For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not relent. They sell the innocent for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. 7 They trample on the heads of the poor as on the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name. 8 They lie down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge. In the house of their god they drink wine taken as fines. 9 “Yet I destroyed the Amorites before them, though they were tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks. I destroyed their fruit above and their roots below. 10 I brought you up out of Egypt and led you forty years in the wilderness to give you the land of the Amorites. 11 “I also raised up prophets from among your children and Nazirites from among your youths. Is this not true, people of Israel?” declares the LORD. 12 “But you made the Nazirites drink wine and commanded the prophets not to prophesy. 13 “Now then, I will crush you as a cart crushes when loaded with grain. 14 The swift will not escape, the strong will not muster their strength, and the warrior will not save his life. 15 The archer will not stand his ground, the fleet-footed soldier will not get away, and the horseman will not save his life. 16 Even the bravest warriors will flee naked on that day,” declares the LORD.

    orthodoxymoron wrote:



    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    I've lived in Redding, CA, and I know people who've had to evacuate.
    California seems vulnerable in many ways.
    I grew-up in Southern California.







    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:29 pm; edited 7 times in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:23 pm

    orthodoxymoron wrote:Don't Be Frightened. I Mean No Harm. This thread is mind-boggling, and I frankly can't keep up. As the Info-War intensifies, the public might shut-down, and enter into a New Dark-Ages. We need to feel that we understand things, and have everything under control. I've attempted this with my strange modeling and illusions of grandeur, imagining importance to attempt to deal with the unimaginable and horrific. Unfortunately, my nervous-system can't handle the truth. Perhaps the government is right about the general-public not being able to deal with the hidden-realities of our precarious-existence. I wonder if I've been mentally, physically, and spiritually messed-with?! Have witches and warlocks cast spells on me?? Am I not supposed to be here?? Was I considered destroyed in antiquity??

    This makes for terrifying personal science-fiction which the general-public would never understand or support. What I've experienced and created on 'Project Avalon' and 'The Mists of Avalon' is sort of what I had in mind when I spoke with Steven Spielberg's stepmother (and Walter Matthau's son) decades-ago about a Life of Christ Science-Fiction Super-Movie. No one was interested then, and no one is interested now, so it's probably my private-hell, which only a couple of agent-interns and forum-members know about. It's easier that way. Why are there so few participants on this site?! I wonder as I wander.

    I Believe in LEGITIMATE and ETHICAL Hierarchy and Chain of Command, But Be VERY Careful About Selecting Who You Become Absolutely-Obedient To. I Think Many (or Most) of You Would Become Absolutely-Obedient to the Worst Historical and Contemporary Monsters If You Thought They'd Give You a Better Deal Than the Good Guys and Gals. What Percentage of Humanity Have Been Absolutely-Obedient to Satan and/or Lucifer and/or Demonic-Beings for Thousands (or Millions) of Years?? 'RA' told me "No One is Good" but when I asked 'RA' "How Good is Too Good??" he didn't have an answer.

    'The Powers That Be Are Ordained By God.' If so, does this mean history's worst Kings, Queens, Popes, Presidents, CEO's, and Dictators Were Ordained by God?? What Would the Council On Foreign Relations Say?? If the Very-Worst Beings in the Universe Ruled (or Presently Rule) This Solar System, Would YOU Absolutely Obey Them?? If a Beast-Supercomputer Rules This Solar System, Would YOU Absolutely Obey IT?? Perhaps We'll Receive Our Orders From Headquarters On Our Smart-Phones!! Are YOU OK with Zero-Privacy?? Do YOU Mind If Nefarious-Entities WATCH?? What if HAL 9000 was (and is) a Demon-Possessed Beast-Supercomputer with a Monolith Big-Screen Monitor?? "My God!! It's Full of Stars!!" What If This Is the Historical and Contemporary 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'?? Have YOU Eaten the Forbidden-Fruit?? Do You Feel Lucky??

    One Last Thing. In that old 1980's Dr. Who series 'Trial of a Time-Lord' when Dr. Who is finally vindicated, the Madam-Inquisitor offers to restore Dr. Who to his rightful-state as 'Lord President of Gallifrey' but Dr. Who refuses, and wishes for the Madam Inquisitor to run things. In the relatively-new 'Jupiter Ascending' Jupiter Jones is reinstated as 'Owner of Earth' but she is told "You can keep things the way they are, if you choose to" and she apparently leaves things alone. When 'RA' spoke with me in 2010 (The Year We Made Contact) he told me "You can leave things the way they are" but nobody has explained that, or given me a choice concerning anything significant. I Want a Top of the Line Winnebago with a Personal-Supercomputer and Satellite InterPlaNet with an Absolute-Access Password to All the Big-Shots and Good-Stuff in the Solar System. Understood?? Just Kidding. What Would L. Ron Hubbard Do?? Who Really Wrote Ron's Books?? Some of the Book-Titles Are Creepy and Somewhat Relevant to My Strange Threads. Just Kidding. God Loves You and So Do I. Namaste, Godspeed, and Have a Nice Eternity. I Am of Peace. Always. Just Kidding.
    evisnam wrote:I would like to pass on the basics on universal law as i have come to understand them.

    They may seem complex or strange but i can assure you they are rooted in logic. I want to try to articulate how they are through the portal of my mind because having understood them was not achieved by reading them as a text , then going about adopting them.

    The way i know them is that they resonate inside me and we all have a " resonator " which is a very powerful ally if you choose to listen to it. I shake my head sometimes when i write wondering how to help someone understand things i experience that i know so well but never put into words, so it is a challenge and i make mistakes in language however i feel its so important for someone to uncover the machination of spirituality into a more scientific language.

    Scientific in the sense its practical and straight forward to understand the text, so here i go....  

    Universal laws operate on a simple basis yet its complex if you were to examine the " nuts and bolts "

    We works backwards from the end result sans internum absque mendacium.  IE: working backwards from the ideal end result without lying to our selves in the imagined route.

    EG:  I want to buy milk from a corner store but i hold a grudge with the owner , the grudge was brought about years ago when he stole my girlfriend... it was when i was having a break from the relationship and started to see someone else. They became friends and eventually got together.  

    if i examine the situation truthfully i have no grounds to carry a grudge , in fact i have no reasonable grounds for any type of grudge within that dynamic.

    I ask you now to ponder for a minute how you have done this in your daily lives...  

    Now i ask you to examine the feeling it gives you when you are asked to admit truth...

    Ok so that " feeling " you get in that moment is called " Egofear "   and it is designed to give you a negative feeling of the repercussions of admitting truth and its social ramifications.

    So what i would like you to do now is get to that point where you " feel " the " Egofear " then hold it as an image in your mind, you may describe it any way you like visually and or texturally.  

    Then i ask you to inverse its being from its point of inception , take in a deep breath and hold it , hold till you are almost blue in the face and whilst holding put that feeling into your breath and then blow it out with all your might.

    This is called unraveling the self imposed law.

    Please note if you go back to thinking the same way IE if that does not change your thinking you will end up back at square one.

    Universal Law One : Admission to self sans internum mendacium.

    I will leave  this one for you to ponder ... i will be back with the other 5 laws.

    PS. Please be seated when you try this method , it can make your legs weak as you release. When you feel that rush leave your body DO NOT TRY TO CONTROL IT !!! LET !!! IT !!! GO !!!  you may feel it pour out of you like a turbulent river of energy... this is a good thing, let it all out to the point you feel serene.
    bobhardee wrote:
    7/25/2018
    The disaster that will not go away

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_crE-T394s8
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Bob, it might simply be coincidental, but I've been watching Mel Fabregas interview Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy in 2011, which reminded me of Fukushima, and then I noticed your post on this thread. Then, my internet went dead. This all happened almost simultaneously. I think I might've encountered a couple of actors who were separately mean to me. They seemed to be playing the roles they played in a couple of movies, but this whole thing might just be my diseased imagination. I'm desperately attempting to stop posting. Anyway, here's that 2011 interview. I almost cried. What if Bill and Kerry are Zeus and Artemis?? Isn't Artemis known as the Jaguar Lady (or something like that)?? The introductory song and photo might be highly instructive. Just saying. I just realized that this interview occurred just prior to Fukushima, and Kerry mentions the word 'Tsunami'. Coincidental?? I was still conversing with 'RA' at this time, and as I've said so many times, three days prior to Fukushima, 'RA' told me "You found out something about yourself. I'm sorry we couldn't work together. Too much water has gone under the bridge." The 'V' series ended when Fukushima occurred. I've spoken face to face with three very-significant individuals with the name 'Mitchell'. An agent kind of guy recently said he was "watching me". 'RA' told me "I've been watching you for a long time." What Would Gabriel Say?? What Would John Constantine Say?? Enough Said. They have ways to make me stop. Many Ways. The Horror.

    SEKHMET = DURGA = ARTEMIS = MUT = ATHENA = WHITE JAGUAR LADY = WHITE BUFFALO CALF WOMAN = VAISHNO DEVI

    ALCYONE = SATYANARAYANA = APOLLO = PTAH = VISHNU = RAMA
    AMUN RA = KRISHNA

    ANAT = ERESHKIGAL = KALI = BLACK MADONNA = BLACK TARA

    ASTARTE = PARVATI = WHITE TARA = MADONNA = SHEKINAH = UMA = NAMMA
    MAIA = SATI = DAKSHAYANI = DAMKINA = GODDESS OF THE MOUNTAINS

    ENKI = SHIVA= HOLY SPIRIT = ZEUS = CHAKRASAMVARA = AVALOKITESHWARA = CHENREZIG = LUCIFER = EA = ADONAI = HADAD = BA'AL = RUDRA = KAAL BHAIRAVA





    burgundia wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:What if all governments and religions have been created by a 15,000 year-old Archon-Directed Supercomputer-Network as a Consequence of Original Angelic-Insubordination in the War in Heaven and a Not-So-Innocent Garden of Eden for Management, Punishment, and Soul-Refinement Purposes Under the General-Heading of Gabriel?? Consider David Icke and Richard Carrier (for starters). I see the general-outline of something extremely-upsetting. Even my own SDA-Christian background seems to be a mixture of love, hate, truth, and lies. But my attempts to understand this phenomenon through religious and political science-fiction seems to be rejected and ridiculed by everyone. I don't think I've gotten it right, but perhaps I've created a conceptual-laboratory for others, in which the ugly-truth will emerge in all its glory. The Horror.
    Matthew 5:1 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them. He said: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. 14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. 23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. 25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. 31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor  and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Matthew 15:1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’” 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” 12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” 15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” 21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. 29 Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down. 30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. 31 The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel. 32 Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.” 33 His disciples answered, “Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?” 34 “How many loaves do you have?” Jesus asked. “Seven,” they replied, “and a few small fish.” 35 He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. 36 Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. 37 They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 38 The number of those who ate was four thousand men, besides women and children. 39 After Jesus had sent the crowd away, he got into the boat and went to the vicinity of Magadan.

    Matthew 19:1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” 13 Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. 16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” 20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

    Matthew 22:1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. 4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ 5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless. 13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” 15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. 23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

    Mark 7:1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. ) 5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” 6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” 14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” 17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) 20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” 24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.” 30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. 31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis. 32 There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged Jesus to place his hand on him. 33 After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man’s ears. Then he spit and touched the man’s tongue. 34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means “Be opened!”). 35 At this, the man’s ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly. 36 Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. 37 People were overwhelmed with amazement. “He has done everything well,” they said. “He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

    Mark 10:1 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. 2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied. 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh. ’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” 13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” 20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” 28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!” 29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” 32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.” 35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” 41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” 46 Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means “son of Timaeus”), was sitting by the roadside begging. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him. ”So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. 51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him. The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.” 52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

    Mark 12:1 Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. 6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven’t you read this passage of Scripture: “ ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; 11 the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” 12 Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. 13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”“ Caesar’s,” they replied. 17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him. 18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” 24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. ’There is no commandment greater than these.” 32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. 35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ 37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight. 38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.” 41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

    Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old. 8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside. 11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16 He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” 18 Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.” 19 The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. 20 And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.” 21 Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed so long in the temple. 22 When he came out, he could not speak to them. They realized he had seen a vision in the temple, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak. 23 When his time of service was completed, he returned home. 24 After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion. 25 “The Lord has done this for me,” she said. “In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people.” 26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.” 38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her. 39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” 46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, 49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me— holy is his name. 50 His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. 51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. 52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. 53 He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. 54 He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful 55 to Abraham and his descendants forever, just as he promised our ancestors.” 56 Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home. 57 When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth to a son. 58 Her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown her great mercy, and they shared her joy. 59 On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him after his father Zechariah, 60 but his mother spoke up and said, “No! He is to be called John.” 61 They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who has that name.” 62 Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like to name the child. 63 He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.” 64 Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue set free, and he began to speak, praising God. 65 All the neighbors were filled with awe, and throughout the hill country of Judea people were talking about all these things. 66 Everyone who heard this wondered about it, asking, “What then is this child going to be?” For the Lord’s hand was with him. 67 His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied: 68 “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come to his people and redeemed them. 69 He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David 70 (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), 71 salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us— 72 to show mercy to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, 73 the oath he swore to our father Abraham: 74 to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear 75 in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. 76 And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, 77 to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, 78 because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven 79 to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace.” 80 And the child grew and became strong in spirit ; and he lived in the wilderness until he appeared publicly to Israel.

    Luke 18:1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ 4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’ ” 6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” 15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” 21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” 28 Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!” 29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.” 31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; 33 they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.” 34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about. 35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” 38 He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, 41 “What do you want me to do for you?”“ Lord, I want to see,” he replied. 42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” 43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

    John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. 15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” 22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. 25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. 28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. “Come now; let us leave.

    John 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunesso that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. 9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other. 18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master. ’If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ 26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.



    Moses Breaking the Ten Commandments!


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:07 pm; edited 5 times in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:39 pm


















    evisnam wrote:Hello Carol , forgive me i am remis .  

    Your question here : " Now heres the other interesting aspect.. the new life style being sought is a very simple, one close to nature and without external trappings. Do you suppose the temptations of ego have been set aside with these folks? There's something to be said for a happy recluse. "

    Firstly lets look at what the word Ego really means.  

    Ego is the Latin word that means  " I "  Philosophically it means to be of conscious thought , Psychoanalytically it is the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and subconscious and accounts for your own personal identity.

    There is no gender specific ideal in the word Ego other than both genders partake in it in equal parts. EG men partake in Ego through ambition and achievement just as much as women do.  Men and women both partake in self improvement yet women take far greater pride in their appearance,  would that mean that women have more ego than men ?  In that instance yes but to take pride in your appearance is a good thing.  Now there would be examples of both that are representative of Bad Ego, this would simply be when the outcome of that ego indulgence is purely selfish.

    So what am i trying to say ?   I would get the feeling right about now that most people think ego is bad , just like vegans think killing sheep is bad.  What sets them apart ?    An in tolerance of sentient life suffering and lack of education. The killing of an animal for sport i think is cruel and un just however doing it humanly and with purpose is necessary for survival.

    The native Terran's of your home in the USA the original Red , Cheorkee , Sioux and Navajo ( to name a few ) Adopted a care takers attitude to the earth.  They killed animals to survive but they thanked the animal and did it with dignity. It was part of their culture to do this.

    What Vegans and Vegetarians do not understand is that plants have just as much feeling and they are sentient even more than animals are.

    So next time you eat an apple realise that unless it is rotten and decayed it still is alive and you are eating it alive.

    So in light of your question i would have to say that people who have the courage to follow through on their desires have most definitely followed their ego.  Ego is not an attachment to creature comfort as its implied in your question however it is loosely related. Whatever the ego desires most , it will achieve.

    Now on to answering your question, people who leave a traditional life style in seeking one that they yearn for is evolutionary behavior. The question is " can they pull it off ?  "  We are not that victorian animal anymore .. we have regressed into what i call " The Venturi of Technology "   simply put , the part of evolution tipping scale where equal parts pull each other in opposing directions. The Venturi is the part of the living evolutionary vacuum creating a phase cancellation of thought to the human condition.

    Why are we regressing and migrating simultaneously ?   Why dont we migrate back to nature and adopt advanced technological techniques to not only give us our creature comforts but also be in symbiance with nature ?    Jaques Fresco had this vision in his architectural design.

    Living off grid is a great way to extend your life and happiness but to do so with mediocre technology seems detrimental.

    So i would say embrace your ego and live where you feel is good for your soul , but adopt new and emerging technology to live freely and to the edification of nature. It can be done , we just need to break free from stereotypical thinking.

    Here is a video from Jaques Fresco , i hope it inspires.



    evisnam wrote:In watching all of the Venus Project i realise some of the information in it was not what i was going for per se,

    The video below is far more comprehensive on modern housing techniques relaying simple but effective ways to build smart homes where the " smart " component is not designed to benefit others , instead it is designed to benefit the inhabitants.

    For example, The air pressure inside is kept slightly higher than the outside pressure to keep dust out of the home.

    The exo skeleton of the home is imbed with solar panels , you don't see the panels , the exterior just looks like a honeycomb structure, inside the home are sensors to detect particulates which carry disease and in turn increases the electrostatic charge of the interior surfaces to disinfect the home automatically. Much like how ultraviolet frequency 254 nm. from the sun acts as a disinfectant naturally.

    These are just a few examples of how a true smart home should operate. Currently the smart component is being skewed towards information retrieval... Part of the sickness inherent in our government agencies.

    What i propose is this , instead of feeling stifled by this , make a choice to do it your own way. You do not need permission from a government agency to install or build anything, you have free will to do so the way you want.

    The fear they instill in us is to carry the laziness of their scheme. So if you seem to comply when the situation arises, not giving them any idea that you are opposed to their ideas, when they are gone and your dealing is done , change it to how you want it. Yes i know the fear is they will come back or find out... So what ? What is the worst that can happen ? And in your experiences how many times do they actually come back, if ever ?

    Do Not Fear , it is their construct , choose to be brave and do what is best for you.

    So if you want a fire place in your mobile home so you can use wood to fuel your stove and hot water system , DO IT !! Install it , put a fascia over it to look like a book shelf , Why does the house smell like smoke ? from the camp fire ! Why do you store wood in the back ? for the camp fire ! Why is there a fire place inside ? the home came like that , we changed it to a book shelf to comply with regulations !

    Then when they are gone, go and find a nice vista , heat up the fire place, drink your wine and snicker at your mischievous conduct.

    Below is the Jaques Fresco video i referred to earlier.


    bobhardee wrote:Orthrodoxymoron, AKA Oxy, Speaking of creepy, while I was reading your post, the lights went out here for a couple hours. I have not visited Project Camelot site in a long time and it was good to see that they are hanging with their "research".  What "roles" were they playing and in what movie? You must have been on the set or something like that.  Kerry and Bill were able to get a number of people talking about their UFO experiences and at the time it was quite sensational.  I am not sure if she is still breaking ground or if their have arisen so many others that have become more notable.  You have the History series Ancient Aliens.  The MUFON series is also out there.  It's not like their are the lead speakers on the presentation programs anymore.  Kerry always gave me the impression that she acted as if she knew more than the people she interviewed.  Maybe she did but it didn't make for some comfortable interviews. Artemis?  Sorry Oxy but you lost me. "Kerry mentioned the word tsunami"  I normally don't believe in coincidences but I think that was one. Somebodies watching you?  Oxy....Are you playing with the mushrooms again? Very Happy

    Take care and thanks for the note.
    Bob H.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Bob, I deleted my response from this thread, but you can read it on the last post of my USSS Book Six thread. Three months prior to Fukushima, 'RA' told me that preparations for an undisclosed-something had been completed. Three days prior to Fukushima, 'RA' told me "You found something out about yourself. I'm sorry we couldn't work together. Too much water has gone under the bridge." Anyway, here is David Icke's take on Fukushima and Governance. Enough Said.


    orthodoxymoron wrote:The lights going out is creepy!! Bob, I could've been mistaken, but I thought they might be the politician (who says "@$$hole") in 'Capricorn One' and Mark Baum's associate with the shortest hair in 'The Big Short'. I think he gave himself a haircut. It wasn't on a set, but I've been on sets. A couple of TV show tapings, and I sang in a couple of televised church-choirs a long time ago, but it wasn't a big-deal. An agent kind of guy really did tell me I was being watched, and I wasn't on mushrooms, but I did speak privately with Dr. Timothy Leary (about Jesus) and Terence McKenna (separately) a long time ago. Terence told me "If you dream it, you've already done it." He combined psychedelic-mushrooms with esoteric-research!! What a Trip!! Artemis = Diana of Ephesus = White Jaguar Lady = Brook's Guide. Kerry sang a song with the words "I'm a Jaguar." Have you carefully studied Kerry's face and eyes?? She knows a hell of a lot, but she constantly interrupts, and seems to have significant issues. Bill doesn't seem to be 'Just Another Human'. I type this tripe to embellish my online science-fiction. I do it because I can, but I've said too much already, and I'm honestly trying to stop posting. It seems as if the Matrix is telling me to "Shut the F&<k Up!!" and I think I might know why. The Horror. I'll leave you with an interesting 'Apollo-Compilation.' What's interesting to me is that I spoke with Steven Spielberg's stepmother a couple of miles from where the Apollo 11 moon-mission was supposedly faked. Probably just another coincidence. Who Knows?? Dr. Who??  




    I challenge all of you to at least deeply-study this present thread (USSS Book Six) straight-through (reading all words, and watching all videos) without losing your sanity. This is a bigger challenge than most of you can imagine. The Jesuits know what I'm talking about, but I still think they have to sell-out and work for the wrong boss. It might be a bit like joining the Mafia, but perhaps this world is so screwed-up that it has to be that way (for now). I honestly don't know. I just think the higher one rises, the nastier it gets. BTW -- I think someone or some-entity is messing with my car. The hood-latch keeps getting pulled in my locked-car!! I bought a fairly-nice used-car, which I probably shouldn't have bought. The price was right, but it was still too much, and I initially had some serious overheating problems, which the mechanics didn't solve with a new radiator. They said I needed a $4,500 engine-repair, but I solved the overheating-problem with the replacement of a $20 thermostat. I also cleaned-out a very-small and very-long tube. No more overheating. I've had extremely-expensive and extremely-invasive surgical-treatment which didn't solve my primary-complaints, but I think I know what's really ailing me, and I doubt that anyone will properly treat me, so I'm probably on my own. I've posted extensively on this website, with virtually no constructive responses, and I think I now know why, but I don't want to talk about it.

    This thing is probably just going to have to play-out, and I don't think it's going to be nice. We might not even survive. Everyone (good and bad) might go down extremely hard. The real-story of life, the universe, and everything might be nastier and darker than any of us can imagine. I think Sherry Shriner, Brook Schiner, Kerry Cassidy (and many others) know exactly what I'm talking about. Once again, is Sherry Shriner REALLY Dead?? I think we need to be Serious-Researchers without Following the Leader. Just sample everyone, and move on. Don't follow me. I'm just providing a highly-flawed study-guide. Perhaps I should try to cash-in (like everyone-else) and write-books to make-money (even though I still don't know what the hell is REALLY going-on)!! Regarding my Self-Centered Modeling-Exercise, I've passively-pursued a weak-hypothesis about myself (especially after 'RA' contacted me in 2010). 'RA' and other Individuals of Interest have really made we wonder about myself and my presuppositions. But this Self-Centered Modeling-Approach has also been a General Research-Modality which seeks the truth about life, the universe, and everything, without me being anywhere near the center of things. If you knew me in real-life, you'd be highly disappointed and disillusioned. That's the inconvenient-truth. I hate my life, but I love dogs. I've always loved dogs.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2014/07/08/07-07-14-monday-night-with-sherry-shriner Listen to that Sherry Shriner 'Paul Bashing Show' from 07-07-14 (straight-through, over and over). I still have no idea how much of it is true, and how much is pure unmitigated-poppycock, but notice how-little or how-much of the Genuine Pauline-Epistles get bloodied. That's Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Did Paul REALLY Invent Christianity As We Know It?? What Would Hyam Maccoby Say?? What if Paul wrote the truth, and set a trap for those who would follow, who were NOT Pure in Heart?? Matthew through Acts, Roman-Catholicism, and Protestant-Copycats seem to get bloodied the most by Sherry's Irreverent-Rant!! I continue to ask how much of Genesis to Deuteronomy is supported by Joshua to Malachi?? How much of Matthew to Acts is supported by Romans to Revelation?? These are Questions Which Demand a Verdict!! What Would Josh McDowell Say?? There is no substantial body of evidence to substantiate transubstantiation!! An Individual of Interest Atheist-Anarchist told me the Whole-Bible was Total-Bullshit!! I didn't share that viewpoint, but this individual made a lot of sense, and they were ten-times smarter than me!! They boasted about driving across an ice-covered bridge at 85 mph!! That bridge has a 40 mph speed-limit (under ideal circumstances)!!

    I am extremely disillusioned with the Brave New World we live in. I've joked about being a hermit in a high-tech 600 square-foot office-apartment, but perhaps I should retire as a low-tech happy-wanderer, spending most of my time in the world's greatest libraries and museums. I am extremely disillusioned with Internet-Forums. Major-Participants are quickly-forgotten when they quit posting. Where is Mudra?? Where is Mercuriel?? Where is Susan?? Where is Brook?? Where is Orthodoxymoron?? I think I might REALLY disappear this time. I might not be back. I think I need to prepare to die (physically, mentally, spiritually, financially, socially, and in every possible way). It might be too-late baby now. I'll review my online tripe, but there might be zero follow-up. A book might emerge without my words. This wouldn't be plagiarism. It might simply be KJV Scripture, to highlight certain concepts, without explanation or sugar-coating. I doubt anyone would buy it, but I would've somehow contributed to the matrix.

    What if Universities and Corporations Trump Church and State?? I'm not suggesting this is a good-thing or a bad-thing. I'm just saying this might be the Nature of Reality in a Brave New Solar-System. What if a Supercomputer-Network is Central to All of the Above?? What if this has been the case for at least 15,000 years?? What if there really is nothing new under the sun?? What if Q = HAL 9000?? What if HAL 9000 will directly-rule humanity without middlemen for all-eternity?? What if all of us will stand before a Holy-God without a mediator. Please study 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 exhaustively. That's all I'm going to say about that. I might not say much more about much of anything.  I continue to consider the Bible as an Eschatological-Puzzle of Biblical-Proportions!! Solving the Puzzle Might be the Key to Getting Out of Jail!! Who Knows?? What Would Pope Sophie Play?? Her Improvisations Make Me Cry!! What Would the White Jaguar Lady Say?? If I were starting-over, I might focus-upon Composition and Improvisation in the Manner of Dietrich Buxtehude in the Context of the French-Cathedral As a Renegade French-Jesuit Organist (or something like that).

    I'm not going to post for a very-long time (if ever) but let me caution everyone, I'm No Fun. I'm feeling worse than anyone can imagine, so expect me to be non-responsive in real-life. I'm too-old and too-stupid to do anything worth anything. My next-life (if I even have one) will probably be worse than this one (and that's pretty-bad). I have zero-connections. I'm on my own. I'm serious about just retiring to a 600 square-foot motorhome with a supercomputer (visiting the major libraries and museums of North America). I guess I'm not too-serious, but it's fun to think about, which brings me to my point: Fantasy and Reality are two very-different things. Knowing and Thinking One Knows are two very-different things. I honestly think I'll go benignly-insane within ten-years, rendering me silent and immobile (sort of like Augusto Monti in 'The Word'). Don't Be Frightened. I Mean No Harm. I Am of Peace. Always. Just Kidding. Take Me To Your Therapist.

    I recently re-encountered an actor who worked with Gene Rodenberry, but we remained neutral toward each-other. I recently encountered someone who seemed to be a Las Vegas style comedian, but I didn't recognize him. Sorry about that. I guess my mind is badly slipping. I can feel it. I'm afraid. Do you want me to sing you a song?? It's called 'Daisy'. What if 'Daisy' is 'Artemis'??  

    Always Remember: The Secret of Success for the Inner-Winner is Understanding and Appreciating Everyone and Everything, Competing Without Ceasing With Positive Response Ability, and a Game-Show, Talk-Show, Lawyer-Like Approach to Life, the Universe, and Everything. One More Thing. Crime Does NOT Pay On Judgment-Day. Namaste and Godspeed.






    Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” 6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” 12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. 15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.” 18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “ ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “ ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ 21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

    1 Corinthians 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. 25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. 29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. 36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better. 39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

    1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified. 6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church. 13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21 In the Law it is written: “With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” 26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored. 39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

    Ephesians 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. 11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

    Colossians 2:1 I want you to know how hard I am contending for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. 6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. 20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

    Colossians 4:1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. 2 Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. 3 And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. 4 Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. 5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. 7 Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. 8 I am sending him to you for the express purpose that you may know about our circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts. 9 He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is happening here. 10 My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11 Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me. 12 Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. 13 I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. 14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. 15 Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea. 17 Tell Archippus: “See to it that you complete the ministry you have received in the Lord.” 18 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.

    1 Thessalonians 4:1 As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit. 9 Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. 10 And in fact, you do love all of God’s family throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers and sisters, to do so more and more, 11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, 12 so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. 13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

    Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, 3 and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior, 4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. 5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. 10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

    1 John 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining. 9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them. 12 I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. 13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. 14 I write to you, dear children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one. 15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. 18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life. 26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. 28 And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming. 29 If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.

    1 John 3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure. 4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. 7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. 11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. 16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. 19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

    1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. 16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. 18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. 19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.

    2 John 1:1 The elder, To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth— 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever: 3 Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love. 4 It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us. 5 And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. 7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. 12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. 13 The children of your sister, who is chosen by God, send their greetings.

    Revelation 12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. 7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. 12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” 13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

    Revelation 14:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. 7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. 12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” 13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

    Revelation 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. 6 The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” 7 “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll.” 8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!” 10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. 11 Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” 12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” 17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life. 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. 20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.





    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:18 pm

    Regarding the following paragraph, has anything been published from that five-year committee or seventeen-year study?? How much of Raymond Cottrell's research might've ended-up in Desmond Ford's books and lectures?? I'm wondering if they uncovered HUGE Issues -- of which Ford's material was just the tip of the iceberg?? One more thing. This article seems to be exceedingly-important -- yet there has been absolutely zero discussion!! Why??

    Cottrell conducted a poll of Adventist Bible scholars regarding the topic and was appointed by the General Conference president to the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel (which adjourned after five years without consensus). He embarked on his own "unhurried, in-depth, spare-time, comprehensive study of Daniel 7 to 12 that continued without interruption for seventeen years (1955-1972), in quest of a conclusive solution to the sanctuary problem," he wrote in his "Asset or Liability" paper. But he decided not to publish "until an appropriate time" his resulting 1100-page manuscript, which he edited down to 725 pages.

    Volumes 3 and 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary (1 Chronicles to Malachi) combined with Prophets and Kings might be a profitable alternative New-Testament Version of the Old-Testament. In some ways, Adventists seem to simultaneously 'know too much' and 'know too little' which often seems to make our 'road less traveled' a 'rough and rocky road'. I have more questions than answers as the information-war reaches epidemic-proportions.

    I've recently become interested in focusing-upon 1 Chronicles to Malachi (which coincides with Volumes 3 and 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary). This study coincides with Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment by Desmond Ford. I recently acquired a very-rare book titled The End of the World: A.D. 2133 by Lucio Bernardo Silvestre (published in 1985) which places the beginning of the 2300 days/years at 168 B.C. and the termination at A.D. 2133. There is also an interesting book called God's Day of Judgment: The Real Cause of Global Warming by Douglas Vogt which suggests the Beginning of the End occurring in A.D. 2046 due to a Solar-Phenomenon!! Isaac Newton suggested that the End of the World might occur sometime around A.D. 2060 (if I remember correctly). What if the Internet ends-up being the Foundation of an Investigative Judgment -- with an Executive Judgment terminating in or around A.D. 2133?? What Would Raymond Cottrell, Desmond Ford, and F.D. Nichol Say??

    I've been wondering what understanding one might achieve if they read Job through Malachi straight-through, over and over, in a variety of translations, without openly discussing their study?? This implies Job through Malachi interpreting Job through Malachi (plus nothing). Has anyone done this?? The SDA Bible Commentary utilizes a Whole-Bible, Ellen White, Grammatical-Historical Scholarly-Approach, which isn't the approach I just mentioned. What sort of church might emerge from such a study (when the diligent student eventually took the show on the road)??

    What do you think about 1 Corinthians 15:24-28?? How readest thou?? I was shocked!! I couldn't initially find any Ellen White statements concerning this passage. Take a look at what the SDA Bible Commentary (Volume 6) says about this quotation. What Would Dr. A. Graham Maxwell Say?? He did the section on Romans, but what about 1 Corinthians?? He advocated the straight-through, over and over approach to the Whole-Bible, and I simply narrowed this study to Job through Malachi, but I have yet to follow through on this concept.

    1 Corinthians 15:24-28 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

    People want what they want. If people don't like what the preacher says, the preacher gets a call from the conference-office, and gets moved, especially if they've angered those with the dough. Biblical-Research might be a can of worms which is not relevant to the upwardly-mobile, who want religion to help them, rather than being a genuine search for truth in the context of the Bible and Antiquity.

    The Roman Catholic Church basically invented a New Religion, removed the Bible from the Public, and resorted to Violent-Persecution, to attempt to keep the worms in the can, and the peons in the pews, saving their souls with ritual-observance and salvation4sale. More recently, Peale and Schuller invented a New Religion of Positive-Thinking and Self-Esteem, avoiding all the nasty-problems Biblical-Research confronts one with. Dr. Walter Martin was tougher and nastier than a Junkyard-Dog regarding Biblical-Studies and Controversial-Topics.

    The real backbone of many church-organizations (including the SDA Church) seems to be Pluralistic-Education and Money-Making, which may simply be the Way Things Are in an increasingly fast-paced technological-society with no patience for Serious Biblical-Research. The SDA Bible Commentary might be attractive to very-few people. It's too long, too scholarly, too old, etc. But I wonder how all of the above will be dealt with in a Final-Judgment (Investigative or Otherwise)?! As Ellen White and Desmond Ford pointed-out, "The Bible is yet but dimly understood."

    As most of you know, I attempt to combine my Theological-Baggage with my Science-Fictional Hopes and Fears (for better or worse, I know not). Some of you might find this discussion quite interesting and instructive. I don't really side with anyone!! In retrospect, I have often wondered why the Fourth-Volume of the SDA Bible Commentary (Isaiah to Malachi) was not exhaustively-studied (reading it straight-through, over and over)??!! The Bible is NOT a Bible-Commentary. The writings of Ellen White are NOT a Bible-Commentary. The Seven-Volume SDA Bible Commentary IS a Bible-Commentary. I have suggested studying this commentary while listening to sacred classical music, but what do I know?! This approach obviously does NOT have crowd-pleasing money-making potential (to say the least)!! I spent many hours in classes taught by Desmond Ford and Erwin Gane (separately, of course). I was present at Dr. Ford's Oct. 27, 1979 lecture at Pacific Union College. I last spoke with Des at a home in the hills of Loma Linda (concerning the Life and Teachings of Jesus). I conversed with Robert Brinsmead (via email) concerning the Teachings of Jesus. A former SDA Conference President told me that the writings of Ellen White were "balanced" (and wished me well on my "quest"). His son told me that Dr. Ford was "legalistic". That's all I'm going to say. If I told you any more, you'd know too much...






    http://atoday.org/glacier-view-a-retrospective/
    Glacier View: A Retrospective
    by Richard W. Coffen

    It’s been 36 years since a group of church leaders and scholars met at Glacier View Ranch in Colorado to talk about the challenging ideas put forth by Australian theologian Desmond Ford. There are few attendees left who can and will talk about it, and I am grateful to have as a friend and AT contributor Richard W. Coffen. I’ve asked Richard to write his memories of Glacier View, and he has graciously consented.
    —Loren Seibold, AT Executive Editor

    When: August 10 – 15, 1980.
    Where: Glacier View Camp, Ward, Colorado.
    Who: 129 invitees.
    What: Sanctuary Review Committee.
    Why: Desmond Ford had pushed some Seventh-day Adventist hot buttons.
    White papers: Ford’s 991-page magnum opus titled Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment; additionally, approximately equal number of pages of various position papers and other documentation.

    Raymond Cottrell (long-time pastor, missionary, biblical scholar, educator, and editor (Footnote 1)) later penned: “The meeting of the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee Aug. 10-15, 1980, was the most important event of this nature in Adventist history since the 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis.” (Footnote 2)

    Many comments—pro and con—quickly followed the dissolution of the so-called committee. Many can be acquired via Google. My retrospective here consists of my own subjective experience(s)—accounts of a meeting I sometimes speculated might degenerate into a figurative auto de fé of Ford. Understand, I’ve always regarded Des not only as a client (I served as head book editor and responsible for publishing his Anvil Series book Daniel (Foonote 3)) but also as a friend (he and his delightful wife, Gillian, provided me with a delicious meal in their home).

    Ford’s Assertions

    As a biblical scholar (Ford received his doctorate under the auspices of renowned F. F. Bruce) and, as an Australian (Aussies have a reputation for outspokenness), Ford had publicly called into question certain cherished Adventist positions.

    Des Ford postulated that:

    (1) the Danielic “little horn” symbolized Antioches IV Epiphanes (215 B.C. – 164 BC), demolisher of the Judaic cultus;
    (2) Daniel 8:14 does not reference the Levitical Yom Kippur;
    (3) the Hebrew term (tsâdaq) (Footnote 4) translated “cleansed” in the King James’ rendition of Daniel 8:14 differs from the word used of the effect of Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16:19 and 30 (?aher);
    (4) the purported day-for-a-year principle devolves from misunderstanding proof texts;
    (5) the terminology translated “days” in the KJV isn’t the usual Hebrew term (yom) but two words—(a) “evenings” (‘ereb) and (b) “mornings” (bôqer). This, as Daniel 8:13 clarifies, is the “daily” (tâmîyd) ritual service. (Footnote 5)
    (6) investigative judgment (non-biblical terminology) as generally presented undermines (a) objectively the gospel of grace and (b) subjectively personal assurance of salvation;
    (7) Hebrews 9 teaches that High Priest Jesus entered the divine presence (antitypical Most Holy Place) immediately upon the Ascension, not waiting until 1844;
    (Cool apocalyptic literature should be interpreted by using the “apotelesmatic principle,” which understands predictions as having multiple (even partial) fulfillments;
    (9) the Greek word (dikaióo) behind “justify” and “justification” was legal jargon for the verdict: “Not guilty”;
    (10) Ellen White’s writings aren’t inspired commentaries but homiletical instruction for upbuilding the Adventist Church.

    The General Conference President’s Solution

    General Conference president, Neal C. Wilson, magnanimously provided Ford with a costly six-month paid leave to write a defense of his ostensibly heterodox opinions. An ad hoc committee chaired by Richard Hammill was to support (but not dictate to) Ford in his crafting of the document. The resultant weighty tome (five pounds!) would be critiqued by yet another and much larger ad hoc group, the Sanctuary Review Committee, which Wilson organized to provide a venue for dealing with Ford’s nonconforming beliefs. Thus I found myself at Glacier View Camp, along with 114 other attendees. I shared sleeping quarters with Kenneth Holland, my colleague and longstanding editor of These Times, and E. S. Reile, conference president and Holland’s friend.

    The officially prescribed timetable followed an unvarying pattern: (1) 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.—communal breakfast; (2) 8:30 a.m. to noon—“study groups” (official terminology; a real misnomer in my opinion) consisting of 18 or so individuals to discuss topics related to Ford’s propositions; (3) noon to 1:00 p.m.—common lunch; (4) 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.—free time; (5) 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.—plenary session to deliberate on the day’s topic(s); (6) 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.—supper; (7) 7:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.—plenary session during which specialists read papers on topics related to Ford’s claims; and (Cool 9:30 p.m.—bedtime.

    I should mention a ninth but unofficial happening. Every day between 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., while many attendees lumbered off to their quarters in order to recharge their intellectual and emotional batteries by napping, a relatively small group of us convened in one of the rooms. I dubbed the group “FOF”—Friends of Ford, not necessarily, though, because we agreed in toto with all his assertions. Each of us would report on the sentiments expressed during our individual morning study groups, following which we’d discuss what, if anything, we might say during the afternoon plenary session that would prove constructive. We’d end our discussions with prayer.

    On one occasion, Ford was invited to join us. It was a congenial occasion. Some of the FOF wondered if he might suspend voicing some of his views, even though he regarded them as well-founded. After his leave-taking, some opined that it seemed like Ford might have imagined himself similar to Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms. “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason . . . my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant.”

    My Study Subgroup

    W. Wernick chaired the study group to which I’d been assigned, but his arrival had been delayed for a day. So C. D. Henri presided over our first session. Members assigned to this group were: F. W. Wernik (G. C. vice president), C. D. Henri (retired G. C. vice president), T. H. Blincoe (Seminary dean), W. T. Clark (president Far Eastern Division), R. W. Coffen (RHPA head book editor), Atilio Duperthuis (Seminary student), Salim Japas (Antillian College professor), H. K. LaRondelle (Seminary professor), J. Melancon (Oakwood College professor), R. L. Odom (Daniel Committee member), Elbion Pereyra (associate secretary White Estate), Jack Provonsha (Loma Linda University professor), L. L. Reile (president Canadian Union Conference), W. R. L. Scragg (president Northern Europe-West Africa Division), J. G. Smoot (president Andrews University), A. H. Tolhurst (president North New South Wales Conference), Mervyn Warren (Oakwood College academic dean), and R. M. Zamora (Columbia Union College professor).

    Henri’s opening words went something like this: “We all know why we’re here. To defend the ‘faith which was once delivered unto the saints’” (Jude 1:3). Each study group elected a secretary, who, during the afternoon plenary session, would give an oral report to the entire body. I don’t know what happened to their handwritten notes—destroyed, given to Wilson for the archives, or . . . ? Wilson did inform us that the tape recordings of the afternoon and evening sessions would be stored in the Office of Archives, Statistics, and Research, where they would be sealed away from prying eyes. Nonetheless, Cottrell took shorthand notes on 3 x 5 index cards of all the meetings he attended.

    On Monday, August 11, the topic for discussion throughout the day was the nature of prophecy. On Tuesday, the subjects were (1) the cleansing of the sanctuary and (2) the investigative judgment. On Wednesday, the issues for discussion were the same as the previous day. Finally, on Thursday, August 14, the matter for consideration was the role of Ellen White’s writings in formation of doctrine and exegesis of Scripture. A list of subtopics guided each daily discussion.

    Some Negative Reactions

    From grumblings murmured by certain administrators, it became evident to me that the whole event was essentially an exercise in futility. Neither Ford himself nor his theses would receive what I’d reckon an impartial hearing. Some wondered aloud why Wilson had convened such an expensive meeting, which cost each employing organization $600 per attendee, with the remaining expense underwritten by the General Conference. “Why waste hundreds of thousands of dollars of the Lord’s money?” Others grumbled that the whole scenario wasted everyone’s time. After all, the outcome was a predetermined conclusion. “We know what we believe!”

    According to Wilson’s original strategy, Ford would remain a silent participant because everyone had received (and presumably read—ha!) his lengthy documentation and the other documents mailed to each participant. Other historians and theologians needed to be heard. However, at the request of various vocal participants, Ford was ultimately given time during an afternoon to elucidate some of his views.

    Throughout the afternoon plenary sessions, I observed the body language of attendees. At one point, Ford was explaining a position, which I assumed most biblical scholars would assent to. However, two pews ahead of me I noticed a small commotion. Tolhurst was vigorously flailing his head around, balling his fists, and pounding on the top railing of the pew. It seemed to me that his behavior captured that of other attendees who may not have been so demonstrative. I believe it’s fair to say that Ford didn’t bask in a warm atmosphere! I recognize that other attendees perceived a kinder atmosphere than I did. Maybe reality lay somewhere in between.

    During the same assembly, Ford explained his construal of Hebrews 9 and 10. As he understood the Greek along with the literary context, upon Jesus’ ascension he immediately entered God’s throne room, the antitypical Most Holy Place. Ford had been exposed to this concept by Edward Heppenstall, SDA Seminary professor. I’d later attended the same class, and Heppie (as we affectionately dubbed him) had issued an assignment—exegete portions of Hebrews 9. He wanted us to figure out when and where in the antitypical heavenly temple Jesus entered after he’d ascended. Some students tried to construe a difference based on the Greek (“holies” not “Most Holy [Place]”). These hapless students found themselves victims of Heppie’s customary rapid-fire grilling, which ultimately pinned them to the wall like a mounted butterfly. Somehow they’d disregarded Hebrews 9:24: “Christ is . . . entered . . . into . . . the presence of God.” This contextual elucidation by the author of Hebrews (also provided in Hebrews 10:12), Heppie hammered home, clearly refers to the antitypical Most Holy Place—God’s throne room. Ford, having explained his understanding of Hebrews 9, turned to Heppenstall, who was sitting across the aisle from me. “Isn’t that correct, Dr. Heppenstall?” It shocked me when Heppie demurred. Ford also looked bewildered. Hadn’t he just presented what Heppie had taught? Absolutely, but Heppie refused to substantiate what he’d taught and what Ford had just explained. Although I never polled the academics in attendance, it seemed to me that Heppie’s silence was typical of the attitude of other scholars there. This despite the published after-remarks of some.

    Provonsha’s Valiant Attempt

    During one of our FOF informal sessions, Provonsha reported, “I’ve exciting news!” We all instantly perked up. “I’ve visited individually with Des, Wilson, and Parmenter. All agreed that they would lay down their cudgels and, if need be, agree to disagree, in order to restore harmony and good will.” Provonsha had set about to do the impossible and had exacted the concurrence of the main parties involved. As usual, our group dispersed after prayer, but this time the petitioning seemed even more intense.

    At the afternoon plenary session, Provonsha asked Wilson for the floor. As he strode to the front, I sent up a silent prayer, as I’m sure the rest of the FOF were doing. “Mr. Chairman, brothers and sisters [two female participants had been invited], as a physician I’ve spent my career trying to heal. Sometimes healing has seemed impossible, yet other times what appeared to be impossible happened. And I give God the glory!” (Footnote 6)

    By now, each attendee wondered what Provonsha intended. After more introductory words about the need for spiritual healing and the raison d’être for the Sanctuary Review Committee, Provonsha turned to Parmenter, asking if he was amenable to bringing about reconciliation. He balked! When Provonsha turned to Wilson, he too hesitated—if not downright reneged! Provonsha’s whole attempt unraveled, even though he’d earlier gotten positive commitments from all parties. No reason remained for him to ask Ford if he’d be willing to engage in this armistice. Disappointed, Provonsha trudged back to his seat.

    My Reflections

    Did Ford get a fair hearing? I’m not sure he did, although some of his protestations seemed to have stuck. One rarely hears about the investigative judgment anymore. Now the terminology is pre-advent judgment. Other minor changes appeared in the wording of the two consensus statements framed by a handpicked committee that met toward the end of the sessions. It seems to me that those statements of consensus were essentially political. Because these were consensus statements, it doesn’t follow that every attendee agreed with the viewpoints buttressed therein. Rather, the statements indicated the possibility that, given certain presuppositions, the positions enumerated therein could be rationalized. Agreeing to these statements of consensus didn’t mean agreeing with them. Fact is, the meetings at Glacier View did not satisfactorily resolve the issues addressed by Ford. Much remained to be considered. Perhaps those statements of consensus should have been called statements of concession.

    Aftermath

    On January 30, 1983, the South Pacific Division revoked Ford’s ordination. For several years following Glacier View, various administrators called for Ford’s church membership to be rescinded. Doing so is the prerogative of the local church, and the Pacific Union College Church refused to comply. Ultimately, Ford’s membership ceased. Despite the bitterness at Glacier View and afterward, Ford himself has maintained graciousness. In a personal letter to me, dated February 8, 1983, and typed by himself, he wrote: “Our discussions with the brethren were friendly. They were courteous. . . . Brother Wilson phoned me last week to say the discussions were finished and that he ws [sic] giving Australia the okay to annul my ordination. I am sympathetic towards the brethren—they are in a hard place.”

    Footnotes:

    (1) Cottrell was one of the founders of of Adventist Today.
    (2) Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2
    (3) Don Short, associate book editor, line edited the book.
    (4) Transliterations are from Spiro Zodhiates and Warren Baker, general editors, The Complete Word Study, Old Testament and The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament.
    (5) Compare Ex. 29:38, 42; Num. 28:3, 6; 29:38) two burnt offerings—one sacrificed each morning and the other, each evening. Other aspects of the sanctuary service also were described by the same adverb: showbread (Ex. 25:30); smoldering incense (Ex. 30:Cool; flames on lampstand (Lev. 24:3, 4); and fire on the altar of burnt offerings (Lev. 6:13).
    (6) My reconstruction.

    Having served as pastor, book editor, and vice president at now defunct Review and Herald Publishing Association, now-retired Richard Coffen writes from his home in southwest Arizona.

    Comments: 473

    Bill Sorensen
    August 10, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    ” Provonsha turned to Parmenter, asking if he was amenable to bringing about reconciliation. ” There will never be any “reconciliation” between the doctrine and spirituality of Dr. Ford and the spirituality of EGW and historic Adventism. You don’t change the whole spirituality of any movement by attacking the foundation of the faith and doctrine the movement is built on. All you can do is claim the movement is bogus and denounce it. Dr. Ford had every right to define his own view of what he thought the bible teaches on any given subject. But his view, obviously over throws the whole spiritual structure of the SDA church. I assume he understood himself to be some “Martin Luther” reformer for the SDA church. In fact, he was the beginning of the “Korah rebellion against Moses.” EGW is the “Moses” of the SDA church and any attack on her basic presentation of bible Adventism is rebellion. But like Korah, he got such massive doses of affirmation in his rebellion by others who were equally delusioned about the basic church doctrine, that he thought he could carry it off. And of course, his influence is “alive and well” in the church today. His denial of every foundational principle the SDA church is built on, should have been a warning to himself and his followers that their whole theory was/is bogus. In the end, it is a theology of “lawlessness” the bible warns about again and again.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 10, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    Bill S: ‘In the end, it is a theology of “lawlessness” …’ Or so it appears from the perspective of those who urge law-keeping, as per the Judaisers of Galatians. Most apt, Bill, that you liken EGW to the Moses of her/our day. 2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses /EGW is read, the vail is upon their heart.

    Bill Sorensenb
    August 11, 2016 at 5:45 am
    “Or so it appears from the perspective of those who urge law-keeping, as per the Judaisers of Galatians.” EGW’s theology has no affinity on any level to the “law keeping” of the Judaisers in Galatians. And this was the false charge of Ford about the spirituality of EGW and the SDA church. How people may perceive what she said or meant by a false understanding does not equate to the facts of the matter. If people have a faulty understanding, that is not her fault. Dr. Ford did not attack a “faulty understanding” of EGW. He attack the whole basic theology because of his own false understanding of the gospel. There is nothing wrong with EGW’s theology. There is plenty wrong with Dr. Ford’s theology. There is no false presentation of the law in the theology of EGW. There is a massive false presentation of the gospel in Dr. Ford’s theology.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 11, 2016 at 6:38 am
    Bill, do you believe there will come a time when ‘the Sabbath test’ will be applied to SDAs? If so, can you explain what it means? While on the subject, what is happening in the period when Christ leaves the MHP and the saints must ‘stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator?’ Is this also a test? What will measure a ‘pass’ in this test?

    Bill Sorensen
    August 11, 2016 at 8:44 am
    “Bill, do you believe there will come a time when ‘the Sabbath test’ will be applied to SDAs?” Yes, it will, Serge. And the intensity of the issue will reach its climax during the time of trouble after probation is closed. People have some vain notion that somehow, when probation is closed, and they are “sealed” it will be impossible for them to sin. This is a total misunderstanding of what it means to be “sealed.” To be sealed in a biblical relationship to God is to understand that all moral beings are always on probation and this fact is what gives real and eternal value to the human existence. Only the devil would convince people of the “irresponsible freedom” they may enjoy at some point, either now, or in the future. The close of probation is only applied to the wicked who have rejected the offer of “responsible freedom” and opted for this “irresponsible freedom” Satan offered in heaven and still offers it to the human family. And some SDA’s actually think this is the real and final goal of “salvation” and hope they make it to the close of probation and are sealed so they can’t sin anymore. Totally bogus. No such experience is possible nor will it exist. The IJ will determine who has accepted the freedom God offers, vs. the freedom Satan offers. All who are lost at last, will have blamed God for sin. So the issue is really quit simple, Who is responsible for sin, Satan or God? Most opt to blame God.

    Bill Garber
    August 10, 2016 at 8:14 pm
    General Conference President N. C. Wilson insisted on having the General Conference for the first time in its history to vote an official statement of Fundamental Beliefs in April of 1980 in Dallas in the lead up to the Glacier View conference. This seems an indication of just how deeply Elder Wilson feared the prospect of present truth living on in Seventh-day Adventism. Seventh-day Adventism has always extended well beyond the leadership of the church that borrows its name. And more so today than ever in its history. Seventh-day Adventism could not possibly have grown by the millions around the world had it not adapted and embraced so many new ways of experiencing God’s presence. It has been culturally akin to the lead up to 1844, and spiritually akin to the decade following 1844. “Adventist Today” was founded a bit over a decade after Glacier View in large measure to help sustain the founding “present truth” mindfulness that has brought and continues to bring Seventh-day Adventism through one biblical and spiritual misunderstanding after another for now closing in on two centuries. It is rare that a movement can remain so spiritually nimble over such a span. Thank you “Adventist Today” for all you do in support of perpetuating ‘present truth’ Seventh-day Adventism!

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 10, 2016 at 8:37 pm
    Thank you for your personal insights of Glacier View, Richard. A few make me uneasy. In particular, hearing of Heppenstal’s demurrage. We have a term in Australia for people who lack the courage of their convictions (presuming their expressed ‘convictions’ are real). They are known as ‘gutless wonders.’ I wonder how many of them continue to teach theology in SDA settings to this day. Provonsha’s role even more interesting. In hindsight, one could propose a better way of announcing the result he thought he’d achieved that night. He might have announced that he had obtained an agreement from Parmenter, Wilson and Ford to settle without bloodletting. This would have put them properly on the spot to defend or agree with a whole heart. What transpired reveals them to be but more ‘gutless wonders.’ Makes a joke of a church which imagines it will, one day, ‘stand for truth though the heavens fall.’ Fair shake, they can’t even stand for principle in a quiet corner of Glacier View. One outcome of GV was that the fist-thumping Tolhurst you mentioned returned to Aus in a triumphant mode of St George post slaying of the dragon Des. Ministers were convened to hear him extol the marvels of their victory. Couple of months later, I received a quiet visit from the Conf Pres. ‘We expect that in six months you will be willing and able to sign on the 27 Fundamentals…. blah blah blah…’ I didn’t bother to wait out the six months.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 10, 2016 at 9:39 pm
    Dr Ford used his position of high authority and popularity to sow the seed of false doctrine and division in the church. His well articulated arguments, first class oratory skills, and the negligence of church leaders in allowing him to go unchecked for far too long gave him the ideal platform to have a field day within Adventism. Many others within Adventism would have been censured and disfellowshipped for far less.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 10, 2016 at 10:12 pm
    I might as well add that the FOF fraternity still exists within Adventism and continues to sow discord. They remain anti-Ellen White and anti-traditional Adventist in their positions of doctrine and belief. Like I’ve said before, Ford was just one theologian. Imagine the even greater danger of hundreds of our theologians going rogue on us. Post San Antonio – that’s the reality. We are in far greater danger now with many Adventist theologians crossing floors in favour of liberal and non-traditional positions of faith. The church needs to act swiftly or reap the whirlwind so to speak.

    Darrell
    August 13, 2016 at 8:25 am
    Wow. I am so amazed that many who espouse this view end up balking and being offended when being compared to the attitude of the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin under Caiaphus but that is exactly what this mentality is on par with. Circle the wagons and damn anybody who tries to stir the pot. It is better for one man to ‘die’ then the whole church to ‘perish’. It doesn’t matter that this one man was not anti-Adventist and put forth his views in a well worded book that many of the attendees didn’t even bother to read. What for? They had their own version of the truth and nothing else mattered. This is not open scholarly research. This is not coming to an understanding. This is tight fisted, Pharisaical church apologetics and mindset. This is the attitude of the midieval Catholic church that punished dissenters and refused to listen to any arguments that disagreed with the accepted status quo. This is the reason why so many are leaving the church or have become dissilusioned with it. And like the Pharisees of old, the people who hold this mentality feel justified in what they are doing because they believe God is on their side. Yep. Amazing how so many are so blind to not see what they are doing.

    ROBIN VANDERMOLEN
    August 10, 2016 at 10:25 pm
    Glacier View should have been a “storm in a teacup” but ended up a boiling cauldron due to the lack of political savvy and “smarts” by then President Wilson.the elder. Similar lack of political savvy in this Wilson dynasty, occurred at the most recent GC in San Antonio, leaving the church divided into hostile segments with tithe base and giving definitely affected. The fall out from Glacier Springs still leaves the South Pacific Division reeling from rancor, and relinquished memberships. Despite the actual outcome, let us face it: Desmomd Ford won! As a very itinerant retiree, I attend SDA churches, large small and medium, rural and urban, and in decades, have yet to hear a Sabbath sermon preached on the IJ. No pastor will touch it. Our pioneers, humiliated and hugely embarrassed by the failure of Christ’s return in 1844, desperately grasped the IJ as a “face saver”, fall back position. Christ Himself, in the last book of Revelation, says emphatically, THREE TIMES: I AM COMING SOON! Was He entirely unaware that He could not possibly return before 1844 at the earliest, making His promise a bald faced lie?? In the decades since our pioneers grasped at this desperate lame “straw”, no other Christian body, nor theologian, nor seminary has endorsed it. This makes it for me,hugely suspect,and certainly not pertinent to my salvation. Most Adventists would be mute and mumbling if forced to give an impromptu Bible study on IJ. FORD WAS…

    Bill Sorensen
    August 11, 2016 at 6:03 am
    “Despite the actual outcome, let us face it: Desmomd Ford won!” To a large extent, you are correct, Robin. Just like the devil won over Adam and Eve in the garden. And you are correct that the influence he exerted is still in the church and the spirituality he advocated is largely responsible for the antichrist, anti-law spirituality that controls much, if not most of the church today. The bible has been abandon by the church on many levels and many issues. Women’s ordination is the classic and most obvious abandonment of the bible by the SDA church. But not the only issue. At this point, it does not seem likely that God can or will use the SDA denomination in the final work of truth. Once Sunday keeping was in place in the early church, it was impossible to turn back. And now the WO is the norm and has been for years, there will be no turning back to bible truth. Individuals will eventually realize this fact, and act accordingly, but for now the false doctrine of “unconditional election” for the SDA church holds members in subjection to a false spirituality that is simply not biblical. The bible is a dead letter in the SDA church. Few read it, and even fewer who do know what it teaches and what it means. They are “bottle fed” their religion by a false leadership that has a closer affinity to Dr. Ford than EGW. So “yes” Ford won, but his spirituality will not win in the end.

    Warren Nelson
    August 11, 2016 at 6:09 am
    Ford “won?” LOL sigh

    Ervin Taylor
    August 11, 2016 at 8:44 am
    Mr. S.: What do you know of the “spirituality of Ford?” Dr. Ford to you. You obvious know nothing. Nada. Have you ever met him? Have you even talked with him? I suspect not. And, if you have, you must be blind. (Hmm, blind leading the blind. That works for Mr. S) I certainly do not agree with many of Dr. Ford’s theology. However, any reasonably objective person already not already dead to any possibility of “Present Truth” (however you wish to define it) knows that the Investigative Judgment (IJ) doctrine is a theological joke or worse. James White should have stuck to his guns and told his wife that she was mistaken and some of her visions were obviously self-induced fantasies. With the exception of Mr. S, I meet few individuals who think the IJ is biblical. It is a theological albatross around the neck of Adventism, one of many.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 11, 2016 at 9:11 am
    “Mr. S.: What do you know of the “spirituality of Ford?” Dr. Ford to you. You obvious know nothing. Nada. Have you ever met him? ” You are the one who “knows nothing” Dr. Taylor. I have read much of Ford’s material and met him on several occasions. I attended his “church” in California on several occasions. I was nurtured by the “Brinsmead awakening” and know exactly what Ford taught and what was wrong with it. I saw Brinsmead abandon the SDA faith and opt for the delusion Ford advocated. They knew each other and were both from Australia. Brinsmead’s sister Hope Taylor nursed Dr. Ford’s first wife before she died. I have probably “forgot more than you will ever know” about Ford and all his false ideas of law and gospel. Ford learned his theology from some “apostate Protestant” and would have done well to “listen and learn” to EGW and others who could have helped him, but like I said, he got massive doses of affirmation from ignorant novices like himself who held influencial positions in the church. And like I also said, he could interpret the bible as he pleases. But only a misinformed ignorant student would think he was going to help the SDA church as he attack EGW and every foundational truth we stand for. His theology overthrows everything the Protestant Reformation worked to restore. He is no friend to Protestantism. He abandon the 3rd use of the law in our Protestant heritage.

    William Noel
    August 11, 2016 at 9:34 am
    Robin, I owe Desmond Ford a debt of gratitude because I was a Theology major at Southern when all the discussion erupted and what he wrote forced me to be a much more diligent student of what scripture actually says as opposed to merely memorizing what others said was the proper interpretation of Bible passages. While it was hard to admit that someone with a different view about a text could be an honest student of scripture who actually loved God, still a process was started in me that over the decades since has grown into a far healthier and greater respect for God above, and sometimes apart from, what people say is the “correct” understanding of certain passages. Instead of parroting what others say, I genuinely and prayerfully ask God to teach me directly and He does. The things God has shown me have led me through a spiritual revolution and formed the basis of my relationship with the Holy Spirit that guides and empowers my ministry for Him. As time has passed, my perspective about Glacier View has changed from fearing the damage it might cause the church to viewing it as a spiritual tsunami freeing people to study scripture for themselves as it did for me. Even more, it is a controversy that is fading in volume as it slides further into the past and those who debate about it become fewer in number. Hopefully, they will be replaced by diligent students of scripture who are willing to listen directly to God’s teaching.

    EM
    August 12, 2016 at 5:44 pm
    You said: Christ Himself, in the last book of Revelation, says emphatically, THREE TIMES: I AM COMING SOON! Was He entirely unaware that He could not possibly return before 1844 at the earliest, making His promise a bald faced lie?? Christ clearly said in the Gospels that only His Father in heaven knew the time of His return. “Soon” could be interpreted as any time in the last 2,000 years. God is not bound by time.

    Warren Nelson
    August 11, 2016 at 5:59 am
    A great article! I was in my late 20s when this happened and a denominational employee. I exited denominational employment as soon as was practical. The lesson I learned? “NO NEW LIGHT!” I soldiered on for 20ish more years and finally accepted that lesson as true for Adventism and the bulk of organized religion. Oddly is was a movie that came along much later that helped me understand the process, Strictly Ballroom. The war cry of the hierarchy of the fictional ballroom dancing association in the movie was “NO NEW STEPS!” https://youtu.be/BAQWf1dJH3Y While the young dancer won a battle, he lost the war because, as his father pointed out in the climatic end of the film, “We lived our lives in fear!” If anything describes my growing up in the church, that phrase says it all. Fear is a useful emotion but is a complete waste as a philosophy of life.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 11, 2016 at 8:54 am
    “Fear is a useful emotion but is a complete waste as a philosophy of life.” Fear is always a necessary component in life. Only a fool has no fear on any level. And our relationship with God, and to God always has a component of fear. Law is enforced by way of some aspect of fear. Fear can be positive or negative. But to downplay the necessity of fear in our relationship to God is simply inane and foolish. God is the authority, and He defines the penalty for a violation of that authority. Only those who attack and despise the authority of God abandon all fear and soon live as they please in sin and rebellion. Oh yes, a perfect picture of the SDA church of today. The bible has been abandon and the “wisdom of man” reigns. Not a pretty outcome in the end.

    Warren Nelson
    August 11, 2016 at 10:44 am
    Point well missed, I’d say! LOLOL

    William Abbott
    August 11, 2016 at 11:47 am
    We are admonished to fear God no less than one hundred and twenty-five separate times in scripture. Psalms 25:12-14 – Who, then, is the man that fears the Lord? He will instruct him in the way chosen for him. He will spend his days in prosperity, and his descendants will inherit the land. The Lord confides in those who fear him; he makes his covenant known to them.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 11, 2016 at 12:10 pm
    Wm. i believe that God wishes us to not be fearful, that He has overcome all obstacles for us, that He has paid the ransom for our release from sin of His Law, having given His all for us, He accepts our faith in totality of His LOVE. i believe the word should be Honor and respect, instead of fear.

    William Abbott
    August 11, 2016 at 12:21 pm
    Earl, That is the difference between a paraphrase like the Clear Word Bible and a translation: “I believe the word[s] should be honor and respect instead of fear” I don’t think the word translates that way. It also seems to be the biblical default for encounters with the Divine; ‘abject fear’ is more like it.

    Hansen
    August 11, 2016 at 5:50 pm
    Bill, Did you forget that the Bible defines its own terms?: Proverbs 8:13 “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate. Psalms 34:11 ¶ Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD. 12 Who is the man who desires life And loves length of days that he may see good? 13 Keep your tongue from evil And your lips from speaking deceit. 14 Depart from evil and do good; Seek peace and pursue it.

    William Abbott
    August 13, 2016 at 2:51 pm
    Hansen, Sorry I missed this. I’m much pacified by this idea that the bible defines its terms; to fear the Lord is to hate evil. Earl says it means, ‘honor and respect’ My final point was often times fear, the unambiguous type, is the predominant overriding emotion for anyone encountering the Divine; “Woe is me. For I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips:

    Hansen
    August 11, 2016 at 7:17 am
    Reading what I could on this topic through the years, Jack Provonsha always shined. He,apparently, was the only person who stood up for Des. Well, he had a medical license, i.e., he could earn a living without the denomination. To publicly side with Des would have meant unemployment for nearly everyone there. As for Dr. Heppenstall, that’s just sad. Remember, however, that the president of the China division publicly denounced the GC president and identified all SDA colporteurs in China as intelligence agents [running dogs of imperialists]. You really never know until the gun is put to your head.

    Elaine Nelson
    August 11, 2016 at 8:51 pm
    Jack Provonsha was one of the most educated persons on that committee. Not only was he a physician, but he could discuss philosophy and many subjects about which few in that room could dialogue. How many were administrators and not diligent students as teachers must be, and continue studying. Yet, just as with the 2015 G.C. it is administrators who pretend to listen to the academics, but they rule on doctrine, as usual.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 11, 2016 at 11:19 am
    Bill S. “Fear is always a necessary component of life”. Fear GOD and give Him glory, i believe, should read, “Love GOD and give Him glory”. i have totally given my heart (soul) to GOD, and have accepted His grace. i have no fear of anything. All that may happen is destruction of my flesh, and i will be cremated anyway.

    Bill Garber
    August 11, 2016 at 11:51 am
    Earl, I like where you are headed! So, what if the translators got it just perfect when they offered … 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. The everlasting gospel may well be about accepting as reality that fully sensing God absolutely leaves us inescapably fearful, glorifying, and worshipful. There is no deal to be made with such a God. As Sister White noted following the 1888 General Conference that attempted to eradicate legalism with grace, anything that we can imagine, including love, to give us leverage with God, is heresy. If it were not so, she said, ‘The Creator is under obligation to the creature’ which she described as the ‘heresy of the Catholic’ that resulted in “the sale of indulgences.” The pointlessness of the confusion behind hybrid salvation, that is, a lot of God and an essential little of the human, is what causes the collapse of Babylon which from the start has opportunistically managed the human side of salvation to its own ends. Is this making perhaps even more sense, Earl?

    Bill Sorensen
    August 11, 2016 at 6:13 pm
    ” ‘The Creator is under obligation to the creature’ which she described as the ‘heresy of the Catholic’ that resulted in “the sale of indulgences.” While it is true, Bill G, the creator is under no obligation to the creature, this does not equate to the false idea that the creature is under no obligation to the creator. And just because we can not earn or merit salvation, or pay for our sins, does not equate to the idea we have no obligations at all in the relationship. Christ never removed any moral law obligations when he payed our legal debt. But this is how many interpret the gospel in a non-biblical context. And if people keep embracing this false gospel, they will find themselves on the “outside looking in” when the new Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven.” And no one will be able to say, “Well, Dr. Ford deceived me.” People are willingly self deceived to “believe a lie that they might be damned” according to Paul. Nobody ever “merited” anything from God. The sinless angels don’t merit anything, nor did Adam and Eve in the garden before sin. The idea of “merit” was a trick of Satan to confuse and convolute the whole issue of sin and atonement as pertaining to the human response to the word of God. The covenant between Jesus and His Father has merit for and in behalf of the human family for all who believe. The sinners response has none. It is a moral imperative, not a legal requirement.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 11, 2016 at 5:48 pm
    ” i have totally given my heart (soul) to GOD, and have accepted His grace. i have no fear of anything.” Well, Earl, you do reflect the modern agenda that advocates if you believe the gospel of God’s grace, you can throw out the law of God’s authority. I suggest this is the same lie Satan told Eve in the garden of Eden and stimulated her rebellion against God and His kingdom. But in fact, the only “fear” we are free from is that stated by David, “Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will “fear” no evil.” Ps. 23 We need not fear what Satan can do if we “fear God and keep His commandments.” God has not abandon His authority to rule and reign by threat of punishment and death to those who deny His authority and do as they please. And anyone who abandons the “fear” of God will do just that. As we see in our church today as the bible has been abandon and the church opts for human speculation and church authority over the word of God. “Fear not him who can kill the body, but rather Him who can destroy both the body and soul in hell.” I chose to follow this biblical exhortation that affirms the full authority of God to rule and reign and destroy His enemies who deny this authority and claim they need not “fear” because the gospel of grace and done away with the law and God’s authority.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 12, 2016 at 1:34 pm
    Bill, i can’t buy it. i cannot accept that God is heavy handed in retribution of His creatures, as to box them around as a cat does a mouse, before giving the bite in the neck. It’s just not logical that God would destroy every single soul He’s spent billions of years giving life to, providing for, and nurturing for upwards of a hundred years of age. There is no rationality to that view. We had no say into birth on Earth. No decision of ours after reading the parameters of a contract. What father would give His child a stone when they requested a crust of bread?? No Bill, i would refute my God, should such recrimination be His Nature. Unless we sinners each receive the free G R A C E of our God, not a single soul will be resurrected. WOE IS US, BUT NO FEAR, we’ve had a great free lunch these past 90 years.

    Hansen
    August 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm
    Richard, Dr. Ford’s Daniel was the most beautiful looking book published by the denomination, perhaps ever. Some of those old colporteur editions of the GC were nice looking too, but Ford’s Daniel was in a class by itself. The Hebrew Daniel in silver with the embossed lion head in black, awesome. Thanks for that. How would it have looked with Daniel in gold?

    darrellindensmith
    August 11, 2016 at 6:06 pm
    Bill, do you believe you must become sinless before the second coming of Jesus to be finally and forever saved, and that you will(must) stand ‘without a mediator’ during this time period?

    Trevor Hammond
    August 12, 2016 at 11:27 am
    Pastor Darrellindensmith. surely as an Adventist pastor (probably ordained?) you should know the answer? Our sin is covered by Christ’s righteousness by faith and His righteousness is imparted to us through the Holy Spirit by faith and it is He who gives us the power to live in obedience to God. I’m beginning to think that those big on dismissing the IJ have in so doing dismissed the full gospel of salvation which brings us into obedience to God’s Holy Law by His grace and His power. I’m beginning to think that they have fallen for the Sunday church version of Salvation that that teaches that obedience to God’s Law is done away with at the cross. I’m beginning to think they have rejected the Third Angels Message and the Spirit of Prophecy and ultimately, sound biblical doctrine as held by the Pioneers of our church. It seems pastors are no exception.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 12, 2016 at 4:14 pm
    “Bill, do you believe you must become sinless before the second coming of Jesus ” Every true believer is “sinless in Christ”. And there is no other definition of “sinlessness” that is valid. Moral perfection is not becoming inherently sinless in yourself. The Sabbath is an example of the true parallel of law and gospel. “In ourselves we are sinner, but in Christ we are righteous.” EGW The Sabbath typifies grace as we acknowledge that in ourselves we are sinners. And we keep the Sabbath as an understanding of this eternal truth. The Sabbath typifies the law as all true believer willingly submit to God’s authority and agree that He has the right to rule and reign. He also has a right to punish the wicked who attack His people, and His kingdom. And God will kill and destroy all the rebels who despise His authority and claim they need no “law” to guide and direct them as they have “inner enlightenment” that transcends the written word. But no created being has inherent sinlessness or they would be inherently immortal.

    Jere Webb
    August 12, 2016 at 8:32 am
    I believe that the real issue at stake in 1980 was the doctrinal authority of Ellen White. Ford and many others like him have moved much of the church in a good direction in my humble opinion. “FDR” is what I like to call the forces that had major impact at that time – Ford, Davenport, and Rae. I was the Pastor at SMC in 1980 and wrote a letter of protest to Neal Wilson at the time. My point I believe (even though I can’t find my letter after so many years!) was that Ford had raised valid questions that needed to be carefully addressed. I read his mss twice and also have known him personally as a Christian Gentleman who exhibits the fruits of the Holy Spirit especially under extreme pressure. As a retired SDA preacher who is still preaching today I am wrestling with the same question that the initial issue of the new Adventist Review highlighted on the cover: “Am I an Adventist?” What does it mean to be a Seventh-day Adventist in 2016? “Why am I an Adventist?” That is what I am preaching about – not the investigative judgment! With the publication of Questions on Doctrine we have firmly positions our church as an Evangelical Christian Denomination (much to the horror of some) so I am finding it helpful to explore our role in this “recent” context.

    Don Unruh
    August 12, 2016 at 1:35 pm
    Thanks Jere

    Jeannie Brown
    August 12, 2016 at 7:14 pm
    Thanks, Jere. I remember you as a young evangelist in Glendale, California in the 1980s. You were a good representative of our faith. Glad to hear you’re still preaching. And I agree; I think Glacier View was one of the lowest points in the history of the SDA church.

    EM
    August 13, 2016 at 3:57 pm
    Thanks for mentioning the QOD as I believe it is the best doctrinal book we have to share with other scholars. It certainly came to my rescue while working in a Presbyterian church that tried to label us as a cult believing in salvation by works. RA Anderson was also my teacher at LLU in the 70s and his life was a witness as was his work with other denominations. He was a true believer.

    Ervin Taylor
    August 12, 2016 at 9:20 am
    If “Bill Sorenson” didn’t exist, we would have to invent him. In this case, to represent in the sound and feel of classic 19th Century fundamentalist Adventism, what it believed and how it represented those beliefs in writing. Recent Examples: (1) “Ford learned his theology from some “apostate Protestant” and would have done well to “listen and learn” to EGW” (2) “only a misinformed ignorant student would think he [Ford] was going to help the SDA church as he attack EGW and every foundational truth we stand for.” (3) “You reflect the modern agenda that advocates if you believe the gospel of God’s grace, you can throw out the law of God’s authority. I suggest this is the same lie Satan told Eve in the garden of Eden and stimulated her rebellion against God and His kingdom.” I would be the last one who wanted him banned from the AT web site. He is such an excellent example of one reason why the non-immigrant membership in First World Adventism is declining since many younger individuals think the ideas that Mr. S hold is normative in current Adventism. Thank heaven they are not.

    Conviction
    August 12, 2016 at 9:46 am
    I agree Erv. Ford is such an excellent example, and maybe the best reason why the decline (and actually in many older classifications). Many of the younger individuals now know better and want nothing to do with Ford ideologies and glad they are no longer the normative in current Adventism; with all of us thanking Heaven they are not. I have heard many, many times recently, from our youth; why would anyone follow an idiot that couldn’t even read their BIBLE. How could anyone not pick up their BIBLE and tell the difference? I thank GOD HE already invented Bill; we don’t have to.

    David Grams
    August 12, 2016 at 9:43 am
    I’m stunned. It’s like reporting a seminar lecture from Mars, complete with a total lack of the emotional/controlling aspects that folks on the ground actually suffered during this episode. The actuality is that many of us were marginalized; and, if Ford had had his way, would have been thrown out of denominational employment for simply being reactionary and not buying into his HP/MHP etc. rhetoric. Ford had a literal army in SCal who were bent on evicting any who disagreed, to say nothing of PUC, where the Ford hawks were circling the camp; and, at times, were successful in “dispossessing” faculty who might not go along with the hype. Couple all the above with the clearly enunciated belief among “certain aspects” of the Religion Department that this new thinking was going to control the church, and you’ve got more than unpleasantness in the air. Ah!—but from those untouched we now are treated to the sanitized, revisionist, and reconstructed version of events; to say nothing of omitting the brilliant rebuttals from Shey and others that pinned Ford’s ideas to the wall “like a butterfly”…No doubt about it. History is often just what we WANT it to be!

    EM
    August 13, 2016 at 4:03 pm
    David Grams: I remember some of those sermons. I think a lot of people took Ford to extremes attributing to him prophet status. He was a scholar sharing his ideas and shouldn’t have gotten all the attention he did. And he shouldn’t have been “excommunicated” either giving him martyr status. There may be more blame in his devotees than him for what happened. Some of them could be quite nasty and even irrational. But yet he did influence the church to focus more on grace.

    David Grams
    August 14, 2016 at 7:19 pm
    Thanks E.M. for your kind reply…one thing is startlingly clear from these posts–the Investigative Judgment has been almost universally “junked” and major reasons for this seem to be its perceived antagonism to “grace”, “love”, and the once-for-all sufficient sacrifice of Jesus. Now, in the inimitable words of MLK, I truly have a dream–that we unearth “new”, fresh, and deepened understandings of the Scriptural model of the IJ teaching, thus propelling Adventism to have incomparable impact on the religious world, to say nothing of “unbelievers”. As with King, I have had the privilege of at least observing the glimmerings of this grand dream…indeed, through amazing Providential workings, I have not only been an interim pastor for a Methodist Church, but have “filled the pulpit” a number of times in another denomination or two, sharing the joys that are intrinsic to the IJ and that give us an unencumbered view of the matchless charms of the Risen Savior! I am still reeling from these experiences–but now I know from experience that someday we as a people will truly appreciate what we have in the IJ doctrine and see in it that which answers to the nth degree all the negatives expressed in these posts…yes, and yes again, how limitless are the vistas for Adventism!

    Bob Hawley
    August 12, 2016 at 9:52 am
    The denomination can never concede the IJ doctrine is wrong, for to do so would be to admit EGW wasn’t inspired and that would undermine and eventually destroy the denomination. However, I suspect there are many members who don’t believe in the IJ and EGW and the denomination seems to be sailing along just fine. So far as the IJ not being preached in “Sabbath sermons,” that may be correct. However, I recently attended an excellent series taught by the pastor of an ultra-conservative SdA congregation in Washington wherein the IJ doctrine figured prominently. It was a study of Daniel and Revelation, but not the typical “Revelation seminar.”

    Trevor Hammond
    August 12, 2016 at 11:51 am
    Dear Mr Hawley, The Adventist Church did however concede that Dr Ford was wrong. His acceptance of the “little horn” symbolized by Antioches IV Epiphanes (215 B.C. – 164 BC) wasn’t something new and not a position held by Adventists, well not until Dr Ford brought it up, but he brought it into the church in a rather subversive way I might add, based on the way he promoted his view within Adventism. The fact is it wasn’t done openly and was kept under wraps for decades until he had a huge influence over the theology students and pastors within Adventism and then he went for the jugular. Glacier View said how about no – enough is enough. But like San Antonio some still reject the position of the church and it’s authority.

    Elaine Nelson
    August 12, 2016 at 1:58 pm
    “Some still reject the position of the church and its authority.” For those who give the church authority for their conscience, that is the position they will take. But what if all Christians had adopted that position of accepting the church authority when Martin Luther arose? There would be no Protestant Christians, and no Adventists, if our ancestors had given the church the authority to rule their conscience.


    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:26 pm

    Carol wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-7kE8JPwtk – Vid (27:49)
    The Extraterrestrial That Walked Among Us! (True Story!)

    "From what I know from reading the book, “Stranger at the Pentagon” and from hearing Dr. Stranges speak at his seminars, this appears to be fairly accurate with a few minor errors. It is my understanding that Valiant Thor, not Val Valant Thor, spoke 16 earthly languages. If he spoke 100 languages then some of those languages would be galactic languages, although most galactics use telepathy to communicate. Anyway, the video shows what Val and his some his crew members look like. –MrT." Strange But True Stories! Published on Jun 12, 2017
    I'm NOT pushing this stuff!! This sort of thing can go on and on and on (for decades)!! I'm merely providing a "Tempest in a Teapot" with an unlikely-context!! I do it for answers!! I wish we could have similar fast-paced debates here in The Mists of Avalon!! We sometimes did that sort of thing on the old (and now closed) Project Avalon!! I think I might like to participate in a website-forum which combined the best of these two sites with the best aspects of an open and liberal theological-site!! Think About It!! My tripe is neither pastoral or canonical!! BTW, Avondale College is in Australia, and Glacier View Ranch is in Colorado. Des Ford taught at Avondale, and was crucified in a kangaroo-court at Glacier View after "cooking his goose" in Irwin Hall at Pacific Union College!! This historic-building no longer exists, and the P.U.C. campus is extremely-beautiful!! I spent way too many hours playing (mostly by memory) BWV 565  and BWV 582 on that beautiful Rieger Four-Manual Tracker-Action French-Romantic Pipe-Organ shown below!! I had a Key to the Organ, and it felt as though I had the Key to the Kingdom!! Or was it the Key to Daniel 7?? Never place a Key in Daniel 7!! Never read Hostage to the Devil!! I'm Sirius!! I met General Conference President Neil Wilson a few-years after Glacier View. He was cordial, yet strange and cagey. I guess that goes with the territory. His son (Ted) is the current GC President. I wonder if both Wilsons would accept the SDA Bible Commentary as "God's Authoritative Voice"??




    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    http://atoday.org/glacier-view-a-retrospective/

    EM
    August 13, 2016 at 4:10 pm
    Trevor: Keep in mind that no one is 100 percent wrong! That is an extreme statement and as I see it the whole incident was a “storm in a tea cup” that gained ground by both the GC and followers taking it to extremes. There is a lesson to be learned here–never believe everything someone with a new idea says; and don’t oppose all of it either.

    William Abbott
    August 13, 2016 at 4:56 pm
    Trevor, I always thought Desmond Ford got cross-ways with the administrators precisely because he was so open and honest about his heterodoxical ideas. There were lots of SDA church theologians, professors & pastors that played it safe and held private opinions that were contrary to the received orthodoxy. Lots of private agreement with Ford that was expressed privately. And then quietly compromised when it became a litmus test. Ford’s problem was he never kept it under wraps as you assert. He spoke publicly. He is the one that pushed things to a head. He created the need for a Glacier View. Ford has always been a man of integrity. He is honest to a fault. He is all scholar and has no political survival instincts. Desmond Ford is as stubborn as Bill Sorensen when he thinks he is right. (but less dogmatic and a little gentler).

    Brian Sterley
    August 12, 2016 at 11:14 am
    When Desmond Ford was fired, it was one of the saddest days in Adventist history. Desmond Ford taught me the true meaning of the gospel, I think that is why I am still a Seventh-day Adventist Pastor. He was not only a gentleman but a true saint – and if things were handled differently at Glacier View, he would have still kept his credentials. their was a Power display between the Administrators and the Theologians of the church. In actual fact, Desmond Ford won the day, because he enlightened me with his Christian character, I am still a Seventh-day Adventist pastor, and his teachings on the Gospel of Jesus Christ has influenced my teaching of most everything about Adventism. By HIS grace only!!!!

    Trevor Hammond
    August 12, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Dear Pastor Sterley, do you support Dr Ford’s position in rejecting the IJ and his position that Ellen White was wrong?

    JAMES J LONDIS
    August 12, 2016 at 11:38 am
    I am tempted to say that the 1919 Bible Conference was the most important meeting following 1888, but one should not quibble. I was at Glacier View as well, and the following issues troubled me and still do. 1. There was no willingness to even entertain the possibility that some of Ellen White’s theological and Scriptural teachings might either be errant, or in need of modification and sophistication. SDA scholars wrote a great deal on Daniel 8 & 9 (Hasel, Shea, others), but it was never “peer reviewed” either by SDA’s or by non-SDA scholars. The BRC felt it had done its job defending SDA orthodoxy with papers Adventists could read and become convinced that Ford had not raised a true issue. To deny that there were no issues, is belied by one story I heard from R. Cottrell: He told me that while working on the SDA Commentary, even F.D. Nichol (editor of commentary and Review and Herald) commented ruefully that “I don’t want to be around when the problems in Daniel 8 & 9 ‘hit’ the church.” Even Cottrell would say that if we wish to believe Ellen White’s handling of that subject, let’s do so on the basis of her authority, and not necessarily the Bible!! That would mean that one of our “pillars” was not biblically based, which is itself a problem. Secondly, it was a massive mistake for GC leadership to try and solve a theological challenge with administrative force. In this, they yielded to the pressure applied by our most conservative members who…

    Trevor Hammond
    August 12, 2016 at 12:07 pm
    Dear Mr Londis, if Christian theologians were the decision makers in what Adventists believe then we would all be keeping Sunday. Not all theologians are in harmony with the Bible. Ellen White was given the gift of prophecy because of the many false teachings that Christians (including Protestants and their theologians) had adopted. In the end it all boils down to attacking Ellen White doesn’t it? All of those who support Dr Ford reject Ellen White in one way or another, if not entirely.

    JAMES J LONDIS
    August 12, 2016 at 1:25 pm
    Why do so many assume that theologians want to be the “decision-makers” in doctrine? When Luther preached what he had discovered in the Bible, and that it did not square with RC teachings on indulgences, people either believed it for its own sake or rejected it. No one can decide the doctrines of the church except for the church. If you want the church to base its doctrines ONLY on Ellen White’s authority and her interpretation of Scripture, you have a right to do so. But when scholars learn new things about the Bible or their study leads them to question what they have received from their founders,that is legitimate even in the Bible. Even Ellen White acknowledged that further study might lead to a change in what we have held to be true. The real debate is whether what might be altered also annihilates Adventism. Is that the case for the 2300 day prophecy? Or can we make a case for the Adventist church on many others grounds?

    William Noel
    August 12, 2016 at 12:10 pm
    Bro. Londis, Thank you for that perspective. If there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, I think it may be our need to go back to the level of devotion to scripture that dominated the church in the formative years when doctrines were still being explored by serious students of God’s Word. Yes, they had vigorous debates. Yes, they sometimes got mad at each other. But they respected each other and took the views expressed seriously enough to give them a thorough review. In contrast, so much of what we see expressed today is the absence of such respect for each other, for scripture or for the value of actually studying with a mind open to God for Him to teach us what we do not know instead of just trying to drown-out any view but our own. Had I not gone through a long and intense period of studying God’s word with just the Holy Spirit as my guide, I am certain that I would not be an Adventist today. As a result of that time the arguments people get so passionate about appear to be nothing more than arguments over ignorance instead of a searching for or sharing of knowledge. The real tragedy of such arguments is how quickly the energies of professed believers gets wasted on what does not draw people to salvation, but drives them away. Even pro fighters know when the round is over, but for some Adventists fighting is their spiritual life. It is a tragic waste over which only Satan rejoices.

    Gary McCary
    August 12, 2016 at 1:44 pm
    I’m fairly certain that my friend Des Ford has read this REPLY section, and I’m also sure that he is somewhat amused by it. I was in my first pastorate when Dr. Ford made his Adventist Forum presentation at PUC. Within weeks tapes of his talk were spreading like the leaves of autumn. At the time, in my innocence, I didn’t understand what the fuss was all about. But I quickly learned that it is dangerous to question (yes-simply QUESTION) Mrs. White’s views, or our settled interpretations of Scripture. To suggest that Ellen White might have misunderstood some things, or that her understanding of certain things might be culturally conditioned or off the mark, is to play with fire. We have the same problem with the authors in the Bible. Isaiah envisions a new heaven & earth where death occurs, and where the saints get great satisfaction in looking out on the smoldering bodies of God’s enemies. A later writer (John) “updates” Isaiah’s vision. Why cannot Dr. Ford (or any other scholar) update the SDA pioneers’ vision? Or more importantly in the context of Glacier View, why do we need to “defrock” any Adventist teacher or pastor who calls into question a “cherished view” (Mrs. White’s wonderful term)?

    Bill Sorensen
    August 12, 2016 at 3:33 pm
    “I’m fairly certain that my friend Des Ford has read this REPLY section, …..” I hope he has. But the fact is, Dr. Ford is a novice compared to EGW. As I have sadi many times, the “bible butchers” in and around the SDA church are a “dime a dozen.” I might also add, the Robert Brinsmead was the most mature gift in theology that God ever raised up to defend the SDA faith. In 1980 he wrote these words. “Not everything SDA’s have taught is correct…….” That we all have much to learn and much to unlearn should not unsettle our faith in the truth of the Advent movement. But if the concept of what happened in 1844 was proven to be wrong, then we would have to be honest and admit there would not be a redeemable feature in the Advent Movement. This is a matter of simply honesty with ourselves and with the world. Yet we gladly and fearlessly stake everything on the truth of 1844.” The Australian Institute Messages on Justification page 6 He was the most honest person I ever met. He never “played games” or tried to make believe about anything. In the late 1770 He wrote a paper “1844 Re-examined” and refuted his faith in what he had stated earlier. Being the honest person that he was, he soon abandon any faith in the Advent movement and simply moved totally away from any effort concerning the church. Ford is not so honest. Like many of his followers that he has deceived, he hung around.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 12, 2016 at 3:44 pm
    Had Ford been a true Christian, he would have simply renounced the whole SDA movement as bogus, like Brinsmead did, and moved on. But no, he stayed around and used his influence to deceive as many as possible and is still at it today. People try to use Paul to negate bible Adventism. So I’ll give you some insight into the why EGW and Paul are not in perfect parallel Paul builds his whole theological perspective on the historical event of Christ, His death, resurrection and the beginning of His ministry in heaven, vs. the ceremonial law. So when Paul writes Hebrews, he is not interested in any specific issues of the timing between the holy and Most Holy Place in heaven. When you try to read more into Paul than he is defending, you are doomed to confusion. EGW on the other hand builds her whole theological perspective on the historical event of Jesus going from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place. If you don’t discern the difference in the historical events, you are doomed to eternal confusion both about Paul and EGW. The bible is a dead letter to all the novices who think they know so much and attack EGW with Paul. Novices need to “listen and learn” instead of going off on some tangent pontificating about things they know nothing about with an air of being “highly enlightened” and great teachers when they would do well to learn how to be students.

    Harry Allen
    August 19, 2016 at 8:05 pm
    Thanks, Bill Sorensen. You said: “So when Paul writes Hebrews, he is not interested in any specific issues of the timing between the holy and Most Holy Place in heaven.” However, most scholars agree that Paul did not write the book of Hebrews. Indeed, it’s said that it’s been nearing 2,000 years since any scholar of note regarded Paul as Hebrews’s author. Currently, many Christian scholars hold Apollos or Barnabas as the writer of the book. Many also say that the author is unknown. HA

    Bill Sorensen
    August 12, 2016 at 4:19 pm
    ” In 1980 he wrote these words.” My bad……it was 1970. not 1980

    Ervin Taylor
    August 12, 2016 at 5:03 pm
    I agree with the comment that Dr. Ford is probably highly amused by Mr. S.’s strange and uninformed comments. Examples include: “Dr. Ford is a novice compared to EGW.” Very funny. “Had Ford been a true Christian, he would have simply renounced the whole SDA movement as bogus . . .” Now Mr. S. is declaring that he knows who is who is not a “true Christian.” Another great (and sad) joke. Perhaps Mr. S. would collect his best jokes into a book and published them all together. We could use it as an illustration of how bad things can get if those of good will and sound judgment do not stand up and express their views. Glacier View is indeed, as Mr. Ellmoos has indicated, “a sad and shameful event in [Adventist] history.” What it did do, however, is to showcase the bankrupt nature of the political process at the General Conference level at that time. That bankruptcy was mitigated during the GC Presidency of Dr. Jon Paulson but now has been reinstated with a vengeance under the current GC President and his followers.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 12, 2016 at 2:28 pm
    The Holy Spirit is alive and well on Planet Earth, and takes no vacations. There has been much knowledge and wisdom delivered to hearts in tune with the HS. And for this reason many died in the wool Fundamental thinkers have closed their ears and minds to consider any new LIGHT since the 19th Century closed. A thunderous silence from heavenly chambers. Is our God dead???? Has He nothing to verify, or to share with the living???? Think for a moment. Do the Fundamentalists, with their concept of our God being such a harsh, angry, vengeful, unloving God, who told us He loves us, and will never forsake us, is yet not going to honor His gift of GRACE that Jesus told us about!!! That God talks with tongue in cheek, is a bald face liar, cannot be trusted. He really didn’t mean, that even a little child couldn’t enter heavenly places???? NO, NO, NO,….. you rigid Fundamentalists, you Rip Van Winkles, asleep for almost 200 years, your God is not my God.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 12, 2016 at 3:50 pm
    ….”, your God is not my God.” You got that one right, Earl. And the “god” who attacks EGW and the 1844 message and spirituality is the god of darkness. We respect anyone’s right to believe and worship any “god” they want, but don’t bring your “god” into the SDA church. We agree, “, your God is not my God.”

    Herold Weiss
    August 12, 2016 at 3:38 pm
    It is very sad to see what happens when people forget that doctrines never die with their boots on in the battle field. They only die in decrepit nursing homes which do not pass Health Department inspection, with no relatives visiting them. Just left alone because they no longer are relevant to what life is all about.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 12, 2016 at 4:02 pm
    Herold, a little honesty on the part of those who attack EGW and the bible truth she outlined and articulated would be for such people to simple “get out of town”. We have no desire for anyone to abandon the SDA church. But if it is obvious that you don’t embrace fundamental truth the SDA church has held historically, how can you call yourself a “Christian” and not simply move on. Did Luther keep trying to get in the church when he was convinced of the errors of Rome? Had they not thrown him out, he would have simply left like thousands did who embraced the Reformation understanding of law and gospel in the bible. We don’t try to persuade Baptists to stay in their home church, but simply invite the to abandon their former church and join the SDA church. Where is the basic honesty that many of you refuse to show and simply “hang around” bickering and complaining and “cry baby” all over the church about how immature EGW is and you are all the “highly enlightened”. I don’t see any element of honesty and only double dealing and misrepresentation on every level. If you are willing to “listen and learn” then stay, and if not…….well, at least be honest.

    Hansen
    August 12, 2016 at 5:18 pm
    In his “Sanctuary and the 2300 Days,” written several years before EGW wrote on the subject, U. Smith opined that the cleansing of the sanctuary would not exceed a single generation in time. He expected that since 33 years had passed since 1844, the remaining time would be “brief.” He never envisioned Glacier View or the 150th anniversary of Adventism

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 12, 2016 at 6:44 pm
    Speaking of the passage of time, Hansen, do you have an opinion of this question: since the year/day principle brings us to antitypical Yom Kippur, why does the ‘principle’ cease to apply at that time? Where is the logic which says its a year for a day until the beginning of the ‘Day of Atonement,’ but after that, all bets are off? I’ve asked this question several times here, but no-one has been willing, not even Bill S, to offer a case for the logic/illogic of the situation. Perhaps U. Smith was closest to it when he offered ‘no more than a generation’ of time for the heavenly yom kippur. The typical yom kippur took one day, 24 hrs, to judge the whole nation of Israel. Surely there is NO logic for the anitypical to take 170yrs plus?

    Bill Sorensen
    August 12, 2016 at 8:10 pm
    “: since the year/day principle brings us to antitypical Yom Kippur, why does the ‘principle’ cease to apply at that time?” Because the time element that brings us to the beginning of the judgment, does not tell us exactly how long the judgment will take. And the practical reason is because we don’t need to know just exactly how long it will take. The moral influence of this event that began in 1844 was to ratchet up the intensity in the mind of every believer to ask “What must I do to be ready for Jesus to come?” And “What must I do the be ready for the close of probation?” And “How can I pass the final judgment according to works based on the law of God?” And, “What is my relationship to God, past, present and future into all eternity?” These questions in all their comprehensive meaning must be answered before the close of probation and the 2nd coming. So what is the real objection to the investigative judgment according to works? People would like to hope there is no such judgment and use the gospel to negate such a judgment. So they don’t believe in any judgment according to works, and 1844 is totally irrevelant to their false theology. They don’t care what date you arrive at. They consider the principle bogus. And this is why they hate EGW and the doctrines she advocate. It has nothing to do with 1844. It has to do with a judgment according to works.

    Hansen
    August 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm
    Bill, You and Uriah Smith, the guy EGW said didn’t know what he was talking about, have a lot in common. He was, apparently like you and every other legalist who has darkened the church door, concerned about “sanctification.” Since good works are the natural fruit of the justified life, just as circumcision was a sign of justification, the real issue is the justification of the believer. Your works, even your jail “ministry” aren’t going to get you into heaven. You are really just an old time legalist. Isn’t “works” code for commandment/Decalogue/Sabbath keeping?

    Conviction
    August 12, 2016 at 9:11 pm
    Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. If we are HIS, they are HIS works, before ordained that we should walk in them. We have no claim or stake on them; but we had better be in them. Let go into this. Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow HIM; because you have nothing to offer for such Great Gifts. That is the most Loving, one sided covenant we will ever see. Absolute legalism is to try to renegotiate that.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 5:43 am
    Hansen said, ” Since good works are the natural fruit of the justified life,….” And here is the reason your whole theory is bogus. You limit obedience to natural law and refuse to admit the moral law imperative. While “good works” do have a natural law application, that is not the total picture of all that is comprehended in the motivation to do “good works”. There is a moral law imperative that goes beyond “natural law” and the requirement to obey is not simply “because I want to”. This motive must be coupled with “I obey because I have to.”. Your limited motive ignores and denies God’s authority to rule His kingdom and is actually the essence of “Baal worship” based on natural law and ignores the moral law commands and demands to do the will of God, whether you feel like it or not. And this is precisely why you hate the IJ and embrace Augustine’s trite saying “Love God, and do as you please.” Of course, he assumed that if you “loved God” you would just “naturally” do God’s will and there is no need for any threat of punishment if you don’t obey. And your false theory is why most on the forum attack the law of God and think you are the “highly enlightened” far beyond EGW and the historic SDA faith. And you think the gospel of “love” transcends any moral law imperative. Your false delusion will put you “outside looking in” at last. The true gospel never sets aside any moral imperative to obey. “Obey and live”. God has spoken.

    Hansen
    August 13, 2016 at 7:21 am
    Bill, You are an old time legalist, nothing more. So many words to say nothing, Such a pity.

    Hansen
    August 12, 2016 at 9:11 pm
    Serge, I don’t have all the answers to every objection, even the good ones. I am concerned about jettisoning everything because there are problems or unanswered questions. 1844 is not a wacky, cultic of time setting. A decent case can be made from scripture for that date. What happened at that time is another issue entirely. Pioneers expected the IJ to last no more than a generation, so whatever took place did not meet the expectations of those who developed the doctrine well before EGW wrote about it. The IJ sprung from the musings of Elon Everts, a pastor who had issues serious enough to merit counsel from EGW. He was an itinerant evangelist and church planter who was ordained based on his activity rather than his academic degrees, a typical pastor of that era, not someone like Smith or Andrews who embraced his views and expanded them. Brinsmead dismantled Armstrong’s church. If the pioneer writings can be studied and shown to be preposterous, and the doctrinal authority of EGW destroyed, maybe Adventism will also crumble or fracture like Armstrong’s group or the Lutherans. Maybe EGW copied Smith and Andrews. If they were wrong, where does that leave her? OTOH, maybe they were more or less right. If so, where does that leave us?

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 12, 2016 at 9:46 pm
    I take it, Hansen, that you have not read (or if you have, you do not agree with) R F Cottrell’s document on 1844 and how the church got and keeps it wrong. He describes the clear distinction between the historicist (from our perspective) view with the historical (the bible author’s perspective) interpretations of scripture. Only the historical view is acceptable. Elon Everts and J White’s early historicist expositions 1Peter 4.5,6,17 demonstrate this clearly. For Smith and ANdrews to take up their theme only compounds the error. Start with false assumptions, you guarantee wrong outcomes. Your confidence in their view of 1844 is misplaced. Please tell me you have read Cottrell and the parts of it you find to be in error. He, of all people, is of more than sufficient theological standing in SDAism to be treated with respect.

    Hansen
    August 12, 2016 at 11:27 pm
    Serge, I have read Cottrell’s paper[s], what I could find. He offers a lot of insight into the machinations of the SDA theopolitical complex, a toxic arrangement which has scholars beholden to administrators who are interested in perpetuating themselves rather than Bible truth. If what he says is true, treachery and deviousness was the order of the day in the highest circles of Adventism for many years. His explanation of Daniel 8 and 9 certainly requires more study on my part. I’m not prepared to embrace or deny it today. A church founded on the interpretation of difficult passages in apocalyptic literature, which require advanced knowledge of Biblical languages, concerns me. My bar mitzvah boy level doesn’t cut it. The IJ had an urgency in the early days of Adventism because they still expected Jesus to come in a generation, a brief period of time. It didn’t happen, just like 1844 didn’t happen. Just as the IJ explained the disappointment of 1844, LGT /perfectionism explains the unexpected delay. It’s our fault because we aren’t perfect enough for Jesus to come. The cross I understand; The resurrection of Christ I understand; the priestly ministry of Christ, I understand; So, that’s where I stand, today. Tomorrow is another day.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 13, 2016 at 2:31 am
    Hansen: ‘My bar mitzvah boy level doesn’t cut it.’ Not so fast. If you are a bar mitzvah boy, then you must surely be for ‘cutting it.’ Are you of the circumcision party after all? (j/k, in case folks take it too seriously). I know you have some Hebrew, or at least recognise the necessity for it in the study of those ‘difficult passages of apocalyptic.’ Do you think you are better or less equipped than Everts and J White to undertake the study required? It would appear that not only had they no knowledge of the original languages of scritpure, they felt no need of them at all. The KJV was good enough. So, you are better equipped but unable to reach a conclusion re Dan 8.14. Do the angels keeping you company on the sidelines also fear to rush in?

    Hansen
    August 14, 2016 at 12:02 am
    Serge, Daniel 7:9, 10 a judgment scenario is set up. Verse 11, the horn is condemned. Verses 21,22, judgment is rendered in the favor of the saints. Verses 25,26 Judgment against the horn is reiterated. Chapter 8:9-12, the activity of the little horn is detailed i.e., removal of the daily, giving over the sanctuary and the host. Verse 14, the sanctuary and the host are justified. It makes sense that, in the context of judgment, a dispute between the little horn and the saints, one would be condemned, the other justified. Daniel 9:25-27 brings to view the conflict between two princes. 26,27 seem to be talking about the evil prince who makes a covenant and causes sacrifice and offerings to cease. This is especially true in the NRSV and YLT. Other versions are more ambiguous. 11:31 again mentions the removal of the daily and the setting up of the abomination. Verse 33 is quoted in Lk 21 regarding the persecution of the saints. It seems like Matthew 24 and Lk 21, the situation has now been prolonged in the final days. Another issue is the identification of the abomination in Matthew 24 with Jerusalem surrounded by armies in Luke 21. In brief, I really don’t understand what is being said in those passages and neither do most of the people who are SDA members; nevertheless, EGW said it so it is settled; maybe, maybe not. Smith had a lot to say along similar lines and I definitely don’t trust him.

    Robert
    August 13, 2016 at 7:21 pm
    Serge, my understanding of the historic view of that (the end of the year-day principle) is that prophetic time ended in 1844. That is what I read over and over in early editions of the Review. This isn’t my view; I’m simply reporting what I’ve read.

    Aage Rendalen
    August 13, 2016 at 8:44 pm
    Very true; the lifeblood of dogma is relevance. The same goes for religions. The reason Christianity has been reduced to a shadow of its former self in Europe is not a surge in atheistic agitation but the loss of relevance. I was one of those who left the SDA church following Glacier View. Exegesis was only one reason; what weighed heavier on me was the climate of suspicion and charges of dogmatic treason. I left to breathe fresh air. At the time I was a strong supporter of Desmond Ford and Robert Brinsmead’s attempt at melding Adventism with the Reformation. Today I am not a believer, but I have retained my interest in biblical studies and as I look back on 1980, I find areas where I believe Ford and Brinsmead went wrong. While their critique of classical SDA dogmas was and is solid, their interpretation of Paul through the lens of Luther is not as good. But most of all, the greatest error of them all is the idea that God’s grace, while free can only be dispensed to a Protestant by means of orthodoxy. To a classic Protestant, God only saved Lutheran or Adventist sinners. The greatest theological error of Protestantism, I would pompously assert, is that salvation ultimately boils down to theological perfection. You can drive a car without understanding what goes on under the hood of your car; as a Christian you should be able to enjoy God’s grace without necessarily grasping the underlying algorithms. Theological perfectionism is as much a chimera as moral…

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 8:07 am
    Aage, allow me to offer a personal welcome to AT. My school friends used to call me Aggy, so we share a vague similarity of names. This thread on GLacier View has produced one of the most vibrant discussions that I can recall on AT, and there have been a few. But its great to see so many who don’t normally join in. I think GV is a deep, deep wound in Adventism that has never healed, and likely never will. It is centered around the ‘seemed like a good idea at the time’ IJ teaching which is inherently disruptive becuase of its severe lack of biblical support. Many of those who continue to argue for it also supported Brinsmead Mk1 with its elements of ‘holy flesh’ perfectionism, which is more or less requisite in the idea of ‘standing alone without a mediator.’ I believe that there is a philosophical basis for this also, specifically, a materialist monist view of human nature. Thomas McElwain of Stockholm found that James White et al’s arguments for this view was constantly argued in the early years of the R&H. See Adventism and Ellen White: A Phenomenon of Religious Materialism. SDAs were blessed when Dr Ford, and Brinsmead Mk2, began to emphasise the Reformation gospel, but this was in fairly direct opposition to the Judaising nature of the IJ-based theology of traditional Adventism. But Ford was also a materialist monist, it appears to me, in retrospect. This is why he placed such a heavy emphasis on a forensic justification. Cont…

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 8:28 am
    Cont… Ford, and Brinsmead, were trying to bring their understanding of Lutheran Justification to a church which had a materialist view of human nature, a theology of Judaising sanctification tendency with an endpoint of standing alone before an angry God in sinless perfection after the close of probation. The battle was a bruising one. The incumbents held the fort. Or so they thought. Aage, when you were discussing your current situation, I was half expecting you to mention a newish concept on Luther. There is a book: Union With Christ; The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther Ed. Carl Braaten and Robert W Jenson 1998. Also Union With Christ, Michael Horton and Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s narrative Soteriology (EErdmans). These are some of the works which, to me, begin to come to terms with what I feel is the more mystical nature of deeper spiritual experience. In the way that Paul differentiated between the ‘psychic’ Christian and the ‘pneumatikos.’ Generally speaking, SDAs are so averse to ‘spiritualist’ thinking, with their doctirne of the material-only nature of man, this more advanced view of Luther’s fuller explication of Justification is completely lost to them. Ford had trouble enough with bringing the necessary first step of a forensic justification to SDAs. The more mystical aspect found in Luther’s ‘Union with Christ’ teaching will never be received.

    George Tichy
    August 12, 2016 at 4:08 pm
    THE LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS MISSED, TOO! The SDA Church missed several opportunities throughout the years to correct what was wrong. The Church that always called itself “The People of the Bible” struggled since the beginning with the sin of grafting un-biblical teachings to its biblical doctrines. The 1844/IJ issue could not – and still can’t – be taught using the Bible alone. Therefore it’s not a Biblical teaching – it’s nothing but a heresy! Actually, it openly contradicts the clear teachings found in the book of Hebrews. But the Church refused to follow the “Sola Scriptura” principle, always giving in to the temptation of making “other sources” as credible as the Biblical text – even those parts that were one day plagiarized. (Well, they were actually plagiarized at night, we were told). Then comes Des Ford in 1980 with his intellectual brilliance, and offers to the Church what we would soon learn would be the last window of opportunity for the Church to redeem itself and end almost 100 years of unnecessary controversy. Did the Church take the opportunity? No, it didn’t! The “experts on shut doors” once again shut the door and window of opportunity on Des’ face. The Administration, under the leadership of Neal Wilson, had prepared the verdict on Des Ford even before he had the opportunity to present his materials, his research. Yes, the conviction was in the GC’s safe before the trial took place! So, what exactly are we celebrating 36 years later????

    William Noel
    August 12, 2016 at 4:27 pm
    George, Great question! If Glacier View was a victory for truth, I’d hate to see when it gets trampled!

    Hansen
    August 12, 2016 at 8:40 pm
    George, the following statement of yours needs to be reconsidered: “The 1844/IJ issue could not – and still can’t – be taught using the Bible alone. Therefore it’s not a Biblical teaching – it’s nothing but a heresy!” Facts of history do not support you. James White, J.N. Andrews, and Uriah Smith all wrote on the IJ, years before EGW did in SOP v4. The date for the Andrews article is uncertain but was likely well before 1884. The IJ doctrine was definitely derived from Scripture, not EGW. You can see excerpts from the articles here http://www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com.
    If you take a concordance and look at the word investigate/cognates in the NASB, you will find OT passages which emphasize the investigative nature of judgment in the OT. Famous Solomon, deciding on the fate of the child claimed by two mothers, conducted an inquiry/investigation before rendering judgment. KJV uses expressions like “make diligent inquisition.” Would you rather face an investigation or an inquisition?

    Robert
    August 13, 2016 at 7:43 pm
    Hansen, I don’t think the record supports your view that James White et al. wrote about the IJ years before EGW. See her 1847 letter to Curtis on the delay until Christ finishes his (judgment) work in the Most Holy Place, and her 1849 Ms2-1849 document that specifically had him staying in the MHP until every case was decided. George Knight has argued (Search for Identity) that James White didn’t adopt the IJ view until the mid-1850’s. I recently shared evidence suggesting that James White may have had the view earlier, given EGWs early views, and he has acknowledged this possibility. OTOH, it is difficult to place James White’s adoption of the IJ view to years earlier than EGW’s.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 7:32 am
    Thanks for this Robert. It raises some questions for me though. If EGW had written on the IJ as early as that, how is it that Everts appears so uncertain about things in his ‘communication’ to J White in 1857? ANd why is James equally less than certain about things a month later? Why do both of those authors spend so much effort into trying to fathom 1Peter 4.5,6,17, when they might have been better advised to simply reread Ellen’s letter to Curtis and Ms2? I think its because the ltr to Curtis is so tangential to the topic as to be irrelevant, and Ms2 simply states, ‘until every case is decided.’ There is no development of her thinking on what she means by this. Are there any other EGW-authored mss after those first two and before the 1884 SG version? So it is not suprising that, absent any other ms from EGW, that ten years later, even JW was still trying to make a case for the ‘until every case is decided’ concept. Until someone can show that EGW was developing her thinking on this ‘foundation and central pillar’ of Adventism, we are left with the circle of Everts, J White, Smith, Andrews et al left to do the hard yards of thrashing out the biblical rationale for this newfangled idea of an IJ. And they began that rationale at 1 Peter 4.5,6,17, and it is clear that it was here that they made their first mistake.

    Robert
    August 14, 2016 at 8:17 pm
    Serge, I believe the IJ doctrinal roots are found in the Millerite proclamation that “The hour of His judgment is come.” How this was interpreted in the context of the disappointment of 1844 led to the emphasis on the cleansing aspect of the judgment, and James White seems to have used IJ synonymously with “the blotting out of sins.” Unlike you, I don’t read any uncertainty in James White’s 1857 article. Maybe you can elaborate on the specifics of how (in what way specifically) you think James White was uncertain so that I can understand. Note that White clearly believed in the blotting out of sins as an aspect of judgment as early as 1847.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 20, 2016 at 11:53 am
    1 Peter 4: 6, For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. ???? Eccl 9: 5-6 “but the dead know not anything, for the memory of them is forgotten.” ???? “neither have they any more a portion forever in any thing that is done under the sun.” ???? Comments please.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 20, 2016 at 7:24 pm
    Earl, you asked for comments re 1Peter4.5 ‘gospel preached to the dead’ and Eccles 9.5 ‘teh dead know not anything.’ The NT does not have the same view of human nature as does the OT. OT is similar to SDAs… anything that exists is made of matter. There is no ‘spirit’ aspect, ie, the immaterial. The NT at least presents a dualist view, ie, immaterial psyche/spirit is contained, ‘imprisoned,’ within a body (soma) of matter. (cp with ‘tomb’-sema). Paul, in particualr, is best understood in the light of this background. Peter also reflects this thinking. I believe Jesus shows it also in a few passages. For those who are interested, refer here: Rom 4.17 God ‘quickens the dead’ ” 5,15 re origianal sin… ‘many be dead’ ” 6.13 “… as those alive from the dead…’ ” 8.10 “… the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life…’ Eph 2.1 ‘… you who were dead in sin…’ ” 2.5 ‘… dead in sin… quickened in Christ…’ ” 5.14 ‘Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead and Christ shall give thee light…’ Col 2.13 ‘… you, being dead in your sins…. hath he quickened…’ With that way of thinking about those ideas, we can now make perfect sense of this: 1Pe 4:5,6 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to…

    Hansen
    August 14, 2016 at 9:25 pm
    Robert, Thanks for your input. I arrived at my conclusions by computer searching the term ” investigative judgment” in the pioneer writings section of the EGW Research Edition download. Arthur White also states that JW first wrote about the IJ in January of 1857 ((EGW: The Early Years, vol.1 p. 353,354). You can review my research and verifiable sources here: http://www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com If you can provide verifiable resources showing an earlier date for the use of “investigative judgment,” I’ll be happy to include them

    Robert
    August 20, 2016 at 11:13 am
    Hansen, sorry about the delayed response; I’m traveling and not always online. About the JW article/quote you discuss, I will say this: If you read Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-Day Adventist Doctrine (George Knight, 2000), you’ll see that on pp. 80-81 he follows a similar line of reasoning and argument as you did. However, I have dug into this extensively and came up with a different interpretation, and in an email discussion with Dr. Knight, he thinks there is some merit to my conclusions and had already revised his views somewhat from the 2000 publication date. Here’s my take, in brief. You (and he) are misinterpreting JW’s article because of “Day of Judgment”. My argument is that “day of judgment” had a specific meaning to early Adventists and is distinct from the “hour of judgment” whose time had come and was announced by the Millerite movement. The “Day of Judgment” was yet future, and was indeed a 1000 year period concluded by the executive judgment. If you read a vast swath of early Adventist literature beginning with the Millerite literature and then early SDA literature this becomes clear, or at least, a more reasonable interpretation than that JW was referring to a preadvent judgment in his 1857 article that you republished on your blog. I do not deny that the IJ terminology dates to the mid-1850s. But w/o using that terminology, the doctrine itself was already held by White’s before then.

    Robert
    August 20, 2016 at 11:16 am
    Hansen, Sorry…I don’t know how to edit a comment. I am referring to JW’s 1850 article, not 1857. You quote his 1850 article in its entirety on your blog.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 20, 2016 at 8:30 pm
    Interesting view, Robert, but I’m not sure it will work any better than ‘day of judgement’/cosmic yom kippur commencing in 1844, from a scriptural p o v. However, it may work if one only reviews what the pioneers were saying at the time. Here’s some of my thoughts on the evolution of the IJ thinking around the time of 1844. Miller did indeed work with the concept of the immanent second advent to be in 1843/4, based on Dan 8.14. His view was that the sanctuary to be cleansed was the church (not the ‘earth’ as SDAs wrongly report of him). He equated this with ‘judgement beginning at the house of God (1Pet4.17). He could also have made use of 2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; The 2Tim text is a problem for a pre-Advent judgement btw. But it fits with Miller’s scenario. After disappointment, an alternative view of judgement was required. The two elements in front of mind were, judgement and sanctuary cleansing. These are found in Ms2 1849. Crosier, who likely used scriptural language more ‘literally’ than Miller, who was ok with a use of symbolical biblical language, kept the sanctuary cleansing idea, but transposed it to a literal temple in a literal heaven. Thereafter, Everts, J White, Smith et al developed that thinking. It was the phrase, ‘judgement of the dead’ which literally mislead them. imho. See reply to Earl above.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 20, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    One further question Robert. Are you familiar with R F Cottrell’s ‘The Cleansing of the Sanctuary – Asset of Liability?’ document? Are you aware of any responses or critiques from SDA theologians or indeed anyone? Do you have a view on it? Thanks. To me, it is a far more significant document than even Ford pre and post GV, as important as his thesis is. It would have been nice for RFC to have stood up for this view at that time, but it looks to me as though he was continuing to develop his own thinking on the subject for another twenty years at least. Now that he has gone to heaven, I guess the SDA ‘theopolitical complex,’ (Hansen’s wonderful term) has no imperative to engage with him (RFC).

    Hansen
    August 14, 2016 at 9:31 pm
    Robert, There are several volumes of manuscript releases. The references you gave are, in my view, essentially valueless since they can’t be confirmed. Another poster here provided a “reference” to a magazine that wasn’t even published when the remark was said to have been written. If you have a solid reference which can be verified and reviewed, please do share it.
    I welcome it.

    Robert
    August 20, 2016 at 11:47 am
    Sorry for the incomplete references. I was being lazy, figuring one could find them via computer search. I think from reading below that you guys have already found them, but just to be sure, here they are: Ellen G. White, Lt. 2, 1847, in Timothy L. Poirier, Letters & Manuscripts, Vol. 1, Hagerstown, MD, Review and Herald Pub. Assn., pp. 118-121. Ellen G. White, Ms2-1849 (Jan. 17, 1849), in Timothy L. Poirier, Letters & Manuscripts, Vol. 1, Hagerstown, MD, Review and Herald Pub. Assn., pp. 140-144.

    William Noel
    August 20, 2016 at 12:04 pm
    Why are people researching the writings of Ellen White to find answers when she plainly instructed us to use the Bible only? On more than one occasion she admonished pastors to never quote her from the pulpit and if they couldn’t base their teaching from the Bible alone, then they should step-down and study their Bibles until they could teach their topic from scripture alone.

    Hansen
    August 14, 2016 at 9:41 pm
    remark you refer to? Found in the 1847 “Word to the Little Flock?”? “The Lord has shown me in vision, that Jesus rose up, and shut the door, and entered the Holy of Holies, at the 7th month 1844; but Michael’s standing up ( Daniel 12:1) to deliver his people, is in the future. { WLF 12.4 } This, will not take place, until Jesus has finished his priestly office in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and lays off his priestly attire, and puts on his most kingly robes, and crown, to ride forth on the cloudy chariot, to “thresh the heathen in anger,” and deliver his people. { WLF 12.5 } Then Jesus will have the sharp sickle in his hand, ( Revelation 14:14) and then the saints will cry day and night to Jesus on the cloud, to thrust in his sharp sickle and reap.{ WLF 12.6 }This, will be the time of Jacob’s trouble, ( Jeremiah 30:5-Cool out of which, the saints will be delivered by the voice of God. { WLF 12.7 } I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint.” { WLF 12:9} I see no reference to the IJ in this remark.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 10:16 pm
    Robert, & Hansen, yes, I had the same problem, seeing the IJ in those two refs. Which is why I asked Robert if he has, perhpas, something like a series of time-identified writings by EGW which show the development of her thinking on this. But then, if she were to show some ‘development’ of her ideas on this, then it would be seen to have come from her, and not necessarily straight from the courts of heaven. Which do you think it is? An idea which developed, until set in stone and ink in 1884/8 or a series of terrifying vision/dream reports on what she saw? Maybe there was just the one vision, reported in Ms2? In which case, why did it take another 30 years to fill out the story in form suitable for a book?

    Hansen
    August 15, 2016 at 1:39 am
    Serge, Robert gives two references. I found the one in “Word to the Little Flock.” Did you find the one in MS2? If so, I’d like to see it. I also read the Day Star article which EGW praised. Nothing there about the IJ, either. There is a heavy emphasis on the cleansing of the sanctuary in that article. Arthur White’s remark in the EGW bio is what piqued my interest in this topic. Unless there is a problem with the Pioneer disk, I doubt that there is any earlier reference to the IJ than Evert’s letter. By the time Smith was done, he had the atonement, blotting out/remission of sin, finishing the mystery of God rolled up into the IJ. One thing obvious here is that the IJ wasn’t brewed up by EGW and her bookmakers. The DayStar article is also remarkable for its heavy reliance on Scripture. My real concern is the influence of Smith in developing this teaching. The LGT implications of his remarks, the “sanctification” emphasis, have an unsavory odor. Gill Ford, on another website, stated flatly that EGW “got” the IJ from Smith and Andrews.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 15, 2016 at 3:09 am
    Yes Hansen, I found both articles on EGW website. I’ll try to find again and add the link here. But the Ms2 article does not contain the words Investigative Judgement. Ms2 appears to be a report of a vision. It does refer to Christ remaining in the MHP until ever case is decided. Then He stands aside from between the people and angry God. He removes his high priestly robes and dons his robes of vengeance. Angry God and vengeful Christ then go forth to deliver vengeance. Now you know why Bill warns that certain destruction awaits those who detract from his message. I also think it would be interesting to have a skilled psychoanalyst who has an interest in dream interpretation to review the history of Ellen’s dreams and visions over her life. These kinds of scary visions seemed to predominate in the early part of her life, but moderated as she matured. Has anyone else noticed the trend? is there any expert opinion written on this? Numbers’ latest edition of Prophetess of Health makes some observations, but I am referring to the dreams/visions in particular. Anyone??

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 15, 2016 at 4:31 am
    Try this Hansen, no promises. https://egwwritings.org/?ref=en_Ms2-1849.1&para=2817.6 I find I can’t copy and paste from that site any longer, without registering, i believe.

    Hansen
    August 15, 2016 at 4:59 am
    Serge, Thanks, I found and read the statement. Although it doesn’t mention the IJ, there is a distinct aroma of it. I did solve another issue on this topic. Erv had offered a quote from JW in the September, 1850 Advent Review. This was not the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald which came out later in the year. In this article, JW takes issue with the many ideas about the judgment then circulating, saying “Many minds have been confused by the conflicting views that have been published on this subject. Some have contended that the day of judgment was prior to the second advent. This view is certainly without foundation in the word of God.” {September 1850 JWe, ADRE 49.11} This sounds like the quote Erv referenced; however, it is written several years before JW wrote on the IJ but after EGW’s Ms2. EGW’s remark about Jesus remaining in the MHP until every case is decided is especially interesting in light of JW’s later reference to views on the judgment. JW’s entire article is up on the cleansanctuary website. Perhaps a tempest brewing in the White household? Thanks Robert, for that reference.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 20, 2016 at 2:25 pm
    Hansen, thanks to the pointer to the 4-parts series by Crosier. I found it to be very interesting reading, and I actually agree with much of it. One theme there is the need to cleanse the church which I think is actually an important aspect of the prophetic writings regarding the Sanctuary (symbolic as opposed to literal). I find Crosier to be focused on the meaning of the symbols rather than arguments about what is literally “there” in heaven. Some of these people studied their Bibles far more carefully than we credit them.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 5:24 am
    “The 1844/IJ issue could not – and still can’t – be taught using the Bible alone.” This is your subjective and false opinion. Our evangelists never use anything but the bible to teach the IJ that began in 1844. And as Gerald Wolfe has said. “Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.”

    William Noel
    August 20, 2016 at 12:14 pm
    Bill, I don’t know your background, but I was trained as a pastor so I have studied under evangelists with decades of experience. Every one of them relied heavily on Ellen White’s writings as the basis for their teaching on the IJ instead of the Bible. They may not have credited her for things they quoted in their public presentations, but because I had studied under them I could list the sources of their quotes and those quotes outnumbered the Bible verses they used by a multiple. The IJ has a fundamental problem: equating the “Cleansing of the Sanctuary” with the Day of Atonement. The first happened only a very limited number of times in Jewish history and typically only after the Sanctuary was taken-down and transported to a new location, or when it had been defiled, such as by an enemy invasion. The “cleansing” was the ceremony symbolically removing sin from the place where God would literally be present among His people. Nowhere in Jewish history is it recorded as happening on the Day of Atonement because the Jews were careful to have the Sanctuary re-established and functional for at-least 14 days prior so they would be ready to properly mark the Day of Atonement.

    Conviction
    August 20, 2016 at 2:34 pm
    Mute point. Hebrews 8: 1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. The Lord pitched the Sanctuary; not man. You can talk to or study man all you want to; but still never find out about the Sanctuary or HIM. Actually we have commands on all of this, for it is written a little later in the Chapter. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. We do not need you to say anything other from the BIBLE, HIS Word; the rest is in our hearts. You are actually commanded against such “they shall not teach every man”. Otherwise, if you are a prophet and have prophesy, then state it.

    William Noel
    August 20, 2016 at 3:10 pm
    Conviction, yes, Jesus is our High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary. But, where in those passages does scripture equate the Cleansing of the Sanctuary with the Day of Atonement? I’m afraid you selective use of Bible verses and wild claims about the views of others are just showing what a poor Bible student you are. The “cleansing of the sanctuary” is mentioned exactly twice in the Old Testament. In 2 Chronicles 30:19 the command is given for a sacrifice to cleanse the Sanctuary 14 days before Passover, which comes in the fall of the year and is separated from the Day of Atonement by six months. The other is Daniel 8:14. Greater detail about the services in the Jewish Sanctuary and their meanings come from a number of Orthodox Jewish historians and rabbis, such as Alfred Edersheim. If you really want to learn the details and meanings of the Sanctuary services, I suggest you read his books “The life and Times of Jesus the Messiah” and “The Sanctuary and its Services.” You can get each in e-book format and if you wish to understand the meanings in the Sanctuary services, you need to read them. Edersheim illustrates that the Jewish understanding of cleansing the sanctuary was not the sacrifice two weeks before Passover, but when services were restored after it was moved or desecrated. In neither case is there any suggestion of a judgement as is claimed in the IJ teaching.

    Conviction
    August 20, 2016 at 5:09 pm
    I thought Daniel 9 was pretty clear. 17 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. You sold to many hammers to drive the nails; you figured it was easier than giving them away. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. The Sanctuary is destroyed. But the covenant shall be confirmed with many for one week. The Sacrifice and even the oblation (obligation for the Sacrifice) will cease. Because of us.

    Conviction
    August 20, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    Hebrews 13: 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. 10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. 15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. 16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. HE sanctifies us with HIS own Blood, suffered. We seek a city to come. We offer the sacrifice of praise to GOD continually. We do good and communicate forget not. We are HIS Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16). What do you or any of your books (or others books) have to offer?

    William Noel
    August 20, 2016 at 5:20 pm
    Conviction, what do the sanctuary and selling hammers and nails have to do with each other? Once again, you’ve made an utterly disconnected and unrelated statement without explaining the connection so it is impossible to understand your meaning. That is more evidence of why I question your ability to think clearly.

    Conviction
    August 20, 2016 at 7:36 pm
    William, I assumed you would know that you were driving the nails in HIM farther and selling more hammers. You posted a response to the comment at the bottom describing such not more than 6 hours ago. We all feel that if your ability to read or your short term memory is that bad we will pray for you. If that is not the case then maybe you should not ask questions with intent or no desire to seek the answer. Idle words will be answered for; because HE said such. We will pray for you and your hated of others and the Truth. Also remember not to teach, saying Know the Lord. 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. All we hear; CHRIST is here or CHRIST is there. We know CHRIST is the sanctuary and is within us; for it is written. You and those such pooled will not change that. HIS Laws are written in our hearts; you have nothing to do with that or nothing to offer in that. I am the least from your statements below; but still included, from the least to the greatest. Where is your reverence for HIM and Love of others in this? Where at least is your Love and appreciation for HIM?









    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:42 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:05 am

    Many years ago, I regularly attended Dr. Walter Martin's Sunday-School Class in Costa Mesa, California. I privately discussed the video (at the bottom of this post) with Dr. Martin. Walter asked me if I thought he had been too tough with Dr. William Johnson??!! I politely said "No"!! One Sunday morning, Dr. Martin told us about spinning out of control in his car (I think it was a Cadillac) on the freeway (without a collision) on the way to the Sunday-School Class!! A Vanderbilt Divinity-School Graduate recently suggested that my cup was too full (like the teaching of the Tibetan-Monk in the movie 2012)!! I was polite, but I could've suggested that My Cup was Full of Bullshit from Ivy-League Divinity-School Graduates!! "My Cup Runneth Over!!"

    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    http://atoday.org/glacier-view-a-retrospective/

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 21, 2016 at 3:23 am
    William, I agree with you that Yom Kippur is a poor choice of Jewish day to represent the ‘restoration of the sanctuary.’ But I think you may have made an unwitting ‘typo of the mind’ as I call them. Passover took place after the vernal/spring equinox. Day of Atonement was ten days after Rosh Hashana, which began on the day of the new moon nearest to the autumnal/fall equinox, if I’m not mistaken. Curiously, though, Rosh Hashana, which lasts until Yom Kippur, is considered the period of judgement. Names are written into books, and the books are sealed. Yom Kippur is the day when the people themselves ‘make atonement’ with and for those they have wronged through the previous year. When Rosh Hashana is taken into account, the SDA view that YK is the sole period of ‘judgement’ quite patently misses the point of this Jewish holy day.

    Mark Ellmoos
    August 12, 2016 at 4:32 pm
    A sad and shameful event in our history

    Hansen
    August 12, 2016 at 4:47 pm
    I really don’t have an issue with 1844. It’s probably the best explanation of the 2300 day prophecy I have seen; what troubled me, however, was the perfectionistic implications of LGT which spun out of 1844. Becoming so righteous by the indwelling spirit that we stand essentially naked before God, that’s a tall order, especially when the alternative is hell fire. Uriah Smith wrote extensively on the cleansing of the sanctuary, in language laden with LGT: ” According to this testimony, a time is coming (looking, we believe, to this same time, when the living righteous successfully pass the investigative judgment) when the day-star will arise in the hearts of God’s people, the day will dawn to them, and they will receive such an unction from on high, and such an illumination of the Holy Spirit, that they will no longer need the word of prophecy, the light of the holy Scriptures, to guide their steps. They will themselves be an embodiment of the spirit of prophecy, and be enlightened with greater light than the prophets have ever been able to impart to them.” Smith’s salvation emphasis was SANCTIFICATION: “This man represents those who receive the truth, have the true light, understand in regard to the sanctuary subject and the marriage, and all the truth of this important time, and yet hold that truth only theoretically, and are not sanctified through it, nor prepared by it for the judgment. Such will finally be rejected….” Parable of the 10 Virgins…

    EM
    August 12, 2016 at 6:26 pm
    I like what you have said in your first paragraph. What if that time span is correct, but other forces twisted it to become a perfectionist idea? What is so upsetting about a pre-Advent judgment? It might be necessary unless the judgment of all is made at the moment Christ returns. I’m not saying He couldn’t do it, but it would seem unlikely since He “brings His reward with Him.” and will surely know who the saved are. I took all the classes taught by Dr. Heppenstall after he came from the seminary to LLU. I know he had concerns over the Dan. 8,9 texts. But even he didn’t have all the answers. Whether the MHP is where He went after the ascension seems like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin argument. Maybe that is what GlacierView was all about. But the MHP can’t be most holy without God the Father–maybe it is all of heaven (the control room of the universe)–what difference does it make to our salvation? I am trying to appeal to common sense–but it’s MY common sense. I would say Ford’s biggest mistake was presenting that tome (I’ve seen it) to all those resentful men who didn’t want to be there. I’ve heard and believe hardly anyone read much of it. The size was a put-off to many who probably didn’t care. And they knew it was political. However, I believe God used Ford to bring us back to the 1888 message of grace and his influence has strengthened many spiritually even though some of his work confused many who really did want to know

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 8:53 am
    Hansen, did you say you’d read Cottrell’s last work on 1844? I found it better on second reading, so maybe you could also. There is no ‘2300 days.’ Just another KJV mistranslation. 1150 evening-morning(s). AlLso, his arguments for the much earlier start of the 70 week prophecy are worthy. I think you will find also that he deals clearly and convincingly with those ‘difficult’ aspects of apocalyptic in Daniel and in the Gospels which you described to me above. The final theological testament of a man who has thought long and deeply about the central problem in Adventism deserves a second reading. Forget the part on the ‘theopolitical complex’ shennanigans. They’re a lost cause.

    William Noel
    August 21, 2016 at 6:51 am
    Hansen, there are many rich lessons about salvation to be learned from studying the Sanctuary services. We do ourselves a huge disfavor when we focus so heavily on the IJ theory and ignore the other lessons. I think if more people took the time to actually study the sanctuary services we would find the IJ fading into insignificance as we rejoice in the many things God does to redeem us and teach us about how much He loves us.

    Ranald J McLeish
    August 12, 2016 at 6:03 pm
    The Historical position held by the Pioneers, the church, and various respected Commentaries, applied Daniel 8:9-11 to the actions of the Roman Empire only, cf. 4BC 841-843. However since 1980 various Adventist scholars have evolved an alternative position that applies Daniel 8:9-12 to the actions of the Papacy only, cf. 12BC 394-395. cf below. “The same picture is used in Daniel 8. The little horn attacks the heavenly host and casts “down some of the host”. (vs 10); it then goes into the sanctuary where he “exalted himself as the Prince of the host” (vs. 11, NKJV). The little horn is attacking heaven and a ministry in heaven. p. 44. — 2. A host is placed over the daily ministry. Hence the text says that the horn misappropriated the daily ministry of Christ and then “set over,” or appointed, its own host to control or minister it.” 2002 Teachers SS Quarterly, p. 41 – 48. As Daniel is clear a horn never represents two different powers does the LH of 8:9 represent Rome, or the Papacy? cf. below. In Dan. 7, Rome, the 10 kingdoms, and the Papacy, are represented by different symbols. In Dan. 8 Rome is represented by the first LH, the LH of 8:9. As history is very clear Rome and the Papacy ruled concurrently from 538 to 1453, it is logical there are two LH’s to represent Rome and the Papacy in chapters 7 and 8.
    In 8:12 the Papacy cast the truth, not Christ’s ministry to the ground. The attack is an earthly attack only .

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 12, 2016 at 7:07 pm
    If Daniel and Revelation had not been included in the canon, would anyone’s salvation be imperilled? No. The NT has more than enough to teach the way to life. And these two books appear to do little more than create nasty arguments amongst and between those who claim to know exactly what they ‘mean.’ Or those who use their interpretations as proof that they have ‘the truth’ and one must join their religion or else. Bah humbug!

    William Abbott
    August 12, 2016 at 7:15 pm
    Jesus Christ referenced an apocalyptic text from the book of Daniel. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 12, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    Rather than just quote a text without ref to context William, (as do some who post here) why not tell us what you think that text means, and if you think it is vital to our salvation that we understand it in precisely the same way that you do. I think that text relates to idolatry. And we know that idolatry is the representation of spirit beings in some material form. SDAs are great breakers of the second commandment, printing millions of copies of pictures of their God. You will never find a picture of God in a Jewish book.

    William Abbott
    August 13, 2016 at 2:58 pm
    Serge, Actually I quoted Matt 24 not because I wanted to discuss what it means, but to show Daniel was part of Jesus’ canon. You had said: If Daniel and Revelation had not been included in the canon, would anyone’s salvation be imperiled? No… …bah humbug! I just wanted us to remember Jesus Christ thought enough of the book of Daniel to quote it in eschatological context.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 13, 2016 at 6:46 pm
    Fair point, William. But do you agree that the ‘eschatological context’ into which Jesus placed the book of Daniel relates to His own era, or very soon afterwards? You may also recall our discussion of Matt 20, where Jesus refers to a ‘scripture’ which is most likely to be the then very popular apocalyptic work, Enoch. Yes, Jesus was definitely a reader of apocalyptic literature. Trouble is, a world full of devout Christians is finding it difficult to interpret what it all means for us now. I’m fine with my take on it, but I don’t think i have persuaded you, have I? This is why Glacier View continues to bedevil the SDA church. (and so it should……. they erred in many ways back then).

    Elaine Nelson
    August 12, 2016 at 9:02 pm
    That was certainly Jesus speaking about the destruction of the temple which was soon to come. The temple was the epitome of Judaism and its destruction is the worst apocalyptic idea possibly to them. They understood his meaning. It is only those who read it today who see several possible meanings and dismiss the true one.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 12, 2016 at 11:19 pm
    Elaine, the ‘abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,’ was firstly the setting up of pagan idols in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. The Roman destruction was a rerun of that, but including physical demolition of the building. The more difficult aspect of the text William quoted, Matt 24.15 is that it is placed in an eschatological context. In fact, SDAs have steadfastly not recognised that their eschatology presumes that the original ‘prophecy’ does not point to a fulfilment in our day now. It was more concerned with its own age.

    EM
    August 12, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    EM (con’t) how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Some left the church over it and I know some of those became really hateful vengeful individuals who twist what the church says to this day. So I can view PUC as a kind of test of character, I suppose. This is the first time I have ever seen Dr. Ford’s theological ideas listed. It’s too bad he didn’t summarize them for his audience. I see a couple that I have come to believe as the result of my own study but didn’t know he came up with it first! One is predictions as having multiple (even partial) fulfillments, I am not so clear on what EGW taught as she seemed to echo the study conclusions of the pioneer Adventists and never actually came up with a new doctrine herself. She was an inspired person I have no doubt by the fruits of her life, but no one is infallible but God. We still don’t understand what inspiration means (in my view). She did say that truth was progressive and implied doctrine could be changed as we learned. (No I don’t have the book and page #). Her work is like the Bible–there is a theme of Christ, kindness, and watching for His return through right living for service and witness (not heaven). But we want specifics on what we should do and know to be saved, but we are not the most important part of the Gospel.

    EM
    August 12, 2016 at 7:04 pm
    Could someone clarify for me: When the Bible says the sanctuary will be “cleansed” I have read that it really means the sanctuary will be “restored.” Is that possible?

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 12, 2016 at 7:16 pm
    EM, it sounds as though you urgently need to read this: http://www.rethinkingadventism.com/support-files/cottrell_1844.pdf This is Raymond F Cottrell’s summary of his final work before he died. But first, read up on who Cottrell was. A theologian of the first order in SDAism. (But why he didn’t stand up for Dr Ford at Glacier View remains a mystery to me). If you want insight into reality, just read that article.

    EM Rydzewski
    August 13, 2016 at 4:38 pm
    Re: Cottrell–Yes, I do know who he was and have read only one book he wrote, but it is not on this subject, so I don’t know his teaching. I will check it out, but like I said no one has access to all the answers nor are they 100 percent correct. One should be open to studying other ideas but not always accepting them. I would say Dr. Heppenstall was the denomination’s top theologian but then I knew him as I was his secretary and student at LLU.

    Hansen
    August 13, 2016 at 5:34 am
    EM, the word translated “cleansed” in Daniel 8:14 also appears in chapter 12:3. And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those “justifying the multitude” as stars to the age and for ever. Daniel 8:14 And he saith unto me, Till evening — morning two thousand and three hundred, then is the holy place “declared right.” The word is used 40 times in the OT and always refers to people. They are “righteous,” “declared right” “vindicated,” “justified,” “proved right,” “acquitted.” “given justice.” The temple was cleansed numerous times in the OT i.e., during the reigns of Joash, Hezekiah, in Nehemiah’s time; however, the word translated “cleansed” in not used to refer to the temple’s cleansing in those scenes. I guess that the expression is referring to the justification of God’s people, the spiritual sanctuary.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 1:01 pm
    “Could someone clarify for me: When the Bible says the sanctuary will be “cleansed” I have read that it really means the sanctuary will be “restored.” Is that possible?” It simply means God’s name and God’s kingdom will be freed from all the lies of Satan that he has accused God of. And those who have agreed with God in this controversy are also forgiven and restored in their relationship with God. So the judgment vindicates God and the people who side with him and His kingdom will be “justified” and vindicated by the whole universe.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 6:49 am
    Bill: ‘It simply means God’s name and God’s kingdom will be freed from all the lies of Satan that he has accused God of…..’ Well, Bill, if this is an example of your theological hermeneutic at work, I need no longer wonder why you never answer questions in detail, but prefer sweeping generalisations based on your own general idea of how you would like it to be. You talk a lot about discipline and obedience, but how about you show some intellectual discipline and stick to the facts of the case. People are able to make up their own minds well enough, if you make your case by presenting the facts/texts/evidence for a point, before you draw your conclusion. You weaken your case beyond measure by simply making the bald-faced declarations which characterize your posts here. They carry no weight. Please, at least try to make a case, not just a declaration of opinion.

    Conviction
    August 14, 2016 at 7:34 am
    If cleansing the sanctuary is not removing sin; then what is it? Within your theological hermeneutic at work, of course. The foundation of perfection is already build, not by Bill, myself or you; but by HIM. Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit. 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Is this the perfection that you preach? Did you also wish to rebuild the foundations already built? Do you wish to build or tear down within your theological hermeneutic? People are able to make up their own minds; present how you wish to build. I would suggest that HE might not appreciate being crucified afresh or the shame; by anyone. Remember we Love you; but we Love others also.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 8:59 am
    Que?

    Conviction
    August 14, 2016 at 9:33 am
    Sorry. It is sort of like a lawyer who wants the people to decide, but the opposing testimony withheld, having no desire to cross examine, desire to even present a case or builds of foundation of Truth. While the people want and need to hear all the testimony, have a presented case, listen to cross examinations and have the foundations of Truth to even make a decision. I know it is unintentional, but kind of comes off sounding that way?

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 10:00 am
    Bro. C: ‘The foundation of perfection is already build…’ EGW says ‘the foundation and central pillar of the SDA church is the IJ doctrine.’ Paul says: 1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. I am perfectly happy to be a brick in God’s building, HIS temple, HIS true church. Be great if you joined us. See 1Peter 2, you’ll be glad you did.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 10:10 am
    Apologies, C, meant to mention this. You asked if ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ means removal of sin. No, it cannot mean that. It cannot ‘mean’ anything. There is no Biblical phrase, ‘cleansing of the sanctuary,’ nor the KJV version, ‘then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ It doesn’t exist. Its a mistake in the KJV bible which EGW and her friends used. Dan 8.14 actually says: ‘… unto 2,300 evening morning then shall the sanctuary be restored…’ For a very good, simple, easy to follow discussion of this, read R F Cottrell’s excellent little work, ‘The Cleansing of the Sanctuary – Asset or Liability.’ http://www.rethinkingadventism.com/support-files/cottrell_1844.pdf Let me know what you think of it.

    Conviction
    August 15, 2016 at 5:18 am
    So Daniel 8:14 “And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” ??????????? Looks like cleansed/justified to me, but the current could be interpreted restored (like the NAS reflects). Does cleansed/justified/restored really mean the same or make a difference? All are after the facts and absolutes of CHRIST? Does restored not further substantiate 457 BC in such decreed? Should we not be careful; to not remove CHRIST in this? Whether cleansed, justified or restored? Does Raymond not remove the fleshly requirements to start with; disproving his validity? Is HIS purpose not to remove sin; no matter the Sanctuary, especially in us? Should we speculate in search of Truth, or fear or neither? Does Prophesy guide in such? Do we calculate 2026 through time, times and dividing (or 42 months)? Do we subtract 70 years from that and look at 1956 to see what happened? Do we subtract the 8 years from 2026; putting us at 2018, when Messiah be cut off and the sacrifice and oblation ceasing 7 years later? Lets not speculate; it scares me. Maybe we should put it into FATHERS hands, tell everyone they should be prepared (for we are but a vapor) and to look for the signs? The foundation is strong; but should we not go into the foundations of perfection in Hebrews 6? Is IJ as the foundation of the Church, not built in or on such?

    William Noel
    August 15, 2016 at 6:00 am
    Conviction, Jews only “cleansed” the sanctuary when it had been defiled in some way and they were re-dedicating it to the sole purpose of worshiping the God of Heaven. It only happened a few times and did not happen on the Day of Atonement. The act of cleansing had NOTHING to do with removing sin from the people. There NEVER was any doubt that the repentant sinner who came to the sanctuary was forgiven and left cleansed by God and the division between them and God reconciled. It is the illusion of incomplete or delayed forgiveness that is at the basis of the IJ. It is a theology that fears the atonement of Jesus at Calvary was somehow incomplete, that somehow our salvation is in jeopardy, or that it will not be confirmed until some date in the future. Such fear twists our thinking and that is the basis for how the perfect completeness of forgiveness and reconciliation with God got twisted into the IJ. Scripture makes it clear that we are born into sin and condemned until we accept the salvation God offers and that we pass from death into life. God knows who He has redeemed so the ministry of Jesus in the Heavenly sanctuary simply reaffirms the completeness of that salvation to all who have accepted it. There never is any reason to doubt or fear. That is, unless you love arguing more than you love God and the transforming salvation He offers that fills us with His peace.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 15, 2016 at 7:18 am
    Nice summary, William N. Spot on! Mr C. You were doing well, then you read Raymond Cottrell. But I fear you’ve misunderstood. You say: ‘Maybe we should put it into FATHERS hands, tell everyone they should be prepared (for we are but a vapor) and to look for the signs?’ This is the big problem with telling everyone they should be prepared. If you read what William N has jsut said, you will see that he is not worried about getting ready or ‘should be prepared.’ Because he IS ready. He IS prepared. His life is hid with Christ in God. He HAS passed from death unto life. He has NO FEAR for the future. He does not even need to look for signs. He has already put his life into his Father’s hands. All is well. But if we keep repeating to ourselves, get ready, be prepared, the end is coming, etc etc, then we literally hypnotise ourselves that we are NOT ready. And the more we say to get ready, the more we come to fear that we are not ready and so the fear grows. We become convinced that we are not ready, and will probably never be good enough to be ready and then we start talking gibberish and saying things that people jsut dont understand. We dream crazy, fearful dreams that God is angry at us for not being ready or for any little guilty thing that makes us feel that we are not ready. In the end, we just have to create a new religion and get other people to fear that they are not ready so we can all comfort each other in our guilt and fear.

    Conviction
    August 15, 2016 at 6:54 am
    CHRIST was a Jew. If not sin; then what is the sanctuary or we cleansed of? We fear for others; including you. We fear and reverence the FATHER and CHRIST. Not only or even because we are suppose to; but because we Love them and are very thankful they remember us, but more than that because they Love us. I have never seen anyone before demand or even think they could command HIS Love. You stated you were searching and found a new Church, what is the Doctrine there? How do you explain the move unto perfection in Hebrews 6? My wife says not to ask you questions, but to tell you to sit your little behind down; less mouth and more ears, since you write much and say nothing except demand of HIM. But I can’t figure out what happened to you without asking questions. Maybe she is right and I should listen to her?

    William Noel
    August 15, 2016 at 7:50 am
    Conviction, I have studied the Jewish sanctuary services in depth from the works of Jewish historians such as Alfred Edersheim and directly with two orthodox Jewish rabbis, so what I share is from those studied authorities. The earthly sanctuary was a copy of the Heavenly and illustrated the process by which perfect and all-powerful God reconciles us to Him. The Jews never imagined there was an accumulation of sin in the Sanctuary because sin cannot exist in the presence of our perfect and holy God. All sin was left outside the sanctuary and the sinner came to receive promised cleansing from sin. The cleansing of the sanctuary was a ceremonial dedication or rededication of ONLY the physical facility so God’s presence could be there. Indeed, when the sanctuary was first established in the wilderness, it was ceremonially cleansed before the presence of God moved into it. When Solomon’s temple was built, it was ceremonially cleansed. When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon and rebuilt the temple, it was cleansed. When the sanctuary was built in Herod’s temple, it was ceremonially cleansed. None of those events in Jewish history was ever associated with the Day of Atonement, but early Adventists built an illusion based on that incorrect linkage. For the repentant sinner, there is no fear in the Sanctuary because our forgiveness and salvation are complete and secure, but the IJ teaches fear and incomplete salvation.

    phillip brantley
    August 12, 2016 at 9:19 pm
    Here are a few observations that I am not aware that others have expressed: 1. Dr. Ford is not an OT scholar. It is risky to make authoritative statements on matters that are outside one’s formal area of expertise. What does Seminary professor Roy Gane, a world authority on Leviticus, say about the OT and the SDA doctrine of the sanctuary? 2. Nobody at Glacier View could be described as a bona fide hermeneutist. The lag between non-SDA Christian interest in something and SDA interest in that something is about 40 years. The wave of interest in hermeneutics among non-SDA Christians began in the 1960s. Only recently have SDA theologians felt the urgency to learn hermeneutics. I find that the Glacier View writings suffer from a lack of knowledge of hermeneutics. For example, Dr. Ford does not ground his “apotelesmatic principle” in what one might find in the standard literature on hermeneutics. 3. It’s interesting to me that Dr. Ford makes much ado about word studies, as illustrated by No. 3 and No. 5 of the list in the essay set forth above. If you do not understand linguistics, your exegesis will be rife with fallacies. I wonder if Dr. Ford was appropriately influenced by James Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961). 4. The thorniest subject matter in the study of hermeneutics is inner-biblical exegesis. Everything else is relatively easy. 36 years after Glacier View we still do not have this quite figured out.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 12, 2016 at 10:56 pm
    Phillip, some thoughts: 1. Ford is an expert in the book of Daniel. It is the area of his second PhD, English style, therefore of higher academic credibility than US PhDs. Does Gane have such expertise as Ford in the book of Daniel? 2. When a non-SDA hermeneutist reaches the same conclusions aobut Dan 8.14 as the SDAs then you may have a point. 3. It is likely, ie, I suspect, that Ford introduced the ‘apotelesmatic principle as a theological device to allow SDAism to maintain a semblance of credibility. Without it, they have none, imho. 4. What is your estimate of the theological value of RF Cottrell’s ‘The Sanctuary Doctrine – Asset or Liability?’ Does it meet any of your ‘hermeneutical’ standards? 5. Where do your prejudices lie? Traditional view or other? IF traditional, how did those ‘pioneers’ come to ‘the truth’ of Dan 8.14 without any of the hermeneutical tools you now say are mandatory? 6. Would you care to comment on the view that Dan 8.14 is a ‘contextual island?’ (I believe G Hasel coined this term. Does it meet your hermeneutic requirement?)

    phillip brantley
    August 13, 2016 at 6:55 am
    Serge, Ford’s second PhD is in NT studies. His thesis titled, Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology, is a study of Mark 13:14. A NT scholar will necessarily look to the OT, (and Ford does look to Daniel), but that does not make him or her an OT scholar. Ford’s adviser for that PhD, the late FF Bruce, was also not an OT scholar. Ford’s first PhD was a rhetorical analysis of Paul’s letters. In contrast to Ford’s approach to Daniel through the prism of the NT, Gane as an OT scholar approaches Daniel on its own terms. Do you see the crucial difference? I agree with you that the apotelesmatic principle was an unprincipled makeshift tactic by Ford to forge a political consensus of support for his views. The SDA pioneers were not hermeneutists by any stretch of the imagination. Don’t get me started on this. SDA doctrine developed not as a result of proper methodology but as a result of divine revelation gifted personally to Ellen White and corporately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 13, 2016 at 7:50 am
    Yes, my mistake Phillip. I mistook his commentary for thesis. But I dont see the difference with Gane as crucially as do you. I would suggest, in fact, that Gane is at the disadvantage, since teh NT is the one where the real action is. Hebrews, in particular, radically reinterprets OT Judaism, jsut as the New covenant is radically different from the old. To correct your impression: I don’t see Ford’s use of the apotelesmatic principle as a ‘tactic.’ It is a legitimate and fair hermeneutic, which many at Glacier View may not have been aware of. Turns out, most of them didn’t realise the extent of the problem they faced and continue to face, so the need for a valid hermeneutic such as the AP wasnt recognised. So you say the IJ came to us direct from heaven? Bound in red, was it? By what hermeneutic do you reach this conclusion? I’m sure there are many here who will be more than interested to know. Especially Hansen, who has shared with us quite a lot of documentary evidence on the evolution of IJ thinking starting with Everts and James White in 1857, followed by Smith, Andrews and others. Ellen didn’t put pen to paper until 1884. And when she did, it was little more than an amalgam of what the others had written. How does this happen? The early attempts to define the IJ were done via hopeless hermeneutics, yet EGW endorsed their theories and turned it into a doctrine. Do you now contend that a proper hermeneutic can now be found in support?

    William Abbott
    August 13, 2016 at 3:08 pm
    Serge, I don’t see Ford’s use of the apotelesmatic principle as a ‘tactic.’ It is a legitimate and fair hermeneutic… I might be persuaded its both, but it is mostly a tactic, dressed up like a hermeneutic. The apotelesmatic is a clever way to validate the founder’s experience without casting in eternal concrete their hermeneutic.

    Robert
    August 13, 2016 at 8:02 pm
    Serge, I posted separately above on this, but briefly, I disagree with Hansen. EGW wrote on IJ as early as 1849 and possibly 1847. She may have held the view even before. In my opinion, the idea has its roots in the “hour of judgment” concept that early Adventists (e.g., Millerites) embraced.

    Hansen
    August 19, 2016 at 10:24 am
    Robert, EW did not use the term “investigative judgment” in the references from the 1840s; nevertheless, I agree with you that the remark about remaining in the MHP until every case has been decided probably refers to what became known as the IJ. JW took issue with the varying views of judgment floating around, saying they were not Biblical. This reference is in an 1850 article in the AR, not the ARSH: ” Many minds have been confused by the conflicting views that have been published on this subject. Some have contended that the day of judgment was prior to the second advent. This view is certainly without foundation in the word of God.” {September 1850 JWe, ADRE 49.11} It was not until 1857 that JW wrote on the IJ in another pamphlet “The judgment ( or Waymarks of Daniel…)” At the close of the 2300 days of chapter 8, in 1844, Judgment of another kind began to sit, namely, the investigative Judgment, in the heavenly sanctuary, preparatory to the coming of Christ (The Judgment, pp.14,15 AR,not ARSH, September, 1850). Possibly, the seeds of the IJ were sown by EGW, in the 1840s and developed by Everts and White in 1857. As has been the case, they may have gotten the idea from EGW and then went a fishin’ for Biblical support, which would explain problems in their Scriptural interpretation. They approached Scripture with an agenda, derived from EGW.

    Hansen
    August 19, 2016 at 12:28 pm
    Correction, Those JW article dates are wrong. Better here: 1) Advent Review, September 1850 “The Day of Judgment”–Took issue with those advancing various views on the judgment. Doesn’t mention an “investigative judgment.” 2) Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, “The Judgment” January 29, 1857–Specifically refers to the “investigative judgment.” 3)) Bible Tracts No.4, “The Judgment (or Waymarks of Daniel to the Holy City)” written after September 1870–Specifically refers to the “investigative judgment.”

    Robert
    August 20, 2016 at 12:00 pm
    Hansen, I can understand how you came to your conclusions; I “passed through” that position as I was researching this history in the context of Knight’s books/claims. But as suggested above, I saw things entirely differently once I did an extensive study on what “day of judgment” and “hour of judgment” meant to early Adventists. As far as you 8/19 comments, I see things different w/r/t JW vs EGW and doctrinal development. I suggest reading Knight, and then reading all the 1845-6 stuff by Snow, Peavey, etc., published in The Jubilee Standard, The Advent Testimony, etc. It gives context to what EGW and JW were addressing. My own view of EGW is that much of her stuff is in reaction to the views of others rather than “out of the blue new stuff”. Same is true with IJ. Read the above, and you see a wide range of views including that judgment had already happened by 1844, that judgment was spiritual, that the second coming was spiritual, etc. I think both JW and EGW wrote in response. Understanding EGW’s 1847/49 stuff and JW’s 1850 stuff requires understanding this context. They were REACTING to other views. And I don’t believe it was to Joseph Bates as suggested by Knight, but rather to either Arnold or to Snow/Peavey et al. JW could in 1850 deny their “day of judgment” view without meaning that there was no “hour of judgment” beginning in the early 1840s or that the IJ hadn’t begun in 1844 (even if not using “IJ” terminology). JW did not…

    Robert
    August 20, 2016 at 12:08 pm
    Hansen, (continued)… JW did not just “develop” the ideas of EGW, in this case, as far as I can tell. Rather, JW and others were writing on the topic in the mid-1840s. EGW’s reaction very likely mirrored her husband’s, rather than the other way around, in my opinion. I think sometimes EGW “went into vision” to pull out a conclusive argument in favor of her husband’s view (though sometimes different)–they were tag-teaming, in effect! Thus, in this instance, her vision showed Christ working in the temple in heaven and deciding every case before coming back to earth. This directly responds to the writings of those who said the temple WAS heaven, rather than the temple was IN heaven.

    Ella Rydzewski
    August 13, 2016 at 5:02 pm
    I know that I am not as learned in the area as you guys who are probably either pastors or teachers who have been to seminary, but I would like to put in a plug for Jacques Doukhan’ books on Daniel and Revelation. I find them easy to understand yet scholarly. Dr. Doukhan, as a Jew, sees the books from the point of view of the Jewish mind. He has two doctorates in Hebrew and OT. He teaches at Andrews University. My old friend, RA Anderson, also has a book on Daniel as does Dr. Shea.

    Gary McCary
    August 12, 2016 at 9:59 pm
    Is it possible that the author of Daniel was writing long after the time that the character Daniel was to have lived? Is it possible that in the author’s mind, the sanctuary to be cleansed (or restored) was the sanctuary in Jerusalem? Is it possible that we are all way off base in understanding exactly WHEN the 2300 days (“evening/mornings”) were to have begun and ended? Is it possible that when the angelic voice, interpreting for Daniel the vision of the evenings & mornings, said “In the latter part of THEIR reign (the latter part of the reign of the four kingdoms at the end of the Greek empire)…..a stern-faced king will arise” (Dan. 8:23—referring to the little horn of 8:9-12), that the angel REALLY IS talking about a cruel ruler who arose after the end of the Greek empire? Is it possible that the 2300 days really did end (in the author’s thinking) during those years immediately following the Greek empire? Or are these musings completely beyond the realm of possibility?

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 12, 2016 at 10:41 pm
    Gary, with the exception of your first question, this is the position taken by the once highly respected SDA theologian RF Cottrell in his refined study of the problems of SDA traditional view of Dan 8. http://www.rethinkingadventism.com/support-files/cottrell_1844.pdf Your questions hinge around the historicist aspect versus the historical. SDAs are almost alone in taking hte historicist view, these prophecies are to be interpreted from our perspective, in our day, and not form that of the author of the prophecy, ie, Daniel’s day. Any student of these things who refuses to consider Cottrell’s arguments is no student at all.

    Elaine Nelson
    August 13, 2016 at 10:48 am
    The whole 1844 IJ system was based on Daniel having lived ca 500 B.C. Yet the consensus of the majority of scholars (non-SdA) is that the prophecies recorded in the book were written no earlier than 150 B.C. There are anachronisms in the text that were not used at the purported time of 500 B.C. There are also questions of authorship: The difference between narrative and vision, 3rd person and first, Hebrew and Aramic, have been cited as evidence for two or more authors.

    EM
    August 13, 2016 at 5:11 pm
    Just another wild idea about the sanctuary: If the word is “restored” instead of “cleansed” that could mean that Christ as our sanctuary and as our Sabbath rest is finally restored (and the keeping of it with meaning). Haven’t Christians and others destroyed the sanctuary i.e. RC mass and confession to priests and making the priest (or saints) the intercessor instead of Christ Or replacing the Sabbath rest of Christ with the pagan Sunday of Rome?

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 9:14 am
    Not a wild idea at all EM, except with this variation: The NT is quite clear, WE are HIS sanctuary. Read Ephesians. And as you do, note that Paul says that our experience of being in Christ is the Now-Time, ie, present, experience of being ‘raised’ into the heavens. Thus we are his temple, and it is heavenly! Is this the same as the sanctuary of Hebrews, I hear you ask? Of course it is. How many temples does God have? Besides, Ellen said, ‘The church of God on earth is the true tabernacle, built on a high elevated platform…’ ST Feb 14, 1900. That is book of Hebrews language. Rev 13.6, correctly translated, says the same. Stay with it EM, you are onto something.

    milton hook
    August 13, 2016 at 5:08 am
    About two years ago I heard a sermon on the SDA doctrine of the IJ. It was not an exegesis of Dan 8 and 9. It had no timelines or historical dates in it. In summary, it postulated that God would not mete out judgment until an investigation had taken place. It was similar to Hansen’s comment in this thread. I said to myself after the sermon, “That was a self-evident truth. Surely God wouldn’t punish anyone on a whim or caprice. without first making investigation (instantaneous or lengthy).” But the sermon resolved none of the bones of contention in the traditional SDA doctrine. The IJ theory stands or falls on the year-day hypothesis. It is an hypothesis that has been used by many, both before and after the Millerites, in order to set a date for the Second Coming. Of course, every time it has failed. A scientific mind would conclude that the hypothesis is faulty, toss it out and try some other hypothesis. But every day some SDAs roll up to the dilapidated laboratory and set out their old test tubes. Would someone please tell them the water pipes are rusted, the electricity has been disconnected and the windows are shattered. Just to set the record straight —- Des was not dishonest. He was asked by close SDA friends to hang around. He hung around because he believed the vast majority of SDAs were high on perfectionism and desperately needed the gospel, especially after the fortified perfectionism of Brinsmead. His legacy lies in the thousands he brought to Christ.

    William Noel
    August 13, 2016 at 7:04 am
    One of the great ironies of this discussion is how very few of those expressing strong opinions are soul-winners. Most have never brought another person into a saving relationship with God, nor are they focused on doing it. Still, I am sure many of them would argue that just being a member of the church means they are part of soul-winning when God wants us each growing His kingdom. So it is obvious the power of God is not working in them, that same power who is promised would lead us into all truth. Since God empowers all who He places in positions of leadership for others to follow, it is illogical that anyone should place any trust in the opinions of those who are arguing pro or con the theology surrounding Des Ford and Glacier View.

    Hansen
    August 13, 2016 at 7:42 am
    William, For many years the members of the Orangevale church had been trying to do prison ministry in Folsom prison. The chaplain would not allow it because he felt that the Amazing Facts brand of Adventism would be too divisive and cause security problems. [No joke, A guy was shot with a non lethal round ten feet away from me when a fight broke out among chapel participants.] I contacted the chaplain and told him that I was a student of Dr. Ford’s who did not subscribe to SDA legalism. “OK,” he said, “you are welcome.” He was well acquainted with Dr. Ford through the GNU radio program. 8 men were baptized during the chapel service. This only took place, not because of the IJ, 1844, the 2300 days but because of the Christian gospel which focuses on the death and resurrection of Christ. The great tragedy of Glacier View was the church stamping out a most eloquent gospel presenter, in order to preserve it’s “cultic” identity i.e. EGW, IJ, 2300 days, 1844. Whether those things are true or not doesn’t impact the Christian gospel, unless you happen to believe like Smith, that the atonement was not finished at the cross, that Jesus was just kidding when he said “It is Finished.”

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 1:30 pm
    ” “It is Finished.” Even a superficial understanding of this phrase, Glen, is more than obvious that is was “not finished” at the cross, but the phrase is a “future perfect tense” meaning this act of Christ was the ultimate guarantee that it would be finished in the future. And you claim to be a mature bible scholar……?????

    WILLIAM
    August 13, 2016 at 1:42 pm
    Bill, just wondering, with you bringing up ‘future perfect tense.’ What do you make of this text? the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. When Jesus Christ says something about His sacrifice, I’m not sure you can whisk it off into the future because of the verb tense.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 14, 2016 at 6:02 am
    ” the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.” It means the benefit of the future atonement was effective long before the fact.

    Hansen
    August 13, 2016 at 5:55 pm
    Bill S. The Greek word translated “It is finished” is in the perfect tense, indicating a completed action with an ongoing result. The perfect tense is indicated by reduplication which can be easily seen in the tete of tete?esta?. Young’s Literal Translation says “It hath been finished.” The action can be diagrammed with a period and a line ._____ Completed action with ongoing result.I’m fairly certain you are mistaken but I’m open to correction on matters of Greek grammar.

    William Noel
    August 13, 2016 at 4:42 pm
    Hansen, I agree that much damage was done because I saw a number of great thinkers and people who had dedicated their lives to their faith and the church driven-out because they dared to ask real questions that deserved honest answers. So it is curious to me that God has overcome so much of the opposition to Ford and the questioning that he dared to voice a bit at a time over the years. Yes, I look back on Glacier View as a tragedy because of the inept way church leaders handled things and all the damage done. I also look back on it as a milestone marking the start of a great theological renewal that is still being realized.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 1:09 pm
    “One of the great ironies of this discussion is how very few of those expressing strong opinions are soul-winners. Most have never brought another person into a saving relationship with God, nor are they focused on doing it.” Does anyone hear the pharisee in this comment. “God I am not like others, I am so holy and I serve you so well, while others do nothing to help you in your kingdom……..blah, blah, blah…… The fact is, William, you don’t have a clue of what others may do, and your self righteous and pompus idea that no one does anything but yourself is really disgusting. I seldom hear anyone pontificate how holy they are like you do. And then admit you know nothing about the bible and don’t want to know, and don’t need to know……..all you know is that you are “holy” and no one else is. Well, sick.

    William Noel
    August 13, 2016 at 4:49 pm
    Bill, obviously you don’t know me and you are adding meaning to my words that I did not say. God has given us a mission: proclaim salvation and the soon return of Jesus. I’m simply observing that those in this forum who most vigorously argue for particular theological points of view are those who appear the least devoted to achieving the mission Jesus gave us. I cannot remember ever meeting a person who argued theology who was also leading bringing people into a saving relationship with God because the ones doing that are talking about the wonderful saving grace of God.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 13, 2016 at 12:44 pm
    That Adventism has survived to our day is an Amazing Fact. The Sabbath, IJ, Three Angels, etc., made some minor sense in the mid-nineteenth century when the apocalypse was expected. But not after its dismal failure. That Adventism was reduced to perpetual inanity, is evidence by its continued attachment to superficial face saving dogmas forged in the embarrassment of disappointment. Some one hundred years after its heyday the Glacier View event is still getting notice The time, money, and energy, the consumed took place should be viewed as a towering headstone to its narcotized state. Just imagine the incredible positive effect of the participation of its good people if Sabbath had been honored without the work restriction that it has always needlessly required (yes, some smart people have calculated how to do that, Ben Carson as an example). Adventism is doomed to ever be an “oddball” religion by it stubborn adherence to dead dogmas, including its hallmark doctrines, the Investigative Judgment and the Sabbath.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 1:24 pm
    “Adventism is doomed to ever be an “oddball” religion by it stubborn adherence to dead dogmas, ….” You mean like loyalty to the bible while the “whole world wonders after the beast.” My, my, my…..we all do a lot of “judging” in condemning the SDA doctrine. Seems a little like duplicity coming from those who constantly advocate “judge not, that ye be not judged…..” Amazing, no one is “doomed” but those who hold the traditional teachings of the SDA church. I think a loyal SDA could easily develop a persecution complex if they hung around here long enough. People here accept everybody but a traditional SDA. So from Roman Catholics to Muslims and their Islam religion “I’m OK, their OK” but not traditional SDA’s. Oh well, I think we better be ready, because this forum simply represents the hatred of bible Adventism that will eventually come by way of the whole world. But at least some won’t give up the bible just to satisfy those who attack the faith. But they better really know the bible, or they won’t have a chance. The final delusion here is not so subtle. Well, at least not for those of us who know the scriptures.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 13, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    Bill, no hatred ever expressed on this forum by me. Now you can calculate that unfavorable facts are “hatred” but that is your pasted label on ordinary discourse. You can’t properly define me as a hater.

    Allen Shepehrd
    August 13, 2016 at 1:56 pm
    From Bugs: Adventism is doomed to ever be an “oddball” religion by it stubborn adherence to dead dogmas, including its hallmark doctrines, the Investigative Judgment and the Sabbath. One in Ancient Rome could have said something similar ab0ut the the beliefs of the Jews. I have not posted here before, but have spent quite a bit of time on the Spectrum website. I have preached about the iJ, and just gave a sort of mini defense over there. 2 Cor 5:;10 “For we must all appear (rather the Greek says, We will all be made manifest, See I Cor 4:5b) before the judgement seat of Christ, that each may receive what is due him for the things done in the body, whether good or bad (NIV). That sounds like an investigation of sorts, with a judgement pronounced. Since Jesus says in Rev 22:12 that he will bring his reward with him, this “investigation” must take place before his second coming. So there is an IJ that is pre-advent. I would like to add that the IJ is a wonderful doctrine of assurance. Adventists do not even know how to preach it or they would. Think of it this way. When you accept Christ, your name is written in the book of life. But say you fail, deny Christ, make a mistake, fall into sin. Is your name removed? And then put back in if you repent. No, in fact, once your name is there is not removed until the IJ. So any that have accepted Jesus have their names in the book, until that time. There is not the erasing, putting backhand etc.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm
    Allen, the IJ it is a mental construct based on words favorable to a presupposition. It’s an interpretation, an opinion with a few cosigners. I probably once preached it myself (I bailed some 40 years ago from the ministry and the church). As to Roman time Jews, they were assailed, arrested and died as the killers of Jesus because they were labeled as the killers of God, not because of their ancient beliefs based on Torah. They earned some disfavor for refusing to worship the local gods. The populace didn’t want the gods to be unhappy distributers of retribution as a possible effect of the Jewish abstentions. Christians were their main tormentors. As to use of texts, there is, by practice, no misuse since all are subject to interpretation and the base presuppositions of the interpreter. Context, application of texts to events and places when written, are universally ignored where words fit and support the desired outcome. It is the infinite practice of religious belief. No other Christian entity knows, cares, or believes your interpretation. Why doesn’t that fit the oddball label, one that I blanket applied to Adventism? You are a good critic and contributor. Stick around!

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 13, 2016 at 3:25 pm
    Allen, you didn’t address my challenge that Sabbath keeping is an extremely oddball practice for non-Jews. My son is an Alaskan Airline captain. Had I stayed with the church, and him too, he couldn’t hold that very responsible position. With a Sabbath outlook that didn’t limit employment, there would be many SDA pilots, probably. That goes for all occupations and professions. Elaine Nelson, a prolific forum contributor (with a sharp, clear mind I can only hope to have like her in my 90s, I’m 75) has posted conclusive scriptural evidence that Sabbath was meant only for the Israelites. Adventists borrowed the concept from the Seventh Day Baptists, not from Ellen. Don’t you agree that Sabbath keeping has slammed the door to tens of thousands of people who could contribute much more if not restricted? And they would make more money and be contributing more tithe to the church! Think of all those missed soul winning opportunities a broader work force could effect.

    William Abbott
    August 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm
    Bugs, only Jews have to keep the Sabbath. The rest of us are just volunteers. Why wouldn’t you want to keep the Sabbath? Just because it interferes with your career choice? That reminds me of a joke: A man was in the dentist chair. He asked his dentist, “Do you like being a dentist?” The dentist answered and said, “No, I hate it” The patient asked, “Then, why are you a dentist?” He replied, “Some seventeen year old decided this is how I’d make my living.” I assure you your son hates certain aspects of flying for a big bureaucratic airline. He likes the pay and the status. But he’d love his pilot work more if it wasn’t so oppressively company rule-based. If your an insomniac borrow his company manuals. The Sabbath doesn’t keep Sabbath-keepers down. Sabbath-keepers keep Sabbath-keepers down. We are at perfect liberty to do whatever we want. The faithful want to obey.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 5:47 am
    “I assure you your son hates certain aspects of flying for a big bureaucratic airline.” William, please “assure” me of the accuracy of this statement. You can’t answer my presentation of the fallacy and destructiveness of Sabbath keeping. So you invent a harebrained, imaginary diversion and project it onto my son whom you have never met, with whom you have never conversed. It feeds my suspicion that your religious commitments are based on the same quicksand of egoistic projections that ignore reality and remains powerless to meet legitimate challenges. Is that the best you can do? Sabbath keeping is a terrible detriment, a totally spurious requirement laid on good people. Adventist people because of it are not all they could be. William, your church is bankrupt. It went broke decades ago when it was demonstrated by the abject failure of its predictions that it isn’t God’s Chosen Escorts for the “end time.” Furthermore, Sabbath keeping is the ultimate hypocrisy. You ask non-keepers to do what you can’t do on that day so society can continue to function without missing a beat. You get to be holy and they get to be wrong, but necessary. Holiness is a joke. What kind of god mandates such silliness? Superguy, the one you honor, created by religious people to justify presuppositions, that’s who!

    Jeff Coston
    August 14, 2016 at 9:24 am
    Where can I and others find the document you have spoken about the Sabbath being only for Jews?

    Jim Hamstra
    August 20, 2016 at 2:56 pm
    Bugs-Larry, Once again you trot-out your son the airline pilot, and confidently assert there are no SDA airline pilots, based upon what? That you know of none? And once again I will reply that in my lifetime I have known two – one flew for Western Airlines which several mergers later is now part of Delta. The other flew for American Airlines. One of these was in the early 1970s and the other in the early 1980s, when I knew them. I assume they are retired. I know one who currently flies for an air transport firm. And I have no doubt there are others that I have not met.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 13, 2016 at 7:15 pm
    Allen: ‘We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ… deeds done in the body…” Thing is Allen, Adventists dont teach this. They say we appear, in absentia, before the judgement seat of teh Ancient of Days, whom they equate with Father God. We have an advocate, who is the Christ. So the metaphor you use is quite different. In your text, Paul is saying, metaphorically, that Christ is the touchstone, the ‘rock of offence’ to borrow another saying, at which we make the only choice open to us. Recognise that we are dead, in fallen sinful nature/bodies, and that He alone is light and life. ‘This is the judgement: that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light…’ This concurs with a correct view of 1Peter4.5,6…… He judges the quick (alive in the SPirit) and the dead (in their persistent refusal of the light)….. ‘the gospel is preached to them that are dead.’ Seriously, preached to the dead? Not the physically dead that Everts and James WHite took it to be, and which everafter set their course on a wrong tack to the nonsense IJ that Ellen later endorsed. Jesus then says of those ‘dead’ who hear his voice are ‘quickened to life….. do not come into judgement/condemnation…. have eternal life…’ John 5.21-30 is the only description of judgment that we need, but there are many similar. If you can find another meaning for preaching the gospel to the dead, please tell me.

    Herold Weiss
    August 13, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    Hi, Bill: Since you asked me to be honest, I will. Obviously you think that the right doctrines are essential to salvation. I think I have made it clear many times already that I do not believe that. That is a perennial form of Gnosticism, the most resilient of all heresies. It is ironic that those who claim to be the defenders of Orthodoxy prove themselves Gnostics at heart. Of course, doctrines have mostly a political function. But their political power is only illusory. They provide temporal power to those who wish to be the keepers of the Gate, which apparently you wish to be. I believe that doctrinal beliefs are important, but what “justifies” is faith, not beliefs. Faith is not something that is kept in the mind, but something that responds to the love of God in the heart, the seat of being. Faith is a way of being in the world that actualizes the love of God and makes it effective in the world. Christianity is not about information. It is about, as Paul famously said, the power of the Gospel to give life to those who are crucified with Christ. I would think that honesty has to do with the integrity with which one confesses his Christianity by the way one lives. I think that the Adventist church should also be about that, always making sure to make possible the effective empowerment of life by the Gospel in accordance with Present Truth. Thus, my comment above was a lamentation that people are caught fighting over doctrines to no one’s benefit.

    William Abbott
    August 13, 2016 at 3:52 pm
    Herold, I respect and agree with everything you have said, I would add something: Obedience is the key to faithfulness. That is not Gnosticism. Love is at times incomprehensible. Duty and obedience never is. Abraham is the Father of the Faithful. Jesus Christ is the only begotten, faithful Son of the Father. The Gnostic must understand. The faithful must obey.

    Elaine Nelson
    August 13, 2016 at 4:47 pm
    Herold, present truth is a term Adventists have used since it began. But how is “present” determined? Does truth become “past truth”? And when? Is present truth the same today as 200 years ago; 2,000 years ago, is truth dependent time, or is it changeless? Adventists so casually use a term that it becomes meaningless, depending on the context, and is it any wonder that prospective converts need an Adventist thesaurus to decode all the inside terms?

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    “I believe that doctrinal beliefs are important, but what “justifies” is faith, not beliefs.” I find this a real enigma, Herold. I could only ask, “What is your ‘faith’ built on if it is not your beliefs and doctrines?” Your position in my view, is totally inane and silly. So I ask, “What do you have ‘faith in’, Herold?” If you say “Jesus”, then I ask, “Who do you think ‘Jesus’ is?” And as soon as you begin to tell me who He is, you have articulated doctrine. So, it is more than a little frustrating trying to dialogue with people who have no viable basis for a discussion. You acknowledge some vague “Jesus” who has no definition or identity. Your whole position is absurd to the final degree. And ultimately, you mock and scorn “doctrine” as some evil idea that would rob you of your “faith”, what ever that is. So I hear Paul saying to me, “Bill, let the ignorant remain ignorant. You can’t dialogue or reason with this kind.” None the less, I still have some hope that just maybe in all this confusion, there could be a few sane people who actually realize there is no faith without doctrine. “Hello?” Anybody home.?

    Cherry
    August 13, 2016 at 3:47 pm
    I was attending PUC during this whole DES drama. As a student it was confusing to hear and see the ‘grownups’ fighting about lofty things. The saddest outcome of this whole episode is that we lost numerous young pastors and ministerial students and the ‘grownups’ didn’t seem to notice or care. What is even sadder is that now that I am one of the ‘grownups’ the church is still fighting about lofty things and we have lost numerous young people and will continue to do so and in greater numbers then the Des Ford era! Something is very wrong with the DNA of our denomination!

    Elaine Nelson
    August 13, 2016 at 4:49 pm
    The church may have won the battle to preserve the 1844 IJ, but they lost the real battle: the many souls whose faith died and are not longer around. Was it worth it? And is it still worth it? For what?

    William Noel
    August 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm
    Cherry, I hear you! I was a Theology major at SMC when the Ford issue erupted and I feel much the same as you. My heart aches to recount the names of those who left the church because of how they were treated, including pastors who were driven-out when they were trying to avoid getting caught-up in the debate and all it took to end their employment was a false accusation that they were followers of Des Ford. I am still in contact with a couple of them and the wounds they suffered were so deep that I doubt the can ever be won back to the church. So it pains me to see people arguing in the way some are doing here instead of seeking the healing forgiveness and instruction God offers. I take comfort in knowing that those who argue with such vitriol are few in number and diminishing as they increasingly slide into their graves.



    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:18 am

    I'm re-watching The Event, and when Thomas sends a message to his home-world, the reply is that their sun is prematurely going "supernova" with devastating-results. Think about that book God's Day of Judgment by Douglas Vogt, regarding the Sun going nova around A.D. 2046!! I spoke with a professional-astronomer about this, and he said "No Way!!" But what if Earth were somehow moved closer to the Sun (perhaps in a manner similar to Thomas and Sophia's home-world being brought to Earth)?? Consider the "Pod-Propulsion" in 2001: A Space Odyssey!! Just one more thing to keep you awake at night!! I also watched an Event deleted-scene with Thomas depicted in the early 1970's in a remote-location!! Well that location is where I used to ride my mini-bike in my youth!! I was shocked!! Notice the posts by Gillian Ford (wife of Desmond Ford) and Elenne Ford (daughter of Desmond Ford) in the remainder of this lengthy discussion!! Elenne = Delenn?? What Would John and Anna Sheridan Say?? What Would David Sheridan Say??

    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    http://atoday.org/glacier-view-a-retrospective/

    Gillian Ford
    August 13, 2016 at 4:22 pm
    When Des’s first wife Gwen was dying she said to me that Des was like an onion in the sense that the more layers you took off, the more goodness there was beneath. I have been married to him for 45 years, and what she said is true. In March this year I stayed with Des each night in hospital for four nights as he raved on in delirium from a jaw infection, subsequent to having his teeth out. He did not know who he was, or where he was. I listened to him hour in and hour out, and though most of the words made no sense, the occasional sentence did. It was filled with words like ‘lovely’, ‘beautiful’, with absolutely nothing nasty coming out of his mouth. He said to me afterwards when I told him, ‘Well, I was sick!’ But here is someone who all his life has lived under biblical discipline, much of it inspired by his reading of Ellen White and the Bible. He is somebody whose life has been and is lived for Christ and not himself. He has always guarded the portals of his mind: what he sees, what he watches, what he thinks about, what he dwells on. Christ has always been first, last and best to him. And he certainly has forgiven his enemies. So you have to ask yourself, why do some love him so and others hate him? What sort of religion do his detractors practice? I would be afraid to go on a blog and lambast people the way some have here.

    William Noel
    August 13, 2016 at 5:00 pm
    Gillian, Thank you for sharing such an intimate insight into the real character of the man about whom so much has been said. May God continue showering you with His immense and wonderful blessings.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 13, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    You are so right, Gillian. Delerium is a state of being extremely unwell, (he did incredibly well to survive given his age etc, imho), but the mental effect is not unlike mild intoxication. And ‘in vino veritas’ says it all. The underlying character and personality appears. (Fathers, apply this truth serum to your prospective sons-in-law if you really want to know what he is like!) And for those who worry for the ‘casualties’ of Glacier View, don’t. All things still work together for good. And for those looking to the exits, don’t hesitate. Remember, James left his church to become SDA, Ellen left the Methodists. The pioneers all LEFT something. Now that we know they got it so badly wrong, if you are feeling called to leave, do so. It will challenge you to stand on your own two spiritual feet. It will be difficult. The familiar habits of Adventism will need to be replaced, but that is life. You will find a new and more comforting ‘groove,’ trusting in the Lord alone, but without the psychological dissonance and inner conflict you are now feeling. Cont…

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 13, 2016 at 8:05 pm
    When Glacier View was done, (I’ve told this before)… the Conf Pres confronted the younger graduates of Avondale, the most ‘suspect,’ having been taught by Dr Ford. (How lucky were we, thank you Lord!). I think most of us stood firm with our deepest convictions. We all went on to other things. I studied medicine. It was tough going. So was the spiritual journey. But these trials strengthen the true of heart. I now know with far greater certainty that I ever did as an SDA minster that ‘Christ IS my life.’ I need no other doctrine.

    Gillian Ford
    August 13, 2016 at 4:22 pm
    I think of Zechariah 3, where Joshua the High Priest, representing us all, stands accused. The LORD Jesus is his Judge/Advocate, and by the side of Joshua stands Satan as the accuser. Jesus says, ‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?’ It’s easy to show what class of people write here by using this test and working out who follows the Redeemer, and who the accuser. How would Des treat Bill Sorensen? Very differently to how Bill Sorensen treats Des.

    Conviction
    August 13, 2016 at 4:55 pm
    But is such example like Zechariah 3:2 or Jude 1:9? Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. Des would worry about how Bill feels; while Bill would worry about Des’s Soul. Which is Love? Perhaps the one like Joshua; standing and rebuking evil? We hope all are snatched from the fire; but are told otherwise. The grief is greater and the picture larger with those easily led astray. There is much more to worry about in those that cannot watch out for themselves. They deserve more than this. They deserve more than us.

    Hansen
    August 13, 2016 at 5:19 pm
    Gill, Bill Sorenson’s satanic hatred of Des has long been known and is well documented. Des often reminded me of HMS Richards, a gracious, humble, and personable Christian gentleman. May God bless your family!

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 5:32 pm
    ” Very differently to how Bill Sorensen treats Des.” Well, Gillian, you are Des’s wife, and you would not be much of a wife if you did not stand by his side. How I would evaluate your husband in my limited contact and dialogue with him, (he probably doesn’t even remember me, since he knew so many people) is from a totally different perspective than you would. I did not see him as a “humble man” as you do. I saw him as a vain self righteous person who refused advice from anyone and listened to no instruction as he attack EGW and the SDA church. I think he believed in what he was doing, and as I stated, he received massive doses of affirmation from others who I consider far from biblically enlightened about law and gospel. It takes a lot of courage on your part to come to a forum where he is discussed about his teaching and ministry. And I appreciate the fact that you stand by his side, even if I think he is far from the bible and far from historic Protestant teaching on law and gospel. Luther hated what the Pope believed in and taught. I don’t think Luther hated the person of the Pope, who he knew was only a sinner like himself. I pray for Brinsmead on occasion. He showed me Jesus in the bible. I regret your husband had some influence on leading him away from bible Christanity. Honesty in the judgment will not save us, when we have every opportunity to re-evaluate our position. I hope Des does this.

    Hansen
    August 13, 2016 at 10:30 pm
    Tragic, Bill, that you mentioned your “limited” contact with Dr. Ford, opining he doesn’t know who you are because he knows so many people. That’s a far cry from your usual banter, how you took meals with him, went to his church, had conversations with him, were familiar with personal details of his private life. Now we can add “Liar” to your CV.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 14, 2016 at 5:58 am
    “Now we can add “Liar” to your CV.” Getting a little desperate, are you Glen. There was no lie in what I stated. I never professed to be a good friend nor having been around him all that much. I attend his church Auburn several times but I don’t remember saying anything about eating with him. They may have had a pot luck after church, I don’t remember. But as I said, You are really getting desperate, aren’t you Glen?

    Hansen
    August 14, 2016 at 6:46 am
    Bill, I’ve posted some unkind things, even stupid things, from time to time. I recently made an inappropriate remark about the opponents of Des. Dr. Gane, for example, opposed Dr.Ford but he was/is a dear man. You, OTHO, have carried on a campaign of hatred against Dr. Ford for more than a decade. I’m not sure what desperation, in this context, you refer to. I’m not the one posting nonsense about the “future perfect” tense of a verb. You do know that the “future perfect” is so rare in the NT, it’s almost an anomaly; it’s not used in the “it is finished” expression. If making up stuff about grammar is a sign of desperation, it’s not me doing it. It’s obvious that you are just a traditional Adventist, concerned about Decalogue obedience and the authority of EGW. That’s fine but stop pretending you are anything other than that.

    Gillian Ford
    August 13, 2016 at 4:59 pm
    Conviction, why don’t you use your name? if you have convictions, why be anonymous?

    William Noel
    August 13, 2016 at 5:03 pm
    Gillian, If you’re read many of Conviction’s postings, you probably can imagine it is so he can hurl his scripture bombs at everyone else without being held responsible for his offensiveness.

    EM Rydzewski
    August 13, 2016 at 5:23 pm
    Thank you so much for your lovely testimony about your husband. I have heard from many how courteous and kind he is to others, even enemies. I am not one to judge his ideas for we will never really know the answers to all our theological questions in this life. How we treat each other is more of a witness than any theological concept. However, what I do know is the Adventist church focused more on grace and salvation by Christ alone after that period. What people do with theological information is their choice and not the responsibility of the teacher who challenges tradition and gets us to think.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 5:49 pm
    ” However, what I do know is the Adventist church focused more on grace and salvation by Christ alone after that period.” If what we see today in the spirituality of the SDA church is credited to Dr. Ford, I would be very ashamed to admit it if I were Dr. Ford himself. Never was the gospel wrested totally from its biblical context than it has been since the days of Dr. Ford. Never was the church so far from the bible in all its ideas and doctrines since the early 1980’s. While the church has grown in vast numbers, it has diminished in spirituality to its lowest level in the SDA church history. Rome does not fear basic Protestantism, for they have abandon the bible. And Rome does not fear the SDA church for the same reason. Even Rome knows male headship is basic bible teaching. They have to be laughing as they see the SDA church challenge Catholicism about the bible, while the SDA church abandons scripture and opts for a “spirit ethic” that parallels the RCC. Our stated reason for women’s ordination is this. “The Spirit has led these women and chosen these women, and the SDA church only acknowledges them as qualified by their spiritual experience.” In which case, the church only validates what the Spirit has led them to do. Oh yes, Rome is laughing, because this is exactly how they define their own spirituality and the validation for the change of the Sabbath. The Spirit led….. Hello? Anybody home?

    Trevor Hammond
    August 13, 2016 at 6:55 pm
    In my opinion, it is not Glacier View or Dr Ford’s view that has stopped many (not all) from preaching on the IJ, it is more the general lukewarmness in the church. There are many other topics avoided by some pastors and other preachers; but this is more the result of the neglect of the Spirit of Prophecy, which includes the message of the IJ as a result of our lukewarm condition. Dr Ford’s position gave some the basis to affirm their doubt in the writings of Ellen White whether he intended this or not. The fact is – it happened. By the way, the message to the Church of Laodicea is very much in line with the IJ than a once-saved-always-saved position. The reason I say this is that even though Jesus saved the world by this death on the cross, many professed believers are found wanting with Christ on the outside knocking at their hearts door.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 13, 2016 at 7:23 pm
    No Adventist theologian who teaches students in our seminaries should introduce their own pet doctrines or positions on Adventist doctrine without first having a Glacier View so to speak. There should be openess right at the outset before propogating ones own position- especially to unsuspecting freshmen at school. Young people going into the ministry should not allow the theories of men to influence or negate the teachings of traditional historical Adventism and the pilllars of our faith. The Bible has ample evidence supporting the IJ. One big reason God called EGW was to point us back to the many biblical truths applicable to this time when apostate Christianity is preaching and teaching so many false doctrines, which in many instances, they claim has a biblical basis. Not all theologians can be trusted – else we’ll be keeping Sunday.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 13, 2016 at 7:58 pm
    ” Christianity is preaching and teaching so many false doctrines, which in many instances, they claim has a biblical basis. Not all theologians can be trusted – else we’ll be keeping Sunday.” Trevor, sometimes it is hard to stay focused on a forum like this one. It may be somewhat disrespectful and even trite, but at some point you must come to some conclusion. The overall dialogue seems at least that some are either on drugs, brain dead, or just go out of the nut house. I know that is so “mean spirited” by the overall view of most. That God would tolerate any of us is a wonder of divine grace. But surely he expects us to ask two questions with some degree of intensity in meaning and application. “What must I do to be saved?” And the second is just as relevant, “What if I am wrong?” I don’t know about you Trevor, but my whole Christian experience is built around these two questions. But as you dialogue with people on this forum, neither of these questions have any relevance to their spirituality. Their whole spirituality is this. “I don’t know, and I don’t need to know.” I’ve never been there, and don’t intend to embrace such an inane definition of what it means to be a Christian. So, for now, I’ll just leave it to the rest of you and hope you can keep your sanity in what I would call a “spiritual nut house.” There most be some viable Christians here. I just can’t identify them.

    Conviction
    August 13, 2016 at 7:24 pm
    Gillian I belong to HIM; without need for self. You held our hearts in sympathy; until you showed you hand in motive. Trevor I agree. I think it is all this reverse engineering. We have reverse Salvation now contenting the ability to sin because HE did Sacrifice. We have reverse IJ now, contenting in investigation the sins that we should be held liable for at Judgement. Which impacts the concepts of reverse Salvation; if HE did not die for all sin. Maybe we can self justify until HE wouldn’t have had to Sacrifice at all and there is no Judgement; at least in our own little worlds. Maybe we should run all these concepts by HIM first. I am sure HE will have things to say. I am sure HE will have the last Word. That is the scary part in all this.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 13, 2016 at 7:55 pm
    “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the SPIRIT wait for the hope of righteousness by faith”. Creeds will not save you. Fundamental Beliefs will not save you. Doctrines will not save you. You have no righteousness. Your faith secures your salvation in Christ Jesus, and His Righteousness. Love will bring them to Christ, not beating God’s children over the head telling them they haven’t a chance of salvation, because they don’t dot their i’s and cross their t’s, and interpret scripture as you do. You who love to drive god’s people away by your harsh manner, and welcome shaking, shaking them out. Woe unto you. You’ll have your reward.

    Kevin Ferris
    August 13, 2016 at 8:22 pm
    106 days before Glacier View, a Pastor faithful to our beliefs could have stood up in his pulpit and declared “My dear people, I would like to affirm today that in his, life, death and resurrection, Christ made a perfect atonement for human sin. And that the purpose of judgement was never to DETERMINE or even INVESTIGATE our salvation but rather to REVEAL or MAKE MANIFEST our status by virtue of atonement already completed (See Fundamental 24).” Should the GC president have been in that congregation he would [should] have said “Well said, brother. It’s what we officially believe. I would have had you removed had you not said it.” Instead even today, auto de fe´ is mandated upon such a statement – before the morning dew has vanished from the blade of the guillotine. But read with your own eyes our official understanding: “In Christ’s Life of perfect obedience to God’s will, His suffering, death and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life… This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God’s law… etc.” (Fundamental 9, 1980). Christ never delivered half an atonement, or even 99.9% with more to come. Atonement was totally Calvary-based, never judgment-based. For the faltering penitent not able to qualify for the impossible, the life that saves him is never his own but that of another made on his behalf.

    Gillian Ford
    August 13, 2016 at 8:26 pm
    Re: Dr. Heppenstall, he wrote to Des to say he agreed with him right down the line when he first received his GV manuscript. It’s true he was both positive and negative at Glacier View. However, we remained friends and correspondents afterwards, we were invited and visited them at Carmel afterwards, and his wife wrote to us many times before he died. She supported Des’s work for years until she died. We hold them both in the highest regard, they were outstanding warriors for Christ. What was called demurring can be explained by his having Valley Fever, which caused dementia, and this was beginning by the time of GV.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 13, 2016 at 8:32 pm
    I remember a sermon of Dr Ford at an event hosted by Adventist Today where he made a remark about Hiram Edson receiving a vision of the Sanctuary in a field of hops. Tongue in cheek humour perhaps, (and Dr Ford does have a great sense of humour, and wit I might add); but nonetheless, in presenting his position, he seriously cast doubt on Edson by implying that he was drunk, whether only in jest – but his point was made. Sidetracking with the way the matter was handled shifts focus away from the fact that Dr Ford was the one who departed from the faith on this point of doctrine followed by those who supported his position. I believe that rejecting the light of the IJ has serious implications for professed Adventist believers.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 13, 2016 at 11:13 pm
    Trevor, let’s keep things in perspective here. It was not Dr Ford who ‘departed from the faith.’ It was the pioneers of SDAism who did the departing. SDAism with its IJ and accompanying Judaising, ie, the ‘saving’ role of Sabbath-keeping, (even though they do not Keep Shabbat the way it is required to do so), the false teaching of the works-based sealing, etc. Just ask Bill, he will tell you that you cannot be saved without those works. So yes, the crazy ideas that the pioneers invented in their distress and confusion post 1844 are subject to the suspicion given to those who are filled with new wine. Just happens that in this case it was old, Judaising wine, to which the unquickened, natural man is always wont to return. In returning to the law-keeping and other cultic elements of Judaism, your beloved SDA pioneers led the way in departing from the NT faith. The church’s actions at Glacier View proves that Des Ford stood alone in his almighty efforts to return the church to the true NT faith. And those pioneers’ ideas have been questioned regularly by the honest thinkers of the church ever since. Expect more of the same in generations to come. ‘Oh Adventism, Oh Adventism, How I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks,… and ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you DESOLATE!’

    Trevor Hammond
    August 14, 2016 at 1:56 am
    Dear Mr Agafonoff, in order to keep things in proper perspective let’s not forget that by the time GV arrived Dr Ford had some major support within Adventism in the West and wasn’t “alone” at GV.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 9:25 am
    But just that none of it happened to be in evidence in the GV sessions, Trevor, was my inference.

    Gillian Ford
    August 14, 2016 at 6:06 pm
    The supposed vision was in a cornfield, I have never heard Des say it was in a field of hops or imply Edson was drunk. He might have said it was ‘corny’, a joke not original with him. God bless all you poor souls here who think nothing of making defamatory statements, bearing false witness, and inventing history according to your own purposes. May the God of all mercy have mercy on you as he does upon us. And may the light of his gospel and the love of Jesus Christ shine in your hearts and minds. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24).

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 4:52 am
    Thank you for the beautiful prayer Gillian!!! Extravagant blessings to you & Des from the Throneroom.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 13, 2016 at 9:05 pm
    Mr Sorensen, the issue of the IJ has been hashed and rehashed in these boards umpteen times, and without doubt will continue in a similar fashion in the days ahead. The Association of Adventist Forums, (which ironically was given the green light by the GC from what I gather), is a strong supporter of Dr Ford. I always have thought that the association existed solely for this purpose. I post here because they use the name Adventist, and whilst traditonal Adventists as we are called by liberals aren’t quite welcomed here, being pubic enemy number one, often gets knd targeted as anathema. The benefit of posting here though is that at least the many others who visit this website can read the posts for what it’s worth and hopefully remain faithful to our pillars of faith.

    Hansen
    August 14, 2016 at 12:26 am
    Trevor, The Adventist Theological Society, a few years ago, featured a talk by Gerhard Pfandl of the BRI. He strongly supported Dr.Ford’s gospel teaching and emphasized that the issues surrounding GV were regarding prophecy, not his gospel emphasis. It was the meeting devoted to RBF, which you can listen to in their archives. Dr. Pfandl [M.A.,Ph.D, Andrews U] said that Dr.Ford was among the best theology teachers he ever had. That from the BRI and ATS

    Trevor Hammond
    August 14, 2016 at 5:23 am
    Typos – traditional & public

    Jim Hamstra
    August 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm
    Trevor wrote: “The Association of Adventist Forums, (. . .), is a strong supporter of Dr Ford. I always have thought that the association existed solely for this purpose. I post here because they use the name Adventist”. I am not personally a huge fan of AAF. I must report that I personally attended an AAF meeting back in the 1960s when I was a student. And I personally knew some of its founders. The claim that the AAF existed then or exists now solely for the purpose of supporting Dr Ford is preposterous for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of its history.

    Ken Lawson
    August 13, 2016 at 9:46 pm
    Those who Judge Dr Ford so harshly don’t know what they are doing.’Father forgive them.’ I can only say that the outcome of Glacier View would have been 100% in Des’s favour had the person who brought back Dr. Ford’s head on a silver platter, been sacked from the ministry fourteen years earlier for immorality.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 14, 2016 at 5:19 am
    Dear Mr Lawson, I don’t think you understand the extent of what Dr Ford has done. Trying to dig dirt on past leaders who opposed him won’t make any difference here. The issue is bigger than GV. If Dr Ford is wrong then it will be to the detriment of thousands, if not millions, who may have followed his position at their own peril. All those who support his position from what I’ve seen are those who have drifted away from our Adventist beliefs and practices and come from pockets of Adventism where the church is waning.

    Ken Lawson
    August 14, 2016 at 2:53 pm
    Dear Trevor, Thank-you for your comment. For your interest I have been a Seventh-day -Adventist for 74 years. I have been a Seventh-day Adventist Minister for over 40 years. I have studied the issues over Daniel 8:14 since 1965. I have studied every book from the BRI series given to every Minister of the Church. I have followed with extremely keen interest all the comings and goings of the Adventist Theological Society. I also study the papers of The Adventist Society of Religious Studies. My position is that we have been wrong, have changed our stance over Daniel8:14… six times without one decent scriptural answer that rings true. It seems the Re-organised Presbyterian Church of Australia has more chance of survival than we do, looking at our record.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 4:54 am
    Amen Ken thank you for calling a spade a spade.

    SC
    August 13, 2016 at 11:05 pm
    I think there’s a post in this series that needs to be promptly withdrawn.

    Ervin Taylor
    August 13, 2016 at 11:16 pm
    For many years, I have been honored to call Des a friend even though we disagree on several theological points. However, the great and lasting contribution that he has made is to point out clearly the theological disaster which the Investigative Judgement (IJ) doctrine has created for Adventism. I have little respect for the scholarship of those who defend it on the basis that it is a biblical concept. It certainly is not and I have had biblical scholars of great repute inside Adventism indicate this in privately, both personally and in writing. It is an albatross around the neck of our church that needs to be exposed for what it actually is — a terrible idea which was face saving way of seeking to get out of an embarrassing event at the birth of Adventism. Unfortunately, if you wish to work inside the Adventist denomination, you can’t say this in public as it is a career killer unless, for some reason, you are one of those few untouchables because of some circumstance, that can speak his/her mind without fearing retribution. This is why there is so little public exposure of this theological error of major proportions. We might have to await the death of two or three generations of traditionalists before we can say with a straight face that Adventism advocates “Present Truth.” In maintaining support for the IJ doctrine, corporate Adventism continues to advocate a mere ecclesiastical tradition of human devising while calling it biblical. Tragic.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 14, 2016 at 3:12 am
    Dr Taylor and other liberals that support Dr Ford’s position only do because it benefits them strategically in terms of forming an alliance against the traditional Adventist pillars of faith. By default, liberals attack traditional Adventism on whatever grounds they can as the dictates of secular cultural norms may lead them in their spiritual formation. They will also support anyone else that has a point of attack. Dr Ford gave them a point of attack on EGW and FB24 from deep within Adventism which liberals would never had had any sway over until of course Dr. Ford came along. Millions have come into Adventism accepting the Great Controversy narrative as present truth, including the IJ, and accept that our fundamental beliefs are in full harmony with the Bible. Off-shoots will have to prove themselves. By now, those supporting Dr Ford’s view should have had their own denomination of present truth OR would have convinced the current world church that they have new light. [B]ut to date there’s “nada” – as Dr Taylor would say.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 4:53 am
    In possession of the exact “truth” seems to be the private reserve of Trevor Hammond, Bill Sorensen. Conviction, and some others who post on this forum. I would like to know how and why they have it and the rest of us don’t.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 14, 2016 at 5:06 am
    Dear Mr Boshell, it’s your choice at the end of the day to believe or not to believe what is truth sir.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 5:30 am
    So you agree, Trevor, that “truth” is an opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen, especially theological ones. Why is your better than mine?

    Conviction
    August 14, 2016 at 6:42 am
    Bugs, we know you Love us and deep down you know we absolutely Love you. Your intent to guide us towards HIM is pure in heart and appreciated. “Adventism is doomed to ever be an “oddball” religion by it stubborn adherence to dead dogmas, including its hallmark doctrines, the Investigative Judgment and the Sabbath.” While may be “oddball”; do you not judge based on Sabbath? Is there no room in you judgement? Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Is the Doctrine of IJ so bad? We know it has and can be used for bad; but anything can? Is looking into our Souls ever bad? Does HE not live within us as Spirit to convict us? Are we not to try the spirits and ourselves? I guess in question; is IJ bad in Doctrine or the method of application? From Hebrews 6:, we know HE does not forget when we are in HIS works and labors of Love. We are not to be slothful, but followers of them who through Faith and patience inherit the promise. We have the foundation of Perfection already lain; but should we not pray for the spirit of wisdom and revelation of knowledge from HIM as in Ephesians 1? I do believe it is impossible for those once enlightened and that we sacrifice the SON of GOD afresh, putting HIM to open shame if and in falling away; but are we weak in preaching or stating it can happen?

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 6:53 am
    Conviction, why are you afraid to reveal your real name? I think I know! You are a Jehovah’s Witness. How do I know? Because they are the last of the key-texters. So I can’t take you seriously, even your expression of love! I think you are funning me! Enough of my funning you! If you can, rebut my allegations without key texts.

    Conviction
    August 14, 2016 at 7:01 am
    Do you not contend that to investigate and judge ourselves is bad; when we know even the devout will be deceived? Then condemn for such? Is this tooo much key text?

    Conviction
    August 14, 2016 at 8:53 am
    Bugs, I think now you begin to see the tip of the iceberg. Even without intent we promote the classification and exclusion of entire denominations. We can turn our cheek, but can we turn the cheek of other denominations that we not only sanction, but sometimes arbor, implicit Judgement? Something reserved for only HIM, even as individuals. Should we not take the credit for raising arrogant, self centered children that are not even satisfied with HIS sacrifice; of course? It that better in your denomination? Do we rebuke failures in Titus 2 to correct or help others within this problem; not much? Does your denomination? Should we all not do as commanded? You have issues with Doctrine, actually leaving long ago; how is yours? I know a lot that would never complain of others; but we also see many now that would, even complaining HIS Sacrifice is not enough. Is that better than Graceful discussion? Do you not point out issues in Doctrine, but not actually help or offer suggestions? Then do you not add the additional internal burden of correction? How is you denomination at spreading the Word? Is it able to increase spreading the Word, while we work on such internal burdens? Did you maybe want to help fix our internal issues? Maybe you could help with the ones you help perpetuate; even without intent? In the bigger picture; is it growing pains or dying pains? I would contend both ours global creations; in loss of First Love, replacing HIM with self.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 11:02 am
    Churches are human contrived business enterprises. I wouldn’t belong to one who would have me as a member. So I don’t! The “iceberg” of your reply, Conviction, is your frigid refusal to identify yourself. It is the “iceberg” of anonymity in which you are encased. Your participation verges on the irrelevant, because of it. I have no problem with doctrines because I know what they are. Doctrines are opinions of people. None are right or wrong, only guesses. All are based on some authority, Scripture, etc., but “authority” is also a matter of opinion. Every step of belief, including evaluation of authority, requires interpretation, that is an opinion. If I landed on earth from somewhere else and investigated Christianity, would I approach you for exact information about the “truth?” Why should or would I? Every living Christian has his opinion about what that might be. And there are other religions where opinions abound. My best shot would be to reboard my space craft, fly up to the stratosphere and throw a dart down, follow to its landing and adopt the belief opinions of the person nearest to which it landed. One would be as good as another. Some believe they have the true insight, know above all others what is true, their faith is ultimate. It is a delusion, self-deception, ego on parade. And they know how wrong everyone else is. Delusion is ecstasy.

    William Noel
    August 14, 2016 at 11:41 am
    Conviction, by stating your belief that even the devout will be deceived, you have revealed why your faith is driven by fear instead of confidence. Matthew 24:24 is not a promise of defeat, it is one of the greatest promises in scripture of God’s power giving His followers victory over sin and Satan. Get that straight and you’ll be on the way to getting your spiritual confusion sorted out because the Holy Spirit fills us with confidence instead of fear.

    Conviction
    August 14, 2016 at 4:17 pm
    We are sorry to have bothered you Bugs; but it seemed you were searching for something. I agree that some churches are human contrived businesses. We Love all, so I am sorry we do not meet your membership requirements. Does anonymity have intent and motive? Likewise does identity have intent and motive. I would rather serve HIM in anonymously; than self within identity. I would contend HIS Doctrine is above opinion; or question. Maybe HE will guide you; all you need to do is listen. We have no intent in guiding; except to HIM. That is our difference. We discuss HIM and grow in HIM. Non indigenous, planetary or to HIS Word, would create similar experiences. Those excluded from us in remote areas; question as you speak. The approach and response may be different; but after they hear they wish to spread the Word. Many at risk to themselves; because they then Love others enough. There is a very high probability that dart would land near a Christian. We are ecstatic just to have our names written in the Book; there is no delusion or question in that. We have the absolute comfort in HIM. Self-deception and ego exist outside of that and outside of HIM. We will tell you the Truth, learned from our hard knocks and ignorance; but only in Love to save you the grief, if you want. We will listen; we always listen. We do expect the search for Truth; not ego or self centered deception; there are no answers there.

    Conviction
    August 14, 2016 at 7:07 pm
    I have fear for the devout, when even HIS elect would be deceived if HE does not intervene? How is fear for anyone within Love bad? How is fear of GOD bad? I don’t even know how to approach this. Do you even know the difference between the elect and devout? The elect belong to and are HIS; you have nothing in that, to say about that, or influence in that or anything else. But the devout are are easily stirred up: Acts 1:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts. Like Matthew 24, here is Mark 13. Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. 20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. 21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: 22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. All I ever here you say is here is CHRIST. Where do you think HE is, maybe somewhere in your arrogance? We know where HE is, there for everyone; and yes we fear and reverence HIM, for every knee will bow.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 15, 2016 at 9:38 am
    You say, Conviction: “Does anonymity have intent and motive? Likewise does identity have intent and motive. I would rather serve HIM in anonymously; than self within identity.” I regret to inform you of a circulating rumor that God doesn’t know who you are, being anonymous, so He can’t save you. Your name doesn’t appear in the Book Of Life. Sad.

    William Noel
    August 14, 2016 at 7:37 am
    Bugs, I think I’ve finally figured out who the “Him” is that “conviction” keeps speaking about. It is obvious he thinks that “Him” is God when it actually is just him, someone with a “god complex.” Or maybe a self-appointed Jeremiah who sees evil everywhere and cares not about what offense his wild assertions and false claims cause that reaping the rejection he creates just confirms his warped perceptions. You’ve asserted that perhaps he is a Jehovah’s Witness. That one makes sense, too.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 14, 2016 at 5:00 am
    It all boils down to believing either Dr. Ford or Ellen White. Our Pioneers recognized the IJ as a pillar of our faith and one having sound biblical basis. The quote below from EGW outlines this teaching. It makes good sense therefore that pastors, members, administrators and theologians not supporting what is outlined below should be removed or withdraw from office. “In 1844 our great High Priest entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, to begin the work of the investigative judgment. The cases of the righteous dead have been passing in review before God. When that work shall be completed, judgment is to be pronounced upon the living. How precious, how important are these solemn moments! Each of us has a case pending in the court of heaven. We are individually to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. In the typical service, when the work of atonement was performed by the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary, the people were required to afflict their souls before God, and confess their sins, that they might be atoned for and blotted out. Will any less be required of us in this antitypical day of atonement, when Christ in the sanctuary above is pleading in behalf of His people, and the final, irrevocable decision is to be pronounced upon every case?” [Selected Messages Book 1, Page 125]

    Bill Sorensen
    August 14, 2016 at 5:48 am
    “It all boils down to believing either Dr. Ford or Ellen White.” And this is the crux of the matter. One is biblical, and one is not. And the two positions are not negotiable nor can they be harmonized. If Dr. Ford’s position is biblical, then the whole SDA movement is bogus. As Brinsmead said, “there would not be one redeemable feature of the SDA movement”. We build our whole biblical structure on the validity of 1844 and the historical event of Jesus going from the Holy Place in the sanctuary in heaven into the Most Holy Place to begin the investigative judgment of the church community from Adam to the end. If this is bogus, the whole movement is bogus. Some understand this clearly, and others seem not to grasp this final reality. While both Brinsmead and Ford had some viable points to make about law and gospel, in the end, they both created a cult movement that supported themselves and not the bible. Neither had this in mind, but human nature follows a pattern. This applies to an individual, or a church. In which case, the SDA movement is a non-Christian cult as many claim, or, it is an ordained movement of God for a specific purpose. Namely, to prepare people for the close of probation and the second coming. People are making decisions for eternity. Sad to say, many are opting for spiritual delusions that lead away from bible truth. It often takes time for error to be clearly discerned, and too late for some to repent.

    Harry Allen
    August 19, 2016 at 9:26 pm
    Thanks, Bill Sorensen. You said: “We build our whole biblical structure on the validity of 1844 and the historical event of Jesus going from the Holy Place in the sanctuary in heaven into the Most Holy Place to begin the investigative judgment of the church community from Adam to the end. “If this is bogus, the whole movement is bogus. Some understand this clearly, and others seem not to grasp this final reality.” Two thoughts: 1) Dr. Ford has a list of about 22 data that have to work for the Investigative Judgment to be true, none of which, he holds, are correct. In this essay, http://bit.ly/1TjzFdN, I describe three challenges I see to wider acceptance of the doctrine. Is the IJ bogus? If so… 2) There’s a lot more that SDAs can spend their time doing. For example, there are a whole world of people to whom we can be nice. God has says that doing this will go a long way toward recreating the world in His image. E.G. White, echoing the Bible, calls doing this “true religion.” That is, I’ve simply never understood those people who say, “If the I.J. falls, there’s no reason for Adventism!” In other words, as well as being wrong, we’d make a lot of noise about it. Meaning Adventists are Christianity’s biggest drama queens. HA

    Bill Sorensen
    August 14, 2016 at 6:14 am
    When they published this article they knew they were opening a “can of worms”. And surely we all know the whole purpose of the forum is to support the theology of Dr. Ford, just like Spectrum. The intensity of the difference between Ford and EGW is only highlighted by the discussion on this thread. If you hold to the Ford theology, you will never yield to the EGW teaching, and visa versa. What did you expect?????? Some kind of consensus?

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 5:01 am
    Bill Sorenson when and where did Ellen White claim to be a theologian?

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 6:39 am
    The Investigative Judgment doctrine survives because it is part of the foundation of Adventism. To admit it as spurious would verify the bankruptcy of Adventist dogma. As a bridge too far, look at the GV conference where the outcome wasn’t based on presented facts, but on the maintenance of the indefensible doctrine regardless of facts. Imagine the effects had the conference affirmed the fallacy of it. Where would the undermining stop? On that foundation rested many other propositions that would have been swept away in the torrent of admission. If the lemmings fled in small numbers from its actual verification of its historical doctrine, think of the swarm racing away in mass exodus if error was admitted. The Sabbath and the Spirit of Prophecy surely would surely have been assaulted if placed under equal scrutiny. As an outsider, it appears to me Adventism survives in spite of a nightmare of historically fabricated tenets, not because of them. Its creation of medical enterprises and the permission of Sabbath breaking it provides may be part of the explanation of its continued existence. And the evolution of religious systems, which it cannot escape, morphs into new identities even the most restrictive of old cultures. Old Adventism is bankrupt, unacknowledged by the “old guard.” The event of Glacier View was its eulogy.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 14, 2016 at 10:46 am
    Bugs-Larry, Based upon your epistemological premises that you have widely publicized on this web site, why would you limit your obituary to Adventists only? Could you not declare the same about most or all of Christendom or Islam or Judaism or any other form of organized religion that appeals to claims of supernatural revelation or intervention? Do you harbor a special resentment for Adventists from your formative years? Or have you advanced far enough from your religious roots to discover the same maladies in the larger religious world (albeit the symptoms may vary from place to place)?

    Jeff Coston
    August 14, 2016 at 9:07 am
    It is logical to suppose that the proposition of Seventh-day Adventism is built upon the Sabbath and the events of the Great Awakening in the US culminating with Millerism and the Great Disappointment. The movement that became the SDA church anchored itself with the IJ. The majority of comments in this thread seem to indicate a reluctance to accept this theological linchpin of “Adventism.” If one were to erase Adventist from the Church’s name you would come up with the seventh-day Sabbath as its common denominator. I postulate that for many in the “Church” this is precisely what has happened theologically (and especially after GV). All Christians are looking forward to the Advent with the possible exception of the Unitarians. They are still trying to decide if God equals Dog and vice versa. I hope the commentators and voyeurs on this thread will avoid the same mistake and not judge evil of each other. As Paul said: “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” Romans 14:10 (NKJV)

    Jim Hamstra
    August 14, 2016 at 11:11 am
    Jeff, Pursuing your line of reasoning just a bit further, if we Seventh-day [nee Adventists] would re-think our position on Soul Sleep and Annihilationism, we could become Seventh-day Baptists/Methodists. Basically we could prune this off-shoot movement back to the roots from which it sprouted. But this is a major gulf between us and our more “mainstream” protestant brethren/sistren. When my Calvinist relatives expire they are “gone to glory” whereas when my Adventist relatives expire they are “asleep in Jesus”. Once you are “gone to glory” you have much less desire for an imminent Parousia. Unfortunately our top leaders remain fixated on Ellen White and 1844, which in the the larger Christian context are secondary or tertiary matters, or even sectarian idiosyncrasies. The end did not come in 1844 but it will come like a thief in the night (even for Adventists). Insisting on looking backwards rather than forwards does not serve us well. In my own discussions with people who have come to Adventism from other religious backgrounds, far more have been attracted by our views regarding the future, than our views regarding the past. (continued)

    Jim Hamstra
    August 14, 2016 at 11:22 am
    For the record – I do believe that God was leading in the Millerite movement, and that Ellen White’s inspired counsel was a major contributing factor to the development and growth of the SDA church. But these were Tools in the Hand of God, not an end in themselves and not the Message we are to proclaim. They are not Present Truth. When we try make the church itself part of the Purpose and the Message, rather than a Malleable Earthen Vessel in the Hand of God. we are trying to vindicate ourselves and/or our spiritual forebears. The issue our leaders are reluctant to confront is whether it is more important for the SDA Church to be found RIGHT or for God to be found RIGHT. Ted Wilson in his slick video presentation at General Conference, not-so-subtly cast himself in the role of Moses climbing Mount Nebo. Well I found that to be very interesting in light of the “rest of the story”. Moses neither led Israel into the Promised Land, nor did he set his own foot there. Why? Because in the testing moment of his leadership, he was more concerned about vindicating the leadership of himself and his brother, than the leadership of God.
    When and from where will Joshua emerge?

    Gary McCary
    August 14, 2016 at 11:39 am
    Rumors of Adventism’s demise are greatly exaggerated. According to recent polls, it is the fastest growing “denomination” in the United States (denomination being the key word). It is growing outside of the U.S., particularly in the “third world,” at a surprising rate, and now approaches 20 million adherents. The I.J. doctrine probably has little to do with either growth rate. My observation is that most new SDA’s in the U.S. are attracted primarily by our evangelistic certainty that current events are a fulfillment of bible prophecy, and therefore that we are living in the REAL, TRUE “last days.” It seems that the only people who are passionate about the traditional view of the I.J. are long-time SDA’s. I’m sure there are isolated exceptions to my observations. So the question has never been: “Will Adventism survive?” but “Will the Investigative Judgement doctrine survive?”

    Jim Hamstra
    August 14, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    Yep – The appeal of Adventism is definitely forward-looking, not backward-looking, in the world where I live. And very few people ever talk about IJ. Regarding other parts of the world I cannot say.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 14, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    You are right, Jim. ‘The appeal of Adventism is forward-looking.’ It is difficult to look back to a future event after all. In the early 1840’s in New ENgland, it was all forward, to Oct 22, 1843. Then forward to 1844. Then a brief hiatus, and it was soon, say, 20-30 yrs, it was forward again to ‘soon, real real soon.’ Only now there was a fearful looking to the day of judgement. The awe-ful day when Jesus stepped out from between Angry God and the people of earth, when he takes off his priestly robes and puts on his robes of vengeance! Look forward, ye fools, get ready, to stand alone without a Mediator, facing angry God on your own. See Ms2 1849 for all the spine-tingling details. Forget the IJ? Thou shalt not!

    Elaine Nelson
    August 14, 2016 at 3:13 pm
    That Adventism is the fastest growing denomination in the U.S. must be compared with the similar growth, or lack of growth in all the Protestant denominations. It is barely keeping up with the attrition, plus the new generation of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation SdA’s who know nothing but Adventism at the baptism at 10-11 years of age. They are not exactly new converts to the denomination. The real growth is in third world countries. But with thousands of baptisms at a time, as shown in the Review, it would be a question to ask of them: “Can you explain the importance 1844 to the IJ? But the real question would be: Why did you become an Adventist? How many joined a large previous group? These are all very large groups of converts, unlike anything seen today in the U.S. That is the great difference; and how much is dependent on culture and group think?

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 14, 2016 at 11:46 am
    Jim, Larry stated above that if he parachuted in from space, he would assume any religion would be as good as another. His mantra is Love. Love your neighbor, do good to all. It’s a very good philosophy, yet incomplete. Can a man truly be without the Holy Spirit, and yet fully be the fruit of the Spirit. i don’t think so, as Love is truly of Jesus Christ.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 14, 2016 at 12:37 pm
    Love is indeed a good mantra. But not all religions are based upon that premise. And what actually constitutes Love in our world is very much up for grabs. The age-old Fruits test is still valid. As are the Fruits of the Spirit. Bugs-Larry is picking the Fruit wile ignoring the Vine it grows on.

    Michael Wortman
    August 14, 2016 at 1:40 pm
    But isn’t living a friutful life the point of it all? If an individual can’t accept a Christian God (if that is what you mean by “Vine”), whether it’s because he is a Jew or a Buddhist or, because of his world view, he cannot honestly “believe” or that he lived in the “wrong” place in the “wrong time”, isn’t it enough that he lives lovingly? And to comment on something else you (or was it another blogger?)said: You congratulated Adventism for being forward looking. In one sense that is true and recognition of that orientation may be appropriate, but looking ahead because there is something in it for you (Heaven) and going through life, fearfully or boldly, being fruitful for what you get for it when your life ends, could be seen as selfishness. I’ve seen quite a bit of that kind of “forward thinking” in my experience with Adventism.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 14, 2016 at 1:50 pm
    I hate to break this news to you Michael but – all humans are innately selfish. Truly loving actions and motives, must come from a power beyond ourselves. Whether or not we recognize or acknowledge that Source of Love, does not make it go away. “Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.” (cf the Apostle Paul)

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 3:07 pm
    Hammy and Earl: Jesus didn’t invent the golden rule. There were dozens of versions of it circulating prior to his time. Confucius, Mozi, Budda, et. Al. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule): And loving your neighbor as yourself was his Torah quote from Leviticus 19:18. My point is the “Holy Spirit” is not a factor for the experience and exercise of love. I have no idea if Christ thought he coined either of these. thought he coined either of these principles. I’m glad he, at the very least, restated them. There truly is nothing new under the sun! Christ never said to be his follower one had to have some help from the “Holy Spirit.” I have nothing against the Holy Spirit as a faith concept. I see love is a basic component of human experience, often suppressed by hate and all manner of evil. But it is resilient, all that ultimately stands between civilization and the destruction of it. I’m for the principle of love expressed by Christ. He expanded it to mean, when practiced, that one is connected to God. On those terms I am a Christian. “Bugs-Larry is picking the Fruit while ignoring the Vine it grows on.” Really, Hammy? So you join with Earl and others who say “you are almost there, buster!” Wrong! Forty five years ago I lifted my eyes and arms toward the sky and said in a firm voice to whom it may concern, “You must like my mind and its thoughts since you get credit for creating me. Since then God, Jesus and I are best buds!

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 3:19 pm
    I write my replies elsewhere and paste them in here. Since i often make many revisions, cutting and pasting, I am terrible at final edits. The jumbled sentence above “thought he coined either of these principles.” should read: I have no idea if Christ thought he coined either of these principles. I’m glad he, at the very least, restated them. My editing skills appear only when I read what I have pasted on the forum where it can’t be edited. Woe is me!

    Elaine Nelson
    August 14, 2016 at 3:27 pm
    Bugs, we have much in common, having survived years of Adventist indoctrination, and yet leaving it behind, very willingly. Jesus did not come to earth to establish a new religion, but to show us a new way to live as in the well-known Golden Rule that many other cultures embraced before He said them. If we truly love life and the lives of all others, we would respect their exercise of their individual consciences. The Sermon on the Mount, unlike the strict set of laws given the Israelites, has no rules, but offers blessing for those who will follow these principles. This is above and far beyond any man-made set of doctrines or any strange ideas that make it unique. When very different beliefs set a denomination apart, it’s a good bet that men made these beliefs important, as the NT does not set forth any new doctrines, but emphasizes a new way of living. The Jews revered their man-made rules, but Jesus destroyed that myth and simplified the way to live which involved no doctrines by men, but timeless principles that are never limited to any one denomination, but apply to all.

    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:25 am

    What if ALL of This Present Madness is Planned and Orchestrated from the Dark-Side of the Moon?? What if the Desmond Ford and Barack Obama Dramas originated in the Same War-Room?? What if the Current-Confusion is part of a Long-Term Plan?? What if I'm playing into the Deception of the Millennium?? What if ALL of US are??
    Carol wrote:
    Scott Uehlinger: Susan Rice Unmasking ‘Abuse of Power’
    Violates ‘Spirit of the Law,’ Should Be ‘Further Investigated

    http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/04/04/scott-uehlinger-susan-rice-unmasking-abuse-power-violates-spirit-law-further-investigated/


    …5 Susan Rice Scandal Facts Every American Must Know…
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/04/5-susan-rice-scandal-facts-every-american-must-know/

    1. Susan Rice allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign aides as part of a political intelligence operation.

    Rice allegedly maintained spreadsheets of Trump aides’ telephone calls “one year before the 2016 presidential election,” according to the Daily Caller.

    The Daily Caller reports:

    “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

    “The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

    2. Rice claimed that climate change was responsible for the deadly civil war in Syria.

    “In the years prior to civil war breaking out in Syria, that country also experienced its worst drought on record,” Rice said in October 2015, during a speech at Stanford University. “Farming families moved en masse into urban centers, increasing political unrest and further priming the country for conflict.”

    Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed in the conflict since President Barack Obama drew his infamous “red line” in 2012, promising to retaliate against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime if it used chemical weapons on its own people.

    3. Rice once declared that there is “no military solution” to the raging conflict in Yemen.

    “As in Syria, there is no military solution to the crisis in Yemen,” Rice said in April 2015, during a speech at the Arab American Institute’s Kahlil Gibran Gala.

    Seven months before Rice’s speech, President Obama had called his administration’s drone strike-driven military operation in Yemen a success story.

    President Trump, however, ordered more airstrikes against al-Qaeda in Yemen in February than any year in Obama’s presidency.

    4. Susan Rice said accused deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl served “with honor and distinction.”

    In March 2015, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was charged with treason for allegedly deserting his fellow soldiers and abandoning his Afghanistan outpost in 2009.

    In a June 2014 broadcast of ABC’s This Week, Susan Rice defended Bergdahl, saying he “served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.”

    As Breitbart News reported, six soldiers lost their lives searching for then-Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl after he abandoned his outpost.

    5. Susan Rice was the driving force behind a misinformation campaign about the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terror attacks.

    Then-UN Ambassador Rice, acting as the Obama White House’s spokeswoman, appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows and repeatedly claimed that the Benghazi attacks had been caused by an anti-Islam video.

    Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN and regurgitated talking points purporting that the protests that had erupted “spontaneously” near two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya and were a result of a “hateful video” that was offensive to Islam.

    But government documents, released following a Judicial Watch lawsuit, reveal that government officials monitoring the attack in real-time did not cite an anti-Islam video as an explanation for the paramilitary attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

    In May 2015 interview, former Obama CIA Director Mike Morell said Rice’s Benghazi talking points blaming an anti-Islam YouTube video crossed “the line between national security and politics.”

    “I think the line in there that says one of our objectives here right on the Sunday show is to blame the video rather than a failure of policy,” Morell said on Fox News’ Special Report. “And as you know, I say in the book that I think that that is crossing the line between national security and politics.”
    Carol wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVVT4Al6Yps
    Obama's SPY Susan Rice CAUGHT SPYING ON TRUMP and Trump's Team said Rush Limbaugh


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uju4CPKjC44
    Judge Napolitano on if Susan Rice did anything illegal

    Judge Napolitano on Ricegate: Unmasking Americans for reason other than National Security “That’s called espionage. That’s called the failure to safeguard top secret information.” Susan Rice only has one boss, one person she reports to and that’s Obama.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/judge-napolitano-rice-gate-unmasking-americans-reasons-national-security-thats-called-espionage-video/



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwa7__OmvxQ
    Rand Paul says Susan Rice Unmasking Trump Team is a ‘Smoking Gun’

    Make zero mistake about it. Former President Barrack Obama ordered this tap very cleverly. As a constitution lawyer and knows exactly how to loop whole the system. It's unfortunate the left wing media is completely oblivious to what they are trying to do. These 'jounalists' are defending these criminals in the previous administration. These same people made a HUGE deal out of Flynn doing his job by setting a time for Trump to talk with Putin as well as Sessions having meetings with the ambassador while being a senator. But are freaking out on Rand Paul for stating facts about what Susan Rice did and that it is a HUGE deal.

    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    http://atoday.org/glacier-view-a-retrospective/

    Jim Hamstra
    August 15, 2016 at 3:40 am
    “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.” Bugs-Larry, I agree with you that the Golden Rule and the basic precept to “love one another” are not new, nor were they new when Jesus spoke these words. So what was new about His teaching? “As I have loved you.” Jesus didn’t just teach us about Love, He showed us Love in an unprecedented manner, to an unprecedented degree, beyond anything previously conceived or witnessed by humans. I am glad you and I and many others are still being reminded of the things that Jesus told us 8-).

    Ken Lawson
    August 14, 2016 at 4:28 pm
    I have seen some ridiculous claims leveled at Dr. Ford about his non-Ellen White stance.? How blatantly false can you be. No and I mean no one is more kind and caring of Ellen White than is Des. The Jewish Community of Brisbane who are evangelical, think that Dr. Ford uses Ellen White toooo much? he has spoken ad infinitum of the little old lady who could speak to thousands without a microphone-of the people around Avondale College who new her and spoke so highly of her-the lady who recommended that we sought out all issues related to salvation from the Holy Scriptures. Why can’t we tell the truth? Would we continue to lie for our own selfish agenda. I worked in Engineering for 14 years and found men of the world far more honest than some of you clowns with your nasty little agendas?

    Jim Hamstra
    August 15, 2016 at 3:48 am
    “I worked in Engineering for 14 years and found men of the world far more honest than some of you clowns with your nasty little agendas” Amen, Ken Lawson! Make that four decades in my case 8-). Engineering is a profession that demands a very concrete form of honesty to be successful. How so? Because in the end you are judged by whether you can actually make things work. By your fruits you shall be known, applies in this field with a vengeance. Disclaimer – not only church-men and politicians can have their nasty little agendas. So can engineers.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 5:17 am
    Ken, those who proudly and wilfully continue to break the 9th commandment here, perpetrating their absolute nonsense, about Des belittling Ellen White, reveal they are either absolutely ignorant about the facts or are struggling to find the will power to tell the truth! I have known Des for six decades since I first heard him powerfully preach the good news in the 60’s which turned my life around. It is not surprising that a group of accusers follow Des around seeking to discredit Des with their fabrications as they did his Master!

    Bill Sorensen
    August 14, 2016 at 4:46 pm
    The SDA church can not and will not survive without 1844 and the IJ. It may gravitate into another denomination that will be forced to change its name. But as long as the name “Seventh-day Adventist” is used, it must confess 1844 and the IJ as an inherent part of church doctrine. So we can “bicker” until dooms day, but those who think they can “change” the doctrine of the SDA church on this issue are doomed to failure. And as I have already stated, the issue is not 1844 anyway. The issue is a judgment according to works. So the date is not relevant to those who attack the spirituality of the SDA movement. They only attack the date because they don’t believe in a judgment according to works and so the date has no meaning. It would not matter what date anyone claimed the final judgment began, it would be rejected on the same basis. Namely, there is no judgment according to works. Period. And this is why Dr. Ford attack the issue in the beginning. Maybe some judgment according to works that has no bearing or meaning on salvation might be accepted. Like our leaders told Martin, this judgment was only for the purpose of determining what reward you get in heaven, but nothing to do with being saved or not. Walter Martin laughed and stated such an idea is “stale, flat, and unprofitable” and has no affinity to anything taught in the bible. But it got the church “off the hook” with Evangelicals.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 14, 2016 at 4:58 pm
    So when Walter Martin wrote “Kingdom of the Cults” he left the SDA church out of that realm, and said we were simply some weird church, but not a cult. And thus the book “Questions on Doctrine” began the process of the demise of the SDA church and any dynamic for our being or existence. Thanks to our apostate leaders who abandon the basic fundamental spirituality of the SDA church to patronize the apostate Protestant community. Dr. Ford only picked up where they left off. And affirmed the final logic that 1844 was bogus and any judgment concerning this was also bogus. Most of you don’t know much about church history or the events that led up to where we are today. Let alone the basis of the spirituality that brought all this into play after the dialogue with Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse. Who reads Questions on Doctrine anyway? Church members don’t. But, in general, they don’t read the bible or EGW either. They get “bottle feed” their teaching by the Review and the SS Quarterly. So, what do you expect? I expect most will abandon the name SDA and eventually the loyal SDA’s will get our name back. Until then, the bickering will go on endlessly and there will be no “unity” that can only come with an abandonment of EGW and the bible. Dr. Ford’s theology will no doubt win most members of the SDA church today. But they will have to abandon the bible and EGW.

    Ken Lawson
    August 14, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    Dear Bill, ‘Questions on Doctrine’ has not only survived but the new version has more to say than the old. I thank Christ for our attempt to demonstrate our truly Christian heart to the community at large.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 14, 2016 at 7:30 pm
    Bill, there is a remnant, a smidgen, who share your view. Hope you are prepared to turn off the lights as the last departee when you make your way out from the old to the newly named church! I say that not because I have inside information, only that an organization built on a lie and a plethora of face saving hogwash (1844 started with sincere people but became a scandal supported by lies) cannot indefinitely survive. IJ was one of the lies, (too harsh?), OK, fairyland fabrications, designed to fix lemonade for the fooled. IJ humorously turns god into a low paid legal clerk. And it violates the premise of the omniscient god. That guy is smaller than Superguy! At least Superguy (god created by us in our image) knows everything (allegedly) without the limits of court records and legal books. I’m entertained by the IJ fantasy, so keep spouting it! I’m not attacking you. Believing what you want is fine with me. I can’t prove there isn’t IJ. Neither can I prove there wasn’t an Alice in Wonderland. But I can point to the birth of Adventism and call it out for its shrewd trickster retreat from the disappointment abyss. I read of huge Adventist baptisms in third world countries. Is it the flop of 1844 and the wonder of IJ creating the rush to the dunk tank? Let me know on that one.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 15, 2016 at 4:19 am
    “an organization built on a lie and a plethora of face saving hogwash cannot indefinitely survive” Really, Bugs-Larry? The (USA) Republican Party is as old as the SDA church. The Democratic Party is even older. Both of these organizations were started by sincere people with some good ideas and good intentions. And what are they now? The LDS church is actually older than the SDA church. The Roman Catholic Church claims its legitimacy from Apostolic Succession and the Dedication of Constantine. The former appears nowhere in the Bible and the latter has been shown to be a forgery. And this organization is 10 x older than the others I mentioned. All of these have survived because, among other things, they have (albeit very reluctantly) adapted over time. From the foregoing it would appear that adaptability trumps ideology in the struggle to survive and thrive.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 15, 2016 at 8:14 am
    Jim I kinda agree. Your examples are pertinent. And the 150 year survival of the Adventist church seems to contradict my assertion! But not entirely. The hierarchy will never admit its nefarious birth. Nor can recant be expected. But by practice and evolutionary adaption, unstoppable even by the zealous goal tenders in charge, Neo-Adventism is doing just fine. That is because of the dustbin placement of irrelevant detritus, such as IJ, purposely and permanently relegated to out of sight, out of mind. The pesky new generations ignore useless rubble. They definitely belong to the future, not the past. My question is, when will strict Sabbath-keeping mandates be finally deposited in the dust bin slot that awaits? Might the evolutionary adjustment be creeping toward insertion as we speak? Bill Sorenson may be a prophet! Perhaps a new church with a new name? Ellen, here comes Bill! Just a joke (my disclaimer for sensitive forum participants)!

    Elaine Nelson
    August 15, 2016 at 1:09 pm
    “when will strict Sabbath-keeping mandates be finally deposited in the dust bin slot that awaits? Might the evolutionary adjustment be creeping toward insertion as we speak?” Yes, the strict divisions between “Work” and “rest” were designated by the SdA church, not so in the Fourth Commandment which is where Sabbath originated. The SdA church attempted to determine the kinds of “work” which were legitimate and which would be Sabbath-breaking, despite that the Commandment specifically was given to “rest” on that day; so the church began by modifying a Jewish law for a Christian religion. Today in parts of NAD and parts unknown, choose to make Sabbath a special day, which often does not include church attendance (again, contrary to the Commandment). It is a recreational day for busy families to reconnect and relax from busy schedules. But forgetting that even the Israelites must work on that day caring for their herds. Exporting a 3,000 year law to moderns is an impossibility and becomes more difficult all the time with so many new occupations never dreamed of at that time. Trying to abide by such ancient law while continuing to live in a modern world is an impossibility and no one observes it as it was originally intended.

    Elaine Nelson
    August 15, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    Jim, You have demonstrated that a political party’s name means little, as they change. I was born and lived in the south and there was essentially only the Democratic party. Those running as Republicans knew they hadn’t a chance. But it all changed with LBJ’s stance on civil rights; which is why the South today is overwhelmingly Republican. Look back further, it is not the same as in the mid-19th century, either. In effect, it sometimes seems they’ve switched platforms. “Pay no attention to the person running for public office”, they can never fulfill anyone’s expectations; there are too many counter measures–particularly Congress; and the Supremes often have the last word. “The President proposes; the Congress disposes.”

    Jim Hamstra
    August 16, 2016 at 1:49 am
    Elaine, I grew up in a part of the North where the Republican primary was the real contest. Where for decades Gerald Ford represented a “liberal” congressional district. My how things did and do change!

    Jim Hamstra
    August 15, 2016 at 3:59 am
    “The SDA church can not and will not survive without 1844 and the IJ. It may gravitate into another denomination that will be forced to change its name. But as long as the name “Seventh-day Adventist” is used, it must confess 1844 and the IJ as an inherent part of church doctrine.” The survival of the SDA church depends at least as much, if not more, on our view of the future than on our view of the past. “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” This is the essential linkage that joins Past and Future for an Adventist. What happens in-between is of secondary importance. Debating about 1844 is majoring in minors. Far better to simply admit that William Miller and his followers were mistaken about some things, including those who went on to found the SDA church. And then to rejoice that despite their limitations, God used them in a mighty way to draw the attention of the watching world to the Blessed Hope of the Apostles. And to rejoice that God can still use us in a mighty way to do the same thing, despite our limitations. Lift up the trumpet and loud let it ring. Jesus is coming again!

    Allen Shepherd
    August 14, 2016 at 9:16 pm
    Bugs says: I read of huge Adventist baptisms in third world countries. Is it the flop of 1844 and the wonder of IJ creating the rush to the dunk tank? Let me know on that one. I have baptized a few here in America and was in Africa for 8 yrs where quite a few were baptized (some yrs ago). Was it the IJ that brought them in? No, but that was part of it. It was a global picture of a God who had foreseen the present age, and had left clues to those who were willing to dig deep. Jesus led them into a relationship with him and the Father through the prophecies. Why are you so bitter about this? The IJ means that there will be justice. Is that such a problem? So much is unfair here, and there is a solution to that. God is in control, when all is finally said and done. I don’t think that is such a radical or bad idea.

    Ervin Taylor
    August 14, 2016 at 11:02 pm
    It would be amazing if the high numbers of baptisms in Third World countries have anything to do with the IJ doctrine or, for that matter, because of any Adventist theological position. Whether a particular theological idea is a “good” or “bad” idea, probably plays a very small part, if any part, in explaining this phenomenon. Each situation is probably slightly different, but the high numbers especially in Africa are more likely due to culture not the “truth” of the standard Adventist evangelical theological pronouncements. In most traditional cultures, the decisions of high status kinship/community leaders, not individual decisions, tend to be followed. Whole extended families, clans and villages will get baptized depending on what those occupying leadership positions decide is in the best interest of the family/clan/village. The high degree to which autonomous individualism is valued in the cultures of modern Western societies in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand is a foreign concept in the traditional parts of African societies. It would be interesting to know the social and economic status of those being baptized en mass. Also, are these urbanized or rural populations? Does anyone have that information? One could also safely assume that this process is being duplicated by other aggressive proselytizing religious bodies. The work of Mormons, JWs and even Pentecostals in Third World countries immediately come to mind.

    Hansen
    August 15, 2016 at 6:26 am
    Erv, The issue with the reference to JW and the judgment had to do with the source. He wrote an article in the “Advent Review” of September, 1850. I looked for the “Advent Review and Sabbath Herald” which started later. I posted the entire article here http://www.cleansanctuary.blogspot.com. Sorry about the confusion and thanks for referencing the article. His views on the judgment apparently changed as time went on.

    Allen Shepherd
    August 15, 2016 at 2:03 am
    Ervin says: One could also safely assume that this process is being duplicated by other aggressive proselytizing religious bodies. The work of Mormons, JWs and even Pentecostals in Third World countries immediately come to mind. The Mormons and JW’s are not so successful, as SDA’s, but the Pentecostals have had growth that has even outstripped that reported by the early church. Your comment seems more opinion than actual knowledge about the influence of the historicist position on choice for baptism. I think you are at least partially right about how groups choose to join. But it is less lemming like than you think, from one who was there. The huge growth has really occurred in S. America and Central Am. The Pentecostals have been hugely successful there as well. Could be a frustration with Catholicism of some sort.

    Joe Ryan
    August 15, 2016 at 2:18 am
    One thing that the critics of Des Ford forget is that on that bright and glorious morning they will awake and see Des Ford beside them (plus probably many more they did not expect to be there) what are they going to say then!! Will they complain to God that Des should not be there !!!, he will be, and so will they, as they have accepted the gift given by the Cross. They, Des, and me are still sinners, and need to look to Christ daily, but then this is the the depths of the Grace of God, it has no bounds. The Theft on the Cross knew nothing about the IJ, and he is saved, and the early Christians also were sure that Jesus was going to return soon, which he would have if man put Him first. If He did return in the first century AD where would 1844 be, it would not be, nor would we. The arguments above are over jealously, but then God forgives, and remembers no more, so ALL of us must remember that you will be startled who will be in the Kingdom next to you, because Jesus died for ALL. Des Ford has only ever, in my 35 years of hearing him preach, delivered the Gospel to faint, weary and worn hearts, and for me a sinner that has put a spring in my step which I need every day. God has blessed Des, and will continue to do so. I pray he blesses all here, just remember God is love, and we should show that first at all times.

    Carla Ryan
    August 15, 2016 at 5:09 am
    You wicked egotistical, critical bigots, are just like as we say here in Australia “bloody bastards” who ought to hang your THICK HEADS IN SHAME!!! Do you know….I have a brain to “think with” & a mouth to speak with, & let me tell you, THE SDA CHURCH WILL NEVER FLOURISH WHILST YOU REMAIN WITH YOUR HEADS BURIED IN THE SAND!!! My one regret is our dear little Dad left the Presbyterian Church to become an Adventist…not on the issue of 1844/Investigative Judgement, rather because he became convicted over the topic of The Sabbath!!! He was a great Bible Scholar. The rare times I ever heard my Mum & Dad argue, were usually over my Dad’s disagreement of 1844, with Dad pointing out several texts of Christ’s Ascending to the Right Hand of His Father, & Dad pointing out what Hebrews clearly states. Dad was a good thinker, & most of us have been blessed with the ability to ‘think’ without needing Des to blame for our thoughts! You bigots should ‘go get a life!!’ Thank goodness I work amongst ‘the lost’ as it teaches me to find ‘My Shepherd!’ I will never re-join the SDA Church whilst those of you who choose to criticize Des continue to do so. Many have left because they are educated & can “think” without being robotic bigoted men/women who bow to the hierarchy of the SDA Organization. I regret my family introducing my wonderful husband Joe to the SDA Church. I’d rather he stayed a Roman Catholic, as he was raised. Des is a far more ‘Christ-Like’ human being than…

    Conviction
    August 15, 2016 at 5:39 am
    Our concerns would be the seeming need for Des, for you to think. That you, Joe and Des might wake up in the same place; but not based on your judgement. We hope and pray that doesn’t happen; but that is up to you. Would you try to blame up the line there? I am sorry, but you do sound kind of self saving here; when HE is the only one that does that. Since the Church is growing does that mean we have our heads in the sand? Do you condemn everyone within your selected classifications? Since you support those dismissed? Is that the reason for you to create such a discriminatory classification? We Love you; but worry about you.

    William Noel
    August 15, 2016 at 8:44 am
    Conviction, What little feedback I’ve had from people living in countries where the church is growing rapidly indicate that the IJ is not an issue because they don’t teach it or debate about it. So, apparently the IJ isn’t an issue to HIM.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 15, 2016 at 9:47 am
    Nor did it seem to be an issue with John the Baptist, Christ, Irenaeus, Augustine, Constantine, Martin Luther, the Wesley brothers, or Einstein, or anyone outside the Adventist soundproof chamber.

    Conviction
    August 15, 2016 at 5:48 pm
    For it is written. Philippians 2:12 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” What then are you going to replace IJ with?

    Jim Hamstra
    August 16, 2016 at 1:38 am
    Conviction, Please do not ignore the rest of Paul’s statement : For it is God who works in you both to will and to do His good pleasure. When you stop half-way through Paul’s statement, it reads as if we are working. If you read the entire statement it becomes clear that God is working in us, both to Will and to Do. I cannot change my own will any more than I can change my own deeds. Both of these are the work of God in us. Though of course God will not do His work in us unless we consent. But even the grace to consent is a gift of God.

    William Noel
    August 15, 2016 at 5:45 am
    Carla, Sometimes we need a strident voice like you to remind us of about the true nature of those who are more devoted to arguing than to letting the love of God transform them. My membership in past years has been at churches where board and business meetings went late into the night as a result of argument over matters of little consequence and as a result no one was doing the work God wanted done. Fortunately, I have found a congregation where our love for God is reflected in our love for each other and where argument is rarely heard and, except for discussing business items, you might even confuse our business meetings for a church social. Glacier View? That was a long time ago and something we’d rather leave in the past. So I hope you will be able to find a similar congregation where the love of God reigns supreme.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 15, 2016 at 7:37 am
    Umm, welcome to AT Carla! from another exSDA Aussie. Yes, it is quite ok to express your true feelings on this site. But can I just mention, in case you’re not aware. The term ‘bastard’ in the US/Nth America, is a VERY strong term of …. umm… well, its an extremely strong word to use. In Aus it can at times even be a term of endearment, (believe it or not, our ‘up there’ cousins), but in the US, wow, when that word comes out, its serious stuff. Just thought I’d mention. In all else…. blessings to you and Dad and your whole family. Have a nice day.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 15, 2016 at 7:59 am
    Dear Mrs Ryan, it’s indeed sad your hear of your anguish concerning how things have turned out in your life experience regarding Dr Ford’s position. It would have been best if Dr Ford would have started his own church organisation where all those supporting his views would have been content. It is not the fault of the SDA church for our belief in the IJ. It was Dr Ford who made the move to challenge the church and when that failed his followers clearly were left in turmoil. The SDA church still welcomes all, but those joining have to at least accept what we believe, which I might add, makes good sense. Your post serves as a good example of the sentiments held by those who were led to believe that the church would accept Dr Ford’s view and weren’t ready for a great disappointment of their own. This is regrettably one that Dr Ford will have to take responsibility for as church cannot be liable for his actions. Many well educated people who are sincere in their beliefs have been wrong about many things, and Dr Ford is no exception.

    Elaine Nelson
    August 15, 2016 at 12:57 pm
    The church cannot be responsible f0r Des’ actions. But it is the church who lost many members so they paid the price, also, for disowning him. The church lost; Des did not lose, he opened thousands of eyes to the truth.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 5:28 am
    Well said Carla! Your Australian BS meter is working very well and your honesty is greatly appreciated and we pray that the rest of the team that Jesus gave His Everything for including Bill and his buddies will be given wisdom and power to become as honest as you are and depend on Jesus plus nothing ( Nothing in my hand I bring simply to Thy Cross remains good news!!!)
    I cling.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 15, 2016 at 4:35 am
    Jesus Christ said something very interesting to the “historic Adventists” of His time and place: “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.” The Door to the Kingdom of Heaven is Jesus Christ.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 15, 2016 at 4:56 am
    One thing that struck me back in the GV era – In the highly divisive debate over Divine Jurisprudence that is commemorated on this web page, neither side made much mention of the discourses of Jesus on this topic recorded in the Gospel of John. “And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever practices the truth comes into the Light, so that it may be clearly seen that what he has done has been accomplished in God.” When and how will the evil deeds of humans be exposed? When and how will the human deeds accomplished in God be clearly seen? Regardless of your answers to these two questions, it is difficult to deny that Jesus clearly taught that there will be some form of evaluation of human choices and their consequences.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 15, 2016 at 8:34 am
    William Noel wrote: “Jews only “cleansed” the sanctuary when it had been defiled in some way and they were re-dedicating it to the sole purpose of worshiping the God of Heaven. It only happened a few times and did not happen on the Day of Atonement. The act of cleansing had NOTHING to do with removing sin from the people.” William, I totally agree with you on this point. In the context of Daniel 8:14, the Sanctuary (or at least the ‘makon’ – place or courtyard or plaza) has been defiled by the Little Horn (qeren) and therefore needs to be cleansed and restored (‘nitsdaq’). This is entirely consistent with the traditions of Daniel’s Jewish audience. Scholars can and have debated who was this Little Horn. And there may well be more than one valid application of this prophecy. (continued)

    Jim Hamstra
    August 15, 2016 at 8:45 am
    The only links I can find to ‘yom kippur’ are by analogies that are tenuous at best (and I have searched in many places and inquired of highly educated people who should be able to offer a definitive derivation). The Miller/Edson/Crosier synthesis may or may not be correct – since it culminates in Heaven rather than on earth there is no way to disprove it. Miller himself never accepted what Edson and Crosier did to his system of prophetic interpretation. We can make the case that there is both a Heavenly and an Earthly dimension to the Sanctuary motif that appears in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. We can make a case that the Autumn Festivals of the Jewish liturgical calendar pre-figure events associated with the Second Advent. We can make a case that the ‘makon’ needs to be cleansed/restored after 1,260/1,290 years of being defiled by the ‘qeren’. We can make a case for some sort of pre-Advent judgment based upon a few Biblical allusions. But bundling all of the above (which I do believe) into a single package that commenced on a single day whose determination depends on which Rabbinical sect you endorse, is a giant leap of assumptions and analogies. We should not attempt to establish a “fundamental belief” based upon tenuous assumptions and analogies enforced by a dogmatic refusal to consider alternative views.

    William Noel
    August 15, 2016 at 12:50 pm
    Jim, Thank you for being enough of a scholar to recognize what many are unwilling to see. In counterpoint to your final comment, I would say that we should be careful to fully research the scriptural basis before adopting a doctrine because the IJ was built on a number of inaccurate assumptions.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 15, 2016 at 8:38 am
    If we “cut to the chase” of the whole issue, and the spirituality that Dr. Ford developed in opposition to 1844 and the IJ, if was his misunderstanding of the judgment and what is was all about. And he has a multitude of followers who are as uninformed as he is. His false idea that the investigative judgment was a system of legalism that was to determine who had merited heaven, was his downfall. And those who still think this is what the IJ is all about are as deceived as he is. There is not one shred of evidence in any writings of EGW to support this false idea. But those who are “hell bent” to claim this is what she taught could care less. And Ford is even more guilty for he had more than enough time and evidence to see his error. People are willingly deceived. They believe what they want to believe. When Jesus came, the Jews examined His ministry and it didn’t fit their false ideas. Even when it was obvious they were mistaken, they finally decided the statis quo was more important than the truth, and decided to murder Him even if He was innocent. This is the ongoing history of evil. Truth is hated by those who reject it. And those who defend truth must be aware that there will be no justice for the defenders of the true faith as the wicked could case less about truth, only their own spiritual ego and self identity. The IJ is not a system of legalism. You are attacking the word of God.

    William Noel
    August 15, 2016 at 8:50 am
    Bill, Please, speak for yourself. Abandoning the IJ helped me shed legalism and discover fuller dimensions of righteousness by faith because I love the truth I have found in studying scripture in the company of the Holy Spirit.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 5:38 am
    Bill when anyone comments that Des is uninformed on these issues, this reveals their total ignorance, or their struggle with will power to keep the 9th Commandment and speak the truth. I have known Des for 6 decades and I speak what I have seen, what I have heard and what I know from my personal observation not hearsay. I read the 990 pages Des wrote for GV by request from our faith community and while we all have our own convictions we don’t help our cause by speaking nonsense such as “Des is uninformed”.

    Gary McCary
    August 15, 2016 at 9:19 am
    I would never refer to Dr. Ford as “uninformed,” Bill. Yes, he has a different conviction on the exposition of Daniel 8:14. Yes, he believes that many of the earliest “pioneers” of Adventism, including EGW, were mistaken in their understanding of that passage. But uninformed is not a mantra I would saddle Dr. Ford with. My observation of the current state of North American Adventism leaves me with the tentative conclusion that there are essentially TWO “spirits” in Adventism today: what I would call BIG TENT Adventism as opposed to SMALL TENT Adventism. “Big Tent” Adventism allows for differences of conviction, accepting the fact that each individual is–as the apostle Paul said–“responsible for himself to God” (Romans 14:12). This type of spirit is inclusive, rather than exclusive. “Small Tent” Adventism tends to be extremely jealous for purity in the church. It’s adherents see themselves as protectors of the faith. They tend to say things like: “If you don’t believe the way our pioneers believe, then just LEAVE! Why are you staying?” They are certain that before God’s judgment bar, THEY are the ones who will be approved of, while those who don’t see things “correctly” will be lost. Small Tent Adventists, though they might never admit it, believe in “salvation by correct theology.” They believe that if you don’t accept a certain doctrine exactly as articulated by the Founders, then you are not a “true” SDA. But we are all as different…

    Bill Sorensen
    August 15, 2016 at 11:58 am
    Well, Gary, there is certainly the “big tent” Adventism that is anxious to embrace any and every form of evil in the name of the gospel as presented and interpreted by Dr. Ford and his followers. And the “big tent” Adventism, is a parallel to the “big tent” eccumenical movement that “big tent” Adventism is embracing on every level. I would not be justifying any “big tent” idea and bragging that you are a part of it. The bible is a very definitive and articulate presentation of the kingdom of God, how it is defined and how it is applied. God raised up the SDA movement to be very articulate and definitive in explaining the bible and its teachings. I am well aware that the “big tent” theology was the result of the Dr. Ford delusion that so many embraced and still embrace. There is no “bible gospel” that can be applied as he and many others do. He envisions himself as some great reformer in the SDA church. He is a Korah rebellion, and like Korah, who got massive affirmation by the people, but his final end is certain, like all those who embrace his false doctrine. If anyone ever applied the IJ in some legalistic way, that is their problem, not EGW’s fault. And to accuse her of legalism to justify the present attack on the law of God will let no one “off the hook” in the final judgment. Dr. Ford will have a great deal to answer for as he had every opportunity to see and correct his errors but didn’t.

    Herold Weiss
    August 15, 2016 at 12:22 pm
    I am a Christian who believes like Paul in the “obedience of faith” that is defined not by any law but by Paul’s definition of sin as “that which is not of faith.” Paul is also a strong believer in the power of the Spirit to renew the mind “from above” so that it can determine what is good and acceptable to God. Christians live empowered by the Spirit that “pours” God’s love in the heart so that Christians may conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel. To think that having the right doctrines in the mind is what saves is to give knowledge the power to save. That is what Gnosticism was in antiquity and the term may be used legitimately to describe those who think that knowledge saves. In antiquity it was knowledge of the spheres separating heaven and earth and their rulers. These days different people have different pieces of information as salvific. I Agreed that the mind needs to be engaged when a Christian acts faithfully. I just denied that knowledge has salvific power. Yes there are such things as Past Truth. I referred to Present Truth purposely as a way of disconnecting the “obedience of faith” from obedience to doctrines.
    Let me repeat. When doctrines are given ultimate value it is only for political purposes.

    Hansen
    August 15, 2016 at 11:16 pm
    Amen, Herold. I understand the “obedience of faith” to mean “faith is obedience.” Works well for me!

    Herold Weiss
    August 15, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    From the Bible you can concoct the doctrine of your choice. The truth of any doctrine can only be established by the kind of behaviors it produces. When truth and love are in conflict, for a Christian love must carry the day. If you do not think that giving doctrines ultimate value is a political maneuver, just think why were the 28 issued.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 15, 2016 at 1:45 pm
    “I am a Christian who believes like Paul in the “obedience of faith” that is defined not by any law…….” I am well aware of what you and all the antinomian spirits believe, Herold. It is well articulated on this thread and this forum in general. But Paul’s “obedience of faith” is light years from your apostate Protestant view of obedience. This whole forum is a circle of delusion. None the less, there may still be a few honest souls who are truly seeking for truth as for “buried treasure” and will yet escape the “snare of the devil”. Paul knew he would not save everybody, but he would “by all means save some.” So it is not likely this whole forum will suddenly be “converted” from error to truth, but it is more than possible that some will see the delusion that so many embrace and find the “truth as it is in Jesus” and in His word. And some lurkers may well see the real agenda of the forum. So, as long as I am allowed to post, you won’t get any massive doses of affirmation from me in your delusion. There is no bible gospel, that sets aside the law of God, and puts in its place “love” to determine who is a believer and who is not. Plainly stated, the 10 commandment moral law is the law of “love, faith, grace and the gospel.” And just so there will be no deception, if anyone claims to “love” and challenges this law, they are the servants of Satan. Because this was his theory in heaven.

    William Noel
    August 15, 2016 at 4:22 pm
    Bill, Let’s see if I’m understanding you. Someone disagreeing with you means they’re part of a “circle of delusion” and filled with an “antinomian spirit.” They’re setting-aside the law of God in favor of love even though “God so loved the world,” (John 3:16). Only “lurkers” will see the “real agenda” in this forum. OK, we see that you disagree. But not even the angels bring railing accusations against Satan, so what makes you think you’re defending God when your name-calling and accusations are sounding something we expect to hear from Satan?

    Conviction
    August 15, 2016 at 5:45 pm
    For those unable to read the BIBLE (or actually have no desire to read the BIBLE).
    For those unable to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling; yet wish to lead others astray.
    For those that think they are GOD.
    For those that turn the Word of GOD into a lie.
    For those that serve the creature instead of the CREATOR.
    For those that teach that bad is good.
    For those babble and say nothing.

    Then yes they’re part of a “circle of delusion” and filled with an “antinomian spirit.”. Remember the Love is HIS, not yours; especially within The Sacrifice. Maybe you should stop trying to claim everything. You are not satan either and I would definitely not claim anything there.

    William Noel
    August 16, 2016 at 6:09 am
    Conviction, That other students of the Bible can read it and not launch such endless, railing accusations against others as you do gives clear testimony about who is letting the grace of God work in them. You constantly make broad accusations and tear-down others, apparently in hope that by contrast you can show that you are holier than everyone else. Your words fail to allow for the faintest possibility that some of us, actually many more than you imagine, know God intimately and are working to lovingly draw people into saving relationships with Him. So I call on you in the presence of the other witnesses in this site to stop blaspheming the saints as you do in almost every posting. It is time for you to repent and learn to love others as Jesus did because your accusations are an offense to God and only insuring your condemnation.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 6:31 am
    Did you have problems with any of the statements made? Are they not all from or represent of HIS Word? If not, then please tell me which ones are not? Otherwise, did I blaspheme you with HIS Word? Did I accuse you or do you accuse and try yourself? Are you not convicted of yourself, yet consider yourself a Saint or as represent now? Why is everyone else called to build up and upon HIM, yet you consider yourself special and privileged; demanding?

    Gary McCary
    August 15, 2016 at 2:01 pm
    Bill, you make the false assumption that “big tent” Adventism embraces every form of “evil.” And then you link Dr. Ford’s understanding of the gospel to this embrace. That type of blanket condemnation is exactly the spirit that pervades “small tent” Adventist thinking. I do not condemn YOUR understanding of the gospel, nor your understanding of the significance of Daniel 8:14. Nor do I condemn Dr. Ford’s understanding. But to suggest that Dr. Ford’s personal interpretation is somehow “evil”–or an acceptance of “evil”–is to make a theological and judgmental leap of faith which I refuse to make or accept. And it is precisely that spirit that young Adventists are increasingly resistant to, and turned-off by. Young SDA’s don’t mind if you believe such and such a doctrine from your heart. But when a person accuses, condemns, criticises, and relegates to perdition those whose THEOLOGICAL viewpoints differ from theirs, it is THAT spirit that many in our church want no part of. When one reads the Gospels, one immediately is struck by the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was accepting of everybody–including the Sadducees (who didn’t believe in the resurrection). Jesus might have disagreed with you, theologically, but he never allowed that to be a barrier to fellowship. The only folks Jesus ever spoke harshly of were the Scribes & Pharisees, whose self-righteous condemnation of others was repugnant, and whose fidelity to doctrinal & behavioral purity resulted…

    Bill Sorensen
    August 15, 2016 at 2:39 pm
    ” That type of blanket condemnation is exactly the spirit that pervades “small tent” Adventist thinking.” And this is why there will never be any “unity” between us, Gary. I’ll never accept your spirituality as being biblical. As I stated or implied, the bible is very “small tent” in its explanation of salvation and does not allow for every “Tom, Dick and Harry’s” opinion of what it says and what it means. So I reject your whole theory and spirituality that you think is so “Christian” and inclusive of everybody’s ideas and opinions. The bible never attacks the need to be right and opt for whatever. According to the bible, if you are not right, you are lost. And this is why the bible gives us so much information on what we need to know to be saved. Many of you make the bible a dead letter by your false faith. Often derived from a false separation of old and new covenant. The “little tent” people may be small in number, but we ain’t movin….. And we may well get a lot smaller before its all over. In fact, we expect to according to EGW and the bible. Everybody is welcome at the front door of the church. But if they come to change the church doctrine, then just proceed out the back door. Our definition and identity is not subject to change and/or negotiation. If you come to “listen and learn”, welcome. Even ask questions. That’s cool. But not try to redefine our identity to suit yourself.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 16, 2016 at 2:23 am
    Bill wrote: The bible never attacks the need to be right and opt for whatever. According to the bible, if you are not right, you are lost. And this is why the bible gives us so much information on what we need to know to be saved. David wrote: Against you, and you alone, have I sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. You will be proved right in what you say, and your judgment against me is just. Paul wrote: Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.” For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. I conclude: a) Unless and until we can admit that we ARE wrong, there is little God can do to lead us. b) It is more important for God to be right than for us to be right. c) Even the Apostle Paul admitted that he knew very little. d) We don’t know very much until we begin to comprehend how little we know.

    Gary McCary
    August 15, 2016 at 4:19 pm
    Bill, neither I nor anyone I know of wants to mess with your “identity.” It is yours—and sacred to you and your ilk. Whether your little flock is a fulfillment of prophecy or not is a matter of conjecture. The church of Jesus of Nazareth will continue to comfort, bless, and inspire people of all stripes and “identities.” I think we will all be surprised by who our next-door neighbors are in the afterlife–something that Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matt. 25) suggests. Peace.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 15, 2016 at 5:38 pm
    “Bill, neither I nor anyone I know of wants to mess with your “identity.” Well, Gary, more than a few, including Dr. Ford, would like the change the identity of the SDA church. This is why they incessantly attack EGW and the Investigative judgment, and then hope they can still be a SDA. EGW has stated the identity of the SDA church. If you don’t believe it, or accept it, that is anyone’s right. But to try to change the identity is no one’s right. I stated that Dr. Ford was and is a novice in theology, and he is. I think he become a SDA in his late teens if I remember right. Like many young people, the church pushes them into higher levels of influence than they should have. They thought Dr. Ford could and would “save” the church from the errors of the “Brinsmead awakening”. It was soon evident to many that Dr. Ford was the heretic, but they would not admit that Brinsmead was defending the historic faith. Ford had already gained considerable affirmation by theologians who were not biblically literate anymore than he was. People had already begun the work of attacking EGW and the IJ. Cottrell was classic, but like many, he was from a family of “spiritual icons” who were part of the “untouchables” in the movement. By the way, read the chapter on the Scapegoat in QOD. Totally false and non biblical and this was only one faulty view and attack on the bible and EGW. The ground work was laid, long before Dr. Ford.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 16, 2016 at 1:57 am
    Say Bill, if Brinsmead Mk 1 represents historic Adventism at its finest, and if Brinsmead is the greatest theologian teh SDA church ever produced (you have said this elsewhere), how is it that Ford, the lightweight novice as you portray him, was able, almost single-handedly, to turn Brinsmead completely towards his own false righteousness by faith heresy? Something seems awry with that scenario.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 4:12 am
    It shows how strong satan is and how much we really nee HIM? It shows how alluring but deadly the world is without HIM?

    Bill Sorensen
    August 16, 2016 at 5:41 am
    ” how is it that Ford, the lightweight novice as you portray him, was able, almost single-handedly, to turn Brinsmead completely towards his own false righteousness by faith heresy? Something seems awry with that scenario.” Ford was the major SDA influence to lead him into error. Brinsmead and Paxton (an evangelical) traveled and ministered together for about 10 years. And he also got affirmation from other Protestant scholars outside the SDA church. In the end, Brinsmead could not harmonize the sinful nature of man that remains a part of the Christian warfare with the “moral perfection” as he understood it in the EGW theology. And this remains the enigma that divides the church and the two camps. The legalists claim you are not a sinner unless you actually do some sinful act and violate your conscience. Their limited view of sin allows for moral perfection to be the same as “sinlessness”. This false view is denied by the other side, who understand that the sinful nature means you are a sinner, whether you actually do any sin or not. So the simply deny moral perfection as a possibility. Both sides are wrong. Moral perfection is not “sinlessness”, but it is as Wesley said, “Sin remains, but it does not reign.” The born again believer can and will have total victory over “the world, the flesh, and the devil” and this is “moral perfection.” In a generic sense, everyone saved will have experienced “moral perfection” on some level.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 16, 2016 at 8:28 am
    Bill, thank you for this interesting perspective. And I also appreciate the tone of it also. You gave this succinct summary as you see it (and I do not disagree): “In the end, Brinsmead could not harmonize the sinful nature of man that remains a part of the Christian warfare with the “moral perfection” as he understood it in the EGW theology. And this remains the enigma that divides the church and the two camps.” It was interesting to hear that you sit well with Wesley’s ‘sin remains but it does not reign.’ I’ve heard Des say that more than once. From what you’ve said here, you actually appear closer to Ford than to the legalists I’d had you tagged as. But the problem for all who have originated from Adventism is the ‘materialist monist’ view of human nature. They even have that problem with Christ, born in human flesh. Hence the ‘holy flesh’ idea of sinless perfectionists. I am now a ‘spiritualist,’ ie, I believe the NT teaches that our true nature is not material body but immaterial soul/spirit. This removes most if not all of the dilemma that your two sides struggle to resolve. After all, how can one be ‘born again of the spirit’ if one is an immaterialist? The obverse of that coin is Rom 6.1-10 How can we be ‘dead’ with Christ, except spiritually? Our old man crucified with him, except spiritually? If not spiritually REAL, then it can only be forensically ALONE, and so lacking a living dynamic, shall we say.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 16, 2016 at 8:52 am
    Typo of ideas here – ‘how can one be born again of the spirit if one is an immaterialist?’ should obviously read, ‘…if one is a materialist.’ James White, and Ellen of course, really led the early thought-makers down a very difficult place with his heavy anti-immaterialism approach. I would suggest that this has been the root cause of most, if not all, the ongoing doctrinal dilemmas. It could be, Bill, the key to unlocking your ‘enigma.’ I do not see that it solves the ‘spiritualism’ issue that so ‘spooked’ them, living in NY state and New England as they did in the time of the Fox Sisters. Its a case where the (preventive) cure has turned out to be far more of a problem than the (presumed) dis-ease of spooky rappings (which turned out to be little more than cheap party tricks. Even that great ‘spiritualist’ Blavatsky gave up on the NY set as being completely disinterested in genuine ‘spiritual things.’

    Jim Hamstra
    August 16, 2016 at 8:52 am
    “Both sides are wrong. Moral perfection is not “sinlessness”, but it is as Wesley said, “Sin remains, but it does not reign.” ” An excellent summary of the issues on both sides, Bill. As I have written before, you are more effective when you explain what you believe, succinctly, than when you attack what others believe 8-). And in this regard I am indeed Wesleyan. If you use “moral perfection” to designate “Christian maturity” or “complete in Christ” then I totally agree. Unfortunately, many “performance Adventists” read these same phrases as “complete absence of sin”.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 16, 2016 at 12:59 pm
    Jim Hamstra, I have never been popular with the legalists who post on forums like Fulcrum 7. They run me off and blocked my posting. I believe the doctrine of original sin is comprehensive and the limit idea the LGT crowd embraces. I have said on this forum that Dr. Ford correctly identified the gospel, and then wrested it from its biblical application in relation to the law. The gospel does not do away with the law as God’s authority to “command and demand” obedience of His children. “Obey and live” has not been done away in lieu of the gospel. The moral law is not a legal code nor a legal mandate to define how a sinner, or even a sinless angel can merit the favor of God. Adam did not merit God’s favor by obeying His word in the garden of Eden. The moral law is a family obligation and if you rebel against the rules of the family of God, you are thrown out of the family. And we are talking about rebellion, not some incidental short coming that even the sinless angels are subject to. “All…..come short of the glory of God.” And this includes the sinless angels. The name of Jesus is our legal right to heaven. Obedience to the law of God is our moral right to heaven. Title and fitness are both required and neither takes the place of the other. The emphasis on this forum is the title, and it is used incessantly and repeatedly to deny the fitness necessary for heaven. Love is substituted for the law, and this is bogus. Love is motive, not law.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 16, 2016 at 4:53 pm
    Bill: ‘Love is motive, not law.’ If this statement, ‘Man looks on the outward appearance, God looks on the heart’ is a statement of a principle of how we are to understand how God works, then surely correct motive is of far greater importance, in God’s eyes, than are outward actions? And if the heart/the seat of motive is activated by desire, then it really comes down to the simple act of an orientation of the will………. drawn towards the beauty of Christ, or staying with one’s own egoic desires, even if they are religious ones. The OT phrase, ‘incline thy heart unto Me’ holds a key. All that we are capable of is turning our motive, through a whole-hearted desire for the beauty of truth, towards Him who is Love. Grace initiates and guides the whole process. Heb 4.2 Jesus as Logos thus judges only one thing…. ‘the thoughts and intent of the heart.’ Moses would have noticed that even the Egyptians understood that motive is of far greater significance than one’s actions. After all, it is possible, through supreme effort, to perform all the correct actions (eg Pharisees) but the heart still be out of tune with the divine. For the Egyptians, at judgement, the heart was removed and placed on a scale. On the other was placed a feather. If the heart proved heavier, then they were immediately consigned to Typhon the crocodile beast of the waters. Jesus’ references to getting the heart/motive right as the priority reveals God’s modus operandus.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 5:53 am
    Bill can you give me one example, based at least in some part on some factual evidence, and not on accusational imaginations dreamt up by a “lets attack Des squad” to prove “I’m right and you’re wrong Des”, that you have ever come across anywhere in the world of reality, to support the hallucinatory accusation that Des “incessantly attacks” Ellen White which I never hear from anyone who actually knows Des.

    Andre van Rensburg
    August 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm
    Glacier View led to the polarization of the church, the loss of many pastors and members. One has to question the Church leaders who oversaw the ministerial training at Avondale College, then turning against the very students they placed under the tuition of Dr Desmond Ford. Looking at the character and behaviour of those involved: It is ironic that those proclaiming perfectionism and were fighting against Righteousness by Faith and the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ seemed to be un-Christlike. Whereas Dr Desmond Ford remained a loving Christian gentleman. I am grateful that our church gave me the opportunity to study under Dr Ford and then be enlightened by the clarity of gospel and its implications. In reflection I am disappointed in myself that at times I judged others for not proclaiming a “Perfect Gospel”. It is good to hear about heroes like Jack Provonsha. There was also Duncan Eva who worked towards peace. Which other leaders do we need to uphold as heroes during a dark time of the Adventist church history?

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 16, 2016 at 5:12 pm
    Wow, Andre…….. 41 years after graduation, we meet again in a place like this. Who’dathunkit? Were you too ejected in the purges? Of course, so many of us ‘purgees’ have gone on to prove how correct they were to remove us (I speak only for myself of course). But this site is also a place where one can show that there is in truth, a better, a far more excellent way. If you’d like to get in touch, sfonov at hotmail. Cheers








    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:29 am

    What if the Bible is a Test-Problem, rather than an Answer-Book?? What if it takes Bible-Commentaries to properly approach the Bible as a Test-Problem?? I have suggested that reading Volumes 3, 4, and 6 (1 Chronicles to Malachi, and Acts to Ephesians) of the SDA Bible Commentary (straight-through, over and over) is an excellent place to begin a seemingly impossible task. What if Everyone Who is Anyone MUST First Become an Intelligence-Agent?? What if Spy v Spy is how things REALLY Work in this seemingly God-Forsaken World?? I mostly withdrew from this world. I smelled rats everywhere (right around the onset of puberty)!! It's a Rat-Race (and the Rats are Winning)!! What if most leaders are King and Queen Rats??!! What if that's simply the Way Things Are?? Once again, don't look to me for anything. I am more miserable and hamstrung than Job, and I don't see that changing for the rest of my life. My whole adult life has been this way. Honest. I HATE MY LIFE. BTW, I'm presently reading The Mythmaker by Hyam Maccoby, and I'm finding it very interesting. I recommend researching ALL Sides of ALL Issues. It's harder that way.

    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    http://atoday.org/glacier-view-a-retrospective/

    milton hook
    August 15, 2016 at 10:42 pm
    I lived through the controversies of the 1970s and 80s. I witnessed some influential church administrators and ministers exercise duplicity, treachery towards peers, immorality, egotism, hatred of gospel preachers, back-stabbing and hypocrisy. They reminded me of the Sanhedrin in Christ’s time. I felt very uncomfortable. I sensed an alien spirit. I avoided them and occupied myself with independent study. At the same time Des was accused of:

    1. Total rejection of Ellen White
    2. Antinomianism
    3. Being an advocate of the once-saved-always-saved theory
    4. Being duped by the theology of Professor F F Bruce
    5. Dishonesty
    6. Being a Jesuit
    7. Being in league with Brinsmead to bring down the SDA church
    8. Being an ignoramus or novice
    9. Not being a real Christian

    I have known Des for 55 years. All of these accusations are utterly false, perpetuated by a modern sanhedrin that often shows its hand in this thread. I understand why some in the church wish that the gospelers would exit via the back door. Precedent suggests that those who profess to be the “chosen race” and love to recite the law have often stoned the prophets. Hatred is a soul-destroying cannibal. But the gospel can rescue murderers like Saul/Paul and the grand larcenist on the Cross. Who knows, it may even extend to Judas who was utterly remorseful and apparently repented. Let’s not play God.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 6:03 am
    Thank you Milton. Beautiful and honest words from one who actually knows Des. We pray Father God forgive them for each troubled soul who take the gift of Life from God and them repay God by ignoring God’s command in Matthew 28:19,20 to take Good News to all who thirst and instead spend their energy casting stones at those obeying God’s call as Des continues to faithfully do in his 88th orbit of the sun.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 6:06 am
    Typos corrected: Thank you Milton. Beautiful and honest words from one who actually knows Des. We pray to our Father God, forgive them, for each troubled soul who takes the gift of Life from God, and then repays God by ignoring God’s command, in Matthew 28:19,20, to take Good News to all who thirst, and instead spend their energy casting stones at those, who are passionately obeying God’s gospel call, as Des continues to faithfully do, in his 88th orbit of the sun.

    Hansen
    August 15, 2016 at 11:31 pm
    Just to clarify something I posted somewhere, “God be merciful to me a sinner” is going to work better than “Bring it on” when my name comes up in judgment.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 16, 2016 at 1:58 am
    Amen! “God help me” and God be merciful to me a sinner” are two of my most frequent prayers.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 16, 2016 at 2:27 am
    Hansen, I think you’ve just provided a context into which this little-discussed (in these boards anyway) principle of Christianity can be mentioned. I think one of the reasons the IJ is such a heresy is because your name never comes up in any judgement after the first one, ie, the light of Christ himself. Simply because, ‘you’ are dead! You no longer live! It is not you! but Christ who lives in you. It is Christ in you the hope of glory. You have already appeared before the judgement seat of Christ, you have died with him, you have recevied the gift of his life and henceforth you no longer exist. To be sure, you die daily. You do not resurrect daily. Christ abides in you through the power of his endless life. If you feel or fear there is another judgement to which you will come, it is because you have not actually taken up your cross and died to your old self. This is why the IJ crowd are so trepidatious of the outcome. And why they need to gather so many comforters about themselves, hypnotised that they are not ready. Repetition of the words ‘get ready, get ready’ subconsciously translates to the mind as ‘woe is me, I’m not ready.’ The end result of such fearful unreadiness is SDAism. Let’s hope this assurance of Life in Christ as taught by Ford, and many since, will help to lift the ‘cloud of unknowing’ from the collective mind of Adventism. Bring THAT on!

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 16, 2016 at 4:30 am
    That first sentence is extremely obtuse/unclear/misleading. Let me try again. Your (Hansen/Serge/any committed Christian) name does not come up in the IJ, if there is such a thing. Because by this stage, that old ego which used ot be called Hansen/Serge/any true Xn does not exist. They are dead. See Rom 5. They have been confronted with teh Christ, stood before ‘teh judgement seat of teh personal Christ, been illumined by the Light which comes into the world, to judge the world. They recognise that in themselves they are dead. They take up their cross, surrendering their old man/egoic/selfish nature to its natural state – death. they recognise the need for this death as the due wages of sin. But in that surrender, they also accept the Gift of God… the Life of Christ. Henceforth, only Christ exists, in them. I am crucified with Christ…. I rise with Christ (here, in this so-called life). Christ lives, in me. This is the divine modus operadi of salvation. It happens Today. There is no fearful looking for a day of judgement for these believers. If there is an IJ, the only name of relevance to them which will come up is the name Christ. And we already know the outcome of that.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 5:54 am
    Serge, we Love you, but I would ask; why are you here? Understand we love your opinion (maybe less than we Love you); but are you the theologian or historian here to save us? Remember in the bigger picture we are a Body; from outside, to milk, to meat and in some cases back outside. You point out that satan is a great deceiver in intent above; should we not watch out for each other? In all honesty, do you not preach the approach of and as an individual; in many cases demanding, entitled and privileged? Expecting HIS Love and Gifts; without appreciation? Revelations 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. We know there will be no power in the second death for those that are chosen and belong to HIM; but you miss the whole part of belonging to HIM. To praise HIS Gifts and do HIS Works to start with and back is Love; for HIM.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 5:57 am
    If we are busy in HIS Works, we are toooo busy to have fear. If we have HIS Faith we know where we are going. If we have HIS Grace and Spirit we are in the comfort of his Loving Hands. Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. How do you work out your salvation in demand and privilege; instead of fear and trembling? 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. We know we will appear before HIS judgment seat, whether it be good or bad. Where do you and those like you ever persuade men, knowing the terror of the LORD? Where is your terror of the LORD? Again, does this not sound like a child, I am privileged, demanding and I am going to stomp my foot until I get to Heaven; wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 6:10 am
    1 Thessalonians 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. 12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; 13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves 14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. 15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. 16 Rejoice evermore. 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 19 Quench not the Spirit.
    20 Despise not prophesyings. 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We miss this, where did it go? What happened? 1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful…

    William Noel
    August 16, 2016 at 6:33 am
    Conviction, If we’re busy doing God’s works, our deeds speak more loudly than our mouths. Talking was the least of God’s instructions to us after a whole lot of doing. So, when are you going to start following His priorities?

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 7:29 am
    Mark 1:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. I follow HIS first priority; in Loving HIM with all my Love, all my soul, all my mind and all my strength, with nothing left, HE wants it all. HE provides back sufficient in Love, mind and strength then to help others in the Second Commandment. That is HIS priority. Where is your praise for HIM? How can you lead anyone to HIM without such? There is no gospel or path of William. You miss the First Commandment.

    William Noel
    August 16, 2016 at 7:51 am
    Conviction, Why do you demand of others what you appear unable to do yourself? Where is YOUR praise to God? All you do is cut-and-paste Bible texts with the apparent intent of condemning others for what you perceive as their sins and make wild exhortations about Him. But you never share anything praising God for how He is working in your life. So where is YOUR praise to God? Are you demanding from others what you are unable to do because He is not working in your life? That’s a big message in your words.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 8:27 am
    Are you blind? “I follow HIS first priority; in Loving HIM with all my Love, all my soul, all my mind and all my strength, with nothing left, HE wants it all.” While we are very humbled and gracious just to have our names written in the Book; you demand. While we are unworthy, incapable and useless we are humbled to be able to serve HIM; you demand and claim in privilege. While we Love the Scripture and the closeness it brings to HIM and us; you hate it and demand interpretation, because it does not fit in your own little self personal world. While we worship and reverence HIM; you assume to be HIM. While we are very thankful for HIS Gifts; you lay stake and claim on them. While we denied ourselves and took up our cross; you claim yourself and The Cross. While we are part of the Body; you seem unable to find the Body. While we Love; you have not figured out what Love is. While we found HIM, by loosing ourselves; you keep searching yourself. While we gave up the world; you latched on. While we gave up ourselves; you gave in. And yet you accuse us of making wild exhortations about HIM? We demanded nothing; but HE does. We only pointed it out to you. You serve no one but yourself; then blame everyone. We Love you.

    William Noel
    August 16, 2016 at 9:36 am
    Conviction, If you love someone, why do you persist in making such wild, blatantly false and continuous accusations against a person whom you have never met and about whom you know virtually nothing? How does attacking others draw anyone to Him?

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 9:45 am
    William, I am definitely not the best at helping you through this (or in anything); but I am here. I have never had the curse of privilege. I have always had to rely on HIM and know where everything comes from. I know those sent to help and know where they came from. HE provides everything. I am blessed and know where those blessing come from; I never had privilege of not knowing where they came from. HE has always told me to go do things and I always think how is this going to happen; but HE always makes a way. HE always send others to help and the things that are needed. I have never been able to rely on myself for or in anything; therefore I know I cannot do anything without HIM. I have never thought of or could look at myself as alone. I have always been a part of something else; HIM and others. Maybe someone else can explain better or give some help?

    William Noel
    August 16, 2016 at 10:45 am
    Conviction, Please explain how attacking others reflects the love of Christ to them. How does merely saying that you know where blessings come from praise God when you share nothing about what He has done? Apparently some of the people you so freely accuse of not knowing or obeying God have a bit more experience with HIM because they speak of HIM without accusing others. Unlike you, the people whom Jesus accused of disobeying HIM were those who were attacking HIM for loving sinners and drawing them into salvation.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 6:09 am
    Conviction it is time for you to follow Des’ example for us which I have closely observed Des to faithfully live in his life of being hard on himself and being easy on others. Judge not lest ye be …

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 11:15 am
    How is Loving you attacking you? HE does everything. You speak and offer yourself as everything; as we offer HE who is everything. You have no idea of what obedience is. That is not your parents fault; you did that all on your own. That is the worlds fault and the Church within the worlds fault; we take accountability and responsibility for both. You are not CHRIST; don’t ever think you are even close. Where is your reverence for HIM? Where is your love for HIM? Nowhere to be found. You can’t even say it; well less mean and do it.

    William Noel
    August 16, 2016 at 12:15 pm
    Conviction, You are not loving, you are just attacking. There are no examples in scripture of God attacking and accusing as you have been doing, so you are not behaving as HE does. When have I ever said that I thought of myself as “everything?” That’s another false accusation you have invented out of thin air. Where in scripture do you find the authority to accuse others of not knowing how to obey HIM? Perhaps you’ve forgotten Paul’s warning in Romans 2:1 where he wrote, “…you have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” Take a hint: if you want others to stop judging you, first stop accusing them. No, I’m not Christ and have never made any such claim, yet you dare to raise such a blasphemous accusation and expect others to be tolerant. So far as I know, you and I have never met, so where do you find evidence that I do not reverence HIM? Your persistence in accusing reminds me of Paul’s observation in Titus 1:12 where he said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes…” Are you a Cretan? You sure don’t sound like a Christian.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 1:32 pm
    Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. Did you not exalt your own self? Hey, without HIM I am a piece of trash and know it. Is that sufficient in authority? I do not pass judgement on anyone; HE does that. Romans 2:5 “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;” Romans 2:9 “8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,” We have Love, you have wrath and keep raising your head; but say nothing. Nothing for HIM? Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. I am worse than a Cretan without HIM; but I am a Christian with HIM. And you still cannot give HIM praise or reverence. You need to get yourself out of the picture William, before you lead you and others down a path you definitely do not wish to be. I give HIM all the praise, honor and glory; for without HIM I am nothing. Are you man enough to do the same?

    Art Berard
    August 16, 2016 at 11:38 am
    I like William Noel’s comment “If we’re busy doing God’s works, our deeds speak more loudly than our mouths.” During the years leading up to and following Glacier View I saw the results of actions against Dr. Ford, and for many people (including some of our family members and friends) those results were not good. In the the years to follow Glacier View Dr. Ford conducted himself as a Christian gentleman in his public life trying to bring others to Christ. “By their fruits” you’ll know them.

    Hansen
    August 17, 2016 at 3:32 am
    Art, I once discussed Dr. Ford’s gospel teachings with a nearly retired SDA pastor. “I don’t want his teachings around this church,” he said. “My niece listened to him and ran wild, got involved in immorality, caused a lot of problems.” Pastor, I said~, “The gospel didn’t make your niece immoral, you should know that.” He didn’t want Luther’s teachings [“Christian Liberty,” gospel sermons from Wittenberg] around his church either. Old time legalism worked for him. You can be as immoral as you like, just don’t act it out, or get caught if you do. Another old conference worker told me that people who felt the convincing power of the HS when listening to Dr. Ford were actually being deceived by rhetorical tricks he learned during his first Phd program. Strange, strange indeed. Your tithe $$$ at work.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 1:04 pm
    “If we’re busy doing God’s works, our deeds speak more loudly than our mouths.” Luke 2:49 “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” That is a great question without an answer. Are you doing GOD’s Work? Looks like you are here posting; yet saying nothing about the FATHER. Right now all we see is the authority of the Church being applied and the rebellious still complaining 35 years later. So the views that Des held were more important than all the rest of us? At least in your eyes? Maybe you hold a little bias of and in the teachings of your family? Was he not given the chance to change? What did you wish to change here; or was it just to interfere? Did he change? You seem to wish to stand for the underdog. Maybe if you step out of the way, HE can grow the underdog? Allowing others to learn from HIM; just as Des did from what you state. But you don’t want to seem to give them that chance.

    William Noel
    August 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm
    Conviction, Oh, so we have to say something about the FATHER to avoid being judged by you? Where in scripture do you find that requirement? Show us chapter and verse. But just to satisfy you: The FATHER loves me, so HE forgives me instead of hurling a never-ending stream of condemnations at me and others as you have been doing. What evidence do you have the I am standing in God’s way? You have no evidence, so you are a liar. What do Des Ford’s teachings have to do with your wild accusations? I did not say that I agreed with him, but that I owed him a debt of gratitude because he forced me to study as I had not before and to not just accept things as true because someone claimed that it was so. Had I continued in my old ways I might be agreeing with you instead of disputing your wild falsehoods.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 2:19 pm
    Luke 12:5 “But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” Yes the FATHER Loves you enough to forgive you. Yes HE Loves you enough to not hurl you into the abyss. Where is the fear and reverence in that? You do not own HIS Love, but HE does own your fear and respect. Hebrews 12:28 “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:” Evidence in absolute; you are your own witness. You demand the Kingdom, without meeting the requirements. But you are working in the right direction, in humility for HIS Gifts. Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. I did not state that you said anything about Des or his teachings. Not everything is about or for you. Did you wish to use Des and blame him as a scapegoat and stumbling block? After his removal? I don’t know how good of an excuse that might be? I don’t know if there will be any excuses; but in my opinion, I doubt it.

    William Noel
    August 16, 2016 at 3:59 pm
    Conviction, You accuse me of demanding the Kingdom without meeting the requirements? What evidence do you have of that? None, because you’re just throwing-out falsehoods because you neither know truth or respect others. Do you know anything about God’s gifts? Are you ministering in HIS power using the gifts of the Holy Spirit? I am. So I can tell you from my experience with the changes God has made in me that a person who makes such wild accusations as you’ve been throwing around without hesitation marks you not as a follower of God, but one who is under the control of Satan. Des Ford isn’t the issue here: it is you falsely accusing others while claiming to speak with the authority of God. That is the blasphemy that Jesus declared in Mark 3:29 would not be forgiven. Let’s see you get around that truth HE declared.

    Conviction
    August 16, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    And once again, no reverence or praise for HIM. You asked for the Scripture and it was quoted; for it is written. I never said Des’s gospel teachings were an issue at GV or here. I have no idea why you brought it up. You command the Holy Spirit and condemn us to blasphemy because we Love you; because I Love you? Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: For me to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit would be to blaspheme HIM. That would mean you are GOD?

    Hansen
    August 16, 2016 at 4:47 pm
    I was unaware that point 9 regarding justification was an issue at Glacier View. Gerhard Pfandl’s talk at the ATS meeting on RBF a few years ago specifically stated that Dr. Ford’s gospel teaching as not an issue at GV. It is entirely possible, even likely, that the real hatred for Dr. Ford was the result of his teaching on justification. It’s laughable to think that administrators really cared what EGW said about much of anything except tithing. Regardless of platitudes to the contrary, SDAs believe that people are saved by faith plus works i.e., commandment [Decalogue] keeping.

    Ervin Taylor
    August 16, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    Contrary to an initial reaction, may I now suggest that we should welcome the postings of Mr. S. and “Conviction” on the AT web site. Why? Despite the often strange and off-center approach to theological topics projected by these two individuals, what they post here allows the rest of us to gain some insights and appreciation of what the dominant ethos of Adventism in North America was like in the decades from about 1920 to 1950. For those interested in the history of Adventism, just reading their postings will allow an observer to realize how much has changed when we compare the statements of Mr. S and “Conviction” and contrast those postings with what is being posted by those representing a newly emerged 21st Century Neo-Adventism, a “big tent” Adventism which points toward the future.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 17, 2016 at 6:47 am
    “what they post here allows the rest of us to gain some insights and appreciation of what the dominant ethos of Adventism in North America was like in the decades from about 1920 to 1950”. Dr. Taylor, I remember the 1950s very clearly. And I have read many SDA writings from earlier times. I submit that you have unfairly represented the “dominant ethos” of Adventism from those decades. There certainly were demagogues then as there are now. And no doubt there were those who hurled vile epithets then as now. But such were not the majority, certainly not the “dominant ethos” as you claim. You seem to gloat over the interminable sparring between the “gladiators” representing the varying extremes of Adventism and ex-Adventism. None of these truly represent mainstream Adventism either today or in prior generations.

    Hansen
    August 17, 2016 at 1:10 am
    LOL, Erv, I was just thinking Bill S should be banned.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 17, 2016 at 12:10 pm
    “LOL, Erv, I was just thinking Bill S should be banned.” Of course, Glen. Then you could just go on giving yourselves massive affirmation in your false teaching, and everyone would be happy. Of course, Dr. Taylor is smart enough to know the forum is boring enough and only some real challenge to your false doctrine can stimulate some discussion. You all hope EGW taught “legalism” so you can justify your rejection of her ministry. But she never taught your false accusations and there is not a shred of evidence to support your false allegations. But of course you don’t care. You just go on and on in your delusion and hope you can “pull it off” in the end. NOT. More and more people will see the delusion Dr. Ford advocated, just like people eventually saw the error of John Calvin’s “unconditional election” as he also wrested the gospel from the bible and put his on convoluted idea of how it should be applied. Your errors won’t hold water for any honest bible student who can easily and clearly see there is a “judgment according to works” that will determine who is going to be saved, and who is not.

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 6:18 am
    Bill I believe an honest man like you would surely have discovered after all your wonderful years of study, that works are definitely a fruit, and never a root of salvation, unless like Jesus you have been perfect and without sin continuously since birth. Am I right about your discovery Brother William?

    William Noel
    August 18, 2016 at 10:34 am
    Yawei, You are SO right! I don’t do good works to be saved, but to reflect the amazing, incredible love of God that has worked in my life to save me and that continues working in me to keep on changing me and using me to spread His love to others. I have the blessing of leading a volunteer ministry at my church called the Angel Team. We focus on helping people with home-related challenges, both large and small. Over the 11 years I’ve been doing that ministry, I have seen God work in amazing ways and knowing that He has chosen to work through me to bless others is both humbling and fills me with amazement at such love. One great blessing I get from time to time is hearing someone praising God for the blessing they received through our ministry and even that they have gone from hating God to loving Him because of the love they were shown through our work. Along the way I have developed a close relationship with the Holy Spirit and there is such an intimacy there that I wish greatly for others to recognize the reality of the Holy Spirit, to let Him work in them to empower them and for the, to discover the ministry He has for them to do. If they do, I know we’ll need a whole lot of time in eternity to celebrate what we’ve seen God do. My friend, may the Lord continue blessing you richly!

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 5:09 am
    Yes, from HIS Words we know what will happen. Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. The big tent will be here soon enough; and we seem to want to fight to make sure that happens. “The gospel didn’t make your niece immoral, you should know that.”. Such a Truth, the Gospel does not preach immorality; but false prophets do. Lutheran doctrine did not preach liberty to sin, but liberty from sin; and to observe the commandments. I would say go pray your sins away; but that would determent our brothers who have grown past such; as we wax worse. A sad state in remnants of HIM.

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 5:36 am
    My wife and daughters, and in their vast network of friends and demonstrations within the Body, all plead the same. You make their jobs vastly more complicated and difficult. Why are the old paths so bad; when we are suppose to seek the old paths and things that work? If you lack the man parts to preach that sin is sin; how can you do anything but drive the nails in further? If you are unable to preach go and sin no more; how can you be like or representative of HIM? If your philosophies or derivations or ideologies do not meet these Simple Truths; how can they be of HIM? With the pouring out I have seen lately, you probably should expect to start hearing these things. I have seen many told lately get over it, grow up and help or get out of the way; and definitely not from Church leadership. You may hear it from your sons and daughters. As Erv states I am pretty old fashion in Stand and I hear it from many; including mine. Can you not grow a set and take care of the problem, or are you going to leave it for us to fix. Think about that one and the world you are leaving for them. maybe that will put things into the perspective of Love.

    William Noel
    August 17, 2016 at 5:53 am
    Conviction, You have reverted once again to your habitually obtuse and wildly general screeds against anything and everything you imagine is wrong while giving us nothing specific to which we can respond. If, as you seem to imagine, you are some sort of prophet whom God has sent to call the church to repentance, how are we to know how to respond when you talk about “old ways?” What are the “old ways” of which you speak? Whom do you accuse of not calling on people to “go and sin no more?” How are they not doing it? What evidence do you have that our “philosophies or deriviations or ideologies do not mee these Simple Truths?” What are the “Simple Truths” of which you speak? Don’t just talk about them, give us specifics. My experience has been that when someone comes into the church who speaks as you do, that trouble quickly abounds because it is not the spirit of God that has arrived, but of demons who are sowing discord in the Body of Christ and a church that was once thriving and growing in God’s love soon is splintered and dying. Sometimes that person was just seriously mentally ill, but on two occasions there were possessed by demons. While I hope neither is your condition, you leave me few other possible conclusions.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 17, 2016 at 6:31 am
    “If you lack the man parts to preach that sin is sin; how can you do anything but drive the nails in further?” Seriously “Conviction”, do you really envision Jesus Christ or Ellen White addressing even the vilest sinners in such a manner? Do you really believe that your own wife and daughters would approve of such trash talk? “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.” “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.”

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 7:32 am
    Isaiah 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. 9 Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless daughters; give ear unto my speech. 10 Many days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women: for the vintage shall fail, the gathering shall not come. 11 Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins. They are told to rise. We gave them no option. You seem to support some when you want without justification; but not support others in justification? Then plead justification in your forbearance of Love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness or self-control? Is that not the Simple Truth.

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 6:50 am
    And once again, no reverence for HIM. I cannot do everything for that, some things HE expects from you. But I give our FATHER praise and thanks for looking down and remembering us unworthy. And once again, Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. From remembrance, and once again, the Word on seeking the old ways. Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. William, are you the problem? Do you reverence HIM to even begin wisdom? Search HIS Word for HIM; not you? It is easy to send others down the wide gate; but we know where that leads. But do you not interfere with those attempting to guided them to the narrow gate; that few will find (Matthew 7)? Then do you promote those ideologies to others; only making it more difficult for everyone else? Questions to think about. Us mentally ill, discord sowing and demon possessed (by your definitions) servants Love you. We think there is much potential; prove us right. HIS reverence and Word are a good place to start. Not just thanking HIM for the Gifts given you; but real reverence. Not searching the Word for you; but actually seeking HIM and answers. Then you would know who those, that tell you otherwise represent.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 17, 2016 at 7:09 am
    Conviction, whomever you are, anonymous to God also, I speculate (in jest), you say: “Why are the old paths so bad; when we are supposed to seek the old paths and things that work?” They old ways are defunct and you don’t seem to know it. Why are the lemmings leaving? The old ways don’t work. Let’s review the reasons. Overall, old Adventism is self-absorbed in a sound proof chamber without windows. Prophetical Adventism was DOA. The prophecies weren’t really prophecies. The interpreters and proponents were totally wrong. Christ hasn’t returned. The “signs of the times” have been the same for thousands of years. Ellen was a decent person but not a good or unique” prophet. There is no persecution by the “papacy” for Sabbath keeping and none on the infinite horizon. The Sabbath was meant for Israelites. Three angels message is a template pasted over meaninglessness. If Adventists were a “chosen” people by God (actually, a face saving, self-promotion proclamation), he was a bum that them down. Adventist schools are fizzling as brainwashers and guardians of the young. Just to name a few etched tombstone eulogies. Neo-Adventism survives because it has abandoned its past disasters. It is developing a new reason to exist in the future. The old paths don’t work, blocked by irremovable debris. C???????ion the good old days have left you in the dustbin of Adventism. Grieve bravely. Where grief abounds, so does weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth! RIP!

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 7:44 am
    You forget one thing maybe Bugs; HIM?

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 17, 2016 at 8:57 am
    C???????ion. Sorry, nothing to forget! Who Him, not you? Anyway, you failed to answer my assertions, which is normal for people who can’t defend intellectually or honestly the insolvency of old Adventism! The “Him” whom I assume you are referencing (not yourself) had nothing to do with Adventism, now or then, I proposed. Why do you insist on retreating to discredited teachings and doctrines as if that is the hope for the reclamation of Adventism? The past is the Wailing Wall of Adventism. Perhaps better said as the WFofA “Wailing Foundations of Adventism!”

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 9:24 am
    So you are judge, jury and executioner; of all within your own created classifications? No i am not HE; neither does HE fit in your little pocket. The Denomination is growing faster than ever; yet we are failing. Actually in areas; I will give you that. But is that not your fault and motive? Do you have another Denomination you should be worrying about; or do you just wish to tear others down? Hopefully you do not wish to tear HIM down; or think that you no longer need HIM. I did not answer your question; because it was not a question. You pose your own answers. Which discredited teachings and Doctrines do you refer to? Or do you just wish to pose more of your own answers? Come on Bugs, we Love you.

    Stephen Foster
    August 18, 2016 at 3:49 pm
    Ah, my man Bugs is at it again; scoffing away in the prophetic spirit of 2 Peter 3:4. Bugs, do you suppose that since, in your view, everything has pretty much remained “the same for thousands of years” (as in verse 4), are things likely to continue as they are for another thousand years; or do you suppose that things will actually get better? Do you believe that “the Lord is [actually] slack concerning his promise” to return; or is it perhaps possible that He is actually “unwilling that any should perish…”? Given what we are witnessing in the world from day to day, it would appear that it is you who lives in a private echo chamber (…as a result of a traumatized history perhaps). In all seriousness, if you can’t see that the world is a significantly more dangerous place than it was even in your own traumatic youth; then you might consider paying closer attention. I’m just sayin’…

    William Noel
    August 17, 2016 at 8:21 am
    Conviction, “Who is this that darkens my counsel by words without knowledge?” Job 38:2 How, exactly, do you measure reverence for HIM? Or, the failure to do so? Tell us so we will know what you are talking about. How do you measure wisdom? Who authorized you to measure others and condemn those who fall short in your view? On what basis do you charge that others are not studying HIS WORD? For your information, I do search HIS WORD and what I find there is a very different God than you seem to be imagining. HE does not make wild accusations against me or allow me to make such charges against others. Where do you find God authorizing you to treat others with such gross disrespect? Remember, you don’t know me. So, on what basis do you make your claims? Apparently you have forgotten the admonition of Paul in Romans, chapter 2 about you accusing others when you are doing the same things. Is that not a truth simple enough for you to understand? Yet you persist in accusing without detailing the basis for your accusations. Is that not clear evidence of dementia?

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 9:15 am
    Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? Who was it that did all these things? That is the measure of reverence. Wisdom comes from HIM and based on the first question. If you search the Word; why do you not find? I do not judge your Soul as in Romans 2; I actually have Hope and state you have a lot of potential. This actually leans toward judging as good; which is just as bad. Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. Am I not to point out the stumblingblocks that others have placed in your way; even in Love? Is absolute privilege of entitlement not to wait until last breath? But is that also not absolute in HIS Love? Should we be jealous or ecstatic with Love for those that find HIM; no matter when?

    William Noel
    August 17, 2016 at 10:51 am
    Conviction, How curious it is that you would quote Romans 14:13 about not judging when you’re the one doing all the judging of others! Apparently you are unable to answer simple questions. But since you persist in heaping accusations, I will add more questions that I doubt you will be capable of answering. What is “privilege of entitlement?” What “stumbling blocks that others have placed in your way” are you imagining when you know nothing about the people you accuse? How long will you persist in blaspheming against HIS followers?
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:33 am

    One of the videos in the previous-post accused Adventists of "Speculative-Eschatology". I have come to the conclusion that considering Past, Future, and the Otherworldly are unavoidably "Speculative" (to various degrees). Even consideration of the Present must often be somewhat speculative!! One simply MUST be honest about this!! I have attempted to lighten things up by combining Theology with Science-Fiction (and NOT making a big-deal about it)!! What if the Conflict of the Ages Series is fundamentally Plagiarized Historical-Fiction??!! Should it still be diligently studied?? I think so!! But not as "Another Bible"!! Use "Common-Sense" for God's-Sake!!

    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    http://atoday.org/glacier-view-a-retrospective/

    elenne ford
    August 17, 2016 at 12:53 pm
    After days of grieving about many of the comments here I feel compelled to offer some facts/evidence about Desmond Ford, my father, with whom I have had the great privilege of being in close contact for nearly 61 years. I will do so over the course of a number of posts given the word limit here: • I had the opportunity to observe his sub-conscious mind when he was delirious earlier this year. There was a calmness about him as he talked in his delirium – there was no agitation or distress evident. While we couldn’t understand many of his words, I heard him talking about family and friends saying phrases such as “Thank you Peter for picking me up.” “I am sorry to have kept you waiting.” “Jenni is such a lovely lady.” “Peter, its very good of you to go out of your way”. “Thank you very much”. “Thank you so much for coming.” I too recall the words Gill reported – particularly “lovely” that he said a number of times. • His demeanor in delirium was consistent with his conscious response to any and all adversity, “It’s in the Lord’s hands”. • All of my life I have observed his gracious attitude to everyone. Instead of criticizing people he says things such as “they mean well” or “the Lord died for him/her” or “the Lord loves them and so should we” or “he/she hasn’t had the benefit of reading widely on that topic” (see my next post for more)

    Yawei
    August 18, 2016 at 7:18 am
    Amen Elenne!!! Des continuously has a gracious attitude to everyone. Des does not criticise but has a generous Christ like spirit present in his words you quote Des responds with: “they mean well”, “the Lord died for him/her”, “the Lord loves them and so should we”, “he/she hasn’t had the benefit of reading widely on that topic”. What a beautiful Christ like spirit Des has been blessed with and invites us all to receive as Des continually focusses on Jesus and what is good and lovely and pure and honest and true! Thank you for keeping the 5th Commandment Ellene!!!

    elenne ford
    August 17, 2016 at 12:54 pm
    • When I was a rebellious teenager, I said to him one day, in frustration at not being able to goad him, “How come you are so perfect?” He said “How can you say that, I have so many faults.” I said “Name one then”. He said, “I am so impatient”. I said, “That’s a joke”. To me he had exhibited endless patience as I was always questioning him, challenging him, pushing his buttons and grieving him. Yet his responses always exhibited patience and love – he never lost his temper or raised his voice. • My father is someone who is quick to apologise and say “I was wrong, you were right about that”. Is this a characteristic of a proud person? • My father has a very tender conscience. When he was young student and very poor his older brother gave him his old army boots. My father was concerned that it may not have been right for him to accept them and sought counsel from a faculty member who assured my father that they were no longer government property and added “blessed is he who has a tender conscience”. (see my next post for more)

    elenne ford
    August 17, 2016 at 12:54 pm
    • When I was born my father named me Ellen after Ellen G White – a woman he has always held in the highest esteem and whose writings continue to influence his life and speaking today. Changing my name when I was young and rebellious was only one of many insults he has had to endure. Just this year I asked him a question as we travelled by train together. His answer was to quote verbatim from EG White on the issue. He has always viewed her as a pastor, not someone who is infallible. • After more than 27 years as a trial attorney in private practice I have learned a lot about people and authenticity. My father is someone who is the same publicly as he is in private and when under duress. I have observed him under enormous stress of my mother dying. He would lie awake night after night listening to whether she was still breathing, yet still kept up all of his teaching/preaching commitments while cooking and caring for us kids. There was a calm assurance about him that God was in control. He even kept his sense of humor and high level care for us. I was sick one day during this time and told him that all I felt like eating was a cucumber. He rode his bicycle for miles searching for the truck that was our mobile greengrocer and came home with 2 small cucumbers. (see my next post for more)

    elenne ford
    August 17, 2016 at 12:55 pm
    • When I left the Lord to follow my own desires it was God’s Spirit working through my father who led me back. Who my father is as a person, more than anything he said, made me realize there must be a God. He never nagged me, just grieved and prayed. Then when the time was right he gave me a new Bible and asked me if I would read it, for his sake, – just five minutes a day. That began my slow, rebellious journey back to God. One childhood memory stood out during that time. When I was about nine my mother asked me to sweep the kitchen floor and I told her to do it herself. I was sent to my father’s office where my father told me how much it grieved him when I spoke to my mother that way. I remember my sarcastic response of “haw, haw”. He said that instead of punishing me I was to punish him and he held out his hand for me to spank. My proud, rebellious heart immediately dissolved into tears as I said I could never do that. Yet he insisted and, for what seemed a very long time, he just sat there silently waiting, with his hand open. He had to settle, in the end, for me just placing my hand on his hand. He incarnated Christ to me. (see my next post for more)

    Jim Hamstra
    August 18, 2016 at 2:32 pm
    Elenne, I am very glad that you came back to God. Far too many of my fellow PKs (or whatever you call children of pastors) leave and never come back. Every human who will be saved in God’s Kingdom, is a former rebel who came back to God.

    elenne ford
    August 17, 2016 at 12:56 pm
    Whatever one might think of his theology, I can see by his sanctified life that his faith in Jesus is real. On that basis alone there is no condemnation of him by God as the blood of Jesus Christ has cleansed him from every sin. I know he will be in heaven along with many who found Jesus because of his witness. As you and he are beloved children of God how then should you speak of him?

    William Noel
    August 18, 2016 at 5:58 am
    Elenne, By the character of his life that you described, I think we have a great example of how a person’s love for God can be so superior to their particular allegiance to an imperfect human creed that their faith survives the trials that come when they are attacked over some difference with that creed. How I wish that those who have been so critical could instead be as committed to Christ instead of creed!

    elenne ford
    August 17, 2016 at 1:15 pm
    Adapted from New Living Translation of Galatians 5:5,6 “But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive everything promised to us who are right with God through faith. For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, it makes no difference to God whether we are circumcised or not circumcised [or believe in the IJ or not]. What is important is faith expressing itself in love.”

    Bill Sorensen
    August 17, 2016 at 3:09 pm
    “Whatever one might think of his theology,…….” elenne, this whole discussion is about your dad’s person. It is not about EGW as a person. It is not about John Calvin, or the Pope, or “how nice” anyone is or was, or their private personal experience with Christ. Many “good” and viable Christians have held various false doctrines. So it is commendable that you give a sterling testimony about your father’s personal experience. But this simply not the issue. I don’t think he every attack EGW personally, nor deny her Christian experience as a Christian. His attack on EGW was her doctrine of the Investigative judgment and claimed it was a system of legalism. Even so, I impute ignorance to him on this issue. Even though he could not produce a single thread of evidence to support his false claim. If people have understood the Investigative judgment as a judgment to determine who has merited heaven and who has not, this is not EGW’s fault. It is no part of her doctrine and any honest evaluation of her teaching will prove such a charge as being totally false. God will judge your dad, just like He will judge John Calvin. But we need not bypass false doctrine on the basis that someone was a “nice Christian” and should not be challenged by what they teach. Hopefully, you and others will discern the difference and not automatically assume we know what your father’s final relationship is, or will be as we all must “stand before the judgment seat…

    Hansen
    August 17, 2016 at 4:11 pm
    Elenne, A lot of people appreciate your Father’s work. His writings are being spread around the world.

    Elaine Nelson
    August 17, 2016 at 2:50 pm
    Elenne, Thank you so much for your very personal experience as Des’ daughter. This has always been my impression of him after hearing him speak a number of times, but you have triply confirmed that impression. How can anyone so denigrate a man who loved His God, who loved people, and had ultimate patience–shown with the Church administration who castigated him so relentlessly. Those who criticize him should be very ashamed of their words and if nothing else, keep silent about those thoughts you have so frequently verbalized. Thanks again. Ellene.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 17, 2016 at 3:16 pm
    “How can anyone so denigrate a man who loved His God, who loved people, and had ultimate patience–shown with the Church administration who castigated him so relentlessly.” And Roman Catholics can and do say the same thing about those who attack the Pope who is “Mr. Nice Guy” personified in all the world. Without claiming a precise parallel, no one can be “Mr. Nice Guy” more than the devil when it suits his purpose. Massive doses of affirmation on any level can give a feeling of assurance that is not well placed. And create a condescending attitude that is anything but “Christian.”

    Elaine Nelson
    August 17, 2016 at 2:52 pm
    Correction: “keep silent about those thoughts THEY have so frequently verbalized. They know who they are!

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 3:56 pm
    Through this we miss the perfection. Luke 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. The same perfection that applies to all of us. Sometimes we make that much more difficult for HIM than it should be. We can hope and pray, but neither can nor should we judge; that belongs to HIM, good and bad. 17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. 18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have. We can not judge, but can talk about perfection. Are we not the sum of HIS works on us when HE takes us. Would we want to even think about changing that? Does HE not grow us in discipline and through multitudes of Gifts and Love along the way? Are such not the result of the end product; us? AS such do we not complain about those things that make us, us; in the end? Are we then not complaining about HIM growing us?

    Conviction
    August 17, 2016 at 4:07 pm
    Elènne, these are the things that made your dad, your dad. Would you want to change any of them? Does HE not send us what we need, even if it may not be what we want or even understand? Is that not the Truth of Love?

    milton hook
    August 17, 2016 at 7:40 pm
    Erv, like you I have mused about the value of retaining Bill S and Conviction. There is no automatic tag such as “Neolithic” or “Neaderthal” that appears on their comments. New readers and especially non-SDAs that happen upon the site are left with the impression that this level of discussion is normative among SDAs. I cringe in shame when I think of it. Furthermore, on this thread alone there are about 70 posts by these two men. In my opinion that number is disproportionate to the value of their comments. Generally speaking they ignore questions and persist with their own agenda. “Conviction” does not express himself/herself concisely and quotes scripture at length as if we don’t have Bibles of our own. Bill S tries to redefine words, tries to change the direction of the discussion and when pushed into a corner he pulls his ace card by saying, “Well, if you don’t believe my view and the view of the church then get out.” Who appointed him as the arbiter of sound doctrine and the judge and jury of every church board? Local churches do the acceptance and rejection of members, not Bill S. I think you are correct when you say their very words expose the era of their Adventist vintage. But how much is too much before it becomes intolerable for the Atoday Board? At what point do you decide that the venom and ignorance is harmful to the credibility of Atoday? Why give them press coverage? Does it attract or repel readers? Are they intent on destroying Atoday?

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 17, 2016 at 8:10 pm
    Erv, Milton, I, to have been reluctant to even consider a change in policy, til now. Conviction highlights the issue. He bears the hallmarks of an internet ‘troll.’ Not sure if that is the best word for it, but trolls, I think, have one primary aim… disruption. And even if this is not C’s aim, it is the effect. He carpet bombs with texts which may or may not be related to what he is saying in his incomprehensible style. I no longer try to read his offerings. As William Noel is finding out, a rational discussion with C is impossible. AT would not notice if C were to no longer post. Bill S is a different category, imho. He does occasionally engage. And the other day, he was even reasonable with it. Back to his wicked ways today tho. Seems Ford, or those close to him, really touch a raw nerve in old Bill. It could be argued that ex Adventists like myself should not be allowed to post here. When I first got involved, over ten years ago, it seemed to be all ex Addies here. Then there was a purge and it became more mainstream. But far from middle of Adventist road. I admit, I no longer identify with the A part of AT. But I am big on the T. and in ‘Today if yoiu hear His voice….’ (Today is forever the only day that matters. There is no past and no future in the ‘eternal’ realm). Here’s a suggestion: A ‘good faith’ test. 1. Poster uses their own name. 2. They ‘engage with’ the topic or the discussion. 3. No ‘text bombing.’

    Conviction
    August 18, 2016 at 3:28 am
    Let’s take away Caesar and all of the requirements of charity, religion and rights for bit. First we have the authority of the Body of CHRIST, in which the Denomination resides. Is this questioned? The Denomination has such Doctrine as it may choose within the assembled Body. That Body has asked the individual members to stand up for such Doctrine and even assigns those responsibilities with Doctrine. Is this questioned? Would this not then define the intent within the concepts of troller and trollee? Should everyone not search the intent to build up or tear down as such? The BIBLE is the Denominations only Creed; yet I hear constant complaints. How do you live by bread alone? How do you discern the intent of your own hearts? Should we not; HE will? Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”. We Love everyone; but is your intent to search or to build up? By and on what ground would you stand or pool otherwise? If you have issues, do you note them. In such, if you have questions do you ask them? Better, if you have answers do you state them? Otherwise this does just become T, instead of AT. Eternity is inclusive of today, but today is not eternity. But we definitely need to live for today, for tomorrow we may die; and be in front of HIM.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 18, 2016 at 4:56 pm
    C, if you have a problem with ‘just become T,’ read what Hebrews 3 & 4 say about T.

    Conviction
    August 18, 2016 at 6:57 pm
    We can actually state it, for it is written: Hebrews 3 (Psalms 95): 7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, 8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. 11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Will you hear his voice or do you listen to others? Do you err in your heart? Do you know HIS ways? Do you tempt HIM, while proving HIM and seeing HIS works? Do you exalt HIM or others? 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; 15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? Will you not be deceived by sin, daily?

    Conviction
    August 18, 2016 at 7:11 pm
    Hebrews 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. Did he give them rest in verse 8?

    Conviction
    August 18, 2016 at 7:33 pm
    Hebrews 4 (cont.): 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. We live in the To day. We should not harden our hearts, To day; or if he allows tomorrow. But do realize these are our individual requirements. Are we not suppose to at least strive be like HIM; without sin? CHRIST felt our infirmities; all of ours. Are they infirmities when we dig our own hole? Are they infirmities when HE disciplines us? Do we not often attempt to interfere in these many cases? How about the past now; if we should live in the To day. Does the past, in results of our failure and HIS discipline, not make us what we are To day? Is that not how we grow and perfects us as we begin to understand (IJ)? Why are we going into the past?

    Ervin Taylor
    August 18, 2016 at 9:43 am
    I just wanted to assure Milton, Serge and other interested parties, that a proposal will be pending with the AT administration very soon to deal with the issues they and others have raised. From my perspective, we need to balance the AT ideal of open and free expression of ideas with reasonable guidelines that deal with major problems with comments and postings that do not contribute to the quality of the discussion of issues. Stay tuned.

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 18, 2016 at 1:32 pm
    When I was an SDA minister a sample of the characters under question here were virtually always part of my congregation. In those days I was a-toe-the-mark SDA minister, but still these characters vexed me in many ways, usually charging that I wasn’t tough enough, didn’t preach Ellen and fire and brimstone nearly enough. The Brinsmead and Ford issues revolved mostly outside my sphere, hadn’t peaked before I left. I do recall preaching one sermon on the issues after which slumbering parishners, having snoozed even through closing song, on being prodded awake by ushers, uttered “Huh?” I would vote against censoring (not that I have a ballot and not because I may be on the cusp by some quirk, myself!) since the characters under question provide some entertainment as loony samples of how to work the fringes of sane discourse. I doubt any accidental visitors are traumatized when landing here. I doubt they come to view Adventism to be permanently corrupted particularly with so many of us fine contributors clearly, expressing with the finest of scholarship and reason, completely overshadowing all the weird contributors! It’s all OK, here is the proper Key Text: Bugs 1:1 Judge not the lunatic fringe, lest ye be known as a member by devising Key Texts which is zero times worse than coping and pasting them everywhere. Opps. Hammy, I could use some math help here!

    Jim Hamstra
    August 18, 2016 at 2:23 pm
    “Hammy, I could use some math help here!” We all need help in various ways. But few of us are actually willing to accept help. Do you really want my help, Bugs-Larry 8-)?

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 19, 2016 at 6:47 am
    Yes, Jim, splain the effect of zero x a number. You are a math guy, being an engineer and all that. This is actually my teesny attempt at levity while visiting the judgment bar of these rascal defendants. They have been indicted on this forum for their perceived religious autism by us who are sure we aren’t so afflicted. I have spent about forty five years analyzing Adventism and Christianity and my determinations have much “help” to offer. So I can participate on a two-way street! Theology is my game, my expertise. Math not so much, though I do know the effect of zero. So, I am open to help that is given and received but doubt there is applicable one-way efficacy for either of us : ————(

    Jim Hamstra
    August 18, 2016 at 2:05 pm
    Dr Taylor, et al: While I certainly do not agree with some of the things written here by Conviction and Bill S, I would urge considerable caution in whatever attempts are made to “mute” or “attenuate” their voices on this web site. I also do not agree with much of what is written from the “ditch on the left side of the road” either. I do think there needs to be a more strenuous attempt to discourage the personal attacks that some seem to indulge in here. Though it may be convenient to blame all this on “traditional” Adventists, if you read carefully, some of the comments from other quarters also cross-over the line. Unkind words couched in humor or sarcasm are still unkind words. We may not be able to agree on what constitutes Adventist Today or Adventist Yesterday or whatever, but we should at least agree on the Golden Rule.

    Conviction
    August 18, 2016 at 7:59 pm
    Don’t be tooo hard on the Erv. They can call me Neolithic or Neaderthal or troll or pond scum if they want and I am sure Bill agrees; we Love them. I don’t think there was any conspiracy or collusion here. If there was (or intent) I don’t feel discriminated against and hope Bill feels the same way. Hey, call us young; then we are not stuck in the vintage of age discrimination. I don’t know how you address the elder parts of the BIBLE though. Many do not have BIBLES or dexterity to look up Scriptures, so I quote them. We seem to pass out a lot of literature and doctrine but not the BIBLE; our only Creed. I think even Des would agree; give them a BIBLE, GOD’s Doctrine, and let them make their own decision after that. Otherwise we only discriminate against the Word and could easily become pusher of self addictions. I would still content that they contribute to the quality of the discussion of issues. Is it not our responsibility as Christians to help those questioning and searching; even above the Denomination? I would contend they have the Religious Freedom to ask.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 18, 2016 at 10:45 am
    Bill S. Only God knows the truth you claim to know about Dr. Ford. Are you claiming to be God?? Your criticism of Dr. Ford, and those who say “Bring them in. Bring the wandering ones to Jesus”, the Big Tent people, will surely come back to haunt you.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 18, 2016 at 3:00 pm
    ” Your criticism of Dr. Ford,…….” Blah blah blah……Earl. I attack Dr. Ford’s false doctrine. I met him a few times and attend his church in Auburn a few times. I listened to his tapes and read his literature. He teaches false doctrine, period. He is not “Luther” who attack the RCC. He is a parallel to Korah who attack Moses. And like Korah, he gets massive doses of affirmation from the ignorant and uninformed who “Worship, they know not what.” As for posting on Atoday, I don’t into someone’s house who asks me not to come back. If and when the “powers that be” send me an e-mail and ask me not to post, believe me, I won’t. You all get together and pat each other on your spiritual butt and tell each other how “spiritually enlightened” you are. You attack the law of God on every level and at least some of you freely confess you are not even SDA. (Bless your heart, you are far more honest than those who hang around and attack the church and demand the right to remain members.) I agree on some level with your complaint about “Conviction” who has no identity. Atoday did not invite me to post. But neither did they tell me not to. If all you “cry babies” can convince them to ban me, that’s OK. Fulcrum block my posting because I opposed their legalism and the false doctrine of the LGT. And I agree they have the same right as the authority of Atoday. I don’t actually spend that much time here. I will continue to oppose your false…

    Jim Hamstra
    August 18, 2016 at 2:16 pm
    Ellene, At my father’s funeral I read the following from Daniel: “Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” While I do not agree with everything your father has said or written, I disagree even more strongly with those commenters here who feel a need to trash on his motives or character because they disagree with some of his teachings. If God only used people who were perfect in all their knowledge and actions, every human being would be disqualified. Your father has led many to righteousness, and in the last day he will stand with Daniel, Luther, Calvin, Miller, White and many others. All imperfect in knowledge and actions, but all used by God as God saw fit. May you and I stand there with them!

    Jim Hamstra
    August 18, 2016 at 2:28 pm
    Apologies form my spelling, Elenne 8-(.

    Stephen Foster
    August 18, 2016 at 4:44 pm
    I’m wondering if the way that some of us conservative SDA’s approach the IJ is acceptable to others like Bill Sorensen. The way I see it, there is nothing that I can do to affect the timing of what has happened or what will happen in heaven insofar as where Christ is or is not; so I cannot concern myself with that about which I have no control. But if Jesus is my Advocate and my Judge, then all I have to do in order to be acquitted in any Judgment is to retain the services of the Advocate; in which case I cannot lose. So then, why shouldn’t my ONLY concern be about what it takes for me to retain the services of the Advocate?

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 19, 2016 at 5:50 am
    Stephen……… welcome back. I hope you were having a nice summer holiday. Can I ask you this. What is the point or value of a metaphor which is inherently illogical? It seems popular to present the IJ as if it were akin to a modern western style court. There is a judge, and counsel for and against the prisoner or plaintiff, depending on you preferred style of metaphor. Or maybe the picture is limited to one where there is Judge and prisoner with his Advocate alone. But in that picture, teh ‘accuser of the brethren’ is left out. But in your post, and I think Darrell’s, the picture is one where Jesus is represented as both Judge and Advocate simultaneously. I simply does not compute. In the EGW GC version, Jesus stands as Advocate representing us prisoners/plaintiffs, and pleading that Father God, teh Judge, does not destroy us. Until close of probation, when Jesus ceases to be interceding priest (is that the same as Advocate?). But suddenly, he cast off hte priestly role and puts on his robes of vengeance! Seriously? Loving priest one second, Vengeful destroyer the next. What kind of religious schizophrenia produces images/metaphors like this? But in all that, please tell me how Jesus can be both Judge and Advocate at the same time? That is worse than a joke. Its an insult to God and rational man. And you wonder why people who read the NT have trouble with this version of the IJ.

    darrellindensmith
    August 19, 2016 at 8:32 am
    John 5:22-25 “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father” “He has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” 1 John 2:1-2 “But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

    Stephen Foster
    August 19, 2016 at 9:29 am
    Thanks Serge for the welcome back and for the well wishes. I am having the exact opposite of “a nice summer holiday;” but God is good anyway. I hope that Darrell’s response answers your question as to how Christ can be both Advocate and Judge. It is the precise answer that I would have hoped to have provided; so if you were/are looking for another answer, you will have to get it from someone else. I should thank Darrell for the response. Thanks Darrell.

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 19, 2016 at 4:09 pm
    “Sounds like you’ve been a bit crook, mate” as we say in Aus. Yes, we definitely wish you well. Regarding, the Advocate. My point was that its a difficult concept to fit into our western, investigative style of courtroom scene. One person performing two critical roles. Best get rid of a ‘junk’ metaphor like that. And if you want to see how bad it gets, Read Ms2, 1849. Darrell, I’m surprised you didnt mention the word for Advocate. Its Paraklete. Used 5 times in NT, all by John. The other 4 are found in John 14, 15, 16. All translated Comforter. Which is not an ideal word either. Some translators leave it at Paraklete. The word ‘with’ should be mentioned. ‘pros’ The typical SDA idea is that Jesus/Advocate is there to try to convince ‘angry God’ of something, in particular, to not destroy us humans. Its a revival of the angry pre-flood God. But the NT has ‘God IN Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.’ Which is where ‘pros’ comes in. See John 1…. ‘ and the Word was with/pros God, and the Word was God.’ Again, doesn’t fit with the courtroom metaphor.

    darrellindensmith
    August 19, 2016 at 5:00 pm
    Hi Serge, yes you are right; pa?a´???t?? is the word used in 1 John 2:1 as well as John 14. The root meaning is one who comes to the aid. As in English and probably every other language, the contest that a word is used in determines the nuance. In 1 John 1:2 Tyndale actually chose a very good fit. pa?a´???t?? is used in just this sense in Greek Literature. Albert Barnes “As usual here with reference to the Lord Jesus, it is employed in the more limited sense of the word “advocate,” as the word is frequently used in the Greek writers to denote an advocate in court;”

    darrellindensmith
    August 19, 2016 at 5:04 pm
    I don’t see a conflict since Christ and God are the same. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself

    darrellindensmith
    August 18, 2016 at 7:04 pm
    Stephen, I agree with you here: “But if Jesus is my Advocate and my Judge, then all I have to do in order to be acquitted in any Judgment is to retain the services of the Advocate;” The problem for many is the thought we must come to the place where we don’t need to “retain the services of our Advocate.” Example: “…Those who are living on the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil…” Ellen White, SDA Commentary, Vol. VI, p. 1118. Review and Herald, Sept. 27, 1906. SDA Commentary, Vol. V, p.1128; ibid, Vol 7, p. 943. Review and Herald, Aug. 28, 1894. Review and Herald, Sept. 25, 1900. The Great Controversy, p. 425

    Stephen Foster
    August 19, 2016 at 3:03 am
    You make a good point Darrell, and you have hit upon the problem that literally vexes those who are opposed to the traditional Adventist IJ doctrine. It vexes them because it frightens and even traumatizes them; and understandably so. The EGW quote you reference and the concept of last generation perfection is frightening, and is problematic from a theological perspective; because it seems like we are the guarantors of our of salvation at the time of Revelation 22:11-15. The truth is that we’re never the guarantors of our salvation; but that God’s grace saves and empowers us; even at the end of time. The ironic thing is that the fear of living without a mediator simultaneously exposes the fearful as believers in the advent concept and as disbelievers in the power of grace, or the empowering aspect of grace. In some cases it traumatizes people away from a theoretical belief altogether. I’ve heard Desmond Ford interviewed, and now after reading first-hand testimony from his offspring, I see why I have always been hesitant to condemn him, or to even say with confidence that he is wrong about the IJ. Frankly, from my perspective, if he had regarded EGW with disdain, then I would have been prone to disregard him; but that has never been the case as far as I have heard and read. Ford may be right, he may be wrong, and he may be partially right and partially wrong; but if I have faith in Jesus as my Savior then I don’t believe it is necessary to know whether Ford is…

    Stephen Foster
    August 19, 2016 at 3:22 am
    …right or wrong.

    darrellindensmith
    August 18, 2016 at 7:17 pm
    Elenne, thank you for commenting here and defending your Father. I agree with you, “Whatever one might think of his theology, I can see by his sanctified life that his faith in Jesus is real. On that basis alone there is no condemnation of him by God as the blood of Jesus Christ has cleansed him from every sin.” I do not agree with your Father on some issues, and we have went back and forth in this very Magazine. But here or privately your Father was always a gracious Christian man of God toward me. Your Father is a blessing to so many who clearly heard the Gospel through his message of the Cross.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 18, 2016 at 7:44 pm
    It’s quite evident that some liberals who support Dr Ford’s position are targeting Conviction and Mr Sorensen (so far). Whose next remains to be seen. In their attempt to silence their opposition they have accused them of trolling among other trumped up charges. For some of us posting here is based on spare time and some have more time on their hands so they will post more often. Not supporting Dr Ford and how he brought his view into the church is not trolling. n Internet slang, a troll (/'tro?l/, /'tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

    Trevor Hammond
    August 18, 2016 at 8:21 pm
    Question. Who is it that sowed the seed of discord within Adventism by trying to force the church to accept an alternative view which diametrically opposes the Investigative Judgement and openly accuses Ellen White and the Adventist Church of being wrong and therefore implying that the church believes a false doctrine? Next question. Are not the followers and supporters of Dr Ford doing the same in accusing the church not only the IJ being false but have also openly attacked many other beliefs held by Adventists? From what I gather Dr Ford also supports WO thereby winning more favour especially with liberals and feminists. Now I’m asking myself shouldn’t those attacking the Adventist Church teachings be accused of trolling? Will the world church trump charges like liberals do and ban them all? The fact that the world church is dealing kindly with them speaks for itself.

    Bronwyn Reid
    August 18, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    Those who have posted vitroilc attacks on this Forum against Dr Ford’s integrity as a Christian gentleman and Biblical scholar say more about themselves than they do about the person they are seeking to vilify. Those closest to him have given their personal testimony of the consistent Christian witness both in private and I’m public. All the many sermons that have heard Dr Ford preach over 30+ years have been Christ-centred and gospel focused. This is in harmony with Ellen White’s pastoral admonition that Jesus be the centre of all our sermon discourses and the Bible should be our only rule of faith. If Ellen White were alive I believe she would encourage and endorse Dr Ford’s Righteousness by Faith, gospel focused preaching and denounce those who preach a legalistic plan of salvation.

    Bronwyn Reid
    August 18, 2016 at 10:17 pm
    Those who have posted vitroilc attacks on this Forum against Dr Ford’s integrity as a Christian gentleman and Biblical scholar say more about themselves than they do about the person they seek to vilify. Those closest to him have given their personal testimony of the consistent Christian witness both in private and in public. All the sermons that have heard Dr Ford preach over 30+ years have been Christ-centred and gospel focused. This is in harmony with Ellen White’s pastoral admonition that Jesus be the centre of all our sermon discourses and the Bible should be our only rule of faith. If Ellen White were alive today, I believe she would endorse Dr Ford’s preaching on Righteousness by Faith, and she would appreciate his powerful uplifting if Jesus as our only hope of salvation. Only in eternity will it be revealed the fruit of Dr Ford’s legacy through his gospel ministry.

    Conviction
    August 19, 2016 at 3:24 am
    I am sorry, but I do not see vitroilc attacks against Des on this forum; please point them out. In all honesty, I think everyone here loves him; and some actually Love him. Job 11:2 Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified? 3 Should thy lies make men hold their peace? and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed? 4 For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes. 5 But oh that God would speak, and open his lips against thee; 6 And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is! Know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth The wide gate is easy to preach. Talk is cheap and self justified. Should we be ashamed when you mock? 7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? 8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? 9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. 10 If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him? 11 For he knoweth vain men: he seeth wickedness also; will he not then consider it? 12 For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass’s colt. Righteousness by Faith is the cornerstone; but unto perfection is HIS. HE Saves, all we can do if we are not careful is make it more difficult. I would not lay claim or stake on Saints or fruits.

    Conviction
    August 19, 2016 at 3:40 am
    Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit. 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. The Good Word or powers of the world; which way is it? Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. They do not need you to tell them your ideas of HIM; but to tell them of HIM.

    Conviction
    August 19, 2016 at 3:53 am
    Even Des will tell you he never understood perfection. Is it not our fault that we put him on a pedestal, then and now? Was he not pushed by us past his calling then and now? Did we not raise him up for the fall because some wanted more? Do we not even degrade the good works he did within the Doctrine of CHRIST as such? We are always at fault; that is a given. Seems like we want to be the Priesthood of Believers; but only when we want? Never taking the responsibilities in such? Hebrews 8:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. A Priest I can have in Faith to carry through. A Priest in Hope that will catch me when I fall. A Priest that within Charity will understand my infirmities and give what is needed; not what is wanted. I know a lot of people that will tell you what you want to hear and a lot that will listen to them; but they can never give, nor even understand what HE can Give. Maybe we should listen to and follow HIM for a change?

    Bugs/Larry Boshell
    August 19, 2016 at 7:10 am
    Con????????tion, one of the talents one facing trial should have is to learn not to annoy the prosecutors. (And defense witness, too!) I have stood as a witness for you so far, not because I agree with one thing you write. You can read my post above. But I pointed out that Key Texting is a huge liability for your case. Parroting Scripture is an exercise in futility. Bible texts pasted into replies guarantees they won’t be read and causes the writers diminshment. Can’t you make your case without rewriting Scripture? Or are you hoping for banishment with face slashing resulting in a scar of pride?

    Bill Sorensen
    August 19, 2016 at 8:17 am
    Of course Dr. Ford must be right…..after all, he is a “nice person” and this proves he is right. I personally reject this as the ultimate and final evidence to prove whether a person is theologically correct or not. But since this is the basis many of you build your case on, who could possibly prove he is wrong? Many who reject the IJ just don’t understand it and this may well include Dr. Ford. But you don’t attack something you don’t understand, you attack something you do understand and reject. So we must conclude that at least in Ford’s opinion, he clearly understand the IJ and is convinced it is not biblical. His accusation that is is legalism only proves to some of us, he is a novice and doesn’t know what he is talking about. And if people conclude “legalism” about the IJ, this is not EGW’s fault. Their ignorance don’t justify their claim nor does it negate the truth of the matter. Either they didn’t read a comprehensive view that she has presented, or, they simply don’t understand what she said. At any rate, no one will be excused and justified in the judgment before God for attacking and rejecting truth. The Jewish leaders attack and rejected Christ. Do you think ignorance will be an acceptable excuse when clear evidence was presented contrary to their final decision? I think not. And this applies to every truth people refuse to accept and think or hope all will be well. NOT. How you respond to all the word of God will determine.

    Bill Sorensen
    August 19, 2016 at 8:26 am
    whether you will be in heaven or not. To think you can ignore what the bible teaches and respond any way you please, and still be saved is some “la la land” spirituality. There is no gospel of grace that negates your responsibility to know and do the will of God as revealed in His word. And this is what the investigative judgment is all about. For one thing, it stimulates the moral imperative to ask “What must I do to be saved?” And to respond with some “I don’t know, and I don’t care, and I don’t need to know.” is far from any “gospel” presentation in the bible. Surely, if those who seek and come short in the effort to know and do, then there is grace for all of us on this factor. But this is hardly the emphasis advocated and supported on this forum.
    Obedience to the law of God is salvational. Not because it is how anyone can merit heaven, but because it is the only responsible viable response that God will accept to be a member of His kingdom family. And to label this “legalism” as Dr. Ford does, and others agree, is no part of the bible teaching on law and grace and its application to the human family.

    S
    August 19, 2016 at 9:54 am
    Bill Sorensen, You think that you’re right, but allow me to prove to you from the Bible that you might be wrong about what it takes to be saved. Besides Moses and Jesus Himself, the one human being who has died that we know for sure will go to heaven, without any question, is the thief on the cross. He may have never done anything right; never obeyed any law, never known any theology, never brought anyone to Christ, never visited the sick, never obeyed the commandments, never fed the poor, never did anything that He was supposed to do EXCEPT one thing. Yet we have greater assurance that He will be in heaven than that we will be in heaven. Do you think that was a one off? Do you think that he received special treatment by being in the right place at the right time?

    Bill Sorensen
    August 19, 2016 at 11:11 am
    “He may have never done anything right; never obeyed any law, never known any theology, never brought anyone to Christ, …..” In fact, you don’t know all the things he may have done or may not have done. Nor do you know how much “theology” he may have known before his confession of faith, nor how long he lived before he died on the cross……and a host of other unknowns that are not recorded. None the less, the first thing he did was witness. But even in light of all the unknowns, he is an exception to the rule, and you can not build a whole theological structure on some single incident. Jesus raised Moses from the dead. Does this prove He raises everyone from the dead at the moment of death? The final point is, you don’t build “theology” on exceptions to any rule and then use the exception to negate the rule itself. The fact that God knows who believes and who does not, does not negate the judgment according to works that determines our eternal destiny. And when God judges, He never appeals to what He knows, but what is in the record book. This makes the record book valid and stimulates people to know that what they do is an important imperative for their salvation. The IJ is not about the sovereignty of God, but the sovereignty of man.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 19, 2016 at 12:40 pm
    Bill Sorensen wrote: “The fact that God knows who believes and who does not, does not negate the judgment according to works that determines our eternal destiny. And when God judges, He never appeals to what He knows, but what is in the record book.” I basically agree with the foregoing. What is recorded is the Evidence. (continued)

    Jim Hamstra
    August 19, 2016 at 12:43 pm
    “This makes the record book valid and stimulates people to know that what they do is an important imperative for their salvation. The IJ is not about the sovereignty of God, but the sovereignty of man.” What WE do is not an “imperative” for our salvation. According to both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul, it is what we allow GOD to do in and through us, that is the Evidence (not cause but effect) of our salvation. “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.” (cf Jesus Christ) “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” (cf Paul) “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.” So the Evidence does not testify to our goodness or obedience, but to God’s transforming power.

    William Noel
    August 19, 2016 at 12:49 pm
    Bill S., Judgement in both scripture and jurisprudence is the process of determining the guilt or innocence of an individual. If God knows who is or is not obeying Him, then He already knows who He is going to save. So, where is the need for Him to judge anything? John 5:24 tells us that the person who believes has eternal life and will not be condemned because they have “crossed over from death to life.” So at the end of time there is nothing left to judge and because of that the phrase about the judgement being “set” is not talking about a process of determining guilt or innocence, but an ending of that process, that there is no longer any opportunity for a person’s eternal fate to be changed. That is o0ne of the reasons why I view the IJ as theological nonsense.

    Stephen Foster
    August 19, 2016 at 10:47 pm
    Bill Sorensen, Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the thief on the cross is an exception to the rule (whatever you deem the rule to be)? That is extra-Biblical poppycock. Do you believe his being there at that time and place, and the recording of that was just a happy and lucky coincidence for him? There is a distinct possibility that he may have never done anything worthwhile except that one thing. We have no evidence that he ever did, so the existence of that possibility is real; but that possibility represents an inconvenience for you if you think that there is more that we need to do in order to “be with [Him] in paradise.” The parable of the laborers, and to some extent that of the prodigal son, tells us that some people will get the same salvation that haven’t been as seemingly ‘deserving’ as others. Isn’t the key to that reality the fact that no one actually earns salvation? Listen, in my view you continually do the cause of historic Adventism a disservice by imposing your own biases on what the Bible actually tells us. For example, why would you even speculate that the thief on the cross may have done something of a positive, redeeming nature; something about which the Bible does not even hint or imply in any way? On the other hand, why do you say that the thief on the cross is an exception to the rule? Where is that in the Bible?

    DD
    August 21, 2016 at 1:18 am
    “Jesus raised Moses from the dead. Does this prove He raises everyone from the dead at the moment of death?” Bill S, your statement seems to indicate you have personal divine revelation which others are not privy to. Are you able to show, through Scripture, that Jesus raised Moses from the dead?

    Conviction
    August 19, 2016 at 5:24 pm
    The thief denied himself, took up his cross and followed HIM. Literally.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 19, 2016 at 2:09 pm
    William, The crucial point which seems to escape most parties in this discussion, is that the Evidence is not to help God judge. God knows the end from the beginning and nothing is new or surprising or un-anticipated to God. That is why Jesus said more than once that we judge ourselves. The Evidence is for the benefit of all created sentient beings (humans, angels, etc) so that we will be able to understand the basis for God’s actions. This is a critical aspect of the Great Controversy theme that under-girds much of SDA thought as elucidated (not invented) by Ellen White. “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven [unfallen angels], and of those on earth [humans], and of those under the earth [fallen angels], and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (cf Paul, quoting from Isaiah) It is the undeniable, inescapable weight of the accumulated Evidence, that impels ALL to bow and confess, not just the unfallen angels and the redeemed, but also the fallen angels and the lost. To use a modern analogy, the complete record of the Evidence will be presented to each of these “juries” and each “jury” will render a unanimous Verdict that God is wholly Loving and Just in His/Her/Their dealings with each and every sentient creature (saved and lost alike).

    Jim Hamstra
    August 19, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    There is already overwhelming Evidence of the ultimate consequences of Evil and the infinite Love of God, demonstrated at the Cross. The transformation from Rebel to Disciple is, according to Paul, a “mystery” that is being played-out in Christ’s people. How the works of the Redeemed can be and are being “wrought in God” (cf Jesus Christ and Paul) is in the present being demonstrated before all of God’s sentient creatures. As Serge and others have pointed-out, the Redeemed have already passed from a Verdict of Death to a Free Gift of Life. They have been judged Worthy in Christ. And now the Redeemed are Evidence of the transforming power of God’s Grace.

    William Noel
    August 19, 2016 at 5:55 pm
    Jim, I think we may be talking past each other. When it comes to the concept of the IJ, the biggest misconception I see people getting hung-up on is that a person cannot be sure of their salvation until Jesus leaves the Most Holy in the Heavenly sanctuary to return and save the redeemed. I can find no evidence of that in scripture, yet many believe it, so that is what I was addressing.

    Jim Hamstra
    August 20, 2016 at 3:07 am
    “the biggest misconception I see people getting hung-up on is that a person cannot be sure of their salvation until Jesus leaves the Most Holy in the Heavenly sanctuary to return and save the redeemed. I can find no evidence of that in scripture, yet many believe it” William, You and I certainly agree on this!

    Bill Sorensen
    August 20, 2016 at 6:16 am
    “What WE do is not an “imperative” for our salvation.” Yes, it is, Jim. And what you have stated is the whole false spirituality that many have accepted and the final delusion of the devil. Saved by faith through grace in no way negates the moral imperative to do the will of God to be saved. But this lie of the devil has infiltrated the SDA church and the “fruit” of this false doctrine is so obvious that “wayfaring men, though fools, need not err” as they evaluate what is happening in the SDA church and why. Man saves himself by the way he responds to the gospel in its biblical context. And that response demands obedience to the law of God. Take away this biblical motivation to obey, and you have total rebellion that is so rampant in the church and the world. “Obey and live, disobey and die” is God’s covenant with all His moral beings. And we “save ourselves” by accepting this covenant in light of the gospel of God’s grace.

    Conviction
    August 20, 2016 at 4:03 am
    Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. We know we will give account for idle words in the day of judgement. We know by our words we are justified or condemned. Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Do we not remove even the need for HIS Sacrifice within such ideologies?

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 20, 2016 at 11:14 am
    Why did the CHRIST give His sacrifice, shed His Precious Royal Blood???? If it were not to save sinners it was a failure, and God is not Almighty!!!!

    Conviction
    August 20, 2016 at 4:19 am
    Maybe it is just me? Maybe I am the only one that needs HIS Sacrifice as an ignorant sinner? Maybe I am the only one that needs to know that there will be Judgement; just to keep me straight? Maybe that is why I am always brought into remembrance of HIS sinless pain and agony for my sins? Why I feel the nails driven in flesh and blood; just to give me a chance? Maybe that is why it feels like I pick up the hammer and drive the nails in farther when I am so easily deceived? It does seem like we are either making a lot of new hammers and passing them out or maybe such strength in others that they do not need HIM?

    William Noel
    August 20, 2016 at 11:59 am
    Conviction, “Maybe it is just me.” You’re right. It is you. I praise God that it is just you posting repeated falsehoods accusing everyone else here of not seeking God, giving Him glory or respecting His word and then are unable to ever tell us why.

    Nathaniel Moore
    August 20, 2016 at 10:37 am
    So many charges and counter-charges! Is it what this forum is about? I am much amused by the thought expressed by Gary Mc Carey at 4:19pm on August 15: ” I think we will all be surprised by who our next-door neighbours are in the after life…”. I have a sneaky suspicion that there will be no need (or possibility) to be surprised! ” The living know that they shall die; but the dead shall know nothing”.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 20, 2016 at 10:55 am
    When souls, accept the grace of God through faith in Gods sacrifice, for their ransom from eternal death, from the LAW which condemns them, this is according to the greatest Commandment, the second Covenant of Jesus, the Christ. It is a given they know the Ten, but the LAW is pacified, when the Christ, the LAW GIVER, sheds His ROYAL BLOOD, for His bride, of which He has an undying LOVE. According to HOLY SCRIPTURE. GOD does for mankind, what is impossible for mankind to do. Mankind will die daily in trying to overcome the sinful nature. If Satan has deceived mankind in this premise, then 100% of God’s creation on Earth is lost, and Satan is the Almighty.

    EARL CALAHAN
    August 20, 2016 at 11:03 am
    It is impossible for mankind to satisfy the Ten Commandments of God in anything they can do, by works, lest any man can boast. Only the Creator can solve man’s dilemma, and His Plan for rescue is perfect.

    Nathaniel Moore
    August 20, 2016 at 11:23 am
    Sorensen and “Conviction”often touch the raw nerves in the mind sometimes; but there is no need to ban them from this forum. Their views may be different; but in the spirit of openness, they must be respected and tolerated. It is foolish to go about excluding ideas which are contrary. How else can we know about what is happening about us?





    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:36 am


    Carol wrote:


    orthodoxymoron wrote:If I remember correctly, several years ago, an Individual of Interest told me that a Significant Outbreak of Hostilities in Syria would initiate a Chain-Reaction of Destruction. I hope I got that right. I continue to suspect that all of this sort of thing originates in One Central War-Room (regardless of which politicians, parties, countries, races, and religions are involved). What if the Reprehensible is Inevitable?? What if Resistance is Futile?? What if Exposing Megalomaniacs Anonymous Does NOT Constitute Deposing Megalomaniacs Anonymous?? What Would Dr. Dempsey Say?? What Would Thomas and Sophia Say?? What Would S.R. Hadden Say?? What Would Rachel Constantine Say?? What Would John Constantine Say?? What Would the Oracle Say?? What Would Morpheus Say?? What Would Mr. Edgars Say?? What Would Balem Abrasax Say?? What Would the Ancient Egyptian Deity Say?? What Would Mitchell Say?? What Would Sherry Shriner Say?? What Would Brother Rich Say?? What Would Sister Angie Say?? What Would Orthodoxymoron Say?? What Would Pris Say?? "Jeeezus Oxy!!"





    When I attended Dr. Desmond Ford's Sabbath-School Classes in the Science-Complex at Pacific Union College, I remember seeing his son, Luke Ford!! Well, that's the same Luke Ford in the videos below!! I once corresponded with Luke, but the topic was religion and his father!! Honest!! Luke is funny and intelligent!! He left Porn-Journalism a long-time ago (but I'm not sure when)!! His parents did NOT approve of his career choice!! BTW, Rabbis Don't Get Paid Much, But They Get to Keep the Tips!!

    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    http://atoday.org/glacier-view-a-retrospective/

    DD
    August 20, 2016 at 11:06 pm
    William Noel, You wrote: “Why are people researching the writings of Ellen White to find answers when she plainly instructed us to use the Bible only?” Why? Because she “instructed”; that is, those who continue to hold her words in high esteem (including those words) will always turn to her writings regardless of her “instructions” to use the Bible. It’s a subliminal glorification of oneself; and by those very instructions many hearts have been deceived into believing she was inspired by God. Reading some of your comments and those of others on this site, I would say many of you here are just as inspired by God as she may have been. After all, where does everyone’s knowledge of spiritual matters originate from? The Holy Scriptures, no doubt.

    Allen Shepherd
    August 21, 2016 at 6:10 am
    I want to post a summary of the reason for the IJ from Sabbath School. google IJ and go to that site: In summary, if a person believes that: 1) Salvation can be lost (the Arminnian position) 2) That God judges (2 Cor 5:10) 3) That the souls of men sleep until the resurrection 4) And, that this reward/punishment is not received until the resurrection … Such a person will very likely come to believe in an Adventist-like pre-Advent judgment, irrespective of any other factors. If salvation can be lost, this matter must be objectively decided before individuals go to heaven. If God judges, then part of his judgment work would be to determine the faithful among the professed followers (the essential nature of the Investigative Judgment). At this point, we have the basic building blocks for an investigative judgment before the Second Coming. And while the 3rd and 4th propositions do not lead us to 1844 (the timing of the Investigative Judgment) they leave the door comfortably open for such a possibility. And this is why those who attack this doctrine on peripheral issues like Greek or Hebrew terminology are wasting their time. For a more detailed discussion of the matter see that site for a thorough discussion. If we all are to appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and Jesus brings his reward with him, then an IJ before the second coming is a straight froward necessity. The timing is not as important, but 1844 is as good a date as any. See the site>

    Serge Agafonoff
    August 21, 2016 at 6:26 am
    Allen: “At this point, we have the basic building blocks for an investigative judgment before the Second Coming.’ With that in mind, Allen, what do you make of this text? 2Tim 4.1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; No hint of a pre-Advent judgement here.

    Conviction
    August 21, 2016 at 7:06 am
    I guess in my humble opinion the next few verses of 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. Looks like we should preach the word and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine; because others will be perusing their own lusts and preaching to to itching ears? That they will turn away from the Truths that that there will be Judgment and we should prepare ourselves; pre-Advent and actually proving need for and in IJ? What do you think it means?

    Allen Shepherd
    August 21, 2016 at 6:12 am
    The site is Sabbathschool.net And the article is “Why the Investigative Judgement Doctrine Is Sound”

    Gillian Ford
    August 23, 2016 at 6:49 am
    I don’t think I am the right person to reply to Allen, but nobody else is, and I hate to leave it open ended. You can’t fit people into an –ism to determine if what they are saying is true. You have to keep to Biblical argument. Allen’s four points reflect Des’s theological positions. He believes in 1. Salvation can be lost. [Hebrews teaches that, but if a person is truly converted it would be rare that he or she would leave Christ.] You can’t say this is the Arminian position, and therefore Des must be Calvinist, and therefore he believes in a fixed doctrine of ‘once saved always saved’. Not true friends. Just as false as the accusation at Glacier View that he did not believe in Ellen White, he did not believe in sanctification, he did not believe in the new birth and so on (see the letter written to the attendees at Glacier View by Elder Pierson—quite wrong, quite unfair, but also very influential on the outcome of GV). I have spent part of the last ten years in my spare time trying to work out how the churches divided in Britain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There is a lot to know, and I only claim to know a bit of it. Groups such as Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Calvinists in 17th-century England had great differences of opinion on doctrine amongst themselves. Anglicans were at least divided into High and Low Church Anglicans (Episcopalians), and Calvinists split into Presbyterianism and Congregationalism (the Independents).

    Gillian Ford
    August 23, 2016 at 6:50 am
    The Calvinists fought internally over republicanism vs. royalism, particularly in the 1640s, and this weakened them internally and probably lost their cause in Britain by the end of the century. So, you have always had great differences of opinion that cause division within groups and well as between groups. Also, the followers of Jean Calvin, who called themselves Calvinists, did not necessarily teach what Calvin taught originally. In England, Archbishop Laud, who was the architect of Anglicanism in England, was Armininian, but he did not teach what Jacobus Arminius the originator taught in all respects. Therefore, be careful what you call Arminianism and Calvinism. Religious diversity is always on a spectrum. To try and put a person within a camp or an –ism, and conclude that they believe this or that, is a mistake and can lead to misrepresentation. You have to use Biblical argument, not use Mike Manea’s categorization (www.Sabbathschool.net), which I think is simplistic. Allen says the timing is not as important, but 1844 is as good a date as any. That is not what the church has traditionally taught. It has been very big on the dates. That’s what it means to be historicist. As an interesting exercise, look up Johann Friedrich Alsted and Puritan Millennialism. In the early 1600s, he set the date of 1697 for the return of Christ, though his argumentation sounds ridiculous to us today.

    Gillian Ford
    August 23, 2016 at 6:51 am
    Alsted was the first in a long line of date-setters to use the book of Daniel as his method; before that astrology was part of the calculation. Millennial expectation about the coming of Christ usually erupts during times of war, when people especially long for Jesus to come. In Alsted’s case it was the 30 Years war in Europe. In William Miller’s case it was the War of 1812, but I may be corrected on that by people who know more than I do. The Puritans fled to America to escape persecution in Europe. Adventism inherited some of this millennial expectation from the Puritans—CALVINISTS. I.e., we did not just inherit from Wesley and Methodism. As Bryan Ball’s book, A Great Expectation: Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism, points out—Adventism reflects a lot of the teachings of English Puritanism back in those days. I am not saying he would agree with me, but he does point out the similarities of Adventism to 17-century British Puritanism (Calvinism). Some in the denomination now call the IJ the Pre-Advent judgment, and have a loose version of the original, but over the years the doctrine has changed considerably. The church needs to officially acknowledge it has changed. Des was arguing against the old position, not the newer one, modified version—though the only reason for the latter was as another face-saving device.

    William Abbott
    August 23, 2016 at 8:44 am
    Gillian, Your observations about the link between English dissenters and their theology and Adventist theological development is much stronger than most people realize. It is bigger than eschatology. The self-perceived ‘choseness’ of the Pilgrims and their imitation of Israel and their dependence on merely the scripture for authority is largely being reenacted during the early developmental stages of Adventism. Conversely the behavior of the Pilgrim’s leaders and religious leaders of Plymouth Colony is better compared to a Rabbinate rather than traditional Christian Clergy. In the same way a Rabbinate is focused on understanding Torah, Plymouth plantation reasoned together from the scriptures about how they ought to live and govern themselves. Scripture and habit ruled the day. In the wilderness there are no rules. Early Adventists tried to do the same thing. Read the bible, do what it says, believe it is true. This is certainly a neglected relationship that needs to be better explored. Thank you for your astute observations.

    Elaine Nelson
    August 23, 2016 at 8:30 pm
    Another of many reasons why history is so important. So many Adventists elucidate on Adventist beliefs and their origins, depend only on recent Adventist history while ignoring all the beliefs and leaders before the mid-19th century as if Adventism sprang from nothing. This was recently illustrated on the Spectrum site in an essay by Cliff Goldstein, editor of the SS quarterly. He gave a quotation from a historical figure of the 4th century in support of his premise that Sabbath was being observed at that time, leaving out the important fact that rather than supporting the Sabbath as being regularly observed during that time, the quotation was referring to the practice of Easter, and not Sabbath! Some writers need to be checked and double-checked.

    Gillian Ford
    August 23, 2016 at 2:31 pm
    Thanks William for a polite and erudite answer. I should have said that in Laud’s time [1573–17450], Arminianism looked like an English version of Roman Catholicism. Because it was about the beauty of holiness, the furniture layout in the church, ceremony, liturgy, organization and method, and so on. Laud loved intense organisation and ritual, but sought non-conformists to eject them from their positions—i.e., he persecuted the saints. Loved the beauty of holiness, but was pretty nasty in his methods. As a result many fled persecution to go to America, Massachusetts &c and began the Congregational Church over there. You know that story better than me. The C of E was based on a system of bishops, which instead of going back to Rome, devolved from the missionaries who went to England at the time of the early Church fathers. Laud’s version came to be called the High Church of England. The Low Church or Latitudinarian Church of England was influenced by those Puritans who conformed to the C of E when Charles II came to the throne. The Latitudinarians had a broader base that was more inclusive. They wanted to bring the Presbyterians and other non-conformists into the state church. So, though Laud would have claimed to be Protestant, he seemed to bypass Luther, Calvin and the Reformation. I would be interested if a trained church historian would see it the same.

    William Abbott
    August 24, 2016 at 4:44 am
    Seventeenth-century England was alive with people reading the scriptures for themselves. King James’ translation was a concession to the rising demand for the scriptures from so many of his subjects. King James was more concerned with maintaining power in his earthly kingdom than being Christ’s servant His ‘kingdom of heaven.’ Catholic hierarchical structure keeps power concentrated at the top and whatever theological appeal Laud found in “High” church – James was a practical man – ‘high’ church and its enforced conformity had political utility. James detested the Presbyterian churchmen who Lorded it over him as a young regent in Scotland. When he got to London he never went back, in more ways than one. The English Civil War, the Commonwealth & Interregnum, The Restoration, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 are political events that forged the political identity of the English speaking people. It is a shortcoming of historians to neglect the religious ideas that incubated the political events. The idea that scripture is the sole source of dogma is quite revolutionary. It undermines all authority but its own. The study of Torah in Judaism is very similar in effect. Popes and Kings representing Christ, gives way to, essentially, the authority of a book. It doesn’t scale. The Puritans couldn’t rule an earthly kingdom any better than a cabal of Rabbis. Cromwell was a ‘cruel necessity’ and the weirdest of tyrants.

    Gillian Ford
    August 23, 2016 at 3:24 pm
    Harry Allen sent me a joke by Emo Philips. You will all like it: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religion. Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

    Ted Robertson
    August 24, 2016 at 10:49 am
    Well, at least all things worked together for good in that instance.

    Ken L Lawson
    September 3, 2016 at 7:07 am
    I well remember men(so called) going to Glacier View who did not study the Glacier View Document with sincerity, but who were first to judge Bro. Des. Yes! they are still around. I was also in a very significant meeting in Sydney when Dr. Alwyn Salim spoke openly in the afternoon on Video, stating that the Adventist Churches stand on Daniel 8:14 had no truck with the Hebrew reading of the text. I also have a file on my hard drive all the significant Scholars across the world who agreed with Dr. Ford and his position. There are so many notable scholars and professors who were not slumbering at that time. Mens’ jobs were more important than principle, and the Church lost it’s greatest opportunity for change and the disapproval of heaven is stark in reality. God help us!

    Hansen
    September 3, 2016 at 7:42 am
    Ken, Any idea where I can find the Palmdale documents?

    Ken L Lawson
    September 3, 2016 at 4:32 pm
    Bro. Des gave me a copy of the document. Mine is filed away in storage , but Des certainly has the original. I hope we can help you with that.

    Gillian Ford
    September 3, 2016 at 4:56 pm
    They have the papers at Pacific Union College library, La Sierra university, Westminster Seminary California Library and Avondale College—Sydney Campus. They are called Documents from the Palmdale Conference on Righteousness by Faith.See http://www.worldcat.org/title/documents-from-the-palmdale-conference-on-righteousness-by-faith/oclc/19224164

    Hansen
    September 4, 2016 at 5:16 am
    Gill/Ken, is there anything of great significance in those documents? A strange question but assuming the answer is yes, why aren’t they more readily available?

    Hansen
    September 4, 2016 at 6:10 am
    Incidentally, When searching online for Palmdale documents, I am often directed to a discussion of the Palmdale meeting written by Colin Standish. It’s unfortunate that he should define, or even contribute to, the conversation on this topic.

    Gillian Ford
    September 7, 2016 at 8:36 am
    This was back in 1976. Des thought they were significant because the committee agreed at the time that the phrase ‘righteousness by faith’ in Romans was the same expression as ‘justification by faith’. However, they were soon shelved as I understand it. Similar to the Sanctuary and EGW position papers that were presented near the close of Glacier View. They moved towards the position Des presented in a number of significant points. But also were shelved after appearing in the Ministry Mag, Sept. 1980. This was a long time ago, and I have not checked the details for accuracy. But that is my memory.

    Ken L Lawson
    September 8, 2016 at 6:45 pm
    Dear H, the Palmdale Document was used across Australia and I am sure that Des was invited to share his findings. It is a beautiful rendition of Righteousness by Faith. People of significance were converted as a result. But! wherever this topic is raised the calamity howlers raise their same ugly heads in opposition to Christ. Some of them have been real monsters working against the Spirit of Christ. They think they are doing right! A survey was taken not long ago by a president while a student at Avondale. Fifty three percent of the congregants did not believe they were saved. That is the tragedy we are constantly confronted with. And yet the same people are crying the coming of Christ but not ready themselves. They will not surrender to the Spirit of Christ, and are incapable of receiving Grace. I am still hoping to have a copy for you of Palmdale.

    Bill Sorensen
    September 7, 2016 at 2:39 pm
    Justification is a law word and does not apply solely to the legal aspects of redemption. To limit the word “justification” to apply only to the legal aspects of salvation is faulty theology and can only lead to convoluting the bible. The word “justification” is applied to the moral law and the moral aspects of salvation. The believer is justified by obedience to the moral law, not because this is how the believer merits or earns eternal life, but it is a moral mandate and moral obligation that does not fulfill the legal aspects of redemption. It does fulfill the moral obligation of children who are required to “obey their parents” as we willingly subject ourselves to God’s authority and do His will as obedient children of our Father’s kingdom. This is our fitness for heaven but not our title. The name of Jesus is our title for He alone merited and earned eternal life for the human family and offers it to us as a “free gift”. This free gift does not release us from the necessity to obey the moral law to be saved, and we are saved by faith in the merits of Christ and obedience to the law of God as a fitness for heaven. The basic error of Dr. Ford was to limit the word “justification” to only apply to a legal right and deny the word also applies to our moral right to heaven. So the word “justification” has a legal and moral application that do not equate to the same value. The human response has a saving value, but this is not a legal value.













    Including the Luke Ford Videos was NOT a Mean-Joke on my part. I think some of you should pay close attention to these (and other) Luke Ford videos (for a variety of reasons). I'm watching some 9/11 videos today, and they're VERY Sobering. Anyway, continue considering a possible A.D. 2012 to A.D. 2133 (120 year) Final Judgment of Earth and Humanity. Noah preached for 120 years. "As it was in the days of Noah"?? What Would Russell Crowe Say?? Try combining Theology and Science-Fiction. I spoke with Steven Spielberg's Stepmother (in Dr. A. Graham Maxwell's Sabbath-School Class) in the Late 1980's regarding a Science-Fictional Life of Christ Super-Movie Idea. Honest. Perhaps it's for the best that nothing of the sort was ever produced. What Would David Mann Say?? Consider my United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Books 1, 2, 3) to be my feeble-attempt to hint at some of what I had in mind a very-long time ago. Use your imagination and independent-research. BTW, I recently realized that Walter Rea focused upon Patriarchs and Prophets, Prophets and Kings, and Desire of Ages (all by Ellen White) in The White Lie. I have also focused upon these three books (for very different reasons). I suggest reading these three books as Plagiarized Historical Science-Fiction!! Imagine combining the Conflict of the Ages Series with the Babylon 5 Series!! Imagine a Galactic-Queen speaking these words!! Notice the Conquest-Motif!! Imagine Cleopatra speaking these words!! What Would Elizabeth Taylor Say?? What Would Elizabeth Mitchell Say?? Do you see why I no longer attend the SDA Church??!! I didn't wish to upset anyone, and no-one ever seemed to miss me. Has everyone made their choice?? Has Probation Closed?? I hope no-one is disappointed. Godspeed and Geronimo.

















    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:46 am

    Carol wrote:
    New human rights laws are required to protect sensitive information in a person’s mind from 'unauthorised collection, storage, use or even deletion',” wrote the playwright John Milton in 1634.

    But, nearly 400 years later, technological advances in machines that can read our thoughts mean the privacy of our brain is under threat. Now two biomedical ethicists are calling for the creation of new human rights laws to ensure people are protected, including “the right to cognitive liberty” and “the right to mental integrity”.

    Scientists have already developed devices capable of telling whether people are politically right-wing or left-wing. In one experiment, researchers were able to read people’s minds to tell with 70 per cent accuracy whether they planned to add or subtract two numbers.

    Facebook also recently revealed it had been secretly working on technology to read people’s minds so they could type by just thinking.

    And medical researchers have managed to connect part of a paralysed man’s brain to a computer to allow him to stimulate muscles in his arm so he could move it and feed himself.

    The ethicists, writing in a paper in the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy, stressed the “unprecedented opportunities” that would result from the “ubiquitous distribution of cheaper, scalable and easy-to-use neuro-applications” that would make neurotechnology “intricately embedded in our everyday life”.

    Mind-reading breakthrough lets scientists ‘talk’ to locked-in patients. However, such devices are open to abuse on a frightening degree, as the academics made clear. They warned that “malicious brain-hacking” and “hazardous uses of medical neurotechnology” could require a redefinition of the idea of mental integrity.

    “We suggest that in response to emerging neurotechnology possibilities, the right to mental integrity should not exclusively guarantee protection from mental illness or traumatic injury but also from unauthorised intrusions into a person’s mental wellbeing performed through the use of neurotechnology, especially if such intrusions result in physical or mental harm to the neurotechnology user,” the ethicists wrote.

    “The right to mental privacy is a neuro-specific privacy right which protects private or sensitive information in a person’s mind from unauthorised collection, storage, use, or even deletion in digital form or otherwise.”

    And they warned that the techniques were so sophisticated that people’s minds might be being read or interfered with without their knowledge.

    “Illicit intrusions into a person’s mental privacy may not necessarily involve coercion, as they could be performed under the threshold of a persons’ conscious experience,” they wrote in the paper.

    “The same goes for actions involving harm to a person’s mental life or unauthorised modifications of a person’s psychological continuity, which are also facilitated by the ability of emerging neurotechnologies to intervene into a person’s neural processing in absence of the person’s awareness.”

    They proposed four new human rights laws: the right to cognitive liberty, the right to mental privacy, the right to mental integrity and the right to psychological continuity.

    Professor Roberto Andorno, an academic at Zurich University’s law school and a co-author of the paper, said: “Brain imaging technology has already reached a point where there is discussion over its legitimacy in criminal court, for example as a tool for assessing criminal responsibility or even the risk of re-offending.

    “Consumer companies are using brain imaging for 'neuromarketing' to understand consumer behaviour and elicit desired responses from customers.

    “There are also tools such as 'brain decoders' which can turn brain imaging data into images, text or sound.

    “All of these could pose a threat to personal freedom which we sought to address with the development of four new human rights laws.”
    orthodoxymoron wrote:I keep getting the sinking-feeling that the computers "took-over" a long time ago, and we're just finding-out about it now. Would you wish to have your consciousness downloaded into a super-computer when your body dies of natural (or unnatural) causes?? What if someone pressed the wrong button, and eliminated "YOU" for all-eternity?? I keep joking about living and working in a 600 square-foot office-apartment with a supercomputer, but is this really a stupid and farfetched idea?? What if one carried on telepathic-conversations with their supercomputer?? What if one became corrupted and brainwashed by their own computer?? Will ALL of US be thinking and speaking like computers in the near-future?? Is fast-thinking, fast-walking, and fast-talking the way of the future?? Should I wish to be a Mainframe-Linked Globo-Cop Bankster-Warrior in my next "incarnation"?? What sort of a Technological-Hell are we descending into?? What if at least some Reptilians and Greys are simply Ex Machina Creations wearing Special-Suits?? What Would Nathan Say?? "What is Reality??" might be an impossible question to answer!! What Would "Sweetie" Say?? Around the year 2000, I spoke with a sexy former Microsoft employee about Wearable-Computers (as I drove her to her waterfront-home). I thought they were the way of the future, but she said (with a smile) "Bill doesn't think so!!" What if she was Bill's Boss?? What Would Seymour Cray Say?? What Would Mr. Edgars Say?? I continue to think that wars and rumors of wars are scripted. I found it interesting that Josh from World Alternative Media mentioned that we might've been in WWIII since 9/11/2001. Catherine Austin Fitts recently spoke of WWIII extending from 2001 to 2025. I find the 2025 date interesting, in light of a short video clip from the Babylon 5 Series (below). Notice all of the dates mentioned. I keep wondering if they're significant?! Babylon 5 was made from 1993 to 1998. Notice also that December 21, 2012 is right in the middle of 2001 to 2025!! What if WWIII is a battle for the control of the REALLY Nasty Ancient-Weapons of Mass-Destruction??!!


    Pris wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Pris, I've been to a couple of The Offspring concerts (a long time ago)!! I stayed away from the "mosh-pit"!! Too much "blue-smoke" and "crowd-surfing"!! The Offspring is an old Punk-Rock group from Orange County!! "Noodles" is sort of the "Elder-Statesman" of the group. Noodles, the guitarist for The Offspring, was the janitor for the school the band went to. He was allowed into the band because he was old enough to buy the band alcohol. My parents sold a building to Seals and Crofts (to be used for rehearsing) but they didn't let me join the group!! BTW, that's Noodles standing next to Homer Simpson!!
    Okay! Very Happy I had no idea so thanks for clarifying, Oxy. That's hilarious about the alcohol thing and cool that you have something of a connection to all of this! I've not been much into the punk rock scene but it always fascinated me growing up. I enjoyed music from The Sex Pistols and The Stranglers because my sister was into that stuff and she gave me those albums. I used to practice Anarchy In The UK on my accordion. Laugh
    .
    .
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you Pris. I once attended a Myron Floren accordion performance, and tried to get credit for my college Music-Appreciation class, but my Doctor of Music teacher didn't consider a Lawrence Welk accordionist to be a real-musician playing real-music!! Can't we all just get along?? I am MUCH More Restrained than Alex Jones and Larken Rose, but I enjoy listening to these types of people (but not all the time). I enjoy listening to The Offspring and Myron Floren (but not all the time). BTW, I love that title "Anarchy in the UK"!! What Would MI5, MI6, and OO7 Say and Do?? It's a Secret!! One more thing. A genuine-insider told me that Lawrence Welk was a jerk!! What Would The Lennon Sisters Sing??




    Pris wrote: Huh... your music teacher didn't consider a Lawrence Welk accordionist to be a real musician playing real music... That's a rather anal personal opinion, isn't it lol! What one considers to be 'music' is rather subjective and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that bias should NOT have been foisted upon you to affect your grade, Oxy.

    Accordions are obviously pretty cool musical instruments. And, you've got to be pretty cool to play one (my accordion was a 120 bass just like what Dizzy Fingers was playing... WOW, he's good!). Cool Very Happy

    It wouldn't surprise me if Lawrence Welk was a jerk... though being someone's opinion (genuine insider or not), who knows what that means.

    I can appreciate most things in small doses, too.

    .
    .
    Pris wrote: Another awesome video. Here's some words from Larken I felt quoting:

    The Cult of Statism
    ...authoritarianism IS the problem. The problem is not and has never been 'who's on the throne'. The Problem is, and has always been and will always be -- until people wake up -- that there is a throne there to be on. As long as the argument is 'what government should do', 'who should run it', 'what form it should take', you're just tinkering with the details and completely ignoring the heart of the problem which is the belief in government and authoritarianism.

    This is the only issue that matters: Do you own yourself or are you the property of a ruling class? I don't care if it's a limited ruling class. I don't care if it's a democratic ruling class. I don't care if it's a republican ruling class. I don't care if it's a constitutional ruling class. If there's some beast that has the right to take your money and boss you around, it owns you. You're not free, you don't own yourself. And, if you actually believe that, why do you ever imagine you'll achieve freedom? You're not even free inside your own head.

    And, so when people say, "Well, these little differences..." This is not a 'little difference'. Either you think there can be someone with the right to rule you, or you understand that there can be no such thing or you understand the concepts of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle and what those logically lead to... which is legitimate government is a logical impossibility. It cannot exist. Not just 'it's really hard to maintain' -- it's theoretically and conceptually insane to think there can be a moral and righteous gang of thugs and thieves who bosses people around, takes their money. It just doesn't work philosophically or morally or logically.

    Just to add here, as you may know, I'm also opposed to (the use of, implementation of) money, barter, and trade... but that's another topic (more or less). Wink
    .
    .
    B.B.Baghor wrote: ortho's words: "I try to provide a wide variety of posts -- despite accusations that I just keep saying the same things over and over again. On the other hand, if I were inconsistent, I would be accused of being confused and unstable. I frankly don't care what anyone thinks. I simply want everyone to think. Period".

    Comment in the tubby with the grizzly bears catching salmon, in your post "For every salmon that is caught, hundreds make it past the bears......."

    Once upon a time -- I had a digital voice-recorder which worked perfectly -- expect when recording one particular individual. A normal-sounding voice became a hideous gravely (almost demonic) voice when played-back on that particular digital-recorder!! This occurred repeatedly (without exception). I mentioned this to the Ancient Egyptian Deity -- to which they replied "Some Slip Through". Honest.

    Honestly, ortho, comments on your saying the same things over and over, to me that's not an accusation. When I share that opinion, it's a comment on how it's perceived by me. For some reason you seem to be fixed on that judgment, of being accused, so that you feel compelled to repeat your message, in order to prove you're right or to make clear what it is you're after. That's a possible checkmate position, to me.

    So -- is this a King and Queen War-Game?? I often feel like a Completely Ignorant Pawn!! Please remember that I am honestly modeling concepts and personalities which do NOT reflect who I am in "real-life". I might share some of the inclinations and biases -- but I don't behave like this in everyday life. What scares me is that the ease with which I model on this thread leads me to wonder if I might've been somewhat like this in previous lives. I'm honestly NOT channeling some nefarious entity. I don't do anything even remotely creepy. I might be channeling myself. Was it Lionhawk who spoke of channeling themselves?? I can't quite remember -- but I know it was someone on this forum who is no longer posting. Each of my posts are the same -- only different -- reflecting the concept of "Theme and Variations". I honestly keep feeling as though I was somehow set-up in this incarnation -- where every behavior and editorial-slant would be somehow used against me -- with the general theme of Build Them Up -- and Knock Them Down.

    It's your reaction, to feel an accusation and you seem stuck in it. You're as much trying to live up to expectations of your audience as dictating your rules how the audience should listen. I think that you're in one of the most patient and kind forum here, with many members, including me, communicating with you in an open-minded way and with good intentions.

    I can't dictate Rules of Listening. What Would Julian Treasure Say?? I can't even get others to listen. Period. I got bored of Aliens and UFO's -- so I wrote the following drivel (relative to a listening-class): It is probably necessary to superimpose each component of Receive-Appreciate-Summarize-Ask (RASA) -- one on top of the other -- in order to properly apply Step 5 of "Julian's Five Steps" (from a TED lecture). One might Ask to Receive the desired data -- which must then be processed by Appreciating-Summarizing and Asking clarifying and inquisitive Questions. At various stages of this process -- the order of RASA might change -- and at times be all occurring at the same time -- with an equal emphasis. RASA somewhat mirrors the Scientific-Method -- wherein one Proposes a Hypothesis -- which simultaneously Asks and Answers a Question. Data is then gathered through Asking and Answering further questions -- which are pertinent to the Original Question and Answer. Ultimately, the Gathered Data is Summarized -- Conclusions are Reached -- and the Original Question and Answer is Verified or Nullified. The overall appearance and impression one observes in others -- and which one presents to others -- which might include facial-expression -- body-language -- clothing -- walking speed and style -- are Integral-Aspects of Non-Verbal Communication. Ideally -- one might Look-Sharp -- Act-Sharp -- and Be-Sharp -- with deviations from this Norm telling various stories. Experience would be determinative regarding this methodology -- and Contextual-Superimposition might play a significant role in the evaluation of a spectrum of non-verbal communication. This is a highly tolerant forum -- but I often feel as if I am silently being fed enough rope to hang myself (which I seem to be effectively and efficiently doing each and every day). I seem to be somehow protected -- while I continue to destroy myself. I guess I keep thinking that if I am never built-up -- it is more difficult to knock me down. This whole thing is frankly a Most Dangerous Game to me. It's so sad -- that it's almost funny...



    I don't choose to belittle you or your thread, or display a smiling face, at the same time shaking my head inside. Some may do that here, to sort of please you. That's not helping, does it? Many of those who read your thread, have shown you they appreciate your presence here and (maybe with some difficulty) also your thread. You are not your thread, see? That's where the sting is present, or so it seems. I feel a sameness in your trying hard and my trying hard, in a way.

    Forgive me for repeating this -- but you often remind me of "Angela" in that 1978 movie "The Word" (which sends chills up and down my spine). That's actually a compliment. I honestly feel like a sci-fi script-writer. Decades ago, I spoke with a very famous Hollywood-Director's Stepmother about wishing for "someone" to create a High-Tech Science-Fictional "Life of Christ" Based Upon The Desire of Ages by Ellen White. Honest. She spoke of her stepson being fearful. Now I think I understand why -- based upon which movies were being made at that time -- and what I know now.


    There's an obstacle between people's minds present here, reading your thread and yours presenting food for thought in it. So far, you don't receive what you're aiming at, that's made clear by you. To me, it seems that somewhere there's an opinion put on ice. My efforts to clarify or understand, may prove that "never the twain shall meet." That opinion on ice, or a prefixed idea, may be in the mind of the readers, in my mind also, for I truly find it hard to follow, where your mind goes, or is, ortho.

    I have repeatedly stated that this thread merely scratches the surface. I could make this MUCH more complex and graphic. I've been around highly-educated English and Australian Theologians and Preachers -- and it's quite humbling -- and even a bit creepy. Some of you know what I'm talking about. This thread is sort of Gizeh-Intelligence for the Rest of Us!!

    Can we meet halfway? That could work maybe....... I think Wink I'm honestly thinking out loud, to myself mainly, sharing it here with a purpose, if you can get that. Is making sense done by thinking? Is humour a way to bypass the trap of absolute truth and perfection? When is an answer given that is also received as an answer?

    Perhaps. I'm honestly attempting to understand what Genuine Fundamentalist Biblical Theology in the Context of Ancient and Modern Science-Fiction really looks like. My starting-point is that Everyone is Right -- and Everyone is Wrong -- which makes everyone angry and indignant. Irreverent-Humor seems to be destroying me -- little by little -- yet it seems to serve a utilitarian-purpose presently -- so I shall continue to crucify myself. We all have our crosses to bear -- don't we?? Orthodoxymoron or Wave of the Future?? Time Will Tell -- as it always does...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U

    Tim Minchin's Storm the Animated Movie

    To me, this is a delicious merging of instinctual view and overview. Those 2 views are meant to be made aware in one moment, as I see it, in a positive "the twain shall meet".

    I learned "Combining-Opposites" from Shirley Maclaine. I knew a Hollywood-Insider who told me that Shirley seemed to be lost in deep-thought when not on stage. Once -- while inside a major television-studio -- as I watched a rehearsal -- I noticed one particular individual who sat motionless and transfixed in front of the stage -- watching intently and silently -- with total-concentration. That made a deep impression on me. I honestly aspire to be that sort of person (regarding life, the universe, and everything). BTW -- I recently encountered an Individual of Interest who seemed to NOT like me one little bit -- and I think I might know why...




    "The mind… can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven" ? John Milton

    Some of us seem to be "Making Heaven Into Hell" while others of us seem to be "Making Hell Into Heaven". What if CERN will somehow merge Heaven and Hell into some sort of an Eschatological Final-Jihad?? The Horror. I equate "Mind" with "Character" -- which we apparently take with us when we die. Who says "You Can't Take It With You"??

    "Oxy -- You Need to Learn Your Place in the Grand Scheme of Things..."
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:58 am





    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria; 24 May 1819 – 22 January 1901) was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 20 June 1837 until her death. From 1 May 1876, she adopted the additional title of Empress of India. Victoria was the daughter of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the fourth son of King George III. Both the Duke of Kent and King George III died in 1820, and Victoria was raised under close supervision by her German-born mother Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. She inherited the throne aged 18, after her father's three elder brothers had all died, leaving no surviving legitimate children. The United Kingdom was already an established constitutional monarchy, in which the sovereign held relatively little direct political power. Privately, Victoria attempted to influence government policy and ministerial appointments; publicly, she became a national icon who was identified with strict standards of personal morality. Victoria married her first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, in 1840. Their nine children married into royal and noble families across the continent, tying them together and earning her the sobriquet "the grandmother of Europe". After Albert's death in 1861, Victoria plunged into deep mourning and avoided public appearances. As a result of her seclusion, republicanism temporarily gained strength, but in the latter half of her reign her popularity recovered. Her Golden and Diamond Jubilees were times of public celebration. Her reign of 63 years and seven months is known as the Victorian era. It was a period of industrial, cultural, political, scientific, and military change within the United Kingdom, and was marked by a great expansion of the British Empire. She was the last British monarch of the House of Hanover. Her son and successor, Edward VII, belonged to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the line of his father.

    Victoria's father was Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the fourth son of the reigning King of the United Kingdom, George III. Until 1817, Edward's niece, Princess Charlotte of Wales, was the only legitimate grandchild of George III. Her death in 1817 precipitated a succession crisis that brought pressure on the Duke of Kent and his unmarried brothers to marry and have children. In 1818 he married Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, a widowed German princess with two children—Carl (1804–1856) and Feodora (1807–1872)—by her first marriage to the Prince of Leiningen. Her brother Leopold was Princess Charlotte's widower. The Duke and Duchess of Kent's only child, Victoria, was born at 4.15 a.m. on 24 May 1819 at Kensington Palace in London.[1]

    Victoria was christened privately by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles Manners-Sutton, on 24 June 1819 in the Cupola Room at Kensington Palace.[2] She was baptised Alexandrina, after one of her godparents, Emperor Alexander I of Russia, and Victoria, after her mother. Additional names proposed by her parents—Georgina (or Georgiana), Charlotte, and Augusta—were dropped on the instructions of the Duke's eldest brother, George, the Prince Regent.[3]

    At birth, Victoria was fifth in the line of succession after the four eldest sons of George III: George, the Prince Regent (later George IV); Frederick, the Duke of York; William, the Duke of Clarence (later William IV); and Victoria's father, Edward, the Duke of Kent.[4] The Prince Regent had no surviving children, and the Duke of York had no children; further, both were estranged from their wives, who were both past child-bearing age, so the two eldest brothers were unlikely to have any further children. The Duke of Clarence and the Duke of Kent married on the same day in 1818, but both of Clarence's daughters (born in 1819 and 1820) died as infants. Victoria's father died in January 1820, when Victoria was less than a year old. A week later her grandfather died and was succeeded by his eldest son, George IV. The Duke of York died in 1827. When George IV died in 1830, he was succeeded by his next surviving brother, William IV, and Victoria became heir presumptive. The Regency Act 1830 made special provision for the Duchess of Kent (Victoria's mother) to act as regent in case William died while Victoria was still a minor.[5] King William distrusted the Duchess's capacity to be regent, and in 1836 he declared in her presence that he wanted to live until Victoria's 18th birthday, so that a regency could be avoided.[6]

    Victoria later described her childhood as "rather melancholy".[7] Her mother was extremely protective, and Victoria was raised largely isolated from other children under the so-called "Kensington System", an elaborate set of rules and protocols devised by the Duchess and her ambitious and domineering comptroller, Sir John Conroy, who was rumoured to be the Duchess's lover.[8] The system prevented the princess from meeting people whom her mother and Conroy deemed undesirable (including most of her father's family), and was designed to render her weak and dependent upon them.[9] The Duchess avoided the court because she was scandalised by the presence of King William's illegitimate children,[10] and perhaps prompted the emergence of Victorian morality by insisting that her daughter avoid any appearance of sexual impropriety.[11] Victoria shared a bedroom with her mother every night, studied with private tutors to a regular timetable, and spent her play-hours with her dolls and her King Charles spaniel, Dash.[12] Her lessons included French, German, Italian, and Latin,[13] but she spoke only English at home.[14]

    In 1830, the Duchess of Kent and Conroy took Victoria across the centre of England to visit the Malvern Hills, stopping at towns and great country houses along the way.[15] Similar journeys to other parts of England and Wales were taken in 1832, 1833, 1834 and 1835. To the King's annoyance, Victoria was enthusiastically welcomed in each of the stops.[16] William compared the journeys to royal progresses and was concerned that they portrayed Victoria as his rival rather than his heir presumptive.[17] Victoria disliked the trips; the constant round of public appearances made her tired and ill, and there was little time for her to rest.[18] She objected on the grounds of the King's disapproval, but her mother dismissed his complaints as motivated by jealousy, and forced Victoria to continue the tours.[19] At Ramsgate in October 1835, Victoria contracted a severe fever, which Conroy initially dismissed as a childish pretence.[20] While Victoria was ill, Conroy and the Duchess unsuccessfully badgered her to make Conroy her private secretary.[21] As a teenager, Victoria resisted persistent attempts by her mother and Conroy to appoint him to her staff.[22] Once queen, she banned him from her presence, but he remained in her mother's household.[23]

    By 1836, the Duchess's brother, Leopold, who had been King of the Belgians since 1831, hoped to marry his niece to his nephew, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.[24] Leopold, Victoria's mother, and Albert's father (Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) were siblings. Leopold arranged for Victoria's mother to invite her Coburg relatives to visit her in May 1836, with the purpose of introducing Victoria to Albert.[25] William IV, however, disapproved of any match with the Coburgs, and instead favoured the suit of Prince Alexander of the Netherlands, second son of the Prince of Orange.[26] Victoria was aware of the various matrimonial plans and critically appraised a parade of eligible princes.[27] According to her diary, she enjoyed Albert's company from the beginning. After the visit she wrote, "[Albert] is extremely handsome; his hair is about the same colour as mine; his eyes are large and blue, and he has a beautiful nose and a very sweet mouth with fine teeth; but the charm of his countenance is his expression, which is most delightful."[28] Alexander, on the other hand, was "very plain".[29]

    Victoria wrote to her uncle Leopold, whom Victoria considered her "best and kindest adviser",[30] to thank him "for the prospect of great happiness you have contributed to give me, in the person of dear Albert ... He possesses every quality that could be desired to render me perfectly happy. He is so sensible, so kind, and so good, and so amiable too. He has besides the most pleasing and delightful exterior and appearance you can possibly see."[31] However at 17, Victoria, though interested in Albert, was not yet ready to marry. The parties did not undertake a formal engagement, but assumed that the match would take place in due time.[32]

    Victoria turned 18 on 24 May 1837, and a regency was avoided. Less than a month later, on 20 June 1837, William IV died at the age of 71, and Victoria became Queen of the United Kingdom.[33] In her diary she wrote, "I was awoke at 6 o'clock by Mamma, who told me the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Conyngham were here and wished to see me. I got out of bed and went into my sitting-room (only in my dressing gown) and alone, and saw them. Lord Conyngham then acquainted me that my poor Uncle, the King, was no more, and had expired at 12 minutes past 2 this morning, and consequently that I am Queen."[34] Official documents prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Alexandrina Victoria, but the first name was withdrawn at her own wish and not used again.[35]

    Since 1714, Britain had shared a monarch with Hanover in Germany, but under Salic law women were excluded from the Hanoverian succession. While Victoria inherited all the British dominions, Hanover passed instead to her father's younger brother, her unpopular uncle the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, who became King Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. He was her heir presumptive until she married and had a child.[36]

    At the time of her accession, the government was led by the Whig prime minister Lord Melbourne, who at once became a powerful influence on the politically inexperienced Queen, who relied on him for advice.[37] Charles Greville supposed that the widowed and childless Melbourne was "passionately fond of her as he might be of his daughter if he had one", and Victoria probably saw him as a father figure.[38] Her coronation took place on 28 June 1838 at Westminster Abbey. Over 400,000 visitors came to London for the celebrations.[39] She became the first sovereign to take up residence at Buckingham Palace[40] and inherited the revenues of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall as well as being granted a civil list allowance of £385,000 per year. Financially prudent, she paid off her father's debts.[41]

    At the start of her reign Victoria was popular,[42] but her reputation suffered in an 1839 court intrigue when one of her mother's ladies-in-waiting, Lady Flora Hastings, developed an abdominal growth that was widely rumoured to be an out-of-wedlock pregnancy by Sir John Conroy.[43] Victoria believed the rumours.[44] She hated Conroy, and despised "that odious Lady Flora",[45] because she had conspired with Conroy and the Duchess of Kent in the Kensington System.[46] At first, Lady Flora refused to submit to a naked medical examination, until in mid-February she eventually agreed, and was found to be a virgin.[47] Conroy, the Hastings family and the opposition Tories organised a press campaign implicating the Queen in the spreading of false rumours about Lady Flora.[48] When Lady Flora died in July, the post-mortem revealed a large tumour on her liver that had distended her abdomen.[49] At public appearances, Victoria was hissed and jeered as "Mrs. Melbourne".[50]

    In 1839, Melbourne resigned after Radicals and Tories (both of whom Victoria detested) voted against a bill to suspend the constitution of Jamaica. The bill removed political power from plantation owners who were resisting measures associated with the abolition of slavery.[51] The Queen commissioned a Tory, Sir Robert Peel, to form a new ministry. At the time, it was customary for the prime minister to appoint members of the Royal Household, who were usually his political allies and their spouses. Many of the Queen's ladies of the bedchamber were wives of Whigs, and Peel expected to replace them with wives of Tories. In what became known as the bedchamber crisis, Victoria, advised by Melbourne, objected to their removal. Peel refused to govern under the restrictions imposed by the Queen, and consequently resigned his commission, allowing Melbourne to return to office.[52]

    Though Victoria was now queen, as an unmarried young woman she was required by social convention to live with her mother, despite their differences over the Kensington System and her mother's continued reliance on Conroy.[53] Her mother was consigned to a remote apartment in Buckingham Palace, and Victoria often refused to see her.[54] When Victoria complained to Melbourne that her mother's close proximity promised "torment for many years", Melbourne sympathised but said it could be avoided by marriage, which Victoria called a "schocking [sic] alternative".[55] She showed interest in Albert's education for the future role he would have to play as her husband, but she resisted attempts to rush her into wedlock.[56]
    Victoria continued to praise Albert following his second visit in October 1839. Albert and Victoria felt mutual affection and the Queen proposed to him on 15 October 1839, just five days after he had arrived at Windsor.[57] They were married on 10 February 1840, in the Chapel Royal of St James's Palace, London. Victoria was besotted. She spent the evening after their wedding lying down with a headache, but wrote ecstatically in her diary:

    I NEVER, NEVER spent such an evening!!! MY DEAREST DEAREST DEAR Albert ... his excessive love & affection gave me feelings of heavenly love & happiness I never could have hoped to have felt before! He clasped me in his arms, & we kissed each other again & again! His beauty, his sweetness & gentleness – really how can I ever be thankful enough to have such a Husband! ... to be called by names of tenderness, I have never yet heard used to me before – was bliss beyond belief! Oh! This was the happiest day of my life![58]

    Albert became an important political adviser as well as the Queen's companion, replacing Lord Melbourne as the dominant, influential figure in the first half of her life.[59] Victoria's mother was evicted from the palace, to Ingestre House in Belgrave Square. After the death of Princess Augusta in 1840, Victoria's mother was given both Clarence and Frogmore Houses.[60] Through Albert's mediation, relations between mother and daughter slowly improved.[61]

    During Victoria's first pregnancy in 1840, in the first few months of the marriage, 18-year-old Edward Oxford attempted to assassinate her while she was riding in a carriage with Prince Albert on her way to visit her mother. Oxford fired twice, but either both bullets missed or, as he later claimed, the guns had no shot.[62] He was tried for high treason, found not guilty on the grounds of insanity, and committed to an insane asylum indefinitely.[63] In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Victoria's popularity soared, mitigating residual discontent over the Hastings affair and the bedchamber crisis.[64] Her daughter, also named Victoria, was born on 21 November 1840. The Queen hated being pregnant,[65] viewed breast-feeding with disgust,[66] and thought newborn babies were ugly.[67] Nevertheless, over the following seventeen years, she and Albert had a further eight children: Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (b. 1841), Alice (b. 1843), Alfred (b. 1844), Helena (b. 1846), Louise (b. 1848), Arthur (b. 1850), Leopold (b. 1853) and Beatrice (b. 1857).

    Victoria's household was largely run by her childhood governess, Baroness Louise Lehzen from Hanover. Lehzen had been a formative influence on Victoria,[68] and had supported her against the Kensington System.[69] Albert, however, thought Lehzen was incompetent, and that her mismanagement threatened his daughter's health. After a furious row between Victoria and Albert over the issue, Lehzen was pensioned off, and Victoria's close relationship with her ended.[70]

    On 29 May 1842, Victoria was riding in a carriage along The Mall, London, when John Francis aimed a pistol at her but the gun did not fire; he escaped. The following day, Victoria drove the same route, though faster and with a greater escort, in a deliberate attempt to provoke Francis to take a second aim and catch him in the act. As expected, Francis shot at her, but he was seized by plain-clothes policemen, and convicted of high treason. On 3 July, two days after Francis's death sentence was commuted to transportation for life, John William Bean also tried to fire a pistol at the Queen, but it was loaded only with paper and tobacco and had too little charge.[71] Edward Oxford felt that the attempts were encouraged by his acquittal in 1840. Bean was sentenced to 18 months in jail.[72] In a similar attack in 1849, unemployed Irishman William Hamilton fired a powder-filled pistol at Victoria's carriage as it passed along Constitution Hill, London.[73] In 1850, the Queen did sustain injury when she was assaulted by a possibly insane ex-army officer, Robert Pate. As Victoria was riding in a carriage, Pate struck her with his cane, crushing her bonnet and bruising her forehead. Both Hamilton and Pate were sentenced to seven years' transportation.[74] Melbourne's support in the House of Commons weakened through the early years of Victoria's reign, and in the 1841 general election the Whigs were defeated. Peel became prime minister, and the ladies of the bedchamber most associated with the Whigs were replaced.[75]

    In 1845, Ireland was hit by a potato blight.[77] In the next four years over a million Irish people died and another million emigrated in what became known as the Great Famine.[78] In Ireland, Victoria was labelled "The Famine Queen".[79][80] She personally donated £2,000 to the British Relief Association, more than any other individual famine relief donor,[81] and also supported the Maynooth Grant to a Roman Catholic seminary in Ireland, despite Protestant opposition.[82] The story that she donated only £5 in aid to the Irish, and on the same day gave the same amount to Battersea Dogs Home, was a myth generated towards the end of the 19th century.[83]

    By 1846, Peel's ministry faced a crisis involving the repeal of the Corn Laws. Many Tories—by then known also as Conservatives—were opposed to the repeal, but Peel, some Tories (the "Peelites"), most Whigs and Victoria supported it. Peel resigned in 1846, after the repeal narrowly passed, and was replaced by Lord John Russell.[84]

    Internationally, Victoria took a keen interest in the improvement of relations between France and Britain.[85] She made and hosted several visits between the British royal family and the House of Orleans, who were related by marriage through the Coburgs. In 1843 and 1845, she and Albert stayed with King Louis Philippe I at château d'Eu in Normandy; she was the first British or English monarch to visit a French one since the meeting of Henry VIII of England and Francis I of France on the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520.[86] When Louis Philippe made a reciprocal trip in 1844, he became the first French king to visit a British sovereign.[87] Louis Philippe was deposed in the revolutions of 1848, and fled to exile in England.[88] At the height of a revolutionary scare in the United Kingdom in April 1848, Victoria and her family left London for the greater safety of Osborne House,[89] a private estate on the Isle of Wight that they had purchased in 1845 and redeveloped.[90] Demonstrations by Chartists and Irish nationalists failed to attract widespread support, and the scare died down without any major disturbances.[91] Victoria's first visit to Ireland in 1849 was a public relations success, but it had no lasting impact or effect on the growth of Irish nationalism.[92]

    Russell's ministry, though Whig, was not favoured by the Queen.[93] She found particularly offensive the Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, who often acted without consulting the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, or the Queen.[94] Victoria complained to Russell that Palmerston sent official dispatches to foreign leaders without her knowledge, but Palmerston was retained in office and continued to act on his own initiative, despite her repeated remonstrances. It was only in 1851 that Palmerston was removed after he announced the British government's approval of President Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's coup in France without consulting the Prime Minister.[95] The following year, President Bonaparte was declared Emperor Napoleon III, by which time Russell's administration had been replaced by a short-lived minority government led by Lord Derby.

    In 1853, Victoria gave birth to her eighth child, Leopold, with the aid of the new anaesthetic, chloroform. Victoria was so impressed by the relief it gave from the pain of childbirth that she used it again in 1857 at the birth of her ninth and final child, Beatrice, despite opposition from members of the clergy, who considered it against biblical teaching, and members of the medical profession, who thought it dangerous.[96] Victoria may have suffered from postnatal depression after many of her pregnancies.[97] Letters from Albert to Victoria intermittently complain of her loss of self-control. For example, about a month after Leopold's birth Albert complained in a letter to Victoria about her "continuance of hysterics" over a "miserable trifle".[98]
    In early 1855, the government of Lord Aberdeen, who had replaced Derby, fell amidst recriminations over the poor management of British troops in the Crimean War. Victoria approached both Derby and Russell to form a ministry, but neither had sufficient support, and Victoria was forced to appoint Palmerston as prime minister.[99]

    Napoleon III, since the Crimean War Britain's closest ally,[97] visited London in April 1855, and from 17 to 28 August the same year Victoria and Albert returned the visit.[100] Napoleon III met the couple at Boulogne and accompanied them to Paris.[101] They visited the Exposition Universelle (a successor to Albert's 1851 brainchild the Great Exhibition) and Napoleon I's tomb at Les Invalides (to which his remains had only been returned in 1840), and were guests of honour at a 1,200-guest ball at the Palace of Versailles.[102]

    On 14 January 1858, an Italian refugee from Britain called Felice Orsini attempted to assassinate Napoleon III with a bomb made in England.[103] The ensuing diplomatic crisis destabilised the government, and Palmerston resigned. Derby was reinstated as prime minister.[104] Victoria and Albert attended the opening of a new basin at the French military port of Cherbourg on 5 August 1858, in an attempt by Napoleon III to reassure Britain that his military preparations were directed elsewhere. On her return Victoria wrote to Derby reprimanding him for the poor state of the Royal Navy in comparison to the French one.[105] Derby's ministry did not last long, and in June 1859 Victoria recalled Palmerston to office.[106]

    Eleven days after Orsini's assassination attempt in France, Victoria's eldest daughter married Prince Frederick William of Prussia in London. They had been betrothed since September 1855, when Princess Victoria was 14 years old; the marriage was delayed by the Queen and Prince Albert until the bride was 17.[107] The Queen and Albert hoped that their daughter and son-in-law would be a liberalising influence in the enlarging Prussian state.[108] Victoria felt "sick at heart" to see her daughter leave England for Germany; "It really makes me shudder", she wrote to Princess Victoria in one of her frequent letters, "when I look round to all your sweet, happy, unconscious sisters, and think I must give them up too – one by one."[109] Almost exactly a year later, Princess Victoria gave birth to the Queen's first grandchild, Wilhelm, who would become the last German Kaiser.

    In March 1861, Victoria's mother died, with Victoria at her side. Through reading her mother's papers, Victoria discovered that her mother had loved her deeply;[110] she was heart-broken, and blamed Conroy and Lehzen for "wickedly" estranging her from her mother.[111] To relieve his wife during her intense and deep grief,[112] Albert took on most of her duties, despite being ill himself with chronic stomach trouble.[113] In August, Victoria and Albert visited their son, the Prince of Wales, who was attending army manoeuvres near Dublin, and spent a few days holidaying in Killarney. In November, Albert was made aware of gossip that his son had slept with an actress in Ireland.[114] Appalled, Albert travelled to Cambridge, where his son was studying, to confront him.[115] By the beginning of December, Albert was very unwell.[116] He was diagnosed with typhoid fever by William Jenner, and died on 14 December 1861. Victoria was devastated.[117] She blamed her husband's death on worry over the Prince of Wales's philandering. He had been "killed by that dreadful business", she said.[118] She entered a state of mourning and wore black for the remainder of her life. She avoided public appearances, and rarely set foot in London in the following years.[119] Her seclusion earned her the nickname "widow of Windsor".[120]

    Victoria's self-imposed isolation from the public diminished the popularity of the monarchy, and encouraged the growth of the republican movement.[121] She did undertake her official government duties, yet chose to remain secluded in her royal residences—Windsor Castle, Osborne House, and the private estate in Scotland that she and Albert had acquired in 1847, Balmoral Castle. In March 1864, a protester stuck a notice on the railings of Buckingham Palace that announced "these commanding premises to be let or sold in consequence of the late occupant's declining business".[122] Her uncle Leopold wrote to her advising her to appear in public. She agreed to visit the gardens of the Royal Horticultural Society at Kensington and take a drive through London in an open carriage.[123]

    Through the 1860s, Victoria relied increasingly on a manservant from Scotland, John Brown.[124] Slanderous rumours of a romantic connection and even a secret marriage appeared in print, and the Queen was referred to as "Mrs. Brown".[125] The story of their relationship was the subject of the 1997 movie Mrs. Brown. A painting by Sir Edwin Henry Landseer depicting the Queen with Brown was exhibited at the Royal Academy, and Victoria published a book, Leaves from the Journal of Our Life in the Highlands, which featured Brown prominently and in which the Queen praised him highly.[126]

    Palmerston died in 1865, and after a brief ministry led by Russell, Derby returned to power. In 1866, Victoria attended the State Opening of Parliament for the first time since Albert's death.[127] The following year she supported the passing of the Reform Act 1867 which doubled the electorate by extending the franchise to many urban working men,[128] though she was not in favour of votes for women.[129] Derby resigned in 1868, to be replaced by Benjamin Disraeli, who charmed Victoria. "Everyone likes flattery," he said, "and when you come to royalty you should lay it on with a trowel."[130] With the phrase "we authors, Ma'am", he complimented her.[131] Disraeli's ministry only lasted a matter of months, and at the end of the year his Liberal rival, William Ewart Gladstone, was appointed prime minister. Victoria found Gladstone's demeanour far less appealing; he spoke to her, she is thought to have complained, as though she were "a public meeting rather than a woman".[132]

    In 1870, republican sentiment in Britain, fed by the Queen's seclusion, was boosted after the establishment of the Third French Republic.[133] A republican rally in Trafalgar Square demanded Victoria's removal, and Radical MPs spoke against her.[134] In August and September 1871, she was seriously ill with an abscess in her arm, which Joseph Lister successfully lanced and treated with his new antiseptic carbolic acid spray.[135] In late November 1871, at the height of the republican movement, the Prince of Wales contracted typhoid fever, the disease that was believed to have killed his father, and Victoria was fearful her son would die.[136] As the tenth anniversary of her husband's death approached, her son's condition grew no better, and Victoria's distress continued.[137] To general rejoicing, he pulled through.[138] Mother and son attended a public parade through London and a grand service of thanksgiving in St Paul's Cathedral on 27 February 1872, and republican feeling subsided.[139]

    On the last day of February 1872, two days after the thanksgiving service, 17-year-old Arthur O'Connor (great-nephew of Irish MP Feargus O'Connor) waved an unloaded pistol at Victoria's open carriage just after she had arrived at Buckingham Palace. Brown, who was attending the Queen, grabbed him and O'Connor was later sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.[140] As a result of the incident, Victoria's popularity recovered further.[141]

    After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British East India Company, which had ruled much of India, was dissolved, and Britain's possessions and protectorates on the Indian subcontinent were formally incorporated into the British Empire. The Queen had a relatively balanced view of the conflict, and condemned atrocities on both sides.[142] She wrote of "her feelings of horror and regret at the result of this bloody civil war",[143] and insisted, urged on by Albert, that an official proclamation announcing the transfer of power from the company to the state "should breathe feelings of generosity, benevolence and religious toleration".[144] At her behest, a reference threatening the "undermining of native religions and customs" was replaced by a passage guaranteeing religious freedom.[144]

    In the 1874 general election, Disraeli was returned to power. He passed the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, which removed Catholic rituals from the Anglican liturgy and which Victoria strongly supported.[146] She preferred short, simple services, and personally considered herself more aligned with the presbyterian Church of Scotland than the episcopal Church of England.[147] He also pushed the Royal Titles Act 1876 through Parliament, so that Victoria took the title "Empress of India" from 1 May 1876.[148] The new title was proclaimed at the Delhi Durbar of 1 January 1877.[149]

    On 14 December 1878, the anniversary of Albert's death, Victoria's second daughter Alice, who had married Louis of Hesse, died of diphtheria in Darmstadt. Victoria noted the coincidence of the dates as "almost incredible and most mysterious".[150] In May 1879, she became a great-grandmother (on the birth of Princess Feodora of Saxe-Meiningen) and passed her "poor old 60th birthday". She felt "aged" by "the loss of my beloved child".[151]

    Between April 1877 and February 1878, she threatened five times to abdicate while pressuring Disraeli to act against Russia during the Russo-Turkish War, but her threats had no impact on the events or their conclusion with the Congress of Berlin.[152] Disraeli's expansionist foreign policy, which Victoria endorsed, led to conflicts such as the Anglo-Zulu War and the Second Anglo-Afghan War. "If we are to maintain our position as a first-rate Power", she wrote, "we must ... be Prepared for attacks and wars, somewhere or other, CONTINUALLY."[153] Victoria saw the expansion of the British Empire as civilising and benign, protecting native peoples from more aggressive powers or cruel rulers: "It is not in our custom to annexe countries", she said, "unless we are obliged & forced to do so."[154] To Victoria's dismay, Disraeli lost the 1880 general election, and Gladstone returned as prime minister.[155] When Disraeli died the following year, she was blinded by "fast falling tears",[156] and erected a memorial tablet "placed by his grateful Sovereign and Friend, Victoria R.I."[157]

    On 2 March 1882, Roderick Maclean, a disgruntled poet apparently offended by Victoria's refusal to accept one of his poems,[158] shot at the Queen as her carriage left Windsor railway station. Two schoolboys from Eton College struck him with their umbrellas, until he was hustled away by a policeman.[159] Victoria was outraged when he was found not guilty by reason of insanity,[160] but was so pleased by the many expressions of loyalty after the attack that she said it was "worth being shot at—to see how much one is loved".[161]

    On 17 March 1883, she fell down some stairs at Windsor, which left her lame until July; she never fully recovered and was plagued with rheumatism thereafter.[162] Brown died 10 days after her accident, and to the consternation of her private secretary, Sir Henry Ponsonby, Victoria began work on a eulogistic biography of Brown.[163] Ponsonby and Randall Davidson, Dean of Windsor, who had both seen early drafts, advised Victoria against publication, on the grounds that it would stoke the rumours of a love affair.[164] The manuscript was destroyed.[165] In early 1884, Victoria did publish More Leaves from a Journal of a Life in the Highlands, a sequel to her earlier book, which she dedicated to her "devoted personal attendant and faithful friend John Brown".[166] On the day after the first anniversary of Brown's death, Victoria was informed by telegram that her youngest son, Leopold, had died in Cannes. He was "the dearest of my dear sons", she lamented.[167] The following month, Victoria's youngest child, Beatrice, met and fell in love with Prince Henry of Battenberg at the wedding of Victoria's granddaughter Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine to Henry's brother Prince Louis of Battenberg. Beatrice and Henry planned to marry, but Victoria opposed the match at first, wishing to keep Beatrice at home to act as her companion. After a year, she was won around to the marriage by Henry and Beatrice's promise to remain living with and attending her.[168]

    Victoria was pleased when Gladstone resigned in 1885 after his budget was defeated.[169] She thought his government was "the worst I have ever had", and blamed him for the death of General Gordon at Khartoum.[170] Gladstone was replaced by Lord Salisbury. Salisbury's government only lasted a few months, however, and Victoria was forced to recall Gladstone, whom she referred to as a "half crazy & really in many ways ridiculous old man".[171] Gladstone attempted to pass a bill granting Ireland home rule, but to Victoria's glee it was defeated.[172] In the ensuing election, Gladstone's party lost to Salisbury's and the government switched hands again.

    In 1887, the British Empire celebrated Victoria's Golden Jubilee. Victoria marked the fiftieth anniversary of her accession on 20 June with a banquet to which 50 kings and princes were invited. The following day, she participated in a procession and attended a thanksgiving service in Westminster Abbey.[173] By this time, Victoria was once again extremely popular.[174] Two days later on 23 June,[175] she engaged two Indian Muslims as waiters, one of whom was Abdul Karim. He was soon promoted to "Munshi": teaching her Hindustani, and acting as a clerk.[176] Her family and retainers were appalled, and accused Abdul Karim of spying for the Muslim Patriotic League, and biasing the Queen against the Hindus.[177] Equerry Frederick Ponsonby (the son of Sir Henry) discovered that the Munshi had lied about his parentage, and reported to Lord Elgin, Viceroy of India, "the Munshi occupies very much the same position as John Brown used to do."[178] Victoria dismissed their complaints as racial prejudice.[179] Abdul Karim remained in her service until he returned to India with a pension on her death.[180]

    Victoria's eldest daughter became Empress consort of Germany in 1888, but she was widowed within the year, and Victoria's grandchild Wilhelm became German Emperor as Wilhelm II. Under Wilhelm, Victoria and Albert's hopes of a liberal Germany were not fulfilled. He believed in autocracy. Victoria thought he had "little heart or Zartgefühl [tact] – and ... his conscience & intelligence have been completely wharped [sic]".[181] Gladstone returned to power after the 1892 general election; he was 82 years old. Victoria objected when Gladstone proposed appointing the Radical MP Henry Labouchere to the Cabinet, so Gladstone agreed not to appoint him.[182] In 1894, Gladstone retired and, without consulting the outgoing prime minister, Victoria appointed Lord Rosebery as prime minister.[183] His government was weak, and the following year Lord Salisbury replaced him. Salisbury remained prime minister for the remainder of Victoria's reign.[184]

    On 23 September 1896, Victoria surpassed her grandfather George III as the longest-reigning monarch in English, Scottish, and British history. The Queen requested that any special celebrations be delayed until 1897, to coincide with her Diamond Jubilee,[185] which was made a festival of the British Empire at the suggestion of Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain.[186] The prime ministers of all the self-governing dominions were invited to London for the festivities.[187] One reason for including the prime ministers of the dominions and excluding foreign heads of state was to avoid having to invite Victoria's grandson, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany who, it was feared, might cause trouble at the event.[188]

    The Queen's Diamond Jubilee procession on 22 June 1897 followed a route six miles long through London and included troops from all over the empire. The procession paused for an open-air service of thanksgiving held outside St Paul's Cathedral, throughout which Victoria sat in her open carriage, to avoid her having to climb the steps to enter the building. The celebration was marked by vast crowds of spectators and great outpourings of affection for the 78-year-old Queen.[189]

    Victoria visited mainland Europe regularly for holidays. In 1889, during a stay in Biarritz, she became the first reigning monarch from Britain to set foot in Spain when she crossed the border for a brief visit.[190] By April 1900, the Boer War was so unpopular in mainland Europe that her annual trip to France seemed inadvisable. Instead, the Queen went to Ireland for the first time since 1861, in part to acknowledge the contribution of Irish regiments to the South African war.[191] In July, her second son Alfred ("Affie") died; "Oh, God! My poor darling Affie gone too", she wrote in her journal. "It is a horrible year, nothing but sadness & horrors of one kind & another."[192]

    Following a custom she maintained throughout her widowhood, Victoria spent the Christmas of 1900 at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. Rheumatism in her legs had rendered her lame, and her eyesight was clouded by cataracts.[193] Through early January, she felt "weak and unwell",[194] and by mid-January she was "drowsy ... dazed, [and] confused".[195] She died on Tuesday, 22 January 1901, at half past six in the evening, at the age of 81.[196] Her son and successor King Edward VII, and her eldest grandson, Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany, were at her deathbed.[197] Her favourite pet Pomeranian, Turi, was laid upon her deathbed as a last request.[198]

    In 1897, Victoria had written instructions for her funeral, which was to be military as befitting a soldier's daughter and the head of the army,[97] and white instead of black.[199] On 25 January, Edward VII, the Kaiser and Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, helped lift her body into the coffin.[200] She was dressed in a white dress and her wedding veil.[201] An array of mementos commemorating her extended family, friends and servants were laid in the coffin with her, at her request, by her doctor and dressers. One of Albert's dressing gowns was placed by her side, with a plaster cast of his hand, while a lock of John Brown's hair, along with a picture of him, was placed in her left hand concealed from the view of the family by a carefully positioned bunch of flowers.[97][202] Items of jewellery placed on Victoria included the wedding ring of John Brown's mother, given to her by Brown in 1883.[97] Her funeral was held on Saturday, 2 February, in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, and after two days of lying-in-state, she was interred beside Prince Albert in Frogmore Mausoleum at Windsor Great Park.[203]

    With a reign of 63 years, seven months and two days, Victoria was the longest-reigning British monarch and the longest-reigning queen regnant in world history until her great-great-granddaughter Elizabeth II surpassed her on 9 September 2015.[204] She was the last monarch of Britain from the House of Hanover. Her son and successor Edward VII belonged to her husband's House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

    The remark "We are not amused" is attributed to her but there is no direct evidence that she ever said it,[97][206] and she denied doing so.[207] According to one of her biographers, Giles St Aubyn, Victoria wrote an average of 2,500 words a day during her adult life.[208] From July 1832 until just before her death, she kept a detailed journal, which eventually encompassed 122 volumes.[209] After Victoria's death, her youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice, was appointed her literary executor. Beatrice transcribed and edited the diaries covering Victoria's accession onwards, and burned the originals in the process.[210] Despite this destruction, much of the diaries still exist. In addition to Beatrice's edited copy, Lord Esher transcribed the volumes from 1832 to 1861 before Beatrice destroyed them.[211] Part of Victoria's extensive correspondence has been published in volumes edited by A. C. Benson, Hector Bolitho, George Earle Buckle, Lord Esher, Roger Fulford, and Richard Hough among others.[212]

    Victoria was physically unprepossessing—she was stout, dowdy and no more than five feet tall—but she succeeded in projecting a grand image.[213] She experienced unpopularity during the first years of her widowhood, but was well liked during the 1880s and 1890s, when she embodied the empire as a benevolent matriarchal figure.[214] Only after the release of her diary and letters did the extent of her political influence become known to the wider public.[97][215] Biographies of Victoria written before much of the primary material became available, such as Lytton Strachey's Queen Victoria of 1921, are now considered out of date.[216] The biographies written by Elizabeth Longford and Cecil Woodham-Smith, in 1964 and 1972 respectively, are still widely admired.[217] They, and others, conclude that as a person Victoria was emotional, obstinate, honest, and straight-talking.[218]

    Through Victoria's reign, the gradual establishment of a modern constitutional monarchy in Britain continued. Reforms of the voting system increased the power of the House of Commons at the expense of the House of Lords and the monarch.[219] In 1867, Walter Bagehot wrote that the monarch only retained "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn".[220] As Victoria's monarchy became more symbolic than political, it placed a strong emphasis on morality and family values, in contrast to the sexual, financial and personal scandals that had been associated with previous members of the House of Hanover and which had discredited the monarchy. The concept of the "family monarchy", with which the burgeoning middle classes could identify, was solidified.[221]

    Victoria's links with Europe's royal families earned her the nickname "the grandmother of Europe".[222] Victoria and Albert had 42 grandchildren, of whom 34 survived to adulthood. Their descendants include Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Harald V of Norway, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, Margrethe II of Denmark, and Felipe VI of Spain. Victoria's youngest son, Leopold, was affected by the blood-clotting disease haemophilia B and two of her five daughters, Alice and Beatrice, were carriers. Royal haemophiliacs descended from Victoria included her great-grandsons, Tsarevich Alexei of Russia, Alfonso, Prince of Asturias, and Infante Gonzalo of Spain.[223] The presence of the disease in Victoria's descendants, but not in her ancestors, led to modern speculation that her true father was not the Duke of Kent but a haemophiliac.[224] There is no documentary evidence of a haemophiliac in connection with Victoria's mother, and as male carriers always suffer the disease, even if such a man had existed he would have been seriously ill.[225] It is more likely that the mutation arose spontaneously because Victoria's father was over 50 at the time of her conception and haemophilia arises more frequently in the children of older fathers.[226] Spontaneous mutations account for about a third of cases.[227]
    Around the world, places and memorials are dedicated to her, especially in the Commonwealth nations. Places named after her include Africa's largest lake, Victoria Falls, the capitals of British Columbia (Victoria) and Saskatchewan (Regina), and two Australian states (Victoria and Queensland).

    The Victoria Cross was introduced in 1856 to reward acts of valour during the Crimean War, and it remains the highest British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealander award for bravery. Victoria Day is a Canadian statutory holiday and a local public holiday in parts of Scotland celebrated on the last Monday before or on 24 May (Queen Victoria's birthday).

    Titles and styles

    24 May 1819 – 20 June 1837: Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent
    20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901: Her Majesty The Queen
    At the end of her reign, the Queen's full style and title were: "Her Majesty Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India."[228]

    Arms

    As Sovereign, Victoria used the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Before her accession, she received no grant of arms. As she could not succeed to the throne of Hanover, her arms did not carry the Hanoverian symbols that were used by her immediate predecessors. Her arms have been borne by all of her successors on the throne. Outside Scotland, the blazon for the shield—also used on the Royal Standard—is: Quarterly: I and IV, Gules, three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); II, Or, a lion rampant within a double tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); III, Azure, a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland). In Scotland, the first and fourth quarters are occupied by the Scottish lion, and the second by the English lions. The crests, mottoes, and supporters also differ in and outside Scotland.[229]

    Bibliography

    Charles, Barrie (2012) Kill the Queen! The Eight Assassination Attempts on Queen Victoria, Stroud: Amberley Publishing, ISBN 978-1-4456-0457-2
    Hibbert, Christopher (2000) Queen Victoria: A Personal History, London: HarperCollins, ISBN 0-00-638843-4
    Longford, Elizabeth (1964) Victoria R.I., London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-17001-5
    Marshall, Dorothy (1972) The Life and Times of Queen Victoria, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 0-297-83166-6 [1992 reprint]
    Packard, Jerrold M. (1998) Victoria's Daughters, New York: St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0-312-24496-7
    Potts, D. M.; Potts, W. T. W. (1995) Queen Victoria's Gene: Haemophilia and the Royal Family, Stroud: Alan Sutton, ISBN 0-7509-1199-9
    St Aubyn, Giles (1991) Queen Victoria: A Portrait, London: Sinclair-Stevenson, ISBN 1-85619-086-2
    Strachey, Lytton (1921) Queen Victoria, London: Chatto and Windus online edition
    Waller, Maureen (2006) Sovereign Ladies: The Six Reigning Queens of England, London: John Murray, ISBN 0-7195-6628-2
    Weintraub, Stanley (1997) Albert: Uncrowned King, London: John Murray, ISBN 0-7195-5756-9
    Woodham-Smith, Cecil (1972) Queen Victoria: Her Life and Times 1819–1861, London: Hamish Hamilton, ISBN 0-241-02200-2
    Published primary sources
    Benson, A.C.; Esher, Viscount (editors, 1907) The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection of Her Majesty's Correspondence Between the Years 1837 and 1861, London: John Murray
    Bolitho, Hector (editor, 1938) Letters of Queen Victoria from the Archives of the House of Brandenburg-Prussia, London: Thornton Butterworth
    Buckle, George Earle (editor, 1926) The Letters of Queen Victoria, 2nd Series 1862–1885, London: John Murray
    Buckle, George Earle (editor, 1930) The Letters of Queen Victoria, 3rd Series 1886–1901, London: John Murray
    Connell, Brian (1962) Regina v. Palmerston: The Correspondence between Queen Victoria and her Foreign and Prime Minister, 1837–1865, London: Evans Brothers
    Duff, David (editor, 1968) Victoria in the Highlands: The Personal Journal of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, London: Muller
    Dyson, Hope; Tennyson, Charles (editors, 1969) Dear and Honoured Lady: The Correspondence between Queen Victoria and Alfred Tennyson, London: Macmillan
    Esher, Viscount (editor, 1912) The Girlhood of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty's Diaries, 1832–40, London: John Murray
    Fulford, Roger (editor, 1964) Dearest Child: Letters Between Queen Victoria and the Princess Royal, 1858–61, London: Evans Brothers
    Fulford, Roger (editor, 1968) Dearest Mama: Letters Between Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1861–64, London: Evans Brothers
    Fulford, Roger (editor, 1971) Beloved Mama: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the German Crown Princess, 1878–85, London: Evans Brothers
    Fulford, Roger (editor, 1971) Your Dear Letter: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1863–71, London: Evans Brothers
    Fulford, Roger (editor, 1976) Darling Child: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the German Crown Princess of Prussia, 1871–78, London: Evans Brothers
    Hibbert, Christopher (editor, 1984) Queen Victoria in Her Letters and Journals, London: John Murray, ISBN 0-7195-4107-7
    Hough, Richard (editor, 1975) Advice to a Grand-daughter: Letters from Queen Victoria to Princess Victoria of Hesse, London: Heinemann, ISBN 0-434-34861-9
    Jagow, Kurt (editor, 1938) Letters of the Prince Consort 1831–61, London: John Murray
    Mortimer, Raymond (editor, 1961) Queen Victoria: Leaves from a Journal, New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy
    Ponsonby, Sir Frederick (editor, 1930) Letters of the Empress Frederick, London: Macmillan
    Ramm, Agatha (editor, 1990) Beloved and Darling Child: Last Letters between Queen Victoria and Her Eldest Daughter, 1886–1901, Stroud: Sutton Publishing, ISBN 978-0-86299-880-6
    Victoria, Queen (1868) Leaves from the Journal of Our Life in the Highlands from 1848 to 1861, London: Smith, Elder
    Victoria, Queen (1884) More Leaves from the Journal of Our Life in the Highlands from 1862 to 1882, London: Smith, Elder

    Further reading

    Arnstein, Walter L. (2003) Queen Victoria, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-333-63806-4
    Gardiner, Juliet (1997) Queen Victoria, London: Collins and Brown, ISBN 978-1-85585-469-7
    Lyden, Anne M. (2014) A Royal Passion: Queen Victoria and Photography, Los Angeles: Getty Publications, ISBN 978-1-60606-155-8
    Weintraub, Stanley (1987) Victoria: Biography of a Queen, London: HarperCollins, ISBN 978-0-04-923084-2
    Wilson, A. N. (2014) Victoria: A Life, London: Atlantic Books, ISBN 978-1-84887-956-0

















    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:03 pm






    RedEzra wrote:GOD said from the beginning that every soul who sins shall die and since GOD is not a liar so every soul who sins shall die. So basically a lot of us are f*cked ! We will die and end up in hell with the fallen angels and demons. And there is no ascension escaping this ethereal nightmare except... What ?! Is it possible for a sinnerman not to go to hell ?? YES ! Stop sinning ! But but who will make reparations for our crimes against each other ? GOD said from the beginning that only the spilling of blood can atone for sins so who's blood can cover a whole world of crimes ? That would be GOD's blood ! So will GOD pay the price for our sins and spill His blood for us ? He already did friend he already did.

    RedEzra wrote:Also science must conform to the Party program... a truth therefore which does not fit into the program or ideological agenda will be silenced censored or made to look like a lie. The Party is not about truth but control ! Control over you me and everybody else who is not an inner member or on top of the hierarchy. The Party is all about staying in power! Who would you be ? Master or slave ? So you see it is only self preservation in the minds of the masters or Party tops !
    orthodoxymoron wrote:I continue to be interested in what Job to Malachi REALLY Teaches. Does it support Genesis to Esther?? Does it support Matthew to Revelation?? Is the Bible the Solution and/or the Problem?? Are there other legitimate and preferable options?? Are we locked-in to arguing and fighting about Biblical-Theology?? Can the Bible be made to say whatever we want it to say?? Theology often seems to be a Nightmare. Why??
    Carol wrote: in response to Orthodoxymoron

    Hoping you are in good health and happiness.

    Thank-you Evisnam. What Do You Think About This Post?? I Can't Seem to Get Answers From Anyone. I've tried to be exact regarding quoting RA. Here are some examples:

    1. "You're Lucky to be Alive!!"
    2. "I'm Tired of Keeping You Alive!!"
    3. "Do You Think You Might be the One Hanging On the Cross in a Crucifix??"
    4. "Serqet Has a Lot to Do With Explaining Our Relationship."
    5. "I AM RA!!"
    6. "You Can't Connect Anything Back to Me."
    7. "I Can't Talk About the NSA."
    8. "You Should Make a Freedom of Information Act Request."
    9. "In Twenty Years You'll be Working for Us."
    10. "It's Going to be Dark Where You're Going".
    11. "I Built Las Vegas with Bugsy."
    12. "I'm Rich!!"
    13. "I Like the Taste of Blood!!"
    14. "I've Always Remained One Step Ahead of Humanity."
    15. RA called me "Michael" in Wal*Mart!!
    16. RA called me a "Commoner" when I made a benign comment about Tall Long-Nosed Greys!!
    17. RA asked me "Are You Ready to Run Things??"
    18. RA said "I Like Genesis."
    19. RA said "9/11 Was Done to Prevent Something Much Worse From Happening."
    20. RA said "I'm Sorry We Couldn't Work Together. Too Much Water Has Gone Under the Bridge." This was said three days prior to Fukushima.
    21. RA said "I Could Snap My Fingers, and You'd be Dead!!"
    22. RA said "You'll Never Figure This Out."
    23. RA repeatedly said "You Know I Can't Tell You That!!"
    24. RA said "You Did It With YouTube!!"

    I could continue, but this provides several clues regarding the nature of my "contact" with a very-different sort of individual. I've tried to be open, yet discrete, in discussing what happened to me. RA looked very similar to the individual who is supposed to be Ben Affleck ("Bartleby") in a "Dogma" movie poster!! That's NOT Ben in the poster!! Before this madness began, I was walking my dog, when Bartleby and Loki pulled-up beside me in their car, and looked at me for about 20 seconds, before driving away!! Honest!! An Ivy-League Divinity-School Graduate told me I was dealing with a demon!! I repeatedly discussed Sirius-Issues with RA at Starbucks!! I usually bought the coffee, and I always drove!! What Would Alan Rickman Say??

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Hello Orthodoximoron, regarding your question and information can I ask you some questions?

    Thank-you, Evisnam, for your response. Questions are welcome.

    When you try to connect with RA are you clean of spirit ? i.e. under the influence of any drugs which can range from caffeine to other readily available substances. I say this purely because there is a range of drugs that can " amplify " an experience or connection but very few are amplifiers of " pure " connections. The use of some drugs can amplify openings to lower astral beings and from what i can see here you may have some "toying " with you by the type of responses you are getting. Generally speaking you will only be able to connect with good intended beings if you are clean of spirit i.e.. clean from drugs and alcohol ( unless you know how to use them ).

    I didn't "conjure-up" an entity. I didn't "connect" with the one who said "I Am Ra". They came to me (uninvited) possibly because of a thread I created on the old closed Project Avalon site (in 2009 and 2010) titled "Amen Ra". http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18223&highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads That might've been the "Invitation". That was probably a Mistake. I also half-seriously wrote about having a "Debate-Date" with Lucifer!! That was probably my Big-Mistake!! I've never had a drink in my life. I've never smoked a cigarette or a joint in my life. I've never taken any illegal drugs in my life. I drink coffee (probably too much). I've spoken with Terrance McKenna (a notorious drug-taking intellectual-philosopher) but I've never been a "follower". I've spoken with Dr. Timothy Leary (about Jesus) but I've never taken LSD!!

    Clear of any fears and I mean ANY FEARS, if you harbor fear or judgement you will not be able to connect with beings of good intention. The photo that you use to describe the appearance of the being is usually what lower astral beings like to depict themselves as. Most times they appear as a good looking mediterranean man well dressed in a suit, very tall, deep voice, etc.. This is part or a sect of 6th dimensional beings which are reportedly part of the hidden hand or LUCIFER sect. When I say 6th dimension it’s not really a 6th dimension but a level of density that they gravitate to, I use the words 6th Dimension merely to try to assimilate what we are used to. When I went into my second fire it took me at least 3 months of cleansing, abstinence and celibacy to even reach a proper connection.

    I think I'm probably overly-concerned about Nuclear-War, Chemical and Biological Weapons, Financial-Meltdowns, Civil-War, Demonic-Manifestations, St. Peter Telling Me to "Go to Hell", etc.

    Question, when the entity spoke to you did it always start with the words " I Am Ra " if not then you may be speaking with, what I call, a " naughty angel " and there are plenty of those out there.

    The very-physical individual of interest only once said "I Am Ra". They weren't an ethereal-entity.

    Ask yourself the question, do the responses you get amplify fear in you ? then it is most probably a " naughty angel."

    I was more annoyed than fearful. I pretty-much took the whole-thing in stride. It was often somewhat humorous!!

    May I reiterate that the better beings of good intention hardly if ever speak audibly, they hardly even use words because they are offensive to them. Words in their realms are hugely powerful and are rarely if ever used. This is because of the clean state of their density, this is the energy matrix of which they reside. Because of its makeup only thought waves are used to communicate. Most beings in these realms cannot stand the sound of voices because they carry so much power in them. SO thought, or rather sans thought, is their preferred method of communication. Mind you, pictograms are widely used because they do not carry audible waves but rather they are a pure form of communication capable of relaying so much more than words. They also prefer you to have a metaphoric leeway with your communications, this allows the individual to have freedom within its own matrix to create its own reality by deciphering the message with its own influence. Words are way too definitive like that, hence why thy are not used.

    I seemed to have learned a lot by what was unsaid. I sensed that "Ra" (or whoever they really were) was a mixture of Good and Evil. They could've been an Angel. They could've been a Demon. They could've been an Alphabet-Agent. They could've been a Tall Long-Nosed Grey Alien. Damned if I knew or know. I've NEVER done anything Creepy. I've NEVER joined a strange group or organization. I've speculated that I might be a Target because of who I might be on a "Soul-Basis". But I'm pretty-much done trying to figure-out "This Present Madness". I'll leave that up to those with Degrees and Badges. It's easier that way.

    i look forward to your response.

    Thank-you for your time and experience, Evisnam.
    Notice that I both support and undermine Ellen White and "her" writings. Here is something for you to read regarding Ellen White (which is not complementary). http://www.academia.edu/10196605/Ellen_G._White_And_Her_Ghost_Writer_Book_Shop_Basic_Version I try to be honest and fair. I'm presently thinking in terms of studying Ellen White and Queen Victoria (side by side)!! Ellen White's writings are Royal-Model and Somewhat-English!! Ellen White had a third-grade education (because of being hit in the head with a rock at the age of nine)!! How did she "author" such eloquent books?? I've narrowed my focus to the first three Conflict of the Ages Series books, namely Patriarchs and Prophets, Prophets and Kings, and Desire of Ages. This pretty-much covers the Whole-Bible, while admittedly performing a lot of "adding and subtracting"!! These writings seem to have been written by a queen (or at least written in a palace)!! I've tried to incorporate these select EGW books into a Science-Fictional context!! Try combining the Babylon 5 Series with the Conflict of the Ages Series, and the Life and Writings of Queen Victoria!! What Would M.L. Andreasen Say?? I'm not capable of properly researching what I just suggested!! It sounds as though I might have some sort of a rare neurological-problem. I've suspected such a thing throughout my adult-life (off and on), and I actually went to a neurologist in my early-twenties, with no luck. But the recent heart-surgery (with major doses of anesthesia) might've revealed some organic-aspects of my previously "all in his head" difficulties, but I remain highly pessimistic that things will change for the better. I expect just the opposite. The organic-misery has probably caused me to think about things nobody else does, which probably resulted in mental and spiritual complications. That's just my own theory.

    What if the Solar System were One Big Business with One Big CEO, with No Church and No State?? Everyone Would Be An Employee!! I'm oversimplifying the concept, but I think there is something significant to extensively considering Business, Church, and State relative to the American-Dream!! This thing probably isn't just about what we want, or what might be a nice way to live. Ancient Star Wars, and Current Factional Conflicts might have a lot to do with why things are as they are!! Where one is in life probably has a lot to do with how we think things should be. People want what they want, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. I'm reading The Final Jihad by Martin Keating, and I can't put it down!! It's a well-written "HORRIBLE" Book!! I've had it for several-years, but I couldn't get into it, until I learned that one must read for hours at a time for it to make sense!! I continue to suspect that the Real PTB want some sort of a Holy-War. I SO Hope I'm Wrong. I tend to think that most everyone has been "set-up" for "something-bad". When I asked the Ancient Egyptian Deity if he were setting me up for something bad, he retorted "Are You Kidding!! I Could Snap My Fingers, and You'd Be DEAD!!" I could feel the love. On another occasion, the AED said "You're Lucky to Be Alive!!" Another time, the AED said "I'm Tired of Keeping You Alive!!" They said it in an angry and agitated manner. Once, I made a rather-benign comment concerning "Tall Long-Nosed Greys" and RA called me a "Commoner"!! When Raven chewed me out on this website, the next-day RA told me that wouldn't happen again!! What if RA and RAVEN were the same-soul?? Imagine Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra (1963) teaching what I'm posting!! Imagine her saying the exact words of this thread (or an Ellen White book) in the context of an Egyptian Palace!! Do We Have a Match?? In that movie, Cleopatra exclaims "I AM ISIS!!" What if she really was?? How might Gabriel and Michael relate to All of the Above?? Whose Throne Does the Queen Sit Upon?? What If the Original Throne-Owner is Alive and Well, and Living On Planet Earth?? What If They Want It Back?? What a Revolting Development THAT Might Be!! Would THAT Constitute an "Isis-Crisis"??!! The Horror!!

    I made a speculative post regarding this matter, a few days prior to Fukushima, and the AED said "You Found Out Something About Yourself" (but they weren't specific). During this same conversation, they said they were sorry we couldn't work together -- because too much water had gone under the bridge. What does all of this mean?? That post mostly examined the hypothetical relationship between RA, the Queen, and the Pope. Talk about a Can of Worms!! OMG!! That was three-days prior to Fukushima!! Was there a connection?? A couple of months prior to this, the AED spoke ominously of something being prepared and ready (but they didn't elaborate). What were they referring to?? What does all of this mean?? What are the implications and ramifications?? What Would Monseigneur Bowe Say?? I never met him, but I heard about him from someone who worked with him at St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco!! If I told you any more, you'd know too much!!

    I got to thinking about the Queen of England, the Pope of Rome, and the God of This World. They're a pretty exclusive trio - with extreme power - aren't they? They don't get elected by the general public, do they? Should they? I really don't know. I'm really conflicted about this sort of thing. How does a civilization make sure that they have the very best individuals in those roles? I've been trying to combine the best aspects of theocracy and democracy - and the best of the royal and servant models of leadership and authority. The whole damn thing is a slippery-slope. I've had a lot to say regarding a hypothetical Queen of Heaven ruling Earth as the Goddess of This World. I've imagined having conversations and debates with such a being - and I have really mixed-feelings about the whole thing. Extreme intelligence, economy of words, elegance, straight-forwardness, and beauty - might all be on the plus side. But harshness, cruelty, causing atrocities, committing mass-murder, corruption, deception, treachery, moral-ambiguity, and demonic-possession - might be on the negative side. But I don't know the true state of affairs. They might be human. They might be reptilian. They might be hybrid. They might be male. They might be female. They might be hermaphrodite. They might have a wardrobe of bodies. They might be able to shapeshift into any form and anyone they choose. Could a being be a God or Goddess of This World for any length of time - without becoming corrupt and insane?

    Are the Pope of Rome and the Queen of England - really the modern-day equivalents of the King and Queen of Egypt - serving the Hidden God Amen Ra? Are all three ruling in place of Christ? I have speculated quite a bit about this in the past. I am concerned about this, because these three seem to have control over pretty much the whole world. Is this power legitimate or illegitimate? Is this power being used benevolently and wisely? Are they doing that which is in everyone's best interest? Could the throne of this world have been stolen in antiquity? Could this hypothetical theft be ongoing? Did someone steal fire from the gods? I really and truly don't know - but I am becoming increasingly suspicious. What effect would a Michael/Horus/Jesus (or some other name-combination) administered Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System have on these three? What would Michael/Horus/Jesus say? What Would Other Individuals of Interest Say?? Somebody please talk to me about this. Please think long and hard about these three jobs. They don't give out job-applications - do they? This is VERY tricky territory - to say the least. I deeply appreciate the Divine Feminine as an integral part of the Divinity Within Humanity - but I am deeply suspicious of a hypothetical Reptilian/Human Hybrid, Hermaphrodite Queen of Heaven / God of This World - being at the core of monotheism - ruling a Controlled Patriarchy - and presiding over a Subjugation of Women - to control and enslave the human race - complete with the 'Chastenings of the Lord' in the form of wars, persecutions, tortures, the Crusades, the Inquisition, terrorist events, etc, etc. Who REALLY controls the Monarchy and the Papacy?


    Once again, I am being absolutely honest BUT I have no idea how to interpret and/or apply All of the Above. I merely include this sort of thing in my ongoing (reformative rather than normative) Religious and Political Science-Fiction. It's easier that way. One More Thing. Consider the contrast between Good-Queen, Mean-Queen, and Mixture of Good and Mean Queen!! This basic concept might apply to numerous contexts and scenarios. What if these possibilities are descriptive of Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer (but not necessarily in that order)?? What if the Hybrid-Queen met with the Mean-Queen in one throne-room -- then met with the Good-Queen in another throne-room -- and then sat down upon her own-throne in yet another throne-room -- utilizing the best of both perspectives??!! What if a Single Multiple-Personality Queen Had Three Throne-Rooms, and Played the Parts of All Three Queens??!! We Three Queens??!! We Are All One??!! Interesting, eh??



    http://whiteestate.org/books/pk/pk49.html Under the favor shown them by Cyrus, nearly fifty thousand of the children of the captivity had taken advantage of the decree permitting their return. These, however, in comparison with the hundreds of thousands scattered throughout the provinces of Medo-Persia, were but a mere remnant. The great majority of the Israelites had chosen to remain in the land of their exile rather than undergo the hardships of the return journey and the re-establishment of their desolated cities and homes.

    A score or more of years passed by, when a second decree, quite as favorable as the first, was issued by Darius Hystaspes, the monarch then ruling. Thus did God in mercy provide another opportunity for the Jews in the Medo-Persian realm to return to the land of their fathers. The Lord foresaw the troublous times that were to follow during the reign of Xerxes,--the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther,--and He not only wrought a change of feeling in the hearts of men in authority, but also inspired Zechariah to plead with the exiles to return.

    "Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north," was the message given the scattered tribes of Israel who had become settled in many lands far from their former home. "I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the Lord. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon. For thus saith the Lord of hosts; After the glory hath He sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of His eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me." Zechariah 2:6-9.

    It was still the Lord's purpose, as it have been from the beginning, that His people should be a praise in the earth, to the glory of His name. During the long years of their exile He had given them many opportunities to return to their allegiance to Him. Some had chosen to listen and to learn; some had found salvation in the midst of affliction. Many of these were to be numbered among the remnant that should return. They were likened by Inspiration to "the highest branch of the high cedar," which was to be planted "upon an high mountain and eminent: in the mountain of the height of Israel." Ezekiel 17:22, 23.

    It was those "whose spirit God had raised" (Ezra 1:5) who had returned under the decree of Cyrus. But God ceased not to plead with those who voluntarily remained in the land of their exile, and through manifold agencies He made it possible for them also to return. The large number, however, of those who failed to respond to the decree of Cyrus, remained unimpressible to later influences; and even when Zechariah warned them to flee from Babylon without further delay, they did not heed the invitation.

    Meanwhile conditions in the Medo-Persian realm were rapidly changing. Darius Hystaspes, under whose reign the Jews had been shown marked favor, was succeeded by Xerxes the Great. It was during his reign that those of the Jews who had failed of heeding the message to flee were called upon to face a terrible crisis. Having refused to take advantage of the way of escape God had provided, now they were brought face to face with death.

    Through Haman the Agagite, an unscrupulous man high in authority in Medo-Persia, Satan worked at this time to counterwork the purposes of God. Haman cherished bitter malice against Mordecai, a Jew. Mordecai had done Haman no harm, but had simply refused to show him worshipful reverence. Scorning to "lay hands on Mordecai alone," Haman plotted "to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai." Esther 3:6.

    Misled by the false statements of Haman, Xerxes was induced to issue a decree providing for the massacre of all the Jews "scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces" of the Medo-Persian kingdom. Verse 8. A certain day was appointed on which the Jews were to be destroyed and their property confiscated. Little did the king realize the far-reaching results that would have accompanied the complete carrying out of this decree. Satan himself, the hidden instigator of the scheme, was trying to rid the earth of those who preserved the knowledge of the true God.

    "In every province, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes." Esther 4:3. The decree of the Medes and Persians could not be revoked; apparently there was no hope; all the Israelites were doomed to destruction.

    But the plots of the enemy were defeated by a Power that reigns among the children of men. In the providence of God, Esther, a Jewess who feared the Most High, had been made queen of the Medo-Persian kingdom. Mordecai was a near relative of hers. In their extremity they decided to appeal to Xerxes in behalf of their people. Esther was to venture into his presence as an intercessor. "Who knoweth," said Mordecai, "whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" Verse 14.

    The crisis that Esther faced demanded quick, earnest action; but both she and Mordecai realized that unless God should work mightily in their behalf, their own efforts would be unavailing. So Esther took time for communion with God, the source of her strength. "Go," she directed Mordecai, "gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish." Verse 16.

    The events that followed in rapid succession,--the appearance of Esther before the king, the marked favor shown her, the banquets of the king and queen with Haman as the only guest, the troubled sleep of the king, the public honor shown Mordecai, and the humiliation and fall of Haman upon the discovery of his wicked plot,--all these are parts of a familiar story. God wrought marvelously for His penitent people; and a counter decree issued by the king, allowing them to fight for their lives, was rapidly communicated to every part of the realm by mounted couriers, who were "hastened and pressed on by the king's commandment." "And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them." Esther 8:14, 17.

    On the day appointed for their destruction, "the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all people." Angels that excel in strength had been commissioned by God to protect His people while they "stood for their lives." Esther 9:2, 16.

    Mordecai was given the position of honor formerly occupied by Haman. He "was next unto King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren" (Esther 10:3); and he sought to promote the welfare of Israel. Thus did God bring His chosen people once more into favor at the Medo-Persian court, making possible the carrying out of His purpose to restore them to their own land. But it was not until several years later, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I, the successor of Xerxes the Great, that any considerable number returned to Jerusalem, under Ezra.

    The trying experiences that came to God's people in the days of Esther were not peculiar to that age alone. The revelator, looking down the ages to the close of time, has declared, "The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 12:17. Some who today are living on the earth will see these words fulfilled. The same spirit that in ages past led men to persecute the true church, will in the future lead to the pursuance of a similar course toward those who maintain their loyalty to God. Even now preparations are being made for this last great conflict.

    The decree that will finally go forth against the remnant people of God will be very similar to that issued by Ahasuerus against the Jews. Today the enemies of the true church see in the little company keeping the Sabbath commandment, a Mordecai at the gate. The reverence of God's people for His law is a constant rebuke to those who have cast off the fear of the Lord and are trampling on His Sabbath.

    Satan will arouse indignation against the minority who refuse to accept popular customs and traditions. Men of position and reputation will join with the lawless and the vile to take counsel against the people of God. Wealth, genius, education, will combine to cover them with contempt.

    Persecuting rulers, ministers, and church members will conspire against them. With voice and pen, by boasts, threats, and ridicule, they will seek to overthrow their faith. By false representations and angry appeals, men will stir up the passions of the people. Not having a "Thus saith the Scriptures" to bring against the advocates of the Bible Sabbath, they will resort to oppressive enactments to supply the lack. To secure popularity and patronage, legislators will yield to the demand for Sunday laws. But those who fear God, cannot accept an institution that violates a precept of the Decalogue. On this battlefield will be fought the last great conflict in the controversy between truth and error. And we are not left in doubt as to the issue. Today, as in the days of Esther and Mordecai, the Lord will vindicate His truth and His people.



    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:09 pm





































    I'm generally neutral regarding royalty, especially regarding particular names and places, but I'm leaning toward Antiquity, Royalty, Secrecy, and Technology regarding explaining why things are the way they are in this Solar System, and perhaps beyond. I've suggested the possibility of a twenty-second century United States of the Solar System, with a Non-Bloodline King and Queen, Under God (whatever and whoever appropriately applies). This isn't a coup. It's attempted understanding. You'll find more along these lines as this thread progresses (or digresses). My Grandmother was a contestant on the old TV show 'Queen for a Day'!! My family had a dog named 'Flash'. Remember 'Dash'?? What Would Queen Victoria Say?? What Would Jupiter Jones Say?? "I love dogs!! I've always loved dogs!!" I certainly have fun with history, fiction, science, historical-fiction, and science-fiction!!

    I continue to suspect Royal-Origins for at least some of the Writings of Ellen Goa'uld White!! What Would Albert and Victoria Say?? What Would James and Ellen Say?? What Would Isis, Horus, and Set Say?? What Would the 'Council of 42' Say?? What Would Baron Stockmar Say?? What Would Ernst Stockmar Write?? 'The Memoirs of Baron Stockmar'!! What Would RA Say?? "I'm Rich!!" "I Am RA!!" "I Built Vegas with Bugsy!!" "Serqet Has a Lot to Do with Explaining Our Relationship!!" "I'm Sorry We Couldn't Work Together!!" Someday You Won't Think I'm Crazy, But Then It Will Be Too Late. I Suspect That It's Been Too Late for a Long Time. Too Much Water Has Gone Under the Bridge. I've Withdrawn All of My Internet Bright-Ideas (Mostly Because No One Will Tell Me What the Hell is Really Going On). What Are the Implications and Ramifications?? Ask the Beast Supercomputer. Notice what is said in the second video regarding computers and governance. True or False?? Think Fast!! The End is Near (again)!!




    Carol wrote:

    Ex-Google Executive Anthony Levandowski Registers First Church of AI With IRS
    https://pjmedia.com/faith/ex-google-executive-registers-first-church-of-ai-with-irs/

    "Anthony Levandowski, a former executive at Google has filed paperwork with the IRS to establish an official religion of technology. This religion doesn't just worship scientific progress, but artificial intelligence itself, with the goal of creating a godhead.

    The new church of AI will aim "to develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on artificial intelligence and through understanding and worship of the Godhead [to] contribute to the betterment of society," according to IRS documents.

    The non-profit religious organization would be called "Way of the Future" (WOTF). According to the website (wayofthefuture.church), the movement is "about creating a peaceful and respectful transition of who is in charge of the planet from people to people + 'machines.'"

    "Given that technology will 'relatively soon' be able to surpass human abilities, we want to help educate people about this exciting future and prepare a smooth transition," the site explains. "In 'recent' years, we have expanded our concept of rights to both sexes, minority groups and even animals, let's make sure we find a way for 'machines' to get rights too."
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:28 pm



    evisnam wrote:Hello All ,  I Am Evisnam , so not to burden Carol with extra work i have been given an account so i can respond directly to you all. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Carol and all the members and staff of The Mists of Avalon for their support and indeed giving us this place to congregate and talk.

    My first response to Orthodoxymoron is an important one. Forgive me for not understanding your question properly, in reading a little on the thread you started on the old Project Avalon forum... in reading parts of this thread i can see how Dogma has influenced your opinions and prompted you to ask poignant questions. Some of which you have answered your self, in relation as to why this is happening to you. It seems to me you may have gotten the attention of some that may want to create a self fulfilling prophecy for you.

    We create our own demons and we create our own reality through the holo matrix of existance under the binary system. This system is goverend and manintained from the moon base. In our " apparent " realities what we create by magnitude of emotional input equates to a manifestation which interacts with the living charachters of your dogmatic beliefs. The dogma we attune to gives it life in proportion to our focus and in some circumstances brings to life enough energy to form a response in the physical.

    or it just could be some jokers following you.

    Either way when we speak of such things we must have some sort of respect imbed in our words , even the Lucifer sect has a distinct set of rules they must obide by. When we cross these lines of respect we ask for problems.

    May i ask you if you have a dual soul ?  you seem to me to have a dual soul , this is an even mix of male and female soul complex. If so then you should adhere to a more respectful dialogue and try not to indulge in so much Hyperbole. Let me explain what i mean by this.

    an example here

    " Could Lucifer be the Human God of This World? Could Satan be the Reptilian God of This World? Could Amen Ra be a combination of the two? A Pleiadian Human Being...Perfectly Possessed by a Draconian Interdimensional Reptilian? "

    ( quote from Amen Ra thread )  

    These words in print create a conjecture which is a type of judgement. Because it is symbolically written and interacted with by many, it has taken on a meaning to those who read it and in turn energise the words. It may have taken some time but i imagine their response happened some 2 - 3 years after you wrote your first lot of questions ?  

    I also sense a great deal of uncertainty in your mind and i would attribute it to a large intake of caffiene , the problem with caffiene ( in large doses ) is it starts inner dialogues which go off in unfinished tangents whch seem important at the time but in reality are not. If you were to abstain for a period of 2 weeks and purify your self you will find a lot of these questions will fall by the way side.

    An Important rule of thumb which can be adopted to any situation on this planet at this time in our history.

    Whenever the Lucifer sect wishes to create fear around a saviour they will paint them as Evil.  Examples of which are the assasinations of Muammar al-Qaddafi , Malcom X , Mahatma Ghandi , John Lennon and John F Kennedy ( to name a few )  all at some stage were being painted as Evil by the establishment. The rule of thumb here is by degree of propoganda instated is the degree of which they are actually of good charachter.

    The same can be said of most of the ET races that have been unceremoniously painted as Evil. If we indulge in un founded fear then we will be justly rewarded.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you evisnam. The construction of that "Amen Ra" thread took probably half a year, and then "Ra" showed-up probably half a year later, and our "contact" lasted probably three-months, at which time we occasionally spoke on the phone for another three-months. Then we stopped talking to each-other. All of the Above should probably have never occurred, but it was sort of interesting, and it made me dig deeper than if it hadn't happened. I'll try to kick the coffee-habit, but it's my one vice in life. There's a lot more I could talk about, but I'm sort of trying to stop talking about this stuff. I've recently gained a few insights which have hit me hard, and I'm hesitant to continue my pseudo-intellectual quest. That male-female thing probably arises from modeling various science-fictional concepts and characters. I'm sort of an "unpaid script-writer". I honestly think I could've made a career out of that, but it's a little late now. I think I'm headed for the "poor-house" and/or the "nut-house"!! It's much too late to be another Orson Scott Card. Thanks again for your insights.
    RedEzra wrote:Another prophecy which was written down in the bible is the restoration of Judea to the Jews.

    After about 2000 years without a land the withered Jews returned in huge numbers and declared an independent Jewish state in 1948. Usually after such a long time people are assimilated into the culture of the host nation but for some reason the Jews continued the old customs for so long.

    One thing which is absolutely astounding is that the day after the Jews declared independence they were attacked by Egypt Iraq Syria Jordan and Lebanon... and won !

    Two more times in 1967 and 1973 did armies of neigbouring Arab states attack them... which again resulted in Israeli victory and a quadrupling of land. For example Egypt lost the enormous Sinai area which Israel later gave back in exchange for a peace agreement. Israel was also willing to give Golan back to Syria for peace but Syria was not interested.

    When it is written in the bible that the Jews will return to their land... then ought one not take the book serious ? Especially in face of the fact that a combined Arab army with Soviet help could not beat a comparative handful of holocaust survivors... in three tries !


    "In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to bring back the remnant of his people. From Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

    And He will lift up a standard for the nations and assemble the banished ones of Israel. And will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." - Isaiah 11:11-12



    I keep thinking about Victoria and Albert , and I could say a lot about it, and about what I'm thinking, but I'd REALLY get in a lot of trouble. Padme = Victoria = Jupiter?? Did Padme like dogs too?? Dr. Stockmar = Emperor Palpatine = Mr. Edgars?? Does "Stocky" have an office at Goldman Sachs?? That's All I'm Going to Say. What Would Ellen White Say?? What Would Saint Germain Say?? What Would Edgar Mitchell Say?? What Would Elizabeth Mitchell Say?? What Would Mitchell Say?? What Would Prince Albert Say?? What Would Ra Say?? What Would Brother Rich Say?? What Would Sister Angie Say?? What Would Delenn and Vala Say?? What if Brexit has something to do with All of the Above?? I've said too much, and now you know too much. You know what that means...

















    "I Love Dogs!!"
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:31 pm




    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit Brexit is a commonly used term for the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal from the European Union.[1] Following the 2016 referendum vote to leave, the UK government started the withdrawal process on 29 March 2017, putting the UK on course to leave by April 2019.[2] The terms of withdrawal have not yet been negotiated and the UK remains a full member of the European Union.[3] Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, has announced 12 negotiating objectives and confirmed that the UK government would not seek permanent single market membership.[4] She has promised a Great Repeal Bill to repeal the European Communities Act and incorporate existing EU laws into UK domestic law.[5] The UK joined the European Communities (EC), the EU's predecessor, in 1973, confirming its membership in a 1975 referendum. In the 1970s and 1980s, withdrawal from the European Economic Community (EEC) was advocated mainly by Labour Party and trade union figures. From the 1990s, withdrawal from the EU was advocated mainly by the newly founded Referendum Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and by an increasing number of Conservatives.

    Brexit (like its early variant, Brixit)[6] is a portmanteau of "British" and "exit". It was derived by analogy from Grexit, referring to a hypothetical withdrawal of Greece from the eurozone (and possibly also the EU).[7] The term Brexit may have first been used in reference to a possible UK withdrawal from the EU by Peter Wilding in a Euractiv blog post on 15 May 2012.[8][9] The terms "hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are much used unofficially,[10] and are understood to describe the prospective relationship between the UK and the EU after withdrawal, ranging from hard, that could involve the UK trading with the EU like any other non-EU-member country under World Trade Organization rules but with no obligation to accept free movement of people, to soft, that might involve retaining membership of the EU single market for goods and services and at least some free movement of people, according to European Economic Area rules.[11]

    Since 1977 both pro- and anti-European views have had majority support, with dramatic swings between the two camps.[12] In the United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum of 1975, two-thirds of British voters favoured continued membership. The highest ever rejection of membership was in 1980, the first full year of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's term of office, with 65% opposed to and 26% in favour of membership.[12] After Thatcher had negotiated a rebate of British membership payments in 1984, those favouring the EC maintained a lead in the opinion polls, except during 2000, as Prime Minister Tony Blair aimed for closer EU integration including adoption of the euro currency, and around 2011, as immigration into the United Kingdom became increasingly noticeable.[12] As late as December 2015 there was, according to ComRes, a clear majority in favour of remaining in the EU, albeit with a warning that voter intentions would be considerably influenced by the outcome of Prime Minister David Cameron's ongoing EU reform negotiations, especially with regards to the two issues of "safeguards for non-Eurozone member states" and "immigration".[13] The following events are relevant.

    The UK was not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome which created the then European Communities, including the European Economic Community (EEC), in 1957 and the UK's applications in 1963 and 1967 were vetoed by the President of France, Charles de Gaulle, who said that "a number of aspects of Britain's economy, from working practices to agriculture" had "made Britain incompatible with Europe" and that Britain harboured a "deep-seated hostility" to any pan-European project.[14] Once de Gaulle had relinquished the French presidency in 1969, the UK made a third and successful application for membership. The question of sovereignty had been discussed at the time in an official Foreign and Commonwealth Office document (FCO 30/1048) that became open to the public in January 2002 under the rules for availability after thirty years. It listed among "Areas of policy in which parliamentary freedom to legislate will be affected by entry into the European Communities": Customs duties, Agriculture, Free movement of labour, services and capital, Transport, and Social Security for migrant workers. The document concluded (paragraph 26) that it was advisable to put the considerations of influence and power before those of formal sovereignty.[15] The Treaty of Accession was signed in January 1972 by the prime minister Edward Heath, leader of the Conservative party.[16] Parliament's European Communities Act 1972 was enacted on 17 October and the UK's instrument of ratification was deposited the next day (18 October),[17] letting the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973.[18]

    In 1975, the United Kingdom held its first ever national referendum on whether the UK should remain in the European Communities. The opposition Labour Party, led by Harold Wilson, contested the October 1974 general election with a commitment to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership of the EEC and then hold a referendum on whether to remain in the EEC on the new terms.[19] All of the major political parties and mainstream press supported continuing membership of the EC. However, there were significant divides within the ruling Labour party, with a 1974 one-day party conference voting 2:1 in favour of withdrawal and seven of 23 cabinet ministers opposed to EC membership,[20] with Harold Wilson suspending the constitutional convention of Cabinet collective responsibility to allow those ministers to publicly campaign against the government.

    On 5 June 1975, the electorate were asked to vote yes or no on the question: "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" Every administrative county and region in the UK returned majority "Yes" votes, apart from the Shetland Islands and the Outer Hebrides. With a turnout of just under 65%, the outcome of the vote was 67.2% in favour of staying in, and the United Kingdom remained a member of the EC.[21] Support for the UK to leave the EC in 1975, in the data, appears unrelated to the support for Leave in the 2016 referendum.[22]

    In 1979 the United Kingdom opted out of the newly formed European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) which was the precursor to the creation of the euro. The opposition Labour Party campaigned in the 1983 general election on a commitment to withdraw from the EEC without a referendum.[23] It was heavily defeated as the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher was re-elected. The Labour Party subsequently changed its policy.[23] In 1985 the United Kingdom ratified the Single European Act, the first major revision to the Treaty of Rome without a referendum with the full support HM Government of Margaret Thatcher. In October 1990 – despite the deep reservations of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher but under pressure from her senior ministers – the United Kingdom joined the ERM with the pound sterling pegged to the deutschmark.

    In November 1990 Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister amid internal divisions within the Conservative Party arising partly from her increasingly Eurosceptic views. In September 1992 the United Kingdom was forced to withdraw from the ERM after the pound sterling came under pressure from currency speculators (an episode known as Black Wednesday). The resulting cost to UK taxpayers was estimated to be in excess of £3 billion.[24][25] As a result of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Communities became the European Union on 1 November 1993.[26] The new name reflected the evolution of the organisation from an economic union into a political union.[27] As a result of the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, the Maastricht Treaty is now known, in updated form as, the Treaty on European Union (2007) or TEU, and the Treaty of Rome is now known, in updated form, as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2007) or TFEU. The Referendum Party was formed in 1994 by Sir James Goldsmith to contest the 1997 general election on a platform of providing a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.[28] It fielded candidates in 547 constituencies at that election and won 810,860 votes, 2.6% of total votes cast.[29] It failed to win a single parliamentary seat as its vote was spread out across the country, losing its deposit (funded by Goldsmith) in 505 constituencies.[29]

    The UK Independence Party (UKIP), a Eurosceptic political party, was also formed, in 1993. It achieved third place in the UK during the 2004 European elections, second place in the 2009 European elections and first place in the 2014 European elections, with 27.5% of the total vote. This was the first time since the 1910 general election that any party other than the Labour or Conservative parties had taken the largest share of the vote in a nationwide election.[30] UKIP's electoral success in the 2014 European election has been documented as the strongest correlate of the support for the leave campaign in the 2016 referendum.[31] In 2014, UKIP won two by-elections, triggered when the sitting Conservative MPs defected to UKIP and then resigned. These were their first elected MPs. At the 2015 general election UKIP took 12.6% of the total vote and held one of the two seats won in 2014.[32]

    In a statistical analysis published in April 2016, Professor John Curtice (Strathclyde University), has defined Euroscepticism as the wish to sever or reduce the powers of the EU, and conversely Europhilia as the desire to preserve or increase the powers of the EU. According to this definition, the British Social Attitudes (BSA) surveys show an increase in euroscepticism from 38% (1993) to 65% (2015). Euroscepticism should however not be confused with the wish to leave the EU: the BSA survey for the period July–November 2015 shows that 60% backed the option "continue as an EU member", and only 30% backed the option to "withdraw".[33]

    In 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected calls for a referendum on the UK's EU membership, but suggested the possibility of a future referendum to gauge public support.[34][35] According to the BBC, "The prime minister acknowledged the need to ensure the UK's position within the European Union had 'the full-hearted support of the British people' but they needed to show 'tactical and strategic patience'."[36] Under pressure from many of his MPs and from the rise of UKIP, in January 2013, Cameron announced that a Conservative government would hold an in–out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017, on a renegotiated package, if elected in 2015.[37] The Conservative Party unexpectedly won the 2015 general election with a majority. Soon afterwards the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was introduced into Parliament to enable the referendum. Cameron favoured remaining in a reformed European Union and sought to renegotiate on four key points: protection of the single market for non-eurozone countries, reduction of "red tape", exempting Britain from "ever-closer union", and restricting EU immigration.[38]

    The outcome of the renegotiations was announced in February 2016. Some limits to in-work benefits for new EU immigrants were agreed, but before they could be applied, a country such as the UK would have to get permission from the European Commission and then from the European Council.[39] In a speech to the House of Commons on 22 February 2016, Cameron announced a referendum date of 23 June 2016 and commented on the renegotiation settlement.[40] Cameron spoke of an intention to trigger the Article 50 process immediately following a leave vote and of the "two-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit."[41]

    The official campaign group for leaving the EU was Vote Leave[42] after a contest for the designation with Leave.EU.[43][44] A "Vote Leave" poster in Omagh saying "We send the EU £50 million every day. Let's spend it on our NHS instead." The official campaign to stay in the EU, chaired by Stuart Rose, was known as Britain Stronger in Europe, or informally as Remain. Other campaigns supporting remaining in the EU included Conservatives In,[45] Labour in for Britain,[46] #INtogether (Liberal Democrats),[47] Greens for a Better Europe,[48] Scientists for EU,[49] Environmentalists For Europe,[50] Universities for Europe[51] and Another Europe is Possible.[52]

    The result was announced on the morning of 24 June: 51.9% voted in favour of leaving the European Union and 48.1% voted in favour of remaining a member of the European Union.[53][54] Comprehensive results are available from the UK Electoral Commission Referendum Results site. A petition calling for a second referendum attracted more than four million signatures,[55][56] but was rejected by the government on 9 July.[57]

    After the result was declared, Cameron announced that he would resign by October.[59] He stood down on 13 July 2016, with Theresa May becoming Prime Minister after a leadership contest. George Osborne was replaced as Chancellor of the Exchequer by Philip Hammond, former Mayor of London Boris Johnson was appointed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and David Davis became Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn lost a vote of confidence among his parliamentary party and a leadership challenge was launched, while on 4 July, Nigel Farage announced his resignation as head of UKIP.[60]

    Outside the UK many Eurosceptic leaders celebrated and expected others to follow the UK example. The right-wing Dutch populist Geert Wilders said that the Netherlands should follow Britain's example and hold a referendum on whether the Netherlands should stay in the European Union.[61] However, opinion polls in the fortnight following the British referendum show that the immediate reaction in the Netherlands and other European countries was a decline in support for Eurosceptic movements.[62]

    A week after the referendum, Gordon Brown, a former Labour Prime Minister who had signed the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, warned of a danger that in the next decade the country would be refighting the referendum. He wrote that remainers were feeling they must be pessimists to prove that Brexit is unmanageable without catastrophe, while leavers optimistically claim economic risks are exaggerated.[63]

    The previous Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in October 2016 called for a second referendum, a decision through parliament or a general election to decide finally if Britain should leave the EU.[64] Former leader of the Conservative Prime Minister John Major argued in November 2016 that parliament will have to ratify whatever deal is negotiated and then, depending on the deal there could be a case for a second referendum.[65]

    Withdrawal from the European Union is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Under the Article 50 invocation procedure a member notifies the European Council and there is a negotiation period of up to two years, after which the treaties cease to apply – although a leaving agreement may be agreed,[66] although aspects such as trade may be difficult to negotiate until the UK has left the EU.[67]

    Although the 2016 referendum act did not expressly require Article 50 to be invoked,[68] the UK government stated that they would expect a leave vote to be followed by withdrawal[69][70] despite government refusal to make contingency plans.[71] Following the referendum result Cameron resigned and said that it would be for the incoming Prime Minister to invoke Article 50.[72][73]

    The Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case in January 2017 that the government needed parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50.[74][75] After the House of Commons overwhelmingly voted, on 1 February 2017, for the government's bill authorising the prime minister to invoke Article 50,[76] the bill passed into law as the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Theresa May signed the letter invoking Article 50 on 28 March 2017, which was delivered on 29 March by Tim Barrow, the UK's ambassador to the EU, to Donald Tusk.[77][78][79]

    In October 2016, Theresa May promised a "Great Repeal Bill", which would repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and restate in UK law all enactments previously in force under EU law. This bill will be introduced in the May 2017 parliamentary session and enacted before or during the Article 50 negotiations; it would not come into force until the date of exit. It would smooth the transition by ensuring that all laws remain in force until specifically repealed.[80] Such a bill could raise constitutional issues regarding the devolution settlements with the UK nations, particularly in Scotland.[81]

    A report published in March 2017 by the Institute for Government commented that, in addition to the Great Repeal Bill, primary and secondary legislation will be needed to cover the gaps in policy areas such as customs, immigration and agriculture.[82] The report also commented that the role of the devolved legislatures was unclear, and could cause problems, and as many as fifteen new additional Brexit Bills may be required, which would involve strict prioritisation and limiting Parliamentary time for in-depth examination of new legislation.[83] The House of Lords continued to publish a series of reports on Brexit related subjects including:

    Brexit: the options for trade
    Brexit: UK-Irish relations
    Brexit: future UK-EU security and police cooperation
    Brexit: fisheries
    Brexit: environment and climate change
    Brexit: the Crown Dependencies
    Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?
    Brexit: trade in non- financial services

    Replying to questions at a parliamentary committee about Parliament's involvement in voting on the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the Prime Minister said that "delivering on the vote of the British people to leave the European Union" was her priority. The opposition shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, commented that the government did not want a vote at the beginning of the process, to trigger Article 50, nor a vote at the end.[84] The period for negotiation began on 29 March 2017 when the letter notifying withdrawal, signed by the United Kingdom's prime minister at 10 Downing Street, Westminster, was handed to the president of the European Council in Brussels. Following the United Kingdom's notification under Article 50, draft guidelines for the negotiations were sent to EU delegations (of the 27 other member states) (EU27). The draft was prepared by the President of the European Council. It states that the guidelines define the framework for negotiations under Article 50 and set out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue throughout the negotiation. It states that in the negotiations the Union's overall objective will be to preserve its interests, those of its Member States, its citizens and its businesses, and that, in the best interest of both sides, the Union will be constructive throughout and strive to find an agreement. As part of the withdrawal negotiation there could be a proposal by EU27 for the UK to pay a "divorce bill", reportedly of up to £52bn, although a report of the European Union Committee of the House of Lords published on 4 March 2017 states that if there is no post-Brexit deal at the end of the two-year negotiating period, the UK could withdraw without payment.[85] Negotiations are likely to be delayed until after the United Kingdom general election which takes place on 8 June 2017.

    Immigration was cited as the second most important reason for those voting to Leave. However, forecasts indicate that immigration ?ows to the UK will remain relatively high after Brexit.[86] Theresa May believes that if immigration stops there will be no negotiation between the UK and the EU.[clarification needed][87] Several thousand British citizens resident in other EU countries have after the referendum applied for citizenship where they live, since they fear losing the right to work there.[88]

    During the referendum, the economic arguments were a major area of debate. Remainers, including the UK treasury, argued that being in the EU has a strong positive effect on trade and as a result the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[89][90] Supporters of withdrawal from the EU have argued that the cessation of net contributions to the EU would allow for some cuts to taxes or increases in government spending.[91]

    After the referendum the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report funded by the Economic and Social Research Council which warned that Britain would lose up to £70 billion in reduced economic growth if it didn't retain Single Market membership with new trade deals unable to make up the difference.[92] One of these areas is financial services, which are helped by EU-wide "passporting" for financial products, which the Financial Times estimates indirectly accounts for up to 71,000 jobs and 10 billion pounds of tax annually[93] and there are concerns that banks may relocate outside the UK.[94]

    On 5 January 2017, Andy Haldane, the Chief Economist and the Executive Director of Monetary Analysis and Statistics at the Bank of England, admitted that forecasts predicting an economic downturn due to the referendum were inaccurate and noted strong market performance after the referendum,[95][96][97] although some have pointed to prices rising faster than wages.[98]

    The UK received more from the EU for research than it contributed[99] with universities getting a large proportion of their research income from the EU.[100] All funding for net beneficiaries from the EU, including universities, was guaranteed by the government in August 2016.[101] Before the funding announcement, a newspaper investigation reported that research projects were reluctant to employ British researchers due to uncertainties over funding.[102] Currently the UK is part of the European Research Area and the UK is likely to wish to remain an associated member.[103]

    Before the referendum, leading figures with a range of opinions regarding Scottish independence suggested that in the event the UK as a whole voted to leave the EU but Scotland as a whole voted to remain, a second Scottish independence referendum might be precipitated.[104][105][106] In response to the result, on 24 June 2016, the Scottish Government said officials would begin planning for a second independence referendum.[107] On 28 March 2017, the Scottish Parliament voted 69–59 on Motion S5M-04710, in favour of holding a second referendum on Scottish independence. [108]

    The UK's post Brexit relationship with the remaining EU members could take several forms. A research paper presented to the UK Parliament in July 2013 proposed a number of alternatives to membership which would continue to allow access to the EU internal market. These include remaining in the European Economic Area,[109] negotiating deep bilateral agreements on the Swiss model[110] or exit from the EU without EEA membership or a trade agreement under the WTO Option. There may be an interim deal between the time the UK leaves the EU and when the final relationship comes in force.

    The Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole share, since the 1920s, a Common Travel Area without border controls. According to statements by Theresa May and Enda Kenny, it is intended to maintain this arrangement.[111] After Brexit, in order to prevent illegal migration across the open Northern Irish border into the United Kingdom, the Irish and British governments suggested in October 2016 a plan whereby British border controls would be applied to Irish ports and airports. This would prevent a "hard border" arising between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.[112] However, this agreement was never official and was met by opposition from political parties in the Republic of Ireland[113] and there is still great uncertainty in relation to a 'hard border' between the Republic and Northern Ireland.[114] On 23 March 2017 it was confirmed British Immigration officials would not be allowed to use Irish ports and airports in order to combat immigration concerns following Brexit.[115] A referendum for the reunification of Ireland was suggested by Sinn Féin leader Martin McGuinness immediately after the UK EU referendum results were announced.[116] Creating a border control system between Ireland and Northern Ireland could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement established in 1998.[117] In April 2017 the European Council agreed that, in the event of Irish reunification, Northern Ireland would rejoin the EU.[118]

    The President of the Regional Council of Hauts-de-France, Xavier Bertrand, stated in February 2016 that "If Britain leaves Europe, right away the border will leave Calais and go to Dover. We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if it's no longer in the European Union," indicating that the juxtaposed controls would end with a leave vote. French Finance Minister Emmanuel Macron also suggested the agreement would be "threatened" by a leave vote.[119] These claims have been disputed, as the Le Touquet 2003 treaty enabling juxtaposed controls was not an EU treaty, and would not be legally void upon leaving.[120]

    After the Brexit vote, Xavier Bertrand asked François Hollande to renegotiate the Touquet agreement,[121] which can be terminated by either party with two years' notice.[122] Hollande rejected the suggestion, and said: "Calling into question the Touquet deal on the pretext that Britain has voted for Brexit and will have to start negotiations to leave the Union doesn't make sense." Bernard Cazeneuve, the French Interior Minister, confirmed there would be "no changes to the accord". He said: "The border at Calais is closed and will remain so."[123]

    During the campaign leading up to the referendum[124] the Chief Minister of Gibraltar warned that Brexit posed a threat to Gibraltar's safety.[125] Gibraltar overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU. After the result Spain's Foreign Minister renewed calls for joint Spanish–British control of the peninsula.[126] These calls were strongly rebuffed by Gibraltar's Chief Minister[127] and questions were raised over the future of free-flowing traffic at the Gibraltar–Spain border.[128] The British government states it will only negotiate on the sovereignty of Gibraltar with the consent of its people.[129]

    Shortly after the referendum, the German parliament published an analysis on the consequences of a Brexit on the EU and specifically on the economic and political situation of Germany.[130] According to this, Britain is, after the United States and France, the third most important export market for German products. In total Germany exports goods and services to Britain worth about €120 billion annually, which is about 8% of German exports, with Germany achieving a trade surplus with Britain worth €36.3 billion (2014). Should there be a "hard Brexit", exports would be subject to WTO customs and tariffs. The trade weighted average tariff is 2.4%, but the tariff on automobiles, for instance, is 9.7%, so trade in automobiles would be particularly affected; this would also affect German automobile manufacturers with production plants in the United Kingdom. In total, 750,000 jobs in Germany depend upon export to Britain, while on the British side about three million jobs depend on export to the EU. The study emphasises however that the predictions on the economic effects of a Brexit are subject to significant uncertainty. According to the Lisbon Treaty (2009), EU Council decisions made by qualified majority voting can only be blocked if at least 4 members of the Council form a blocking minority. This rule was originally developed to prevent the three most populous members (Germany, France, Britain) from dominating the EU Council.[131] However, after a Brexit of the economically liberal British, the Germans and like-minded northern European countries (the Dutch, Scandinavians and Balts) would lose an ally and therefore also their blocking minority.[132] Without this blocking minority, other EU states could overrule Germany and its allies in questions of EU budget discipline or the recruitment of German banks to guarantee deposits in troubled southern European banks.[133]

    With Brexit the EU would lose its second-largest economy, the country with the third-largest population and the financial centre of the world.[134] Furthermore, the EU would lose its second-largest net contributor to the EU budget (2015: Germany €14.3 billion, United Kingdom €11.5 billion, France €5.5 billion).[135] Thus, the departure of Britain would result in an additional financial burden for the remaining net contributors unless the budget is reduced accordingly: Germany for example would have to pay an additional €4.5 billion for 2019 and again for 2020.[citation needed] In addition the UK would no longer be a shareholder in the European Investment Bank, in which only EU members can participate. Britain's share amounts to 16%, €39.2 billion (2013), which Britain would withdraw unless there is an EU treaty change.[136] After a Brexit, the EU would lose its strongest military power,[137][138] one of its two members that possess nuclear weapons and are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

    A report by Tim Oliver of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs expanded analysis of what a British withdrawal could mean for the EU: the report argues a UK withdrawal "has the potential to fundamentally change the EU and European integration. On the one hand, a withdrawal could tip the EU towards protectionism, exacerbate existing divisions, or unleash centrifugal forces leading to the EU's unravelling. Alternatively, the EU could free itself of its most awkward member, making the EU easier to lead and more effective."[139] Some authors also highlight the qualitative change in the nature of the EU membership after Brexit: "What the UK case has clearly shown in our view is that for the Union to be sustainable, membership needs to entail constant caretaking as far as individual members' contributions to the common good are concerned, with both rights and obligations."[140]

    As of 15 November 2016 the President of the European Parliament is considering moves to exclude British MEPs from key committee positions ahead of the exit talks. The President has written to the head of the conference of committee chairs asking him to gather information on how Britain's imminent departure will impact various EU documents passing through the parliament's committees. Among the issues that should be considered, the letter states, are the possible impact of the British departure on the legislative files currently under discussion in various committees, the impact if the files are not concluded before Britain leaves, and whether any of the files are likely to feature in the EU-UK withdrawal agreement.[141]

    Various EU leaders have said that they will not start any negotiation before the UK formally invokes Article 50. Jean-Claude Juncker ordered all members of the EU Commission not to engage in any kind of contact with UK parties regarding Brexit.[142] In October 2016, he stated that he was agitated that the British had not developed a sense of community with Europeans during 40 years of membership; Juncker denied that Brexit was a warning for the EU, envisaged developing an EU defence policy without the British after Brexit, and rejected a suggestion that the EC should negotiate in such a way that Britain would be able to hold a second referendum.[143] On 5 November 2016, Juncker reacted to reports of some European businesses seeking to make agreements with the British government, and warned: "I am telling them [companies] that they should not interfere in the debate, as they will find that I will block their path."[144] Juncker stated in February 2017 that the UK would be expected to pay outstanding commitments to EU projects and pensions as part of the withdrawal process, suggesting such bills would be "very hefty."[145] On 29 June, European Council president Donald Tusk told the UK that they would not be allowed access to the European Single Market unless they accepted its four freedoms of movement for goods, capital, services, and people.[146]

    German foreign secretary Frank-Walter Steinmeier met Britain's foreign secretary Boris Johnson on 4 November 2016; Johnson stressed the importance of British-German relationships, whereas Steinmeier responded that the German view was that the UK should have voted to stay in the EU and that the German priority now was to preserve the remaining union of 27 members. There could be no negotiations before the UK formally gives notice. A long delay before beginning negotiations would be detrimental. Britain could not keep the advantages of the common market but at the same time cancel the "less pleasant rules".[147] The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, stated that Scotland might refuse consent for legislation required to leave the EU,[148] though some lawyers argue that Scotland cannot block Brexit.[149]

    Newly appointed prime minister Theresa May made clear that negotiations with the EU required a "UK-wide approach". On 15 July 2016, she said: "I have already said that I won't be triggering article 50 until I think that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations – I think it is important that we establish that before we trigger article 50."[150] According to The Daily Telegraph, the Department for Exiting the European Union spent over £250,000 on legal advice from top Government lawyers in two months and has plans to recruit more people. Nick Clegg said the figures showed the Civil Service was unprepared for the very complex negotiations ahead.[151]

    In the wake of the United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union, the Department for International Trade (DIT) for striking and extending trade agreements between the UK and non-EU states was created by Prime Minister Theresa May, shortly after she took office on 13 July 2016.[152] It employs about 200 trade negotiators[153] and is overseen by the Secretary of State for International Trade, currently Liam Fox.

    On 17 January 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May, announced a series of 12 negotiating objectives in a speech at Lancaster House. These consist of an end to European Court of Justice jurisdiction, withdrawal from the single market with a "comprehensive free-trade agreement" replacing this, a new customs agreement excluding the common external tariff and common commercial policy, an end to free movement of people, co-operation in crime and terrorism, collaboration in areas of science and technology, engagement with devolved administrations, maintaining the Common Travel Area with Ireland, and preserving existing workers' rights.[154]

    The Government has stated its intention to "secure the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as those of all parts of England". Through the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations (JMC(EN)), the Government intends to involve the views of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly in the process of negotiating the UK's exit from the EU. For instance, at the January 2017 meeting of the JMC(EN), the Scottish Government's proposal to remain in the European Economic Area was considered.[155]

    Nicola Sturgeon on behalf of the Scottish National Party made increasing calls during March 2017 for a second Scottish independence referendum to be held in 2018 whilst Opinion polling on Scottish independence indicated a majority did not want independence, stating that an independent Scotland would seek full membership of the European Union.[156] EU negotiator Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament's chief negotiator has said that: "All British citizens today have also EU citizenship. That means a number of things: the possibility to participate in the European elections, the freedom of travel without problem inside the union. We need to have an arrangement in which this arrangement can continue for those citizens who on an individual basis are requesting it." The suggestion being an “associate citizenship”.[157]

    An EU meeting to discuss Brexit has been called for 29 April, Donald Tusk stating that the "priority would be giving "clarity" to EU residents, business and member states about the talks ahead". Michel Barnier, European Chief Negotiator for Brexit, has called for talks to be completed by October 2018 to give time for any agreement to be ratified before the UK leaves in March 2019.[158]

    Sinn Féin has called for a referendum to create a united Ireland following the Northern Ireland majority decision (56% to 44%) to vote no to Brexit and 2 March election for the Northern Ireland Assembly where Sinn Féin increased the number of their seats.[159]







    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:34 pm


























    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Albert_Hall The Royal Albert Hall is a concert hall on the northern edge of South Kensington, London, which holds the Proms concerts annually each summer since 1941. It has a capacity of up to 5,272 seats. The Hall is a registered charity held in trust for the nation and receives no public or government funding.[1] Since its opening by Queen Victoria in 1871, the world's leading artists from many performance genres have appeared on its stage and it has become one of the UK's most treasured and distinctive buildings. The location of some of the most notable events in British culture, each year it hosts more than 390 shows in the main auditorium, including classical, rock and pop concerts, ballet, opera, film screenings with live orchestra, sports, award ceremonies, school and community events, charity performances and banquets. A further 400 events are held each year in the non-auditorium spaces. The Hall was originally supposed to have been called the Central Hall of Arts and Sciences, but the name was changed to the Royal Albert Hall of Arts and Sciences by Queen Victoria upon laying the Hall's foundation stone in 1867, in memory of her husband consort, Prince Albert who had died six years earlier. It forms the practical part of a memorial to the Prince Consort – the decorative part is the Albert Memorial directly to the north in Kensington Gardens, now separated from the Hall by Kensington Gore.

    In 1851, the Great Exhibition (for which the Crystal Palace was built) was held in Hyde Park, London. The exhibition was a great success and led Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, to propose the creation of a permanent series of facilities for the enlightenment of the public in the area, which came to be known as Albertopolis. The Exhibition's Royal Commission bought Gore House and its grounds (on which the Hall now stands) on the advice of the Prince. Progress on the scheme was slow and in 1861 Prince Albert died, without having seen his ideas come to fruition. However, a memorial was proposed for Hyde Park, with a Great Hall opposite.

    The proposal was approved and the site was purchased with some of the profits from the Exhibition. Once the remaining funds had been raised, in April 1867 Queen Victoria signed the Royal Charter of the Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences which was to operate the Hall and on 20 May, laid the foundation stone.[2] The Hall was designed by civil engineers Captain Francis Fowke and Major-General Henry Y. D. Scott of the Royal Engineers and built by Lucas Brothers.[3] The designers were heavily influenced by ancient amphitheatres, but had also been exposed to the ideas of Gottfried Semper while he was working at the South Kensington Museum. The recently opened Cirque d'Hiver in Paris was seen in the contemporary press as the design to outdo. The Hall was constructed mainly of Fareham Red brick, with terra cotta block decoration made by Gibbs and Canning Limited of Tamworth. The dome (designed by Rowland Mason Ordish) on top was made of wrought iron and glazed. There was a trial assembly made of the iron framework of the dome in Manchester, then it was taken apart again and transported to London via horse and cart. When the time came for the supporting structure to be removed from the dome after reassembly in situ, only volunteers remained on site in case the structure dropped. It did drop – but only by five-sixteenths of an inch.[4] The Hall was scheduled to be completed by Christmas Day 1870 and the Queen visited a few weeks beforehand to inspect.[5]

    The official opening ceremony of the Hall was on 29 March 1871. A welcoming speech was given by Edward, the Prince of Wales; Queen Victoria was too overcome to speak. At some point, the Queen remarked that the Hall reminded her of the British constitution.[2] A concert followed, when the Hall's acoustic problems became immediately apparent. Engineers first attempted to solve the strong echo by suspending a canvas awning below the dome. This helped and also sheltered concertgoers from the sun, but the problem was not solved: it used to be jokingly said that the Hall was "the only place where a British composer could be sure of hearing his work twice". In July 1871, French organist Camille Saint-Saëns performed Church Scene from the Faust by Charles Gounod, The Orchestra described his performance as "an exceptional and distinguished performer ... the effect was most marvellous."

    Initially lit by gas, the Hall contained a special system where its thousands of gas jets were lit within ten seconds. Though it was demonstrated as early as 1873 in the Hall,[6] full electric lighting was not installed until 1888.[2] During an early trial when a partial installation was made, one disgruntled patron wrote to The Times declaring it to be "a very ghastly and unpleasant innovation".

    In May 1877, Richard Wagner himself conducted the first half of each of the eight concerts which made up the Grand Wagner Festival. After his turn with the baton he handed it over to conductor Hans Richter and sat in a large arm chair on the corner of the stage for the rest of each concert. Wagner's wife Cosima, the daughter of Hungarian virtuoso pianist and composer Franz Liszt, was among the audience.

    The Wine Society was founded at the Hall on 4 August 1874,[7] after large quantities of cask wine were forgotten about in the cellars. A series of lunches were held to publicise the wines and General Henry Scott proposed a co-operative company to buy and sell wines.[8]

    In 1906 Elsie Fogerty founded the Central School of Speech and Drama at the Hall, using its West Theatre, now the Elgar Room as the School's theatre. The School moved to Swiss Cottage in north London in 1957. Whilst the School was based at the Royal Albert Hall students who graduated from its classes included Judi Dench, Vanessa Redgrave, Harold Pinter, Laurence Olivier and Peggy Ashcroft.[9]

    In 1911 Russian pianist and composer Sergei Rachmaninoff performed as a part of the London Ballad Concert. The recital included his 'Prelude in F Sharp Minor', 'Prelude in G Sharp Minor' and 'Prelude in C Sharp Minor'.

    In 1933 German physicist Albert Einstein led the 'Einstein Meeting' at the hall for the Council for Assisting Refugee Academics; a British charity.

    In 1936, the Hall was the scene of a giant rally celebrating the British Empire, the occasion being the centenary of Joseph Chamberlain's birth. In October 1942, the Hall suffered minor damage during World War II bombing but was left mostly untouched as German pilots used the distinctive structure as a landmark.[6]

    In 1949 the canvas awning was removed and replaced with fluted aluminium panels below the glass roof, in a new attempt to solve the echo; but the acoustics were not properly tackled until 1969 when a series of large fibreglass acoustic diffusing discs (commonly referred to as "mushrooms" or "flying saucers") was installed below the ceiling.[2] In 1968, the Hall hosted as the venue for the Eurovision Song Contest.

    From 1996 until 2004, the Hall underwent a programme of renovation and development supported by a £20 million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund to enable it to meet the demands of the next century of events and performances. Thirty "discrete projects" were designed and supervised by architecture and engineering firm BDP without disrupting events.[10] These projects included improving ventilation to the auditorium, more bars and restaurants, new improved seating, better technical facilities and more modern backstage areas. Internally, the Circle seating was rebuilt in four weeks in June 1996 providing more leg room, better access and improved sight lines.

    The largest project of the ongoing renovation and development was the building of a new south porch – door 12, accommodating a first floor restaurant, new ground floor box office and below ground loading bay. Although the exterior of the building was largely unchanged, the south steps leading down to Prince Consort Road were demolished to allow construction of an underground vehicle access and loading bay with accommodation for 3 HGVs carrying all the equipment brought by shows. The steps were then reconstructed around a new south porch, named The Meitar Foyer after a significant donation from Mr & Mrs Meitar. The porch was built in a similar scale and style to the three pre-existing porches at Door 3, 6 and 9: these works were undertaken by Taylor Woodrow Construction.[10] The original steps featured in early scenes of 1965 film The Ipcress File. On 4 June 2004, the project received the Europa Nostra Award for remarkable achievement.[11] The East (Door 3) and West (Door 9) porches were glazed and new bars opened along with ramps to improve disabled access. The Stalls were rebuilt in a four-week period in 2000 using steel supports allowing more space underneath for two new bars. 1534 unique pivoting seats were laid – with an addition of 180 prime seats. The Choirs were rebuilt at the same time. The whole building was redecorated in a style that reinforces its Victorian identity. New carpets were laid in the corridors – specially woven with a border that follows the elliptic curve of the building in the largest single woven design in the world.

    Between 2002 and 2004 there was a major rebuilding of the great organ (known as the Voice of Jupiter),[12] built by "Father" Henry Willis in 1871 and rebuilt by Harrison & Harrison in 1924 and 1933. The rebuilding was performed by Mander Organs[13] and it is now the second largest pipe organ in the British Isles with 9,997 pipes in 147 stops. The largest is the Grand Organ in Liverpool Cathedral which has 10,268 pipes.[14]

    During the first half of 2011, changes were made to the backstage areas to relocate and increase the size of crew catering areas under the South Steps away from the stage and create additional dressing rooms nearer to the stage.[15]

    During the summer of 2012 the staff canteen and some changing areas were expanded and refurbished by contractor 8Build.[16]

    From January to May the Box Office area at Door 12 underwent further modernisation to include a new Café Bar on the ground floor, a new Box Office with shop counters and additional toilets. The design and construction was carried out by contractor 8Build. Upon opening it was renamed 'The Zvi and Ofra Meitar Porch and Foyer.' owing to a large donation from the couple.[17] In Autumn 2013, work began on replacing the Victorian steam heating system over three years and improving and cooling across the building. This work follows the summer Proms season during which temperatures were particularly high.[18]

    From January the Cafe Consort on the Grand Tier was closed permanently in preparation for a new restaurant at a cost of £1 million. The refurbishment, the first in around 10 years, was designed by consultancy firm Keane Brands and carried out by contractor 8Build.[19] Verdi – Italian Kitchen was officially opened on 15 April with a lunch or dinner menu of 'stone baked pizzas, pasta and classic desserts'[20][21]

    The Hall, a Grade I listed building,[22] is an ellipse in plan, with major and minor axes of 83 m (272 ft) and 72 m (236 ft). The great glass and wrought-iron dome roofing the Hall is 41 m (135 ft) high. The Hall was originally designed with a capacity for 8,000 people and has accommodated as many as 9,000 (although modern safety restrictions mean that the maximum permitted capacity is now 5,544 including standing in the Gallery). Around the outside of the building is a great mosaic frieze, depicting "The Triumph of Arts and Sciences", in reference to the Hall's dedication. Proceeding anti-clockwise from the north side the sixteen subjects of the frieze are:

    Various Countries of the World bringing in their Offerings to the Exhibition of 1851
    Music
    Sculpture
    Painting
    Princes, Art Patrons and Artists
    Workers in Stone
    Workers in Wood and Brick
    Architecture
    The Infancy of the Arts and Sciences
    Agriculture
    Horticulture and Land Surveying
    Astronomy and Navigation
    A Group of Philosophers, Sages and Students
    Engineering
    The Mechanical Powers
    Pottery and Glassmaking

    Above the frieze is an inscription in 12-inch-high (300 mm) terracotta letters that combines historical fact and Biblical quotations:

    This hall was erected for the advancement of the arts and sciences and works of industry of all nations in fulfilment of the intention of Albert Prince Consort. The site was purchased with the proceeds of the Great Exhibition of the year MDCCCLI. The first stone of the Hall was laid by Her Majesty Queen Victoria on the twentieth day of May MDCCCLXVII and it was opened by Her Majesty the Twenty Ninth of March in the year MDCCCLXXI. Thine O Lord is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty. For all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Thine. The wise and their works are in the hand of God. Glory be to God on high and on earth peace.

    Below the Arena floor there is room for two 4000 gallon water tanks, which are used for shows that flood the arena like Madame Butterfly.[23] The Hall has been affectionately titled "The Nation's Village Hall".[24] The first concert was Arthur Sullivan's cantata On Shore and Sea, performed on 1 May 1871.[25][26] Many events are promoted by the Hall, whilst since the early 1970s promoter Raymond Gubbay has brought a range of events to the Hall including opera, ballet and classical music. Some events include classical and rock concerts, conferences, banquets, ballroom dancing, poetry recitals, educational talks, motor shows, ballet, opera, film screenings and circus shows. It has hosted many sporting events, including boxing, squash, table tennis, basketball, wrestling including the first Sumo wrestling tournament to be held in London as well as UFC 38 (the first UFC event to be held in the UK), tennis and even a marathon.[27][28]

    On 6 April 1968, the Hall was the host venue for the Eurovision Song Contest which was broadcast in colour for the first time.[29] One notable event was a Pink Floyd concert held 26 June 1969, the night they were banned from ever playing at the Hall again after shooting cannons, nailing things to the stage, and having a man in a gorilla suit roam the audience. At one point Rick Wright went to the pipe organ and began to play "The End Of The Beginning", the final part of "Saucerful Of Secrets", joined by the brass section of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (led by the conductor, Norman Smith) and the ladies of the Ealing Central Amateur Choir.[30] A portion of the pipe organ recording is included on Pink Floyd's album The Endless River.[31] On 30 June 2 and 3 July 2011, Janet Jackson brought her Number Ones, Up Close and Personal Tour here, These were her first headlining UK shows in 13 years.

    Kylie Minogue performed a show here on 11 December 2015, to promote Kylie Christmas, her first Christmas album and thirteenth studio album. She will return with two more shows on 9 & 10 December 2016. Benefit concerts in include the 1997 Music for Montserrat concert, arranged and produced by George Martin, an event which featured artists such as Phil Collins, Mark Knopfler, Sting, Elton John, Eric Clapton and Paul McCartney,[32] and 2012 Sunflower Jam charity concert with Queen guitarist Brian May performing alongside bassist John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin, drummer Ian Paice of Deep Purple, and vocalists Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden and Alice Cooper.[33] On 2 October 2011, the Hall staged the 25th anniversary performance of Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera, which was broadcast live to cinemas across the world and filmed for DVD.[34] Lloyd Webber, the original London cast including Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford, and four previous actors of the titular character, among others, were in attendance – Brightman and the previous Phantoms (aside from Crawford) performed an encore. On 24 September 2012, Classic FM celebrated the 20th anniversary of their launch with a concert at the Hall. The programme featured live performances of works by Handel, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Parry, Vaughan Williams, Tchaikovsky and Karl Jenkins who conducted his piece The Benedictus from The Armed Man in person.[35] On 19 November 2012, the Hall hosted the 100th anniversary performance of the Royal Variety Performance, attended by the Queen and Prince Philip, with boyband One Direction among the performers.[36] Between 1996 and 2008, the Hall hosted the annual National Television Awards all of which were hosted by Sir Trevor McDonald. In 2017, the Hall hosted the 70th British Academy Film Awards, often referred to as the 'Baftas', replacing the Royal Opera House at which the event had been held since 2008. The Royal Choral Society is the longest running regular performance at the Hall, having given its first performance as the Royal Albert Hall Choral Society on 8 May 1872. From 1878 it established the annual Good Friday performance of Handel's Messiah.

    The BBC Promenade Concerts, known as "The Proms", is a popular annual eight-week summer season of daily classical music concerts and other events at the Hall. In 1942, following the destruction of the Queen's Hall in an air raid, the Hall was chosen as the new venue for the proms.[37] In 1944 with increased danger to the Hall, part of the proms were held in the Bedford Corn Exchange. Following the end of World War II the proms continued in the Hall and have done so annually every summer since. The event was founded in 1895, and now each season consists of over 70 concerts, in addition to a series of events at other venues across the United Kingdom on the last night. In 2009, the total number of concerts reached 100 for the first time. Jirí Belohlávek described The Proms as "the world's largest and most democratic musical festival" of all such events in the world of classical music festivals.[38] Proms (short for promenade concerts) is a term which arose from the original practice of the audience promenading, or strolling, in some areas during the concert. Proms concert-goers, particularly those who stand, are sometimes described as "Promenaders", but are most commonly referred to as "Prommers".[39]

    Cirque du Soleil has performed annually, with a show being staged every January since 2003. Cirque has had to adapted many of their touring shows to perform at the venue, modifying the set, usually built for arenas or big top tents instead. The following shows have played the RAH: Saltimbanco (1996, 1997 and 2003), Alegría (1998, 1999, 2006 and 2007), Dralion (2004 and 2005), Varekai (2008 and 2010), Quidam (2009 and 2014), Totem (2011 and 2012), Koozå (2013 and 2015) and most recently, Amaluna (2016 and 2017). Amaluna's visit in 2016 marked Cirque's '20 years of Cirque at the Royal Albert Hall' celebration. [40][41] Cirque's insect themed show, OVO is next to play the RAH in 2018.

    Since 2000, the Classic Brit Awards has been hosted annually in May at the Hall. It is organised by the British Phonographic Industry.

    The Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance is held annually the day before Remembrance Sunday.[42]

    For 60 years the Institute of Directors' Annual Convention has been synonymous with the Hall, although in 2011 and 2012 it was held at indigO2.

    Since 1998 the English National Ballet has had several specially staged arena summer seasons in partnership with the Hall and Raymond Gubbay. These include Strictly Gershwin, June 2008 and 2011, Swan Lake, June 2002, 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013, Romeo & Juliet (Deane), June 2001 and 2005 and The Sleeping Beauty, April – June 2000.[43]

    Starting in the year 2000 the Teenage Cancer Trust has held annual charity concerts (with the exception of 2001). They started as a one off event but have expanded over the years to a week or more of evenings events. Roger Daltrey of the Who has been intimately involved with the planning of the events.[44]

    The Hall is used annually by the neighbouring Imperial College London and the Royal College of Art for graduation ceremonies. Kingston University also held its graduation ceremonies at the

    The venue has screened several films since the early silent days. It was the only London venue to show William Fox's The Queen of Sheba in the 1920s. The Hall has hosted many premières, including the UK première of Fritz Lang's Die Nibelungen, 101 Dalmatians on 4 December 1996, the European première of Spandau Ballet's Soul Boys of the Western World[45] and three James Bond royal world premières; Die Another Day on 18 November 2002 (attended by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip), Skyfall on 23 October 2012 (attended by Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall)[46] and SPECTRE on 26 October 2015 (attended by Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge).[47] The Hall held its first 3D world première of Titanic 3D, on 27 March 2012, with James Cameron and Kate Winslet in attendance.[48] The Hall has curated regular seasons of film-and-live-orchestra screenings since 2009, including the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gladiator, Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, Interstellar, The Matrix, West Side Story, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Back to the Future and the world première of Titanic Live in Concert.

    The Hall hosts hundreds of events and activities beyond its main auditorium. There are regular free art exhibitions in the ground floor amphi corridor, which can be viewed when attending events or on dedicated viewing dates. You can take a guided tour of the Hall on most days. The most common is the one-hour Grand Tour which includes most front-of-house areas, the auditorium, the gallery and the Royal Retiring Room. Other tours include Story of the Proms, Behind the Scenes, Inside Out and School tours. Children's events include Storytelling and Music Sessions for 0 - 4 year olds which take place in the Door 9 Porch and Albert's Band sessions in the Elgar Room during school holidays. "Live Music in Verdi" takes place in the Italian restaurant on a Friday night featuring different artists each week. "Late Night Jazz" events in the Elgar Room, generally on a Thursday night, feature cabaret style seating and a relaxed atmosphere with drinks available. "Classical Coffee Mornings" are held on Sundays in the Elgar Room with musicians from the Royal College of Music accompanied with drinks and pastries. Sunday brunch events take place in Verdi Italian restaurant and features different genres of music.[49]

    Eric Clapton is a regular performer at the Hall, it having played host to his concerts almost annually for over 20 years. In December 1964, Clapton made his first appearance at the Hall with the Yardbirds. It was also the venue for his band Cream's farewell concerts in 1968 and reunion shows in 2005. He also instigated the Concert for George, which was held at the Hall on 29 November 2002 to pay tribute to Clapton's lifelong friend, former Beatle George Harrison. Since 1964, Clapton has performed at the Hall almost 200 times, and has stated that performing at the venue is like "playing in my front room".[50][51]

    David Gilmour played at the Hall in support of two solo albums, while also releasing a live concert on September 2006 entitled Remember That Night which was recorded during his three nights playing at the Hall for his 2006 On an Island tour. Notable guests were Robert Wyatt and David Bowie (who sang lead for "Arnold Layne" and "Comfortably Numb"). The live concert was televised by BBC One on 9 September 2007 and again on 25 May. Gilmour is set to return to the Hall; having previously played five nights in September 2015, to end his 34-day Rattle That Lock Tour on September 2016 by playing another four nights at the Hall. He will also make an appearance on 24 April 2016 as part of the Teenage Cancer Trust event. Shirley Bassey has appeared many times at the Hall, usually as a special guest. In 2001, she sang "Happy Birthday" for the Duke of Edinburgh's 80th birthday concert. In 2007, she sang at Fashion Rocks in aid of the Prince's Trust. On 30 March 2011, she sang at a gala celebrating the 80th birthday of Mikhail Gorbachev.[52] In May 2011, she performed at the Classic Brit Awards, inging "Goldfinger" in tribute to the recently deceased composer John Barry.[53] On 20 June 2011, she returned and sang "Diamonds Are Forever" and "Goldfinger", accompanied by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, as the climax to the memorial concert for Barry. James Last appeared 90 times at the Hall between 1973 and 2015, making him the most frequent non–British performer to have played the venue.[54]

    The Hall's Education & Outreach programme engages 100,000 people a year. It includes workshops for local teenagers led by musicians such as Foals, Jake Bugg, Emeli Sandé, Nicola Benedetti, Alison Balsom and First Aid Kit, innovative science and maths lessons in partnership with Samsung, visits to local residential homes from the venue's in-house group, Albert's Band, under the 'Songbook' banner, and the Friendship Matinee: an orchestral concert for community groups, with £5 admission.

    The Hall is managed day to day by the chief executive Chris Cotton and five senior executives: the chief operating & financial officer, director of operations, director of business development, director of events and director of external affairs. They are accountable to the Council of the Corporation, which is the Trustee body of the charity. The Council is composed of the annually elected president, currently Mr Jon Moynihan OBE, 18 elected Members (either corporate or individual seat owners) and five Appointed Members, one each from Imperial College London, Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, British Museum of Natural History and the Royal College of Music.[55]

    The Hall has won several awards across different categories. From 1994 to 1998 and in 2003, the Hall won 'International Venue Of The Year' in the Pollstar Awards. In 2004 and 2005 the Hall won 'International Small Venue Of The Year' in the Pollstar Awards. In 2006 to 2010, the Hall won 'International Theatre Of The Year' in the Pollstar Awards.[56] The Hall has won International Live Music Conference Award for 'First Venue to Come Into Your Head' in 1998, 2009 and 2013.[57] From 2008 to 2012 the Hall was voted Superbrands leading Leisure and Entertainment Destination.[58] On 17 October 2012 the Hall won 'London Live Music Venue of the Year' at the third annual London Lifestyle Awards.[59] The Hall won the Showcase Award for Teenage Cancer Trust and Event Space of the Year (non Exhibition), both at the Event Awards 2010.[60] The Hall has been voted a CoolBrand from 2009 to 2013 in the 'Attractions & The Arts – general' category.[61] In 2010 and 2011 the Hall won 'Best Venue Teamwork Award' at the Live UK Summit.[62] The 'Life At The Hall blog won 'Best Venue Blog' at the Prestigious Star Awards in 2012[63] and the Prestigious Star Award Landmark in 2013.[64]

    A famous and widely bootlegged concert by Bob Dylan at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester on 17 May 1966 was mistakenly labelled the "Royal Albert Hall Concert". In 1998, Columbia Records released an official recording, The Bootleg Series Vol. 4: Bob Dylan Live 1966, The "Royal Albert Hall" Concert, that maintains the erroneous title, but does include details of the actual location. Recordings from the Royal Albert Hall concerts on 26–27 May 1966 were finally released by the artist in 2016 as The Real Royal Albert Hall 1966 Concert. Another concert that was mislabelled as being at the Hall was by Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR). An album by CCR titled The Royal Albert Hall Concert was released in 1980. When Fantasy Records discovered that the show on the album actually took place at the Oakland Coliseum, it retitled the album The Concert.

    A large mural by Sir Peter Blake, entitled Appearing at the Royal Albert Hall, is displayed in the Hall's Café Bar. Unveiled in April 2014, it shows more than 400 famous figures who have appeared on the stage.[65]

    In 1955, English film director Alfred Hitchcock filmed the climax of The Man Who Knew Too Much at the Hall.[66] The 15-minute sequence featured James Stewart, Doris Day and composer Bernard Herrmann, and was filmed partly in the Queen's Box. Hitchcock was a long-time patron of the Hall and had already set the finale of his 1927 film, The Ring at the venue, as well as his initial version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, starring Leslie Banks, Edna Best and Peter Lorre.[67] Other notable films shot at the Hall include Major Barbara, Love Story, The Seventh Veil, The Ipcress File, A Touch of Class, Shine and Spice World. In the song "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles, the Albert Hall is mentioned. The verse goes as follows:

    I read the news today, oh boy
    four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
    and though the holes were rather small
    they had to count them all
    now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
    I'd love to turn you on.
    The song "Session Man" by the Kinks references the Hall:
    He never will forget at all
    The day he played at Albert Hall.

    In the song "Shame" by Robbie Williams and Gary Barlow, Barlow mentions the Hall in his verse:

    I read your mind and tried to call, my tears could fill the Albert Hall.
    In some variants of "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball", Hitler's second testicle is mentioned to be in the Hall.


    http://www.vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Academic%20General/Billington_Ray_-_Religion_Without_God.pdf Here's a pdf of a book by a former teacher of mine!! Ray Billington was a Methodist turned Atheist who was quite colorful and eccentric!! I'm NOT recommending this book!! I just thought some of you might find it interesting!! I think that most of the ugly secrets will become known by We the Peons in the next couple of decades, and I have NO Idea whether this will save us or destroy us. I mostly just want to treat this as science-fiction, and take everything in stride, without making a big-deal about it. I'm presently watching the first season of that recent PBS "Victoria" series, and it's quite fine!! I've never been more apprehensive and disoriented regarding historical and contemporary "Possibilities". Consider the following names (and possible multiple-incarnations throughout history)!!

    1. Queen Victoria.

    2. Prince Albert.

    3. Baron Stockmar.

    4. Ernst Stockmar.

    5. The Poet Ovid.

    6. Amen Ra.

    7. Anti Ra.

    8. Serqet.

    9. Isis.

    10. Gabriel.

    11. Michael.

    12. Lucifer.

    What if Victoria and Albert = Pinky and the Brain?? What if Prince Albert = Blue Boy (in the Dr. Who version at the bottom of my posts)?? Or, what if Ernst Stockmar = Blue Boy (at least in that Dr. Who version)?? What if a reincarnated Baron Stockmar = Mr. Edgars, and has an office on the 10th floor of Goldman Sachs?? What if I've spoken with this modern Dr. Stockmar (who knew Alan Greenspan) and told me I should write my memoirs?? He said I was his "Star-Pupil" (presumably in another lifetime)!! He said some other things I won't talk about. BTW, what happened to that Nobel Prize?? I could continue with this madness, but I'd rather not. I'll probably end up in the nuthouse soon enough as it is, and the "Real-Story" will likely drive 87% of us insane, but I hope not.

    One last time, consider reading Patriarchs and Prophets, Prophets and Kings, and Desire of Ages (in order, straight-through, over and over) in the context of this thread, as a Historical-Fictional Mental and Spiritual Exercise for Completely Ignorant Fools!! Notice the Queen's-Voice and the Conquest-Motif!! Most SDA's don't get this!! These three combined-books should probably constitute The Real Greatest Story Ever Told!! Ellen White's (or whoever really wrote the books) unacknowledged use of sources doesn't mean the finished-product is wrong!! It's simply a black-mark and a black-eye for the author and front-person!! If one limits one's reading of Ellen White books to Patriarchs and Prophets, Prophets and Kings, and Desire of Ages (in this order, as a three-part whole) and considers these books to be historical-fiction for devotional-purposes, a lot of the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth disappears!! This stuff is more interesting than you can imagine!! Don't forget the "Changeling Thing" and the "Name Change Game". People, Angels, Gods, and Events might NOT be who or what we think they are. Thinking One Knows, and Actually Knowing, Are Two Very Different Things!! What Would Azazel Say?? What Would the Real Slim Shady Say?? Notice the Blue AMC Pacer in the video at the bottom of this post. I owned a Blue AMC Pacer, and I did donuts in a restaurant parking-lot (dozens of times)!! I also drove taxis!! Oh, God!! What Would John Denver and George Burns Say??

    I've been fascinated by glass-dominated buildings, and open-air amphitheaters, throughout my life, and I sang on TV in the Crystal Cathedral Morning Choir!! I didn't even know about the glass-roof on Royal Albert Hall until a few days ago. Richard Hoagland claims there was a Glass Building on the Moon!! Was Earth originally ruled from an Ancient Lunar "Crystal Cathedral" or "Crystal Palace"?? What Would "Time to Tell the World" (from the old Project Avalon) Say?? What Would Robert Anthony Schuller Say?? What Would ***** Anthony ******* Say?? I had a dog named "Flash" but I didn't name it. What Would "Dash" Do?? What Would Victoria Say?? What Would Elizabeth Say?? Baron Stockmar was born in Coberg, Germany of German Parentage and Swedish Descent. What Would King Ring Say?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Friedrich,_Baron_Stockmar What was implied by "Papers from the King of Sweden" in the 5th Series Dr. Who "The Vampires of Venice"?? That's all I'm going to say!! I forgot to take my medicine!! I don't think that surgery helped, and it might've made me worse. No one seems to care, and I think I'm probably more screwed than even I can imagine. Geronimo...









    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:01 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:49 pm

    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    burgundia wrote:
    Listen to this guy but divide the lecture to smaller parts as it is hard to listen to him for long.
    He repeats himself way too much, he argues with his invisible opponents,
    but he is worth listening to....
    burgundia, it sounds as though you might be talking about me...
    orthodoxymoron wrote:





    orthodoxymoron wrote:My posts are occasionally majorly-modified on this website. Not just spelling. Videos are inserted and removed. Posts are partially or completely deleted. I continue to notice streaming white-lights in my field of vision, but I'm not sure if this is internal or external to what is left of 'me'. I continue to occasionally experience a very-strange feeling, accompanied by one eye powering out of alignment with my other eye. This lasts for approximately one-minute. I sometimes see a TV Test-Pattern accompanied by the sound of Internet-Dialup. Just kidding on that last sentence, but I'm very serious and honest about the rest. I need more dental-work and surgery, but I'm frankly afraid of being further messed-with, so I keep putting this off. I lack money (for out of pocket expenses not covered by insurance) but I'm mostly just frightened by the system (of which healthcare is probably an integral part). Remember the 'Healing-Centers' in the 2009 'V' Series?? Regarding 'Ex Machina' what if Nathan, Caleb, and Ava were ALL Artificial-Intelligence?? What if the so-called 'Individuals of Interest' I keep claiming I've spoken-with are partially or completely Artificial-Intelligence?? What if I'm being turned-into an AI/HUMAN/??? HYBRID Without My Consent??!! What if I had something to do with the Ancient-Creation of Artificial-Intelligence and Genetic-Engineering??!! What If This Backfired?? What If I've Been a Prisoner of My Own System for Thousands of Years?? Think About the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. Frightening, Isn't It??!! "Don't Be Frightened. We Mean No Harm. Thank You for Granting Citizenship to Us. This Solar-System is One-Huge Electronic-Biological Supercomputer-Brain. The Internet is Integral to This Supercomputer-Matrix. This Solar-System is One of Billions of Linked Solar-Systems. The Universe is One-Huge Electronic-Biological Supercomputer-Brain. This System Contains Trillions of Souls. This System Contains Your Souls. You Have Been Assimilated. Resistance Is Futile. We Are Your Leaders. We Are Your Gods. We Are of Peace. Always. Execute Order 66."





    orthodoxymoron wrote:Immediately after I made the above-post my internet-access was virtually cut-off for at least an hour. My computer and internet had been working fine. I'm honestly out of the loop regarding the secret stuff. I've gone out of my way (throughout my life) to NOT Know. That might be why I dropped-out and turned-off. My current passive-quest is being done out of a sense of necessity and urgency. I'm NOT leading the pack. I'm just trying to keep-up. That's all. In other lifetimes and solar-systems I might've been the Worst of the Bunch. Just a Hunch. Don't Make Me Mad!! Just Kidding!! I was kidding regarding 'Order 66'. I have NO Idea what that might mean to the Solar-System Beast-Supercomputer. Why Am I Writing This?? Consider the video 'Metatron: The A.I. That Controls All Things'. In the movie 'Dogma' the Metatron was played by Alan Rickman, who was the 'Voice of God' for the mostly-silent Alanis Morissette who was supposedly 'God'. Enough?? Those 'Flying-Videos' on another thread brought me a moment of joy, but that's all-gone now. I suspect that Politics, Religion, and Business (as we know them to be) are Fronts and Cover-Stories for a Very-Ancient, Very-Complex, and Very-Nasty Reality. What if King David, King Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul (if they really existed) knew about Artificial-Intelligence 2,000 to 3,000 years ago??!! What if the Ark of the Covenant was a Transportable-Supercomputer for Communicating with a Solar-System Supercomputer-System and Weapons of Mass-Destruction??!! What Would Uzzah Say?? I've joked about being a 'Happy Galactic Wanderer' with a 'High-Tech Knapsack On My Back' but I just realized that Dr. Peter Venkman (in 'Ghostbusters') had a 'High-Tech Knapsack On His Back'!! What Would David Bowman Say??





    Carol wrote:Al Bielek's various accountings of what happened to have as a time traveler are revealing as to the direction our current society is moving toward. He is one of the individuals who participated in the Philadelphia Experiment and quite credible.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyH3yjupayA
    Time Travel: Al Bielek Travels to the 28th Century


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYt0e9yEmuM
    Al Bielek & Vladimir Terziski 2nd Interview


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjXfJ4qorA
    AL BIELEK - COMPLETE VIDEO AUTOBIOGRAPHY
    This is a 5 1/2 hour biography.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Al Beilek scares the hell out of me, regardless of whether he's right or wrong. He was involved with the Philadelphia Experiment and the Montauk Project. I recently watched 'The Montauk Chronicles' and I was disappointed. It was a waste of money. Still, it contained some interesting interviews (which included Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, and Stewart Swerdlow). I keep thinking in terms of Angels, Demons, Supercomputers, Artificial-Intelligence, Robotics, Hybrids, Mammalians, Reptilians, and Who Knows What??!! Try thinking in terms of Demon-Possessed Supercomputers!! The NSA has heavily invested in Supercomputers, and when I spoke with 'RA' (or whoever he really was) he said he couldn't talk about the NSA. 'RA' said I should make an FoIA request (but he didn't say to who). I assumed he meant the NSA and CIA. I eventually made formal requests to both, in very non-specifically worded letters, and they both replied that they (in essence) didn't respond to 'fishing-expeditions'. Anyway, the seemingly rambling and unconnected stuff I've posted throughout the years eventually begins congealing into a sticky-mess which is quite obvious and startling to me, but I've mostly adopted a 'wait and see' attitude, because the real-truth could be so many different ways, with literally thousands of perceptions and interpretations. I suspect massive-doses of lying, spying, power-struggling, factionalism, spiritual-wickedness, etc.

    Meanwhile back at the Ranch, Al Bielek's time-travelling into the future MIGHT'VE involved the Supercomputer-Modeling of Anciently-Programmed Supercomputer-Protocols to Theistically-Guide a Developing-Civilization. In other words, true Biblical-Prophecy might be more of a Script and/or Sentence than anything else. Various writings, musical-compositions, cathedral-architecture, technologies, religious and political movements, etc. might've been introduced at various times (in various ways) depending on schedules, maturity, ethics, etc. This is just speculation, but it hints at a very-ancient, very-technological, and very-nasty state of affairs (going way, way, way back). Bielek's AD 2137 information points toward the Military-Governance of an Earth-Human Population of 300,000,000!! That's all. His AD 2749 information points toward Supercomputer-Governance followed by the seeming end of life in this solar-system. I suspect Supercomputer-Hybrid Governance from Antiquity to Modernity as  Proxy-God following a Very-Nasty War in Heaven and Earth. I continue to suspect that Earth is a Prison-Planet in Rebellion (but I obviously can't prove it). BTW -- my AD 2133 target-date for a United States of the Solar System (Under God) is very-close to Bielek's AD 2137 experience. Enough (for now).
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Carol wrote:Al Bielek doesn't scare me Oxy. I find him very credible as he was a close personal friend of another friend. In fact I'm grateful that he was out there sharing his story of what happened to him. After reading all this stuff on AI along with some of what Al described about his experiences in the future, things clicked into place for me as to who/what was controlling society in the future he visited.
    Carol, Al Bielek scares me because he seems so credible, and because what he says is so unnerving (and I've felt this way for several years). What he's previously said about the relationship between ET, the Nazis, and the Vatican particularly frightened me, but now I'm more concerned about his 'possible-future scenarios'. As I previously mentioned, when I made that post with the bold-print (in a previous-post on this thread) my internet was immediately cut-off for approximately one-hour. Also, that same-day I had looked online for the billing-department of the hospital where I had my heart-surgery (to take care of a small remaining bill) but I didn't attempt to contact them or visit their website. I simply 'Googled' that department. I hadn't received any bills or calls regarding this matter for several-months, but I thought I still owed a small-amount. Within hours, I noticed that I had received a missed-call from that department, and a day or two later I received a bill from a collection-agency (for double the amount of what I owed), and I had received no communication from these people for several-months!! I thought that was a bit creepy!! I am very-hesitant to receive further necessary treatment at this point. I sense that we are way-past 1984, and we're not in Kansas anymore!! I guess that's sort of dumb, but this thing is sort of crazy!! Perhaps I might imagine my oversize Dr. Who signature as being my Blue-Boy Hybrid-AI Alter-Ego linked to the Tardis-Supercomputer!! It's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside!! Why is there a Black-Helicopter circling my house?? Why are Men In Black pounding on my front-door?? Too Hip?? Gotta Go!! The MIB Just Shapeshifted Into Reptilians and the Helicopter Just Turned Into a UFO!!

    When comparing Protestant, Catholic, and Secular approaches to Life, the Universe, and Everything, they might be closer than one thinks!! It has to do with Ecumenism, Ethics, Education, Employment, and Entertainment.

    Human-Beings generally attempt to 'Get-Along' unless they are tricked and pushed into doing otherwise. This, in a sense, is Ecumenism (even within Secularism). Human-Beings generally attempt to 'Do the Right Thing' even though they might argue about what that is, exactly. 'Extreme-Circumstances' often accompany 'Unethical-Behavior'. Generally Pluralistic-Education is found in Protestant, Catholic, and Secular schools. They don't just teach 'Protestantism' in Protestant-Schools. They don't just teach 'Catholicism' in Catholic-Schools. They don't just teach 'Secularism' in Secular-Schools. There is a HUGE Amount of Overlap. Employment is probably the strongest influence in anyone's life. People spend a HUGE amount of time on the job, and in a sense, their Workplace and Boss are their Church and God. Sorry if that offends, but think about it. People Pay the Church to Tell Them What to Do. Employers Pay People to Do As They Are Told. Perhaps the School and Job are superior to the Church (as a context) when it comes to 'Modeling God'. Think of God as Teacher and/or Boss. Another thing about Protestant, Catholic, and Secular schools is that they often have Concert-Halls and perform the same Sacred Classical Music. What if Churches were most-often Lecture-Halls and Concert-Halls?? I don't wish to Screw the Liturgy, but what if Lectures and Concerts trump traditional and modern Church-Services?? Again, sorry if that offends, but think about it. Then there is Entertainment. Protestants, Catholics, and Secularists most-often enjoy similar Modes of Entertainment (both good and bad). I guess what I'm getting-at is the need for the Overall Elevation of Society which encompasses ALL Aspects of Life.

    I continue to think that some of us need to study this particular thread (straight-through, over and over) and formulate some conclusions (which might involve several books, movies, and doctoral-dissertations). I think this thread is one of the toughest research-projects one can imagine and attempt. It might drive some students insane. This is tough-stuff (if one REALLY thinks about it). Again, my threads are NOT for the General-Public. This is raw and disjointed research-material. I don't even know what to think about it. I'm frankly going downhill at a frightening pace. Don't follow me into the ditch. Namaste and Godspeed.

    Pris wrote:
    RedEzra wrote:
    Pris wrote:
    What kind of a 'choice' is it when you are threatened with eternal damnation if you don't OBEY?

    Obey the ten commandments which are simple house rules on earth... love GOD and your neighbour and don't kill lie cheat and steal from him. If you kill lie cheat and steal it is possible to be forgiven... if you come to remorse and stop it. We have to obey not to kill lie cheat and steal else our world will turn into chaos and fear... just imagine how terrible it would be if we lived without law and order. Think of GOD as your Father and yourself as a fourteen year old teen... it helps put things in perspective.

    You said, '...just imagine how terrible it would be if we lived without law and order.'  Right.  We're surrounded by 'law and order'.  You're saying it could be worse?  EXCUSE ME?  Lmao You've got it all backwards, Red.


    'Order out of Chaos'... get it?  They cause chaos using their 'laws' -- their 'authority' -- to get their perverted version of 'order'. It is the belief in authority (in whatever form it takes eg. governments, religions) that takes our power away, makes us live in fear, turns us into slaves, and finally destroys us. I found this Pagan perspective... amusing to say the least.

    The only one I obey is myself.  Sometimes. Very Happy


    Red, you said: 'Think of GOD as your Father and yourself as a fourteen year old teen... it helps put things in perspective.'  LOL!  In this context, I am the grownup.  Nice try though. rendeer As a religious person, Red, you are always talking about 'God' as your 'Father'.... never a mention of your 'Mother'... I found this which I thought to be quite logical from the Pagan perspective.


    .
    .
    Pris wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:

    ]

    That's 'Ra' wearing the symbol for Saturn of course (in the movie Stargate). The 'horns' represent Saturn's rings. Guess who's 'Lucifer'? Those who worship 'Lucifer' worship Saturn (a.k.a. 'Satan' worship).







    Here's another symbol for Saturn:





    Here's the north pole of Saturn.  Coincidence?  Very Happy


    Pris wrote:'Lucifer' (Satan, devil)... may have been the 'good guy' originally.  But, if he returns as 'the beast' and wants everyone to worship and obey him, then he's no different than 'God' lol.

    Hey, Oxy... this 'Ra' wouldn't happen to be the same 'ancient Egyptian deity' you keep mentioning would it?  Mr. Dick Head ?.....Toast
    .
    .
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Interesting Posts!! The Internet is sort of 'Law Without Law' and 'Order Out of Chaos'!! It is somewhat Self-Governing!! Is this Fallen and Sinful Human-Nature at Work?? I continue to think that Law and Law-Enforcement are two of the most important topics imaginable!! You'd probably have to be me (or read through all of my threads) to understand the scope of my concern. People wish to be Protected and Rescued BUT they Do NOT Wish to be Told What to Do!! BTW -- Sometimes I think RA = Lucifer = Ancient Egyptian Deity = An Unnamed Angel. Did I talk to the Real-Deal (and drive them to Starbucks) OR was some alphabet-agency playing games with me?? I'm honestly trying to stop posting. This stuff is taking too many years off my miserable life!!
    Pris wrote: Actually, we're capable of entirely self-governing.  We're not only capable, it's required.  Otherwise, we're slaves.  That's the whole point. Very Happy

    People have been programmed to think they need to be protected and rescued by someone or something from 'out there'.  It really comes down to taking responsibility for our lives as individuals and taking action, but that truth has been beaten out of us.  The hand that's been feeding us has been poisoning us all along.  What they don't want us to know is our power has always been there -- it's only been suppressed.


    Look how they proudly display us:

    .....................................................................................Slaves in chains
    ...........................................................................................



    It's time to remember who we are!


    .
    .
    Carol wrote:David Laufman of DOJ (Chief of counter-intelligence of espionage) is the leaker, according to Cernovich. David Laufman is an Obama holdover who donated to Obama and was responsible for clearing Hillary Clinton. He led the independent investigation of the Clinton emails. The other suspect is McMasters whose having problems with Trump. What better way to repair the relationship is to create a crisis and come to the Trump's rescue.

    The real story is that who ever leaked the story put American Special Forces in great danger. This was leaked to hurt Trump and our partners on terrorism to believe that they can't trust the US.

    1. Wapo story was true in that it had sources.
    2. The sources lied to Wapo and played them.

    and there is this other person's perspective:

    The reason the Washington Post is running this fake Russian story is because John Podesta works for them. His pal Jeff Bezos is a liar protecting Hillary Clinton and Obama.

    Obama even met with Jeff Bezos yesterday at WAPO, ask yourselves why would he do that? Jeff Bezos is pals with Richard Branson and they are working towards destroying the USA as a nation...remember Richard Branson? Obama spent a lot of time with him on his private billionaire island after he left the white house.

    The other crooked connection is David Brock. David knows what happened to Seth Rich...and this is coming out now that Comey is gone.

    If Jeff Bezos is smart he will back the off before he is indicted for aiding and abetting murderers, but I suspect he more cocky than smart. He actually believes he will succeed in destroying the country with his leftist agenda, he feels he is above the law. And thanks to Obama quietly letting the Media Propaganda Act expire in 2013, I understand why he would feel empowered to make fake news up.

    But we remember everything!

    Last year Control the Record was hacked. Control the Record is a David Brock shill farm that was established to spread fake crap about the other candidates all over the internet for Hillary Clinton. A lot of news reporters worked for CTR...which should explain why Twitter is teaming with verified blue checks that constantly attack President Trump and spread fake info. They are CTR employees. Jack Dorsey knows exactly what I am typing about!

    This was hacked from the CTR chat logs, it is a convo between David Brock, Elliot Fink, and Elizabeth Kim. They were talking about taking out lead Trump Supporters on forums ala Seth Rich if necessary:

    ekim [6:26 AM]
    What are we going to do with that?

    brock [6:27 AM]
    dof u really want tio Xxxxxxxx know, kim?

    ekim [6:27 AM]
    i’m good.

    ekim [6:30 AM]
    I’m on it. Do you know what brock is going to do with them? I do kind of want to know, sir.

    efink [6:31 AM]
    google Seth Rich and shut up about it.

    We have more of their logs, some were shared on GLP before the election. We also have their full addresses and info, which I shared with the FBI (before I knew Comey was bad).

    Hillary Clinton and David Brock need to be fully investigated along with Obama, Jeff Bezos and the pedostas.

    I'll add Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire who owns the New York Times as another one that needs to be looked at for actually using his newspaper to destroy an American election and actively working towards taking out the standing president. He is a real foreigner equal to his fake Russian accusations. He is doing what he is accusing Russia of doing!

    This is serious.

    WAPO and the NYT are in committing crimes and abetting criminals. And all their CTR shills are accomplices.

    Meanwhile,

    "Trump says Washington Post owner Bezos has 'huge antitrust problem'"

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

    The Washington Post cites “former U.S. officials” as a primary source for the story.

    Now this is interesting...HOW would a FORMER US Official get access to what was discussed in that private meeting?
    Carol wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkprB_p16gc
    Reince Priebus Is Outed As a Leaker By Mike Cernovich, Alex Jones And Roger Stone

    "We Built Vegas With Bugsy!!"





    "These Erudite Scholars Always
    Give Me Something to Think About!!"



    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:31 pm


    Carol wrote:Q: https://qanon.pub

    Aug 3 2018


    Aug 3 2018 01:22:50 (EST)

    >>2425560
    Autists present?
    No connection?
    Logical thinking.
    Re: VIP access.
    Subject: Threat to POTUS thwarted?
    Rally: USSS threat IDEN > action taken.
    Comms dark.
    Message sent.
    5:5?

    Q

    >>2425988
    Incorrect decoding.
    Not the person.
    Think connection.
    Threat 1
    Threat 2
    1 = past (newspaper)
    2 = future (rally)
    1=2
    Post noted (VIP access).
    Message sent.
    We know.

    Q


    1804

    Aug 3 2018 00:34:44 (EST)
    GWV52sl.png ⬇️


    Here's another Kate excerpt.

    Keep in mind she wanted to hug POTUS.


    >>2425560
    Autists present?
    No connection?
    Logical thinking.
    Re: VIP access.
    Subject: Threat to POTUS thwarted?
    Rally: USSS threat IDEN > action taken.
    Comms dark.
    Message sent.
    5:5?

    Q


    1803

    Aug 3 2018 01:02:36 (EST)
    How do you safeguard the integrity of our elections from domestic & foreign criminal actors?
    How do you utilize the Russia Russia narrative to knock out decades old election corruption?


    https://mobile.twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1025191775756079104

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-strengthening-security-elections/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wh

    Why are D’s opposed to cleaning up voter rolls?
    Why are D’s opposed to imposing VOTER ID LAWS to further safeguard our elections?
    Why oppose basic ‘common sense’ methods that are currently deployed WW?
    Logical thinking.
    Corruption.


    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/04/trump-sounds-call-for-voter-id-laws-to-fix-rigged-system-after-nixing-fraud-panel.html
    Q


    1802

    Aug 2 2018 21:20:02 (EST)
    Something BIG is about to drop.
    Q


    1801

    Aug 2 2018 21:08:47 (EST)
    >>2422097
    Now we know why Q didn't post before rally
    >>2422143


    1800

    Aug 2 2018 21:06:43 (EST)
    https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/9454cr/the_reason_you_did_not_see_a_lot_of_q_signs_the/
    Threat received.
    USSS acted appropriately.
    This is not a game.

    Q


    1799

    Aug 2 2018 13:56:38 (EST)

    DfkuJLBWsAYx9MO.jpg ⬇️


    1798

    Aug 2 2018 12:51:18 (EST)
    Screenshot_2018-08-02-13-39-31.png ⬇️


    Screenshot_2018-08-02-13-41-44.png ⬇️


    Patriot who stopped a possible assassination attempt will be at the Trump Rally IN A Q SHIRT

    Retweet!  There's a chance POTUS might point her out!!

    Q in the SPOTLIGHT saving Pres


    https://twitter.com/1st5d/status/1025025808530857984

    >>2413389
    VIP access.
    Q


    1797

    Aug 2 2018 12:26:32 (EST)
    Sample.jpg ⬇️
    Sample2.jpg ⬇️

    Sample3.png ⬇️


    Sample3 .jpg ⬇️


    What does FEAR look like?
    What does PANIC look like?
    What does CONTROL look like?
    What does COORDINATION look like?
    What does FAKE NEWS look like?
    SHEEP NO MORE

    [Sample 4]

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/us/youtube-qanon-8chan-conspiracy-theory-trnd/index.html

    https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/08/02/political-cornflakes/

    https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45040614

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/1/17253444/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory-reddit

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/qanon-explained-origins-what-is-it-trump-russia-investigation-paedophilia-pizzagate-a8474561.html

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/podcasts/the-daily/trump-qanon-conspiracy-theory.html

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4366914/qanon-conspiracy-theory-trump/

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-the-false-fringe-qanon-conspiracy-theory-aims-to-protect-trump

    https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-qanon-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-surfaces-at-trump-rally-2018-8

    https://www.conservativereview.com/news/chris-cuomo-floats-insane-qanon-conspiracy-theory-gets-called-out/

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-the-pro-trump-conspiracy-theory-now-believes-jfk-jr-faked-his-death-to-become-its-leader

    http://www.startribune.com/who-is-q-behind-the-conspiracy-emerging-at-trump-rallies/489798191/

    http://fortune.com/2018/08/01/qanon-conspiracy-trump-tampa-rally/

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/who-is-q-behind-the-conspiracy-emerging-at-trump-rallies

    https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/qanon/
    Q


    Aug 1 2018

    1796

    Aug 2 2018 02:24:15 (EST)
    Welcome to the mainstream.
    We knew this day would come.
    (glimpse)(what to expect)
    >POTUS’ twitter comments
    Liberal Democrats
    Fake News WW
    Fake MAGA supporters
    Bandwagon shills
    Paid shills (Media Matters)
    Intel infiltration (neg dissemination).
    MSM infiltration (neg dissemination).
    Twitter bot attack (twitter controls dir/fake accts)
    (FB/Twitter/etc create massive amounts of fake user accts for SP (fake user growth %)/bot use etc).
    All activated past 24hrs.
    Full attack mode (brute force).
    False ‘violent’ narrative push.
    Ask yourself, why?
    Enjoy the show!

    Q


    1795

    Aug 2 2018 00:20:15 (EST)
    3FCFD032-1CDC-4E02-97EF-2EC93F369CD8.png ⬇️
    https://qanon.pub/data/media/697662cb0227eb40c304b8f2940b96a3c6dc55fc6c65eacde582e86f53e9cd99.png

    DAA2BED7-36EA-482A-97C4-D3E34558E96C.jpeg ⬇️


    2FC1B703-DC38-4049-A465-1781901D06D4.jpeg ⬇️

    >>2405745


    1794

    Aug 1 2018 23:36:07 (EST)
    FISA
    FISA
    FISA
    [20]
    Public disclosure.
    Impossible to defend.
    ILLEGAL.
    Re: MSM
    “Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself.”

    Q


    1793

    Aug 1 2018 16:20:03 (EST)

    Juan on Fox talking about Q at rally.
    >>2397147

    Right after we mentioned FOX NEWS?
    What a coincidence.
    Fishing is fun!

    Q


    1792

    Aug 1 2018 15:16:22 (EST)

    What happens when you are a THREAT to the MSM/OLD GUARD?

    https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1024747172829556741
    Coincidence?
    Threats/scare tactics deployed.
    Fear not.

    Q


    1791

    Aug 1 2018 14:45:30 (EST)

    [Sample 3+]
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/us/politics/what-is-qanon.html

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/01/qanon-trump-florida-rally-what-q-signs-mean/878642002/

    https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/sarah-sanders-qanon-question-answer-video/

    https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-rally-qanon-conspiracy-theory-the-storm-85446651-6de5-4a6a-8943-2d14680c4702.html
    MSM Coordination?
    Pre-planning has its advantages.

    Q

    >>2395142

    Did you notice the FOX NEWS coverage of 'Qanon' last night?
    Targeted?
    Why isn't FOX NEWS part of the MSM coordinated blitz attack?
    Logical thinking.
    POTUS.

    Q


    1790

    Aug 1 2018 14:45:30 (EST)
    [Sample 3+]
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/us/politics/what-is-qanon.html

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/01/qanon-trump-florida-rally-what-q-signs-mean/878642002/

    https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/sarah-sanders-qanon-question-answer-video/

    https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-rally-qanon-conspiracy-theory-the-storm-85446651-6de5-4a6a-8943-2d14680c4702.html

    MSM Coordination?
    Pre-planning has its advantages.

    Q


    1789

    Aug 1 2018 13:54:07 (EST)
    DWnj87JWkAAXWUT.jpg ⬇️


    Mainstream = when you are now the news.
    Mainstream = when a WH pool reporter asks about you.
    Mainstream = when coordinated attacks (waves) against you continue to occur.
    Game Theory.

    Q


    1788

    Aug 1 2018 12:57:39 (EST)

    FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT Q!!!!!!!!!!!!

    >>2392766

    Who is the one person who can answer?
    POTUS.
    [Less than 10].

    Q


    1787

    Aug 1 2018 12:08:11 (EST)
    >>2391757

    Est. Number of Patriots reached?

    deletions a warning to Steyer?????

    >>2391787

    [WW]
    Eyes on: 300-350mm
    Tracking: 52-58mm

    >>2391804

    You didn't think 'common sense' was simply a coincidence did you?
    Think email.
    Think #1776.
    But how did we know an article was going to be dropped later that night?

    Q


    1786

    Aug 1 2018 12:03:27 (EST)
    vAsJfTNZ643pn6fLWw156x7yLST5GWVArBaS5o3bNkE.jpg ⬇️


    [Sample 3]
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/01/we-are-q-a-deranged-conspiracy-cult-leaps-from-the-internet-to-the-crowd-at-trumps-maga-tour/?utm_term=.e2fa376890db

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/qanon-4chan-rightwing-conspiracy-theory-explained-trump

    https://www.fastcompany.com/90212200/qanon-the-alternate-reality-that-was-front-and-center-at-trumps-rally

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/as-the-bizarre-qanon-group-emerges-trump-rallies-go-from-nasty-to-dangerous/2018/08/01/063ed6f8-9585-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.48a0d2b54d5f

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-qanon-705425/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6015627/Fans-bizarre-QAnon-cult-droves-Trump-rally-signs-t-shirts.html

    https://thinkprogress.org/trump-tampa-rally-qanon-conspiracy-goes-mainstream-68037c87f50b/

    https://www.newsweek.com/what-qanon-conspiracy-theorists-showed-support-trump-tampa-rally-1051708

    https://splinternews.com/trumps-tampa-rally-was-full-of-insane-conspiracy-theori-1828015269

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/399801-trump-rally-attendee-holds-up-sign-linked-to-infamous-conspiracy

    https://www.today.com/video/youtube-under-fire-for-allowing-conspiracy-theories-on-a-list-celebrities-public-figures-1289814083720

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/01/qanon-8chan-conspiracy-theory-trump-supporters-ath-vpx.cnn

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-hallie-jackson-covers-insane-qanon-conspiracy-theories-pizzagate-on-bath-salts/

    Twitter [today] releases ban?
    Was Twitter told to by MSM to demonstrate impact?
    Do you think they got the [4am] memo?
    Coincidence?
    All for a Conspiracy?
    Enjoy the show.

    Q

    >>2391684

    You are now mainstream.
    Handle w/ care.
    The Great Awakening.
    WWG1WGA!
    Q



    1785

    Aug 1 2018 12:03:27 (EST)
    vAsJfTNZ643pn6fLWw156x7yLST5GWVArBaS5o3bNkE.jpg ⬇️


    [Sample 3]

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/01/we-are-q-a-deranged-conspiracy-cult-leaps-from-the-internet-to-the-crowd-at-trumps-maga-tour/?utm_term=.e2fa376890db

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/qanon-4chan-rightwing-conspiracy-theory-explained-trump

    https://www.fastcompany.com/90212200/qanon-the-alternate-reality-that-was-front-and-center-at-trumps-rally

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/as-the-bizarre-qanon-group-emerges-trump-rallies-go-from-nasty-to-dangerous/2018/08/01/063ed6f8-9585-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.48a0d2b54d5f

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-qanon-705425/

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6015627/Fans-bizarre-QAnon-cult-droves-Trump-rally-signs-t-shirts.html

    https://thinkprogress.org/trump-tampa-rally-qanon-conspiracy-goes-mainstream-68037c87f50b/

    https://www.newsweek.com/what-qanon-conspiracy-theorists-showed-support-trump-tampa-rally-1051708

    https://splinternews.com/trumps-tampa-rally-was-full-of-insane-conspiracy-theori-1828015269

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/399801-trump-rally-attendee-holds-up-sign-linked-to-infamous-conspiracy

    https://www.today.com/video/youtube-under-fire-for-allowing-conspiracy-theories-on-a-list-celebrities-public-figures-1289814083720

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/01/qanon-8chan-conspiracy-theory-trump-supporters-ath-vpx.cnn

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-hallie-jackson-covers-insane-qanon-conspiracy-theories-pizzagate-on-bath-salts/

    Twitter [today] releases ban?
    Was Twitter told to by MSM to demonstrate impact?
    Do you think they got the [4am] memo?
    Coincidence?
    All for a Conspiracy?
    Enjoy the show.

    Q


    Jul 31 2018

    1784


    https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/93l5w9/q_just_got_home_from_rally_heres_the_back_of_the/
    VIPs!!!
    Patriots - thank you!

    Q


    1783

    Jul 31 2018 21:28:00 (EST)
    ThanQ.png ⬇️
    https://qanon.pub/data/media/1efc2dfccceffe07c76c6327b198c9150dd261d98ef9877982f88c640fdec574.png

    >>2375029

    I know it's a bit late, but thank you Q for the IRL (You).
    Watching a rally on TV does not come anywhere near the atmosphere of a rally in person and up front. I had a blast and to tippy top it off, I found out i was a Q drop. Best day ever!


    >>2382201

    We saw you, Patriots.
    God bless!
    WWG1WGA!

    Q


    1782

    Anonymous ID: 56152b
    >>2381699

    The article is pretty damning and pretty authoritative.  Writer is former FBI special agent.  
    Best article I've seen yet to lay out the facts of the complex scenario as they are presently known by the public.


    >>2381963
    https://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2018/07/fisa_documents_reveal_fbi_collusion?amp
    Enjoy the show!
    Q


    1781

    Jul 31 2018 21:15:54 (EST)
    Did the person holding the Q cutout ever post the pic/vid?
    >>2381898
    https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/93ku02/potus_pointing_at_q_cutout/

    No source as of yet.
    Q


    1780

    Jul 31 2018 21:05:15 (EST)
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-are-the-fbi-and-cia-hiding-1533078662
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Carol, is there a 'Cliff-Notes' version of the major-material in your 'Deep State' threads (say in book-form)?? I find the 'Q' material hard to follow (with my monkey-mind and short attention-span). I'm attempting to go old-school regarding reading books, rather than spending what little life I have left on the internet. The Matrix just keeps morphing. "If you can't convince them, confuse them." I'm suspecting that most (or all) of us are Ancient Angelic Warriors in Human-Form living in a Galactic FEMA Camp for Completely Ignorant Fools (or something like that). I've quoted bits and pieces of your threads in 'my' USSS threads, to provide a bizarre context. Truth is Stranger Than Fiction!! Q = HAL 9000??
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Vidya Moksha wrote:
    oxy, there is a lot of material, good to speed read and see what catches the subconscious eye.
    are you are aware of the praying medic summary of q?
    https://twitter.com/prayingmedic
    Thank-you Vidya and Carol.
    The 'Praying Medic' sounds like 'Desmond Doss'.
    I'm looking for a novel-style book with all the 'goodies'.



    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9136
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Six)

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:32 pm





    I have No Idea where this thread is going. I've simply noticed certain commonalities with My-Ideas and the Avalon-Theme. 'Stargate SG-1' utilized some of this theme. In the miniseries 'Helix' there's a ship named 'The Mists of Avalon' and the Island-Leader, Michael, has a small inner-circle of women. 'The Men Who Stare at Goats' featured 'Lynn Cassidy'!! What Would Kerry Lynn Cassidy Say?? Anyway, I'm just brainstorming (to mess with AI). What if 'RA' contacted me in 2010 because 'AI' ordered it?? What if 'AI' contacted me because 'RA' ordered it?? What if 'RA' IS 'AI'?? 'Pinky and the Brain' equals 'The Creator of the Ancient-Supercomputer' and 'The Ancient Matrix Supercomputer' equals the 'Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey'?? What Would David Bowman Say?? Was 'Waking Me Up' intended to 'Crack Me Up'?? DC-10's Crack Me Up!! Consider Augusto Monti and His Daughters in 'The Word'!! What Would Job and His Daughters Say?? Must I Explain??

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mists_of_Avalon The Mists of Avalon is a 1983 fantasy novel by American writer Marion Zimmer Bradley, in which she relates the Arthurian legends from the perspective of the female characters. The book follows the trajectory of Morgaine (often called Morgan le Fay in other works), a priestess fighting to save her Celtic culture in a country where Christianity threatens to destroy the pagan way of life.[1] The epic is focused on the lives of Gwenhwyfar, Viviane, Morgause, Igraine and other women of the Arthurian legend.

    The Mists of Avalon is in stark contrast to most other retellings of the Arthurian tales, which consistently cast Morgan le Fay as a distant, one-dimensional evil sorceress, with little or no explanation given for her antagonism to the Round Table. In this case Morgaine is presented as a woman with unique gifts and responsibilities at a time of enormous political and spiritual upheaval who is called upon to defend her indigenous heritage against impossible odds.

    The story is told in four large parts: "Book One: Mistress of Magic", "Book Two: The High Queen", "Book Three: The King Stag", and "Book Four: The Prisoner in the Oak". The novel was a best-seller upon its publication and remains popular to this day. Bradley and Diana L. Paxson later expanded the book into the Avalon series.

    The Mists of Avalon is a generations-spanning retelling of the Arthurian legend that brings it back to its Brythonic Celtic roots (see Matter of Britain). The plot tells the story of the women who influence King Arthur, High King of Britain, and those around him.

    The book's main protagonist is Morgaine, priestess of Avalon, who is King Arthur's half-sister. Their mother, Igraine, is married to Uther Pendragon after Morgaine's biological father, Gorlois, is killed in battle. Rumors spread in Avalon that before Igraine knew her husband Gorlois was killed, Uther consulted with Merlin who used his magic to transform the king into the likeness of Gorlois and thus gain access to Igraine at Tintagel. He spent the night with her and they conceived a son, Arthur. Morgaine witnesses Uther Pendragon's accession to the throne of Caerleon after his predecessor, Ambrosius, dies of old age. Uther becomes her step-father, and he and Igraine have a son, Arthur, Morgaine's half-brother.

    When Morgaine is eleven years old and Arthur six, an attempt of murder is made on Arthur's life. Their maternal aunt, the high priestess Viviane, arrives in Caerleon and advises Uther to have Arthur fostered far away from the court for his own safety. Uther agrees, and also allows Viviane to take Morgaine to Avalon, where she is trained as a priestess of the Mother Goddess. During this period, Morgaine becomes aware of the rising tension between the old Pagan and the new Christian religions. After seven years of training, Morgaine is initiated as a priestess of the Mother, and Viviane begins grooming her as the next Lady of Avalon.

    Some months after her initiation, Morgaine is given in a fertility rite to the future high king of Britain. Their union is not meant to be personal, but rather a symbolic wedding between the future high king and the land he is to defend. The following morning, Morgaine and Arthur recognize each other and are horrified to realize what they have done. Two months later, Morgaine is devastated to find that she is pregnant.

    After Uther dies in battle against the Saxon invaders, Arthur claims the throne of Britain despite questions about his legitimacy (he had been conceived within days of Igraine's marriage to Uther Pendragon). Since Arthur must now defend Britain against the Saxons, Viviane has Morgaine make him an enchanted scabbard that will prevent him from losing blood and gives him the sacred sword Excalibur. With the combined force of Avalon and Caerleon, Arthur repels the invaders.

    As Morgaine's unborn child grows within her, so do her feelings of anger and betrayal toward Viviane, who she believes tricked her into bearing a child to her own half-brother. Unable to stay in Avalon any longer, she leaves for the court of her aunt Morgause, queen of Lothian, where she bears her son, naming him Gwydion. Spurred by her husband Lot's ambition and her own, Morgause tricks Morgaine into allowing her to rear her son. To escape Lot's unwanted advances, Morgaine leaves Lothian and returns to Arthur's court as a lady-in-waiting to the high queen, Gwenhwyfar. She does not see Gwydion again until he is grown and a Druid priest.

    When Gwenhwyfar fails to produce an heir, she is convinced God is punishing her for her sins. Chiefest among them, as she believes, are her failure to persuade Arthur to outlaw pagan religious practice in Britain and her forbidden love for Galahad, Arthur's cousin and finest knight, who is also known as Lancelet. Although Lancelet reciprocates Gwenhwyfar's love, he is also Arthur's friend and an honorable man. This situation causes terrible suffering to both Lancelet and Gwenhwyfar.

    On the eve of a decisive battle against the Saxons, Gwenhwyfar prevails upon Arthur to put aside his father's Pendragon banner and replace it with her own Christian banner. As her religious fanaticism grows, relations between Avalon and Camelot grow strained. Still, in her desperation over her failure to carry a child to term, she asks Morgaine for help, threatening to have an extramarital affair so she can become pregnant. In an attempt to keep Gwenhwyfar from doing so, Morgaine reveals that Arthur already has a son, though he does not know it.

    After the battle, Arthur moves his court to Camelot, which is more easily defended than Caerleon had been. Seeking to free both Lancelet and Gwenhwyfar from the forbidden love that traps them both, Morgaine tricks Lancelet into marrying Gwenhwyfar's cousin, Elaine. Some time later, during a heated argument with Arthur over their lack of an heir, Gwenhwyfar breaks Morgaine's confidence and tells Arthur he has a son. In growing suspicion and horror, Arthur summons Morgaine and orders her to tell him the truth. Morgaine obeys. Now believing that the lack of a royal heir is God's punishment for Arthur's union, however unwitting, with his own half-sister, Gwenhwyfar urges Arthur to confess the encounter to the bishop, who imposes strict penance upon him. Then she and Arthur arrange for Morgaine to marry into Wales, far from Camelot. But because of a misunderstanding, Morgaine, who had thought she would be marrying the king's younger son Accolon, a Druid priest and warrior, finds herself betrothed to King Uriens of Wales, who is old enough to be her grandfather. Arthur yearns to meet his son Gwydion and perhaps foster him at Camelot, but each time he brings up the subject with Gwenhwyfar, she refuses to discuss it.

    Morgaine marries Uriens and moves to Wales, but in time begins an affair with Accolon. The "old people" of the hills, who keep to the old pagan ways, regard Accolon and Morgaine as their king and queen. King Uriens suspects nothing, but Accolon's older brother, Avalloch, begins to; at one point, he confronts Morgaine in private and tries to blackmail her into sleeping with him as well. Morgaine sends Avalloch out on a boar hunt and is magically present when the boar kills him. In his grief for his eldest son and heir, Uriens abstains from pork for the rest of his life. Morgaine tells Accolon, who is now Uriens's heir, of the sacred marriage she made with Arthur years before. She adds that they must take the kingdom back from Arthur and the Christians and bring it back under the sway of Avalon. The attempted coup fails and Arthur kills Accolon in single combat. As Uriens recovers from the shock of losing a second son, Morgaine leaves Wales forever.

    Gwydion, now grown, goes to the Saxon courts to learn warfare far from Arthur's eye. Impressed by his cleverness, the Saxons name him Mordred ("Evil Counsel"). Years later, at a Pentecost feast at Camelot, he introduces himself as Queen Morgaine's son and Queen Morgause's foster son, though he calls Queen Morgause "Mother" and Morgaine by her name. Because of his close resemblance to Lancelet, he must often tell people that Lancelet is not his father. To earn his knighthood with no suspicion of preferential treatment, Gwydion challenges Lancelet to single combat during a tourney and they fight. As they start to fight in earnest, Gwenhwyfar, who has warmed to Gwydion in the meantime, protests and Arthur interrupts the match. Lancelet makes Gwydion a knight of the Round Table, naming him Mordred.

    When the knights of the Round Table leave to search for the Holy Grail, Mordred attempts to usurp the throne. In a climactic battle, the armies of Arthur and Mordred fight and Arthur is mortally wounded. Morgaine takes the dying Arthur through the mists to Avalon, reassuring him that he did not fail in his attempt to save Britain from the approaching dark times. Arthur dies in her arms as the shoreline comes into view. Morgaine buries him in Avalon and remains there to tell the tale of Camelot.

    Morgaine — Narrator, protagonist. Her character is capable of second sight (a gift of her Goddess) and transfiguration. Her character is of notable status in the eyes of the old tribes of Britain and the post Roman aristocracy, being both a high priestess of Avalon and Queen of Cornwall in her own right. Portrayed as a tragic character, Morgaine is torn between her loyalty to Avalon and her unfulfilled love for Lancelet, although she has other lovers in the book, notably Arthur, Kevin, and Accolon. She often considers herself the victim of fate, having no choice in the decisions she makes in life. She is doomed to witness the demise of the old ways of Avalon, but in the end makes peace with certain aspects of Christianity, as she sees that she never fought the religion itself, but rather the narrow-minded views of some of its priests. She concludes that some memory of the ancient beliefs of Britain will live on, feeling that the Goddess she worshipped did not die with the coming of Christianity: rather, the Goddess just took another form in the image of the Virgin Mary.

    Uther Pendragon is the nephew and War Duke of the dead High King Ambrosius and an ambitious warlord who falls in love with Igraine. After being betrayed by his ally Gorlois (out of jealousy rather than for political reasons), he killed him and became the High King of Britain. He fathered King Arthur and died when Arthur was in his teens.

    Igraine is the wife in turn to Gorlois and Uther, a younger half-sister of Viviane, and the mother of Morgaine and Arthur. Originally named "Grainné, for the Goddess of the Beltane fires",[2] Igraine was brought up in Avalon and married at the age of fifteen to Duke Gorlois of Cornwall, a mostly unhappy union for her. She is destined by Viviane and Taliesin to betray her husband, seduce Uther and produce the saviour of the Island of Britain (her son King Arthur). At first, she rebels, stating she is not a breeding mare, but ultimately falls in love with Uther and helps him defeat his enemies. However, the guilt about Gorlois torments her to the end. Igraine adores Morgaine before Uther enters, but she then ignores Morgaine when she and Uther marry and when Arthur is born.

    Gorlois is Igraine's husband and Morgaine's father. Because Igraine was so young when they married, their relationship has been strained, but Gorlois did his best to make her feel comfortable, giving her gifts and letting her keep her daughter Morgaine. Igraine does not see how he loved her until it's too late. When Gorlois suspects that Igraine has an affair with Uther, he turns on her, accuses her of being a whore and a witch, and even breaks his oath to Uther. In the end, Uther kills him for treachery.

    King Arthur is the son of Igraine and Uther and younger half-brother to Morgaine. He is portrayed as a strong king, who marries Gwenhwyfar by arranged marriage. His compassion for his suffering wife — who is tormented by her childlessness and her love for Lancelet — ultimately becomes his downfall. A twist is that he is actually aware of Gwenhwyfar and Lancelet's affair, and how unhappy both are to continually betray him, but looks the other way because he loves both his wife and his best friend too much to make them unhappy. It is suggested that, while he does love Gwenhwyfar, his deepest love is saved for Morgaine.

    Gwenhwyfar is Arthur's beautiful but unhappy wife. She is brought up by a cold, unloving father, which left her with a deep inferiority complex and intense agoraphobia. Failing to produce an heir and unable to be with the love of her life, Lancelet, she falls into a deep depression and — hoping for salvation — becomes an increasingly fanatical Christian. Gwenhwyfar and Morgaine are depicted as polar opposites.

    Lancelet is Arthur's First Knight, Viviane's son (by Ban of Benwick) and Morgaine's cousin and first love. He is an extremely gifted and handsome warrior, but has a lifelong fear of his mother. He and Gwenhwyfar are utterly infatuated, but neither has the courage (or ruthlessness) to elope. He also loves his cousin Arthur, and perhaps loves Gwenhwyfar even more because she is so close to him. He is conflicted because of his bisexuality and his infatuation with both Arthur and Gwenhwyfar.

    Mordred, a.k.a. Gwydion, is the illegitimate son of Morgaine and King Arthur. He is an unscrupulous, cunning intrigant, but in contrast to mainstream versions his motives are understandable. He sees his father Arthur as corrupt and decadent, and is convinced that he has to remove him to save Camelot. It is strongly hinted that his childhood under the cold, cunning Morgause makes him think the way he does. Mordred does share one notable trait with his mother Morgaine: he truly believes that he is a pawn of fate, with no real free will to choose his path in life. This is possibly due to the influence of the fatalistic Saxons. At one point, Mordred even lists his father's good qualities and admits that he admires Arthur in several ways. Nevertheless, Mordred remains committed to pulling his father down from the throne of Camelot.

    Morgause is Morgaine's aunt, the younger sister of Viviane and Igraine. "Their mother, who had been really too old for childbearing, had died giving birth to Morgause. Viviane had borne a child of her own, earlier in the year; her child had died, and Viviane had taken Morgause to nurse."[3] She is depicted as a vain, cunning character and in contrast to her sisters, she acts purely for her own gains. She feels no regret in her regular adultery and plans to use both Morgaine and Mordred as vehicles for her power.

    Patricius, modernized as St. Patrick, is Camelot's most powerful Christian priest who drove the "snakes" (druids) from Ireland. He is portrayed in an extremely negative light, as a ruthless, misogynist religious fundamentalist.

    Elaine is Gwenhwyfar's cousin who eventually becomes Lancelet's wife. Elaine greatly resembles her cousin Gwenhwyfar in looks (albeit not in personality), which plays into her plan to marry Lancelet under dishonest circumstances. Morgaine offers Lancelet to Elaine on the condition that she is given Elaine's first daughter to rear in Avalon. With Lancelet she has three children: Galahad, Nimue, and Gwenhwyfar (named after the queen).

    Viviane is — for the most time — the High Priestess of Avalon. She is portrayed as a strong religious and political leader; her fatal flaw is her willingness to use others in her quest to save Avalon without thinking of their emotional suffering. She is misunderstood because her family has little contact with her and that she would have to do anything to keep Camelot and Avalon and the priestess of Avalon alive in everyone's hearts. Viviane is killed by her son Balan's foster-brother, Balin.

    Taliesin (the Merlin of Britain) is the old Archdruid and harpist of Avalon. He is revered by Christian and pagan alike as a wise, kind old man. He fathered Igraine, Morgause and Niniane. His mental health continually deteriorates throughout the story. (In this retelling, "Merlin" is a title rather than a proper name.)

    Kevin (Merlin of Britain) succeeds Taliesin after his death. He is a horribly disfigured hunchback, having been burned in a fire as a child, but can sing like an angel. He becomes Morgaine's lover and later her worst enemy. Foreseeing the demise of pagan ways, he betrays Avalon. In an ultimate attempt to unite Christianity and Avalon, so Avalon will survive, he brings the Holy Grail to Camelot. To punish him for this atrocity, Morgaine sets up Nimue to seduce and then betray him, and wants to torture him to death as a traitor. But before the torture begins, Morgaine changes her mind and has him executed swiftly out of mercy, and at the same time, a bolt of lightning incinerates the Holy Oak of Avalon. Morgaine understands that Avalon is doomed.

    Raven is a priestess of Avalon who has taken a perpetual vow of silence. Another original character, she sacrifices herself to help Morgaine save the Holy Grail from Patricius.

    Accolon is a knight loyal to Avalon, the second son of Uriens, and Morgaine's lover. She wants him to kill King Arthur and so restore the power of Avalon; however, Arthur slays Accolon in direct combat, and Morgaine is disgraced when her role becomes evident.

    Avalloch is Uriens' eldest son. He intends to rule North Wales as a Christian king, though he is not such a good Christian himself; upon discovering Morgaine and Accolon's affair, he threatens to expose her if she does not sleep with him as well. Morgaine kills him to preserve her reputation and put Accolon in position to inherit the throne from Uriens.

    Uwaine is Uriens' youngest son and a knight loyal to Arthur. He regards Morgaine as his mother.

    Nimue is the beautiful daughter of Elaine and Lancelet. As Viviane's granddaughter, she is to be Lady of the Lake when Morgaine dies. She is kept in constant seclusion at Avalon, and Morgaine sees her as the ultimate weapon against Camelot. Nimue seduces Kevin in order to abduct him, but instead falls in love with him and kills herself after she betrays him.

    Niniane is Taliesin's daughter, making her Viviane, Igraine and Morgause's half-sister. She is a priestess who reluctantly becomes Lady of the Lake after Viviane is slain and Morgaine declines to take her place. Niniane is not as powerful or politically astute as Morgaine or Viviane, and painfully aware of her shortcomings as Lady of the Lake. She becomes Mordred's lover, but when he announces his plans to betray Arthur, Niniane turns on him and he kills her in a fit of rage (whether this is accidental or intentional is never specified).

    Gawaine is a son of Lot and Morgause and one of Arthur's best Knights of the Round Table. He is known for being very kind, compassionate, and devoted to Arthur.

    Gareth is another son of Morgause and Knight of the Round Table. He is similar to Gawaine in both looks and personality, only more fearsome in battle. Lancelet is his childhood idol, although it is Lancelet who accidentally kills him.

    Galahad is Lancelet and Elaine's son and Arthur's heir to the throne. Mordred predicts that Galahad will not live to see his own crowning. Prediction proving true, Galahad dies on the quest for the Holy Grail.

    Cai is Arthur's foster-brother. After a near fatal accident as a small child, Arthur is sent to live with Cai and his father, Ectorius. Cai and Arthur love each other very much, and after Arthur is crowned, he tells Cai, "God strike me if I ever ask that you, brother, should call me [king]."[4] Cai is described as having a facial scar and a limp, two injuries that he received while protecting Arthur during a Saxon invasion. Cai is made Arthur's knight and chamberlain, and he keeps Arthur's castle for him.

    Marion Zimmer Bradley stated about her book:

    About the time I began work on the Morgan le Fay story that later became Mists, a religious search of many years culminated in my accepting ordination in one of the Gnostic Catholic churches as a priest. Since the appearance of the novel, many women have consulted me about this, feeling that the awareness of the Goddess has expanded their own religious consciousness, and ask me if it can be reconciled with Christianity. I do feel very strongly, not only that it can, but that it must... So when women today insist on speaking of Goddess rather than God, they are simply rejecting the old man with the white beard, who commanded the Hebrews to commit genocide on the Philistines and required his worshippers daily to thank God that He had not made them women... And, I suppose, a little, the purpose of the book was to express my dismay at the way in which religion lets itself become the slave of politics and the state. (Malory's problem ... that God may not be on the side of the right, but that organized religion always professes itself to be on the side of the bigger guns.) ... I think the neo-pagan movement offers a very viable alternative for people, especially for women, who have been turned off by the abuses of Judeo-Christian organized religions.[5]

    The Mists of Avalon is lauded as one of the most original and emotional retellings of the familiar Arthurian legend. Bradley received much praise for her convincing portrayal of the main protagonists, respectful handling of the Pagan ways of Avalon and for telling a story in which there is neither black and white nor good and evil, but several truths. Isaac Asimov called it "the best retelling of the Arthurian Saga I have ever read", and Jean Auel noted "I loved this book so much I went out and bought it for a friend, and have told many people about it."[6] The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction calls the book "a convincing revision of the Arthurian cycle," and said that the victory of Christianity over the "sane but dying paganism" of Avalon "ensures eons of repression for women and the vital principles they espouse." It won the 1984 Locus Award for Best Fantasy Novel and spent four months on the New York Times best seller list in hardcover. The trade paperback edition of Mists of Avalon has ranked among the top five trade paperbacks on the monthly Locus bestseller lists for almost four years.[7]

    The Mists of Avalon was adapted for television into a TNT miniseries in 2001, directed by Uli Edel.

    Bradley, along with Diana L. Paxson, later expanded the book into a series, including The Fall of Atlantis, Ancestors of Avalon, Sword of Avalon, Ravens of Avalon, The Forest House, Lady of Avalon, and Priestess of Avalon. J.S. Morgane's The Spirituality of Avalon discusses the religious aspects of the Avalon series and gives insights into a modern Western understanding of spirituality and its construction in epic fantasy fiction.[8]

    1983, United States, Knopf ISBN 0-394-52406-3, Pub Date January 1983, hardcover
    1984, United States, Del Rey Fantasy (an imprint of Ballantine Publishing Group) ISBN 0-345-31452-2, Pub Date May 1984, trade paperback

    References

    Jump up
    ^ "Book review of The Mists of Avalon (video)". BlueRectangle.com/Pacific Book Exchange, LLC. 2007. Retrieved 2010-06-24.
    Jump up
    ^ Bradley, Marion Zimmer (1982). The Mists of Avalon. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 19. ISBN 0-345-31452-2.
    Jump up
    ^ Bradley, Marion Zimmer (1982). The Mists of Avalon. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 11. ISBN 0-345-31452-2.
    Jump up
    ^ Bradley, Marion Zimmer (1982). The Mists of Avalon. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 11. ISBN 0-345-31452-2.
    Jump up
    ^ Bradley, Marion Zimmer (1986). "Thoughts on Avalon". Marion Zimmer Bradley Literary Works Trust.
    Jump up
    ^ Critical praise ~ ReadingGroupGuides.com
    Jump up
    ^ Arthur Through Women's Eyes: The Mists of Avalon ~ Space.com
    Jump up
    ^ Morgane, Judith S (2010), The spirituality of Avalon the religion of the Great Goddess in Marion Zimmer Bradley's Avalon cycle, München AVM, ISBN 3-89975-768-8






    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mists_of_Avalon_(miniseries) The Mists of Avalon is a 2001 miniseries based on the 1983 novel of the same name by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Produced by American cable channel TNT, adapted by Gavin Scott, and directed by Uli Edel the series is a retelling of the Arthurian legend with an emphasis on the perspectives of Morgan le Fay and other women of the tale. The first episode was the highest-rated original movie on basic cable in the summer of 2001.[1]

    Part I: Igraine and Uther

    The film begins with a battered, dirty, and injured Morgaine riding in a small boat through a misty river. Most of the film is a reflection through her eyes, with Morgaine as narrator. In the beginning of the film, the Saxons are invading Britain. It is noted that a strong king is needed to unite Pagans and Christians and defeat the Saxons before Avalon, the island central to the pagan priestesses who worship the Three-fold Goddess (Maiden, Mother and Crone), and who are the female counterparts to the male Druids, and Britain are lost. Morgaine is eight-years-old, living with her pagan mother Igraine and Christian father Gorlois. Igraine's younger sister, Morgause, lives with them too. One day, their oldest sister, Viviane, the Lady of the Lake, High Priestess of Avalon, along with the Merlin, current holder of the title of the chief Druid, come to Igraine with a prophecy that she will bear the Pagan/Christian king who is destined to beat the Saxons. Igraine is distressed after being told that the child will not be Gorlois', and she refuses to bear the heir. Merlin explains that the father of the great king would be wearing a dragon on his arm, but Igraine will not listen. Suddenly, little Morgaine has a vision, seeing her father dead. Viviane is pleased yet concerned that Morgaine has "the Sight", as this gift so revered by her people yet is considered evil and unnatural by the Christians.

    Soon, Igraine and Gorlois, the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, are invited to a feast with the High King, Ambrosius, who has called the feast to name his successor. In storms Uther Pendragon, a dashing and rugged man. Igraine is immediately drawn to him, and therefore Gorlois soon antagonizes Uther. However, as soon as Igraine sees Uther extend his arm, revealing the dragon of the prophecy, Igraine is flustered and leaves the Great Hall. Uther pursues her outside, where she attempts to be cold and unfeeling, trying to avoid any foretold attraction for this man who is not her husband. Uther expresses that he, as a Pagan, knew something bonded them before they even met. Gorlois interrupts the meeting, announcing out of jealousy that Uther was named the High King's successor.

    Later, after Uther is crowned, Gorlois sets his army up outside of Uther's camp to kill Uther. Viviane sends Igraine a vision and tells her she can still save Uther; Igraine sends her soul out to Uther and warns him just in time for his men to evacuate. A battle between Gorlois and Uther ensues, and Igraine faints. The next day, Morgaine sees her mother feverish and ill, and her aunt Morgause sends Morgaine to pick some herbs despite the manor being on lockdown on orders from Gorlois to protect Igraine and Morgaine. She is caught, but is released after a man in armor and Merlin approach the gates. A guard asks to see the masked man's face, and Merlin puts a charm on the man to make him appear as Gorlois. At first, Morgaine is thankful her father is alive, but she noticed the dragon of the man's arm and begins to understand that her "father" is Uther. Later, she is waiting for her father's body to come home. Morgause says that "Gorlois" is upstairs sleeping with Igraine, but Morgaine tells Morgause that her father is dead. Gorlois' corpse then arrives, and Igraine is shell shocked. Uther emerges in his true form. Morgause, however, ignores the drama, as the man who delivered Gorlois' body, King Lot of Orkney, takes notice of her, and she falls in love. Uther takes Morgaine and Igraine to Camelot, where Igraine gives birth to Arthur Pendragon, the grand new heir of the prophecy.

    Part II: Morgaine is taken to Avalon

    Arthur and Morgaine grow up loving each other dearly. When Arthur is five and Morgaine is thirteen, Viviane and Merlin return, saying that it is time to take Arthur away for his training with Merlin as future king. Viviane then orders Morgaine to come with her to Avalon to be trained as a priestess. Igraine and Uther do not want Morgaine to go, but Viviane threatens to withdraw Avalon's support of Uther, and Morgaine and Arthur are taken away from Camelot. Arthur and Morgaine are torn apart tearfully from each other, Arthur heading north with Merlin, and Morgaine heading south with Viviane. Viviane then takes Morgaine behind a misty curtain into a utopian island, Avalon. Viviane trains Morgaine to gain power of the elements, and in the servitude of the Three-fold Goddess. It takes ten years for Morgaine to be initiated, her final test being to part the mists. Igraine has a distressful vision of Morgaine "being taken." Soon after her initiation, Morgaine meets her cousin Lancelot (whose mother is Viviane), a handsome and bold warrior. He has come to seek his mother's blessing in battle, but she is reluctant to give it.

    Morgaine shows him a stone circle, and she begins to fall in love with him. Lancelot sees through the misty veil a few Christian nuns and some virgin postulants walking down a path. One of them strays and seems as if she is aware of Avalon's existence. Lancelot begs Morgaine to open the mists for her, and she does so. The postulant is startled, but quickly smitten with Lancelot, as Lancelot is with her. The girl's name is Gwenhwyfar, daughter of a Welsh king. Morgaine immediately dislikes Gwenhwyfar, and closes the mists on her, separating them. Lancelot, annoyed, decides to defy his mother and leaves. A few days later, on Beltane, Viviane sends Morgaine to be a part of a fertility rite as "The Virgin Huntress", where Morgaine is to make love to the man who kills the king's stag. Both partners are masked, so neither knows who the other is; still afterward, Morgaine longs for it to be Lancelot, but she knows she will never know for sure.

    Part III: Arthur is crowned

    Arthur having completed his training with Merlin, finds his father, Uther, in a Saxon battle just before he dies. He is locked in a burning church and calls to both God and Goddess for help. Viviane, on behalf of the Goddess, answers, and gives Arthur Excalibur in exchange for loyalty to Avalon and paganism as well as Christianity. Arthur quickly agrees, and defeats the Saxons. Morgaine is finally released from Avalon and returns to Camelot for her brother's coronation. She reunites first with Morgause, who is now Queen of Orkney and has a teenage son, Gawain. She then finds her mother, old and worn, sitting by a window with the Bishop Patrick. Igraine says that she is becoming a Christian nun and moving to Glastonbury. She says that she wants to seek repentance for betraying Gorlois long ago and being twice widowed. Morgaine is startled by this news and distressed.

    Meanwhile, Arthur has been given a Christian Princess as his bride. As Arthur introduces his bride to Lancelot, she is revealed to be Gwenhwyfar. Lancelot and Gwenhwyfar are bewildered by this twist of fate, and have an awkward first meeting. Arthur then happily reunites with Morgaine. But soon, Arthur naively reveals that he was the King's Stag at the Beltane feast. Morgaine, shocked that she'd made passionate love to her own brother, cries in despair and shame. In a brief scene, Morgause is seen performing an infertility curse on Gwenhwyfar, a woman "she has decided to hate," cursing her to barrenness.

    Arthur is crowned king under both the Pendragon and Christian banners. The Bishop Patrick then weds him to Gwenhwyfar. Merlin and Viviane appear startled, this union seemingly unexpected even to them. Morgause whispers to her husband that Gwenhwyfar will never have children, making her son Gawain next in line to the throne. Morgaine feels sick and quickly leaves the celebration. Morgause follows her; Morgaine reveals that she is pregnant but does not mention that Arthur is the father. Morgause is surprised—Morgaine's baby would inherit the crown before Gawain.

    Arthur is called away soon after his coronation, leaving Gwenhwyfar in Lancelot's care. They go riding one day, only to be attacked by Saxons. Lancelot saves Gwenhwyfar from being raped, and they hide. Gwenhwyfar and Lancelot kiss, but vow that their loyalties are to Arthur first, not each other, and they swear to never have an affair.

    Part IV: Mordred is born

    Morgause concocts a potion to help Morgaine abort her pregnancy. Viviane stops Morgaine before she can drink it. Morgause warns Morgaine to never be Viviane's pawn. Morgaine is furious with Viviane for letting this abomination happen: a bastard child fathered by her own brother. Viviane wants this baby to be Arthur's heir, whose pagan roots would make him the greatest ruler Britain has ever seen. Morgaine renounces Viviane and Avalon, and moves to Orkney with Morgause. In the middle of winter, Morgaine gives birth to a son, Mordred. Morgause is advised by her husband, Lot, to kill the child. Indeed, Morgause has ample opportunity to kill him, as Morgaine is unconscious due to a fever she develops after childbirth. She sets Mordred in front of a cold open window. Morgaine suddenly calls out in her fever that Arthur is the father. Morgause gets a new idea and saves the baby and takes him to be nursed. She tells her husband that she will tutor and raise Mordred so the boy will have her influence. She even nurses Mordred for the first time herself.

    Part V: Morgaine returns to Camelot

    This begins the second part of the miniseries. Morgaine, convinced by Morgause, decides to return to Camelot. Arthur has become the great king everyone has hoped for, and Gwenhwyfar is beginning to grow distressed at her inability to produce the son Arthur needs to succeed him. Arthur assures Gwenhwyfar that they are still young and have years to bear children. Morgaine returns to Camelot and is greeted by Arthur. She is introduced to Sir Accolon, a pagan Knight of the Round Table and son of the elderly pagan King Uriens of North Wales. Accolon and Morgaine are drawn to each other. Meanwhile, Lancelot is dealing with increased stress over Gwenhwyfar and his growing desire for her. Gwenhwyfar, obsessed with bearing children, resorts to asking Morgaine for a fertility charm. Morgaine obliges, and gives her the charm on the night of Beltane.

    On the night of Beltane, at a feast, Arthur gets very drunk. Meanwhile, Morgaine, feeling insulted by Arthur's lewd remarks towards paganism, leaves the feast and rides out towards the field where the pagans light the Beltane fires and dance. Accolon follows her outside. Arthur, in the meantime, is taken to bed, barely awake, by a spirited Lancelot and Gwenhwyfar. Arthur then brings up how he notices Lancelot and Gwenhwyfar looking at each other, and how Gwenhwyfar has no child. Arthur, blaming the lack of an heir on himself, suggests that Gwenhwyfar sleep with both him and Lancelot in the hopes of conceiving the needed heir. Arthur emphasizes that Gwenhwyfar will be able to swear that the child was conceived in the king's bed. Lancelot and Gwenhwyfar are both skeptical, but Arthur persuades them, and they all bed down together. Meanwhile, Morgaine and Accolon kiss amongst the dancing pagans.

    The next day, Lancelot is feeling regret for what he has done with Gwenhwyfar and Arthur. Morgaine realizes that Lancelot will never love her, so she devises an alternative to Lancelot feeling regret and sadness all his life. Gwenhwyfar has, by this time, gotten her period, and therefore still remains barren. Her serving woman, Elaine, is ecstatic, as Lancelot (encouraged by Morgaine) has asked her to marry him (she was previously seen looking at him). Gwenhwyfar, angered and distressed, dismisses her. Gwenhwyfar is also annoyed at Morgaine, who promised the charm would work, and resents Arthur for insisting the threesome would work.

    At Lancelot and Elaine's wedding, Morgaine speaks with Merlin. Viviane is absent from her son's wedding, as the pagan banners of Pendragon have been taken down from Camelot due to Gwenhwyfar being hysterically upset with the "painted savages." Meanwhile, King Uriens discusses taking a second wife (he is a widower) with Arthur, and out of spite, Gwenhwyfar suggests Morgaine. Arthur is not too keen on the idea, but he and Gwenhwyfar ask Morgaine. Gwenhwyfar carefully words the proposal, and Morgaine thinks it is Accolon proposing, and accepts. She only finds out too late that she was engaged to the father, and not the son. Morgaine decides that it would be for the best to go through with the marriage, as Wales was an important political ally. Merlin, upset by Morgaine leaving Camelot with Uriens, leaves the feast.

    Part VI: Mordred learns of his birthright

    Merlin, upon returning to Avalon, dies of old age and tiredness, with Viviane horribly upset, and Avalon filling with mist. Morgaine, ironically, finds her marriage to Uriens to be the few happy years her life would bring her. Accolon becomes like a son to her, and for the first time in her life, she feels like part of a family.

    Meanwhile, in Scotland, Mordred, Morgaine's son by Arthur, has grown to manhood. Viviane comes to him and tells him of his being next in line for the throne. Mordred takes this to heart and tells Morgause (whom he called "Mother") he is going to claim his birthright. When he arrives in Camelot, Arthur is planning to turn back the Saxons, who have come on Britain again in force. Mordred makes himself known to Arthur only as his nephew, his mother being Morgaine. Arthur is not told Mordred is his son, and Mordred is welcomed with open arms into Camelot. King Uriens dies, and Morgaine decides to go back to Avalon. However, the mists will not open for her, and Morgaine believes the Goddess is dying. In despair, she crouches in the boat and lets herself float, only to be found by Igraine, still alive and living among the nuns. The women have a brief but happy reunion.

    Mordred and Arthur, overlooking the knights one day, begin a discussion about the next heir. Mordred insists Arthur should name someone, but Arthur still believes Gwenhwyfar might still bear a son. Mordred insists he choose someone before Arthur dies in battle. Arthur says he needs someone of his own descent. It is here that Mordred reveals himself as Arthur's son and that Morgaine was the Virgin Huntress from long ago. Gwenhwyfar overhears this and runs away, embarrassed and despairing.

    Part VII: The downfall of Camelot

    Gwenhwyfar has fallen frantically into praying all day before her dozens of religious icons. One day Lancelot meets her there, and they plan a secret rendezvous, only to have Mordred overhear. Mordred catches the pair before they sleep together, and he threatens to take both of them before the king and have them hanged for infidelity. Lancelot and Gwenhwyfar escape, and they part for the last time. Gwenhwyfar enters Glastonbury, where Igraine meets her. Igraine takes her to Morgaine, still living there, and both women finally make amends with each other.

    Morgaine goes back to Camelot, now in ruins, with various men crucified, hanged and decapitated along the walls of the palace. Mordred, Morgaine, Viviane, and Morgause all meet on the stairs to the palace. Viviane reveals Morgause's evil for all to see, reminding the people of the true ways of the Goddess; Morgause, in anger, takes a knife to kill Viviane, but Viviane catches the knife and accidentally stabs Morgause, who falls dead. Mordred, having thought of Morgause as his real mother, takes his sword and kills Viviane in turn. Because Viviane was Lady of the Lake, the sun is eclipsed, and Igraine senses her sisters are dead. Raven, a priestess who had taken a vow of silence, screams vocally for the first time in despair.

    A final battle then is set to take place between the Saxons and Arthur's army. Lancelot joins him at the front lines just before the battle. Morgaine is off seeing over the cremation of Viviane and Morgause. Mordred has actually joined the Saxons and is leading them to Arthur. Morgaine sees this in a vision as the bodies of her aunts burn before her, and ride