Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

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

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


    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:24 pm

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 SoldierStory-12-inch-GHOSTBUSTERS-1984-Dr-PETER-VENKMAN-STD-VER-02
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ghostbusters+murray+aykroyd+ramis2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Trial_of_a_time_lord_by_cosmicthunder-d8arokj
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Maxresdefault
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Dr.-Eleanor-Ellie-Arroway-Contact
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2001-A-Space-Odyssey-_Ten_best-Films
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Mysterious-planet3
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Orion+The+Hunter
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cupid1.jpg-675x5501
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Orion_Large-e-mail-view
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 The-Trial-of-a-Time-Lord-8
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 The-Trial-of-a-Time-Lord-boxset
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 4b6c19053984d887fdd40b5578b06a02
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Duel+2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Azazel_by_gothicnarcissus-d5wqnf8

    I've suggested numerous possibilities, but I keep getting the sinking-feeling that I'm wrong, and that I don't know a damn thing!! As you know, I try to mix things up in my threads. Chaos Out of Chaos!! I have a pretty consistent theme. I'm simply trying to make all of us think. This whole thing is a mental and spiritual exercise. I call it "Contextual-Superimposition". Try reading Patriarchs and Prophets, Prophets and Kings, and Desire of Ages (by Ellen White) straight-through (over and over) regardless of whether you believe it or not!! Is that hypocritical?? Probably, but it is invigorating!! Try reading Volumes 4 and 6 (Isaiah to Malachi, and Acts to Ephesians) of the SDA Bible Commentary side by side (over and over) regardless of whether you believe what you're reading or not!! Is that hypocritical?? Probably, but it is pragmatic!! Think of ALL the words in All of the Above being written by the SAME Author!! This study does not necessarily generate or support ANY Religion or Church (if one is strictly honest)!! Biblical-Research is a Can of Worms (to say the least)!!

    Sherry Shriner speaks rabidly against Paul, yet she seems to inflict more actual wounds against the Gospels!! She seems to lean heavily upon the Torah and the Book of Revelation!!  What Would David Koresh Say?? What Would the God and/or Goddess of This World Say?? What if Paul had written an Epistle based entirely upon the Red-Letter Teachings of Jesus??!! What if Paul had written an Epistle based entirely upon the Major Old-Testament Prophets?? What if Flavius Josephus = Apostle Paul?? Think of the Possibilities!! Experimental-Religion!! Contextual-Superimposition!! Over the next couple of decades, I suspect that the world will learn what's really been going on (past and present), but the system might not significantly change. I'm still intrigued with the possibility of a United States of the Solar System (possibly combined with a Holy-Roman Solar System) commencing in or around A.D. 2133. I'd still love to know what pre-existed the Creation of Humanity (Governmentally, Legally, Physically, and Liturgically). We need to know SO Much More to properly understand our predicament and options.  

    I'm re-watching the movie The Aviator, about Howard Hughes. A close-relative of mine knew Noah Dietrich (the Business-Manager for Howard Hughes). Catherine Austin Fitts reminds me of Noah Dietrich (regarding dealing with seemingly impossible financial problems). Is the Bottom-Line the Bottom-Line in Politics and Religion?? A few months ago, I think I met Gerald Celente (but not formally). We talked about politics for a minute or two, and that was that. I didn't realize it was him until he was gone. I used to watch U-2's flying all the time (as a child)!! I saw an SR-71 up-close (flying, and on the ground) at Norton Air Force Base!! I've since learned that there were probably very-real UFO's quite-close to where I stood!! I've since learned that there were a lot of Satanists in that neck of the woods!! What if I've spoken extensively with Satan?? Does Satan still have an office at Goldman Sachs?? What if Earth-Humanity requires a Devil rather than a God?? A 'Congressman Collins' look-alike told me "You Can't Connect Anything Back to Me". Honest. One Last Time, I Know That I Don't Know. I Am Deeply Devastated and Humbled. I Often Wish I Had Never Attempted to Conceptually Solve the Solar System's Problems. I Often Wish I Had Never Been Born. I Hate My Life. Honest.

    I voted for Trump, but I'm neutral toward nearly all politicians, because I suspect they're controlled, and the controllers want puppets who can be controlled. I further suspect that this is a worldwide phenomenon involving politics, religion, and business. What worries me is that things might need to be this way. The reprehensible might be unavoidable. I suspect that at the very-top, there is an elite-club going way back to Ancient Babylon and Egypt (or earlier). I suspect that the top-management is extremely-sophisticated, but not necessarily in a nice-way. I tend to think in terms of the 'Corrupt Ruling the Stupid'. Didn't Sylvia Browne say the Aliens referred to Earth as 'The Insane Asylum'?! Earth-Humanity might require 'Bad Guys and Gals' to keep things the way they've been for thousands of years. Perhaps things were never supposed to be really good on Planet-Earth. I don't know. There's so much I don't know. I am truly a Completely Ignorant Fool. What Would Raven Say??

    I just spent half an hour discussing theology with a lady with a Masters of Divinity Degree from Vanderbilt University. She was really-humble and low-key, but very-smart, very-educated, and very-spiritual. I mention these sorts of things because I have very-little to talk about (despite my very-strange true-stories). I sometimes exaggerate, but I don't lie. I'm simply attempting to write Religious and Political Science-Fiction, but I often think I'll never get anything published (unless I self-publish). My tripe on this website isn't really Science-Fiction. Perhaps it constitutes a rather-new category, which is highly dependent upon Comments, Videos, and Images, combined with original editorial-content, and no financial-gain. The Ancient Egyptian Deity said I had "Done It With YouTube", but I'm not sure what they meant by that. I'm not even sure who they really were. I think I've completely screwed-up my life and eternal-life. I had my open-heart surgery, but it sounds like I'll be out of commission for two or three months, and I have other serious health-problems, so this might be it for me. I frankly don't see a light at the end of the tunnel regarding my physical, mental, financial, and spiritual health!! I think I'm irreversibly screwed!! I might really be finished.

    Now I'm watching the Donald Trump videos. Notice that the Trump Tower floor-numbering is supposed to skip 10 floors, so the 17th floor is supposedly called the '27th floor'. Think about the 1978 movie Oh, God regarding the '27th floor' in a building on 1600 North Hope Street!! Donald Trump's office is on the 27th floor!! What if President Trump is closer to the God and/or Goddess of This World than anyone can imagine?? What if a fake 'swamp-draining' and 'housecleaning' will precede a very-messy 'real-disclosure'?? I've encountered very-frightening predictions from individuals of interest, and I'm NOT kidding!! I get the feeling that the real-issues involve the real-truth (going way, way, way back) rather than involving who gets to run the New World Order. What if the Nazis, Masons, Jesuits, Intelligence-Agencies, International-Bankers, Military-Industrial Complex, and a Supercomputer-Network run the Solar System?? Could this be the Secret-Government and the Secret Space Program?? What if it has to be this way?? I need to shut-up!! I really do!! They have ways to make me STOP!! Many Ways!!

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 932016760-the_da_vinci_code_4
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 TradeFederationBattleshipPhoto
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Image.axd?picture=2012%2f2%2fDeadSeaScroll
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Lockheed-martin-F-35-JSF-fsx2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Catherine-austin-fitts-financial
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Lockheed-martin-habitat
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Mfc-pr-lrsam-090913-photo-01-h
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Bible-manuscripts-Septuagint-twelve-Greek-Minor-prophets-scroll-Nahal-Hever-Bar-Kochba-Cave-of-Horrors-letters-Dodekapropheton-Greek-8HevXIIgr-50BC-Jonah
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 413dadd0-6629-11e5-ac80-4d3e4b92ce01-780x486
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Alien_4
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Pict0003 The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, "seventy") is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is quoted a number of times in the New Testament,[1][2] particularly in Pauline epistles,[3] and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers. The title (Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. "The Translation of the Seventy") and its Roman numeral LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who solely translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century BCE.[4][5] Separated from the Hebrew canon of the Jewish Bible in Rabbinic Judaism, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only. The traditional story is that Ptolemy II sponsored the translation of the Torah (Pentateuch, Five Books of Moses). Subsequently, the Greek translation was in circulation among the Alexandrian Jews who were fluent in Koine Greek but not in Hebrew,[6] the former being the lingua franca of Alexandria, Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean at the time.[7] The Septuagint should not be confused with the seven or more other Greek versions of the Old Testament,[4] most of which did not survive except as fragments (some parts of these being known from Origen's Hexapla, a comparison of six translations in adjacent columns, now almost wholly lost). Of these, the most important are those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

    The Septuagint derives its name from the Latin versio septuaginta interpretum, "translation of the seventy interpreters", Greek: ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, hē metáphrasis tōn hebdomḗkonta, "translation of the seventy".[8] However, it was not until the time of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) that the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures came to be called by the Latin term Septuaginta.[9] The Roman numeral LXX (seventy) is commonly used as an abbreviation.

    Beginning of the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 11th century. Seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.[11] This narrative is found in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates,[12] and is repeated by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus[13][14] and by various later sources, including St. Augustine.[15] The story is also found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud: King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.[5] Philo of Alexandria, who relied extensively on the Septuagint,[16] says that the number of scholars was chosen by selecting six scholars from each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

    The date of the 3rd century BCE is supported (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century.[17][18] After the Torah, other books were translated over the next two to three centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[19] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. The translation process of the Septuagint itself and from the Septuagint into other versions can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity. The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE,[20][21][22] initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well.[8] The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament.[23]

    Some sections of the Septuagint may show Semiticisms, or idioms and phrases based on Semitic languages like Hebrew and Aramaic.[24] Other[clarification needed] books, such as Daniel and Proverbs, show Greek influence more strongly.[11] Jewish Koine Greek exists primarily as a category of literature, or cultural category, but apart from some distinctive religious vocabulary is not so distinct from other varieties of Koine Greek as to be counted a separate dialect. The Septuagint may also elucidate pronunciation of pre-Masoretic Hebrew: many proper nouns are spelled out with Greek vowels in the LXX, while contemporary Hebrew texts lacked vowel pointing.[25] However, it is extremely unlikely that all ancient Hebrew sounds had precise Greek equivalents.[26]

    As the work of translation progressed, the canon of the Greek Bible expanded. The Torah (Pentateuch in Greek) always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon, but the collection of prophetic writings, based on the Jewish Nevi'im, had various hagiographical works[which?] incorporated into it. In addition, some newer books were included in the Septuagint: those called anagignoskomena in Greek, known in English as Deuterocanonical ("second canon") because they are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these are the Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some Biblical books, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[27] It is not known when the Ketuvim ("writings"), the final part of the three part Canon was established, although some sort of selective processes must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as Enoch or Jubilees or other writings that are not part of the Jewish canon, and which are now classified as Pseudepigrapha. However, the Psalms of Solomon, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Epistle of Jeremiah the Book of Odes, the Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 are included in some copies of the Septuagint,[28] some of which are accepted as canonical by Eastern Orthodox and some other churches.

    Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were ascertained.[29] Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was affirmed as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity.[22][30] Finally, the rabbis claimed for the Hebrew language a divine authority, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek—even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period.[31] As a result of this teaching, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only.

    In time the LXX became synonymous with the "Greek Old Testament", i.e. a Christian canon of writings which incorporated all the books of the Hebrew canon, along with additional texts. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include most of the books that are in the Septuagint in their canons; however, Protestant churches usually do not. After the Protestant Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts, which came to be called "Apocrypha" (originally meaning "hidden" but became synonymous with "of questionable authenticity"), with some arguing against them being classed as Scripture.[32][33][34][full citation needed] The Apocrypha are included under a separate heading in the King James Version of the Bible, the basis for the Revised Standard Version.[35]

    All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint, although the order does not always coincide with the Western ordering of the books. The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (4th century).[11] Some books that are set apart in the Masoretic text are grouped together. For example, the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are in the LXX one book in four parts called Βασιλειῶν ("Of Reigns"). In LXX, the Books of Chronicles supplement Reigns and it is called Paraleipoménon (Παραλειπομένων—things left out). The Septuagint organizes the minor prophets as twelve parts of one Book of Twelve.[11] Some scriptures of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These additional books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151. The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint. For more information regarding these books, see the articles Biblical apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, and Deuterocanonical books.

    In the most ancient copies of the Bible which contain the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, the Book of Daniel is not the original Septuagint version, but instead is a copy of Theodotion's translation from the Hebrew, which more closely resembles the Masoretic text. The Septuagint version was discarded in favor of Theodotion's version in the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE. In Greek-speaking areas, this happened near the end of the 2nd century, and in Latin-speaking areas (at least in North Africa), it occurred in the middle of the 3rd century. History does not record the reason for this, and St. Jerome reports, in the preface to the Vulgate version of Daniel, This thing 'just' happened.[36] Several Old Greek texts of the Book of Daniel have been rediscovered recently and work is ongoing in reconstructing the original form of the book.[11] The canonical Ezra-Nehemiah is known in the Septuagint as "Esdras B", and 1 Esdras is "Esdras A". 1 Esdras is a very similar text to the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, and the two are widely thought by scholars to be derived from the same original text. It has been proposed, and is thought highly likely by scholars, that "Esdras B"—the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah—is Theodotion's version of this material, and "Esdras A" is the version which was previously in the Septuagint on its own.[36]

    Pre-Christian Jews, Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text.[11][37] Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time. Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[23] Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[38] What was perhaps most significant for the LXX, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after[when?] differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered (see above[clarification needed]). Even Greek-speaking Jews tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of the 2nd-century Aquila translation, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[23] While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the 2nd century CE, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in the field of Judaic Studies.

    The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts[39] since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity, which used the Targumim). The relationship between the apostolic use of the Old Testament, for example, the Septuagint and the now lost Hebrew texts (though to some degree and in some form carried on in Masoretic tradition) is complicated. The Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, but it is not the only one. St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, 1 Cor. 2:9.[40] as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts. (Matt 2:23 is not present in current Masoretic tradition either, though according to St. Jerome it was in Hosea 11:1.) The New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures, or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.[3][24][41]

    In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, and that the Septuagint at certain places gives itself more to a christological interpretation than 2nd-century Hebrew texts was taken as evidence that "Jews" had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less christological. For example, Irenaeus concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin (Greek παρθένος, bethulah in Hebrew) that shall conceive.,[42] while the word almah in the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.[43]

    When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine, his contemporary; a flood of still less moderate criticism came from those who regarded Jerome as a forger. While on the one hand he argued for the superiority of the Hebrew texts in correcting the Septuagint on both philological and theological grounds, on the other, in the context of accusations of heresy against him, Jerome would acknowledge the Septuagint texts as well.[44] With the passage of time, acceptance of Jerome's version gradually increased until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint.[23]

    The Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages. The Eastern Orthodox also use LXX untranslated where Greek is the liturgical language, e.g. in the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, the Church of Greece and the Cypriot Orthodox Church. Critical translations of the Old Testament, while using the Masoretic Text as their basis, consult the Septuagint as well as other versions in an attempt to reconstruct the meaning of the Hebrew text whenever the latter is unclear, undeniably corrupt, or ambiguous.[23] For example, the New Jerusalem Bible Foreword says, "Only when this (the Masoretic Text) presents insuperable difficulties have emendations or other versions, such as the ... LXX, been used."[45] The Translator's Preface to the New International Version says: "The translators also consulted the more important early versions (including) the Septuagint ... Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the MT seemed doubtful ..."[46]

    The inter-relationship between various significant ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament (some identified by their siglum). LXX here denotes the original septuagint. Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BCE. But nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch (early- to mid-3rd century BCE), are tentative and without consensus.[11] Later Jewish revisions and recensions of the Greek against the Hebrew are well attested, the most famous of which include the Three: Aquila (128 CE), Symmachus, and Theodotion. These three, to varying degrees, are more literal renderings of their contemporary Hebrew scriptures as compared to the Old Greek. Modern scholars consider one or more of the 'three' to be totally new Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible.[55]

    Around 235 CE, Origen, a Christian scholar in Alexandria, completed the Hexapla, a comprehensive comparison of the ancient versions and Hebrew text side-by-side in six columns, with diacritical markings (a.k.a. "editor's marks", "critical signs" or "Aristarchian signs"). Much of this work was lost, but several compilations of the fragments are available. In the first column was the contemporary Hebrew, in the second a Greek transliteration of it, then the newer Greek versions each in their own columns. Origen also kept a column for the Old Greek (the Septuagint) and next to it was a critical apparatus combining readings from all the Greek versions with diacritical marks indicating to which version each line (Gr. στίχος) belonged.[56] Perhaps the voluminous Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but Origen's combined text ("the fifth column") was copied frequently, eventually without the editing marks, and the older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. Thus this combined text became the first major Christian recension of the LXX, often called the Hexaplar recension. In the century following Origen, two other major recensions were identified by Jerome, who attributed these to Lucian and Hesychius.[11]

    The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century.[23][57] The 4th century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, still containing many texts of the Old Testament.[58] While there are differences between these three codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one LXX—that is, the original pre-Christian translation—underlies all three. The various Jewish and later Christian revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices.[11]

    The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some humanists was that the LXX translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew and that the LXX became more corrupt with time. The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage. This view is supported by comparisons with Biblical texts found at the Essene settlement at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls). These issues notwithstanding, the text of the LXX is generally close to that of the Masoretes and Vulgate. For example, Genesis 4:1–6 is identical in both the LXX, Vulgate and the Masoretic Text. Likewise, Genesis 4:8 to the end of the chapter is the same. There is only one noticeable difference in that chapter, at 4:7, to wit:

    Genesis 4:7, LXX and English Translation (NETS)
    Genesis 4:7, Masoretic and English Translation from MT (Judaica Press)
    Genesis 4:7, Latin Vulgate and English Translation (Douay-Rheims)
    οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον· πρὸς σὲ ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ σὺ ἄρξεις αὐτοῦ.

    If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him. הֲלוֹא אִם תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל בּוֹ:‎ Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it. nonne si bene egeris recipes sin autem male statim in foribus peccatum aderit sed sub te erit appetitus eius et tu dominaberis illius

    If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. This instance illustrates the complexity of assessing differences between the LXX and the Masoretic Text as well as the Vulgate. Despite the striking divergence of meaning here between the Septuagint and later texts, nearly identical consonantal Hebrew source texts can be reconstructed. The readily apparent semantic differences result from alternative strategies for interpreting the difficult verse and relate to differences in vowelization and punctuation of the consonantal text. The differences between the LXX and the MT thus fall into four categories.[59]

    Different Hebrew sources for the MT and the LXX. Evidence of this can be found throughout the Old Testament. Most obvious are major differences in Jeremiah and Job, where the LXX is much shorter and chapters appear in different order than in the MT, and Esther where almost one third of the verses in the LXX text have no parallel in the MT. A more subtle example may be found in Isaiah 36.11; the meaning ultimately remains the same, but the choice of words evidences a different text. The MT reads " tedaber yehudit be-'ozne ha`am al ha-homa" [speak not the Judean language in the ears of (or—which can be heard by) the people on the wall]. The same verse in the LXX reads according to the translation of Brenton "and speak not to us in the Jewish tongue: and wherefore speakest thou in the ears of the men on the wall." The MT reads "people" where the LXX reads "men". This difference is very minor and does not affect the meaning of the verse. Scholars at one time had used discrepancies such as this to claim that the LXX was a poor translation of the Hebrew original. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, variant Hebrew texts of the Bible were found. In fact this verse is found in Qumran (1QIsaa) where the Hebrew word "haanashim" (the men) is found in place of "haam" (the people). This discovery, and others like it, showed that even seemingly minor differences of translation could be the result of variant Hebrew source texts.

    Differences in interpretation stemming from the same Hebrew text. A good example is Genesis 4.7, shown above. Differences as a result of idiomatic translation issues (i.e. a Hebrew idiom may not easily translate into Greek, thus some difference is intentionally or unintentionally imparted). For example, in Psalm 47:10 the MT reads "The shields of the earth belong to God". The LXX reads "To God are the mighty ones of the earth." The metaphor "shields" would not have made much sense to a Greek speaker; thus the words "mighty ones" are substituted in order to retain the original meaning.

    The Biblical manuscripts found in Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), have prompted comparisons of the various texts associated with the Hebrew Bible, including the Septuagint.[60] Peter Flint,[61] cites Emanuel Tov, the chief editor of the scrolls,[62] who identifies five broad variation categories of DSS texts:[63] Proto-Masoretic: This consists of a stable text and numerous and distinctive agreements with the Masoretic Text. About 60% of the Biblical scrolls fall into this category (e.g. 1QIsa-b) Pre-Septuagint: These are the manuscripts which have distinctive affinities with the Greek Bible. These number only about 5% of the Biblical scrolls, for example, 4QDeut-q, 4QSam-a, and 4QJer-b, 4QJer-d. In addition to these manuscripts, several others share distinctive individual readings with the Septuagint, although they do not fall in this category. The Qumran "Living Bible": These are the manuscripts which, according to Tov, were copied in accordance with the "Qumran practice" (i.e. with distinctive long orthography and morphology, frequent errors and corrections, and a free approach to the text. Such scrolls comprise about 20% of the Biblical corpus, including the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a): Pre-Samaritan: These are DSS manuscripts which reflect the textual form found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, although the Samaritan Bible itself is later and contains information not found in these earlier scrolls, (e.g. God's holy mountain at Shechem rather than Jerusalem). The Qumran witnesses—which are characterized by orthographic corrections and harmonizations with parallel texts elsewhere in the Pentateuch—comprise about 5% of the Biblical scrolls. (e.g. 4QpaleoExod-m) Non-Aligned: This is a category which shows no consistent alignment with any of the other four text-types. These number approximately 10% of the Biblical scrolls, and include 4QDeut-b, 4QDeut-c, 4QDeut-h, 4QIsa-c, and 4QDan-a.[63][64][65] The textual sources present a variety of readings. For example, Bastiaan Van Elderen [62] compares three variations of Deuteronomy 32:43, the Song of Moses.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls, with their 5% connection to the Septuagint, provide significant information for scholars studying the Greek text of the Hebrew Bible. The texts of all printed editions are derived from the three recensions mentioned above, that of Origen, Lucian, or Hesychius. The editio princeps is the Complutensian Polyglot. It was based on manuscripts that are now lost, but seems to transmit quite early readings.[66] The Aldine edition (begun by Aldus Manutius) appeared at Venice in 1518. The text is closer to Codex Vaticanus than the Complutensian. The editor says he collated ancient manuscripts but does not specify them. It has been reprinted several times. The Roman or Sixtine Septuagint, which uses Codex Vaticanus as the base texts and various other later manuscripts for the lacunae in the uncial manuscript. It was published in 1587 under the direction of Cardinal Antonio Carafa, with the help of a group of Roman scholars (Cardinal Gugliemo Sirleto, Antonio Agelli and Petrus Morinus), by the authority of Sixtus V, to assist the revisers who were preparing the Latin Vulgate edition ordered by the Council of Trent. It has become the textus receptus of the Greek Old Testament and has had many new editions, such as that of Robert Holmes and James Parsons (Oxford, 1798–1827), the seven editions of Constantin von Tischendorf, which appeared at Leipzig between 1850 and 1887, the last two, published after the death of the author and revised by Nestle, the four editions of Henry Barclay Swete (Cambridge, 1887–95, 1901, 1909), etc. A detailed description of this edition has been made by H. B. Swete in his An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1900), pp. 174–182.
    Grabe's edition was published at Oxford, from 1707 to 1720, and reproduced, but imperfectly, the Codex Alexandrinus of London. For partial editions, see Fulcran Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, 1643 sqq.

    Alfred Rahlfs, a longtime Septuagint researcher at Göttingen, began a manual edition of the Septuagint in 1917 or 1918. The completed Septuaginta was published in 1935. It relies mainly on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, and presents a critical apparatus with variants from these and several other sources.[67] The Göttingen Septuagint (Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum) is a major critical version, comprising multiple volumes published from 1931 to 2009 and not yet complete (the largest missing parts are the history books Joshua through Chronicles except Ruth, and the Solomonic books Proverbs through Song of Songs). Its two critical apparatuses present variant Septuagint readings and variants from other Greek versions.[68] In 2006, a revision of Alfred Rahlfs's Septuaginta was published by the German Bible Society. This editio altera includes over a thousand changes to the text and apparatus.[69] Apostolic Bible Polyglot contains a Septuagint text derived mainly from the agreement of any two of the Complutensian Polyglot, the Sixtine, and the Aldine texts.[70]

    The Septuagint has been translated surprisingly few times into English. The first one, which excluded the Apocrypha, was Charles Thomson's in 1808, which was subsequently revised and enlarged by C.A. Muses in 1954. Many complain how C.A. Muses has corrupted the translation to match the Hebrew. The translation of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, published in 1851, is a long-time standard. For most of the years since its publication it has been the only one readily available, and has continually been in print. It is based primarily upon the Codex Vaticanus and contains the Greek and English texts in parallel columns. Considering the old english of Brenton's translation, there is also a revision of the Brenton Septuagint available through Stauros Ministries, called The Complete Apostles' Bible, translated by Paul W. Esposito, Th.D, and released in 2007. [2] A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (NETS), an academic translation based on standard critical editions of the Greek texts was published by the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS). It was published by Oxford University Press in October 2007. It used New Revised Standard version (which is based on the Hebrew) as the base text. The Apostolic Bible Polyglot, published in 2003 is another, including the Greek books of the Hebrew canon along with the Greek New Testament, all numerically coded to the AB-Strong numbering system, and set in monotonic orthography. Included in the printed edition is a concordance and index. The Orthodox Study Bible was released in early 2008 with a new translation of the Septuagint based on the Alfred Rahlfs edition of the Greek text. To this base they brought two additional major sources: first the Brenton translation of the Septuagint from 1851, and, second, Thomas Nelson Publishers granted use of the New King James Version text in the places where the translation of the LXX would match that of the Hebrew Masoretic text. This edition includes the New Testament as well, which also uses the New King James Version; and it includes, further, extensive commentary from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.[71]

    Father Nicholas King, SJ has completed a Catholic translation of the Septuagint into English. The work is available in either four separate volumes or one single volume. Father King is a Jesuit priest who lectures in New Testament Studies at Oxford University. The translation began in 2010 and was finished in 2013; it is available from Kevin Mayhew Publishers, entitled The Old Testament (volumes 1 through 4), and The Bible in hardcover and presentation editions.[3] It contains a very useful mini commentary on each book which gives a flavour of what is hoped to be the start of accessible, reasonably priced individual commentaries for the general reader. Brenton's Septuagint, Restored Names Version, (SRNV) is a two volume editing primarily based on Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's translation. The Hebrew Names restoration is based on the Westminster Leningrad Codex with the prime focus being the restoration of the Divine Name. It is rendered in Modern English yet remains faithful to Brenton's translation. Additionally it features extensive Hebrew and Greek footnotes. [4] Orthodox England on the net is a translation not in book form but online at It used the King James Version as the base text and corrects where it differs from the Greek. The Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) (in progress) is an extensive revision and correction of Brenton's translation which was primarily based on Codex Vaticanus. Its language and syntax have been modernized and simplified. It also includes extensive introductory material and footnotes featuring significant inter-LXX and LXX/MT variants.

    In 2006 the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) - a non-profit, learned society formed to promote international research in and study of the Septuagint and related texts [72] - declared February 8 "International Septuagint Day",[73] a day to promote the discipline on campuses and in communities. The Organization also publishes the "Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies" (JSCS).


    Jump up
    ^ Nicole, Roger - New Testament Use of the Old Testament Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl. F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), pp. 137-151. The frequent use of the LXX, it must also be noted, did not impose upon the New Testament authors the obligation to quote always in accordance with this version.
    Jump up
    ^ "The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen.""Bible Translations – The Septuagint". Retrieved 10 February 2012.
    Jump up to:
    a b "His quotations from Scripture, which are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version, betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text (...) Nor is there any indication in Paul's writings or arguments that he had received the rabbinical training ascribed to him by Christian writers (...)""Paul, the Apostle of the Heathen". Retrieved 10 February 2012.
    Jump up to:
    a b "[T]he Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285–247 B.C.[E.])""Bible Translations – The Septuagint". Retrieved 29 October 2012.
    Jump up to:
    a b Tractate Megillah, pages 9a-9b. The Talmud identifies fifteen specific unusual translations made by the scholars.
    Jump up
    ^ "[T]he Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, ... have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.[E.]) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his "Letter to Philocrates" the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in "Jew. Quart. Rev." xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285–247 B.C.[E.]), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden", 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181–146 B.C.[E.]). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life.""Bible Translations – The Septuagint". Retrieved 29 October 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Hellenism: Range of Hellenic Influence: "Except in Egypt, Hellenic influence was nowhere stronger than on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Greek cities arose there in continuation, or in place, of the older Semitic foundations, and gradually changed the aspect of the country."
    Jump up to:
    a b c Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva (2001). Invitation to the Septuagint. Paternoster Press. ISBN 1-84227-061-3.
    Jump up
    ^ Sundberg, in McDonald & Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, p.72. See Augustine, The City of God, 18.42, where Augustine says that "this name ["Septuaginta"] has now become traditional", indicating that this was a recent event. But Augustine offers no clue as to which of the possible antecedents led to this development.
    Jump up
    ^ Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, for instance.
    Jump up to:
    a b c d e f g h i Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint, Michael A. Knibb, Ed., London: T&T Clark, 2004.
    Jump up
    ^ Davila, J (2008). "Aristeas to Philocrates". Summary of lecture by Davila, February 11, 1999. University of St. Andrews, School of Divinity. Retrieved 19 June 2011.
    Jump up
    ^ Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews.
    Jump up
    ^ William Whiston (1998). The Complete Works of Josephus. T. Nelson Publishers. ISBN 0-7852-1426-7.
    Jump up
    ^ Augustine of Hippo, The City of God 18.42.
    Jump up
    ^ "(..) Philo bases his citations from the Bible on the Septuagint version, though he has no scruple about modifying them or citing them with much freedom. Josephus follows this translation closely.""Bible Translations – The Septuagint". Retrieved 10 February 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ J.A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983; Reprint SBL, 2006)
    Jump up
    ^ "The Septuagint".
    Jump up
    ^ Joel Kalvesmaki, The Septuagint
    Jump up
    ^ Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West (2004), Anchor Bible Reference Library, Alan F. Segal, p.363
    Jump up
    ^ Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerfs, 1988), p.111
    Jump up to:
    a b "[...] die griechische Bibelübersetzung, die einem innerjüdischen Bedürfnis entsprang [...] [von den] Rabbinern zuerst gerühmt (..) Später jedoch, als manche ungenaue Übertragung des hebräischen Textes in der Septuaginta und Übersetzungsfehler die Grundlage für hellenistische Irrlehren abgaben, lehnte man die Septuaginta ab." Verband der Deutschen Juden (Hrsg.), neu hrsg. von Walter Homolka, Walter Jacob, Tovia Ben Chorin: Die Lehren des Judentums nach den Quellen; München, Knesebeck, 1999, Bd.3, S. 43ff
    Jump up to:
    a b c d e f Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. Eerdmans, 1995.
    Jump up to:
    a b H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, revised by R.R. Ottley, 1914; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989.
    Jump up
    ^ Hoffman, Book Review, 2004. Archived January 12, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
    Jump up
    ^ Paul Joüon, SJ, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and revised by T. Muraoka, vol. I, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2000.
    Jump up
    ^ Rick Grant Jones, Various Religious Topics, "Books of the Septuagint", (Accessed 2006.9.5).
    Jump up
    ^ "The Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha". BibleResearcher. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
    Jump up
    ^ "The translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah." "Bible Translations – The Septuagint". Retrieved 10 February 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ "Two things, however, rendered the Septuagint unwelcome in the long run to the Jews. Its divergence from the accepted text (afterward called the Masoretic) was too evident; and it therefore could not serve as a basis for theological discussion or for homiletic interpretation. This distrust was accentuated by the fact that it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith [Christianity] [...] In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible [...] It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.""Bible Translations – The Septuagint". Retrieved 10 February 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ Mishnah Sotah (7:2–4 and 8:1), among many others, discusses the sacredness of Hebrew, as opposed to Aramaic or Greek. This is comparable to the authority claimed for the original Arabic Koran according to Islamic teaching.
    Jump up
    ^ Blocher, Henri (2004). "Helpful or Harmful? The "Apocrypha" and Evangelical Theology". European Journal of Theology (13.2): 81–90.
    Jump up
    ^ Webster, William. "The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part 3". Retrieved 29 November 2015.
    Jump up
    ^ Shamoun, Sam. "Are The Jewish Apocrypha Inspired Scripture? Pt. 4". Answering Islam - A Christian-Muslim dialog. Answering Islam. Retrieved 29 November 2015.
    Jump up
    ^ "NETS: Electronic Edition". 2011-02-11. Retrieved 13 August 2012.
    Jump up to:
    a b This article incorporates text from the 1903 Encyclopaedia Biblica article "TEXT AND VERSIONS", a publication now in the public domain.
    Jump up
    ^ Alexander Zvielli, Jerusalem Post, June 2009, pp. 37
    Jump up
    ^ Greek-speaking Judaism (see also Hellenistic Judaism), survived, however, on a smaller scale into the medieval period. Cf. Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Bible, Leiden: Brill, 2000.
    Jump up
    ^ "The translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah (..) Two things, however, rendered the Septuagint unwelcome in the long run to the Jews. Its divergence from the accepted text (afterward called the Masoretic) was too evident; and it therefore could not serve as a basis for theological discussion or for homiletic interpretation. This distrust was accentuated by the fact that it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith [Christianity] (..) In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible (..) It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.""Bible Translations – The Septuagint". Retrieved 10 February 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ St. Jerome, Apology Book II.
    Jump up
    ^ "The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen (..)""Bible Translations – The Septuagint". Retrieved 10 February 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ Paulkovich, Michael (2012), No Meek Messiah, Spillix Publishing, p. 24, ISBN 0988216116
    Jump up
    ^ Irenaeus, Against Herecies Book III.
    Jump up
    ^ Rebenich, S., Jerome (Routledge, 2013), p. 58. ISBN 9781134638444
    Jump up
    ^ New Jerusalem Bible Readers Edition, 1990: London, citing the Standard Edition of 1985
    Jump up
    ^ "Life Application Bible" (NIV), 1988: Tyndale House Publishers, using "Holy Bible" text, copyright International Bible Society 1973
    Jump up
    ^ Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research ISBN 0-8028-6091-5.—The current standard introduction on the NT & LXX.
    Jump up
    ^ The canon of the original Old Greek LXX is disputed. This table reflects the canon of the Old Testament as used currently in Orthodoxy.
    Jump up
    ^ Βασιλειῶν (Basileiōn) is the genitive plural of Βασιλεῖα (Basileia).
    Jump up
    ^ That is, Things set aside from Ἔσδρας Αʹ.
    Jump up
    ^ also called Τωβείτ or Τωβίθ in some sources.
    Jump up
    ^ Not in Orthodox Canon, but originally included in the LXX.
    Jump up
    ^ Obdiou is genitive from "The vision of Obdias", which opens the book.
    Jump up
    ^ Originally placed after 3 Maccabees and before Psalms, but placed in an appendix of the Orthodox Canon
    Jump up
    ^ Compare Dines, who is certain only of Symmachus being a truly new version, with Würthwein, who considers only Theodotion to be a revision, and even then possibly of an earlier non-LXX version.
    Jump up
    ^ Jerome, From Jerome, Letter LXXI (404 CE), NPNF1-01. The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin, with a Sketch of his Life and Work, Phillip Schaff, Ed.
    Jump up
    ^ Due to the practice of burying Torah scrolls invalidated for use by age, commonly after 300–400 years.
    Jump up
    ^ Würthwein, op. cit., pp. 73 & 198.
    Jump up
    ^ See, Jinbachian, Some Semantically Significant Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, [1].
    Jump up
    ^ "Searching for the Better Text – Biblical Archaeology Society". Retrieved 13 August 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ Dr. Peter Flint. Curriculum Vitae. Trinity Western University. Langley, BC, Canada. Accessed 26 March 2011.
    Jump up to:
    a b Edwin Yamauchi, "Bastiaan Van Elderen, 1924– 2004", SBL Forum Accessed 26 March 2011.
    Jump up to:
    a b Tov, E. 2001. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed.) Assen/Maastricht: Van Gocum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press. As cited in Flint, Peter W. 2002. The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls as presented in Bible and computer: the Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference: proceedings of the Association internationale Bible et informatique, "From alpha to byte", University of Stellenbosch, 17–21 July, 2000 Association internationale Bible et informatique. Conference, Johann Cook (ed.) Leiden/Boston BRILL, 2002
    Jump up
    ^ Laurence Shiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 172
    Jump up
    ^ Note that these percentages are disputed. Other scholars credit the Proto-Masoretic texts with only 40%, and posit larger contributions from Qumran-style and non-aligned texts. The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 6: Questions of Canon through the Dead Sea Scrolls by James C. VanderKam, page 94, citing private communication with Emanuel Tov on biblical manuscripts: Qumran scribe type c.25%, proto-Masoretic Text c. 40%, pre-Samaritan texts c.5%, texts close to the Hebrew model for the Septuagint c.5% and nonaligned c.25%.
    Jump up
    ^ Joseph Ziegler, "Der griechische Dodekepropheton-Text der Complutenser Polyglotte", Biblica 25:297–310, cited in Würthwein.
    Jump up
    ^ Rahlfs, A. (Ed.). (1935/1979). Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
    Jump up
    ^ "IOSCS: Critical Editions of Septuagint/Old Greek Texts".
    Jump up
    ^ "Septuaginta".
    Jump up
    ^ "Introduction to the Apostolic Bible" (PDF). Retrieved 26 August 2015.
    Jump up
    ^ "Conciliar Press". Orthodox Study Bible. Retrieved 13 August 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ "IOSCS". Retrieved 13 August 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ "International Septuagint Day". The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Retrieved 2016-03-30. In 2006, the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies established February 8 as International Septuagint Day, a day to celebrate the Septuagint and encourage its study.

    Further reading

    Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek, Oxford University Press, 2013.
    Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten, eds. Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-History, Usage, Reception (Society of Biblical Literature; 2011) 211 pages; studies of the language used
    Kantor, Mattis, The Jewish time line encyclopedia: A yearby-year history from Creation to the present, Jason Aronson Inc., London, 1992
    Alfred Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, für das Septuaginta-Unternehmen, Göttingen 1914.
    Makrakis, Apostolos, Proofs of the Authenticity of the Septuagint, trans. by D. Cummings, Chicago, Ill.: Hellenic Christian Educational Society, 1947. N.B.: Published and printed with its own pagination, whether as issued separately or as included together with 2 other works of A. Makrakis in a single volume published by the same film in 1950, wherein the translator's name is identified on the common t.p. to that volume.
    W. Emery Barnes, On the Influence of Septuagint on the Peshitta, JTS 1901, pp. 186–197.
    Andreas Juckel, Septuaginta and Peshitta Jacob of Edessa quoting the Old Testament in Ms BL Add 17134 JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES
    Martin Hengel, The Septuagint As Christian Scripture, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004.
    Rajak, Tessa, Translation and survival: the Greek Bible of the ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
    Bart D. Ehrman. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings; 608 pages, Oxford University Press (July, 2011); ISBN 978-0-19-975753-4
    Hyam Maccoby. The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity; 238 pages, Barnes & Noble Books (1998); ISBN 978-0-7607-0787-6

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Star-wars-scifi-futuristic-science-fiction-spaceship-f-wallpaper-5
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Biblical-prophecy
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Scene-from-star-wars
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Lxx-workspace
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 How_fast_is_your_spaceship__starwars_by_loopydave-d88z7j2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Bible-manuscripts-Septuagint-twelve-Greek-Minor-prophets-scroll-Nahal-Hever-Bar-Kochba-Cave-of-Horrors-letters-Dodekapropheton-Greek-8HevXIIgr-50BC-Zechariah-th
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Star_war_anakin_skywalker_padme_amidala-HD
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 OT-MSS-timeline-to-today2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Lockheed-martin-sr-71-blackbird-1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Lockheed-Martin-SR-71-Blackbird-fleet-
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Sr71r
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Fgn4W
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Img0256jpg-5c4d8d
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 PRyl458b
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 The-da-vinci-code-329919l-imagine
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 04+area+51+ufo+alien+-+confessions+lockheed
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Nets-2007
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Capturertr3
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 AW_07_24_2006_417_L
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 9638297137_47a7c23cc0_o
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Dead-Sea-Scroll1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Padme_amidala_by_lilsophie-d9mkt6b
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Padm-padme-naberrie-amidala-skywalker-31089250-491-658
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Naboo-poster-ep3
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Skunkworks
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Sea-Shadow
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 S-l1000

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 88779594_1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Duel4

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:42 pm; edited 4 times in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:47 am

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Reincarnation
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Reincarnation-WS
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Reincarnation
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Reincarnation_quote
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Reincarnation-787x1024
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 The-science-of-reincarnation
    Micjer wrote:I have been following a thread on another forum in which people share their stories. Here is the link to the forum and thread.

    I would like to post two particular stories.  Please take time to read the whole thread.  It is incredible.
    Micjer wrote: Story #1 9/11 Baby - baby_rn

    I've never written on anything like this before...actually makes me a little nervous but anyway...Ive been looking on the internet for someone talking about their child having past life memories from 9/11. My son has been talking about it for almost a year now...he's almost 4...He started out insisting that he doesn't just want to be a firefighter that he is one...he would get up in the morning and put on his fire outfit(his big reward for being potty trained) and tell me he's going to work. He would take his play axe and pretend to chop down the walls etc because there was fire behind them. that's how it started and the info just progressed...we were reading a curious george book about him in the big city and he said very matter of factly...bad men knocked those buildings over, pointing at the twin tower picture.(he has also never been exposed to 9/11 scenes...i am also a stay at home mom. Then he said planes broke in them and he couldn't help...he also told me there were people jumping because they wouldn't wait for him to get them...He told me he was stuck and and was trying to break thru the wall to get the people out because they were calling for them ...He has also gone on extensively about the type of trucks he was in...the color bucket on the truck and how it feels to come down from up high in the bucket...very detailed about firefighting and has stated he's not a firefighter he's fire rescue...we have no firefighters in the family but the details I could go on with forever...he also talks about his friend Mike that is also a firefighter...It has opened my eyes to a whole new husband still doesn't want to believe it but the details are far too much for a three year old to make makes me feel better some one else is experiencing this too.

    ...thanks for responding to me...i'm pretty confident that what my son has been telling me is from a past life...there's no way he would know all this at his age! Also the tone of his voice is completely different and he also will laugh a lot if I ask him why are you asking me this you know i know the answers...I'm very aware not to ask him anything specific because he only tells me what he wants at that time...which is always before bed or after he wakes in the morning...tonight he told me he likes to drive thru red lights with the sirens on when he doesn't actually have to and then he laughs! His info comes in spurts though usually a whole lot at a time then a lull and then more...

    He told me that I would really enjoy the Christmas parties at his fire station...everyone always have lots of fun...he said they got a new fire truck because their old one is wrecked...he has said this several times about a new fire truck with a TV in it and maps and a boat on top...also he has tried to give me directions to his fire station...funny coming from a three year old actually...he says you take a left then a right and his station is on the left with another across the street on the right. He told me he trains the new guys coming thru and his friend mike is with the older guys...there is so much in the last year I could go on forever...but there really has been less and less in the past few months, detail wise anyway that maybe he his forgetting already...oh he has said his friend Mike has two or three kids but one is the biggest four year old boy he's ever seen...I have written it down somewhat but this is just what I'm thinking of right now...he's a very quiet and kind child to everyone and I just hope this doesn't have some kind of lasting trauma to him...although he seems to not be bothered by talking about it on his own terms...almost seems better after he has talked about it...sorry so long winded.  

    I think you are the one that could help me with all the technical things he has told me about...he has said that he's also a scuba diver...he talks about his gear and air tank...but says he rescues animals??But its funny though...he received flippers and mask as a present from someone, put them on and automatically walked backwards in them and fell into the pool backwards...then said "see this is how you do it" That's an aside but thought it was funny...This has been info he has telling me over a year so I'm going to try to pick out the technical firefighting things and see what you think...He has said he has a bucket truck and he rides in the bucket...he showed me with his hand how the bucket goes up and he said when you come down you don't just come down you bounce a little at the bottom and showed me with his hand...he told he has lots of firefighter friends and one drives his bucket. He showed me with his hands again that there are two levers one is forward for up and another for down or something like that...also something about engaging levers to spray hoses from the bucket...he thinks his bucket has a three on it? 3 has come up a lot...on his truck, but he kind of waivers back and forth about the #3...he has said it's on his hat he thinks...could he have been on a ladder truck and rescue? He is also sure his hat is black with yellow stripe. He said he has a picture of a wolf with a moon in his truck and always calls it "his" truck...he rides in the front he said...but he is not chief...this may not make sense but it is what he tells me. He has said several times about an old truck getting wrecked or dying and getting a new truck...he has told me firemen follow the leader up a line in a fire and if falls off the line he uses a bright light and sometimes a camera to find them and makes them say cheese (there's the three year old talking)...something about to spray water you push the lever down for off and up for on...when talking about 9/11 (I think ) he said people were falling from a building because they wouldn't wait...he was on the floor with his breathing mask on and tried t get out a window but it was too small so he used his ax to break a hole so he could get the people out. To answer someone else's question about if he seems scared about its very matter of fact. Just statements...although his has lined up four fire hats in my bedroom so he said we could get to them quicker if we need them. His room of course set up like a fire station everything according to where he says it goes...the funny thing is he said to me one day he needs a real air tank and a real ax for his fire station room because the ones he has are play ones and don't work! Pretty funny ! Anyway let me know what you think?

    It continues on link....
    Micjer wrote:Story #2 by the cynicalone

    Thank you for sharing your story! I have a similar story that began about the time my, now 7 year old, could talk. He insists that he was a business man who worked in a building in NY and that something happened, an explosion, above him and his office shook and got too hot very fast. He has also spoken of not being able to find a way out because the ceiling had collapsed and blocked his way to the stairs. When he was about three my sister was flipping through an old National Geographic mag in front of him and she came to a page with a NY backdrop with the twin towers. He became extremely excited and pointed to a particular window and said that's where I use to work! He has told my mother and I that he once fell with a building and was still underneath it.

    I found your wonderful post on another website and the person who posted it linked me here. He is now 7 and there are NUMEROUS things said that have made believers of our entire family. Here is what I posted in the other forum before being linked here because this morning he said something so profound to me that I am now actively seeking others like him.

    "Thank you for posting this micjer. I watch who I tell this to because people just think you're insane. My 7yr old son has been talking about his experience in the tower since he could speak and still is. We never allowed him to watch anything about 911 until this year and he said,"It really happened! It really happened! It's not just a dream. I was right about there. So that's what happened to me?" Since he could speak he has refused to go into any elevator past the 5th floor for fear of an explosion and inability to get out. He refuses to go near any tall buildings. He has obsessed over planes and likes to know their routes at all times, always has and asks about his dog a lot. We've never owned one. But he claims he got one when he was 25. He said that he remembers jumping or falling, because there was some type of explosion over him and the walls kept coming in and it was hot. Then he has always said he remembers falling with bricks and rubble and being buried in it. However he says he watched himself hit the ground from above himself and describes a pretty nasty scene.

    He has drawn pictures at school of a crashing building with a man falling with bricks and rubble, which I have gotten calls about. He has said, since he could talk that he is from NY, hated his parents who were drunks and abusive, got married early and got the hell out and moved into NY city. He also talks a lot about remembering ferry rides with friends to the Statue of Liberty and how much he loved that as a young man. This is just the short version of the very detailed information he has about that experience. He also talks about being thousands of years old all the time. This morning he woke up, after I had saged the house yesterday, and said," Honey," which he has always called me, "I need your help. I need to go to NY where the towers were and say good-bye to Robert." I asked who Robert was and he said it was him and he needs to go there and say good-bye to that life. I told him that maybe this summer I will do everything in my power to make it happen for him. He also wants to ferry ride to his favorite spot, The statue. He insists we take a plane because he said he needs to get over that too. He was in like a daze when he spoke too. Just stared right through me. I suspect he traveled and got counsel while sleeping. I thought he was the only child on earth saying these things. He also claims to have watched and chose me to take care of him before he was born. He has always called me honey like an old man. Unfortunately he doesn't mesh well with other 7 year olds and likes to go to graveyards because he said he wants to make sure that he gets to pick what happens to his body this time around. If you ever need to chat please feel free to message me. Maybe we can find other parents experiencing this same thing and meet at the towers with the kids this summer. Also, he said if we took him he'd take us to what use to be his favorite restaurant. I am just so relieved that we're not the only ones experiencing this!!! Thank you so much for sharing!!!"

    We are not alone. He speaks of other lives also and one day asked me if I could see our souls because they were bigger than the car we were driving in. He claims to be thousands of human years old and once when my eldest son was in the hospital with pneumonia, Which terrified me, my little old man said to me," Honey, I've been around this earth at least 189 times now and you what? It's always OK in the end." Sorry such a long post but so excited to not be alone in what's happening here.


    My gosh. And other children claiming to have chosen. Mine says that to me all of the time. He says he watched me from "Spirit World" and chose me. He also asked my eldest son, who is now 17, if he remembers how he use to sit on the stairs and watch him and try to talk to him. Well, about a year before he was born my eldest son slept with me and my husband because he kept seeing a little boy sitting on the top on the stairs at night trying to communicate with him. he wouldn't even go upstairs alone. Wow. I am so happy to have found this forum.
    enemyofNWO wrote:Out of the mouths of babes: Extensive research indicates that reincarnation is real

    Multiple researchers have thoroughly investigated cases of children who report past-life memories. In many cases, the details given by a child have been verified to correspond (sometimes with startling accuracy) to a deceased person. In other cases, the details have been more difficult to verify.

    Even in the most convincing cases, some will find a grain of doubt. Could the parents have influenced their suggestible children with a certain line of questioning? Could the children have overheard information and repeated it without their parents' knowledge? Could an overactive imagination or desire for attention have fueled the talk of a past life? Maybe probability can explain how the "memories" match up with real people or events, maybe they're just lucky guesses.

    The Psychology

    Psychologist Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, professor emeritus at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, studied 30 children in Lebanon who had persistently spoken of past-life memories, comparing these children to a test group of 30 other children. Dr. Haraldsson wondered whether children who associate so strongly with being another person (their past-life incarnation) are psychologically similar to people with multiple personalities.

    He tested the children to see whether they were more likely than their peers to have dissociative tendencies, for example. Dr. Haraldsson explained in his paper "Children Who Speak of Past-Life Experiences: Is There a Psychological Explanation?" published by The British Psychological Society in 2003: "The concept of dissociation has been used to describe a variety of psychological processes ranging from those that are perfectly normal, such as divided attention and daydreaming, to the appearance of multiple personalities in the same person with limited or no awareness of each other."

    He found that the children with purported past-life memories "obtained higher scores for daydreaming, attention-seeking, and dissociation, but not for social isolation and suggestibility." However, he found "that the level of dissociation was much lower than in cases of multiple personality and not clinically relevant."

    In the same paper, he referred to his field study in Sri Lanka. He found that children there who spoke of past lives would daydream more than their peers, but there was no indication that they were more likely to fabricate imaginary experiences. Nor were they found to be more suggestible. In one of his studies in Sri Lanka, he found these children to have larger vocabularies, to obtain higher scores on a brief intelligence test, and to have better school performance than their peers.

    Haraldsson cited Dr. Ian Stevenson, known for his systematic study, starting in the 1960s, of thousands of cases in which children have reported past-life memories. Stevenson followed up with many of the children and found that they almost all grew up to take their appropriate places in society and they had no outstanding psychological differences from their peers. Only one of the children Stevenson followed up with became schizophrenic in adult life.

    The Truth?

    Psychologists such as Haraldsson and Stevenson have made efforts to detect any psychological influence that may call into question the purported memories they investigate.

    In 1975, The Journal of the American Medical Association, wrote of Stevenson: "In regard to reincarnation he has painstakingly and unemotionally collected a detailed series of cases from India, cases in which the evidence is difficult to explain on any other grounds. ... He has placed on record a large amount of data that cannot be ignored."

    In 1994, Haraldsson published a paper titled "Replication Studies of Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Three Independent Investigators," in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, outlining studies that have replicated Stevenson's work.

    He summarized that: "To date Jűrgen Keil has studied 60 cases in Burma, Thailand, and Turkey; Erlendur Haraldsson 25 cases in Sri Lanka; and Antonia Mills 38 cases in northern India. ... In 80 percent of the 123 cases, a deceased person has been identified who apparently corresponded to some or all of the child's statements. ... Of the 99 solved cases, the person the child claimed to be was unknown to the child's family in 51 percent, acquainted in 33 percent, and related in 16 percent. Of the combined sample of 123 cases, only one of the cases [one studied by Mills] appeared to be on the borderline between a consciously perpetrated hoax and self-deception."

    The paper included a few examples of cases in which the details of the memories were verified. One of those cases was that of Engin Sungur, born in December 1980 in Antakya Hospital, Hatay, Turkey.

    A Boy in Turkey

    When Sungur was a young boy, he made a trip with his family away from his native village of Tavla. While traveling, he pointed at a passing village named Hancagiz and said he used to live there. He said his name was Naif Cicek. He said he'd gone to Ankara before he had died.

    There was indeed a Naif Cicek who had died in that village a year before Sungur was born, but Sungur's family wouldn't find that out for some time yet. Sungur's family did not immediately comply with his requests to visit the village of his past life.

    At a later date, when Cicek's daughter was in Sungur's village of Tavla, before Sungur and Cicek's family had any contact, Sungur approached her and said, "I am your father."

    Sungur's mother eventually took him to Hancagiz to meet Cicek's family. The boy correctly identified several family members, including Cicek's widow. He indicated an oil lamp in Cicek's home and said he'd made it himself. He said his son had once hit him with his own truck while backing it up.

    All of the statements Sungur made were correct, they all matched the details of Cicek's life. Some other statements he made could not be verified, but he did not make any incorrect statements.

    Dr. Jim Tucker, Stevenson's successor in reincarnation studies at the University of Virginia, recounted similar cases in which the details of a child's past-life memories could be verified, in his book Return to Life: Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives. But, he noted, as for in cases that can't be verified, "At the very least, they raise the question of what could possibly lead young children to believe they remember the events some of these children report."
    Continues at the link

    Micjer wrote:
    Another interesting story...

    The Boy That Knew Too Much

    “Mommy, I used to be a tall baseball player.”

    “Yes, you will be a tall baseball player someday.”

    With a look of exasperation, he stomped his foot and hollered.

    “No! I was a tall baseball player—tall like Daddy!”

    What was my son trying to say to me? Did he mean . . . he couldn’t mean . . . was he trying to tell me that he was a grown-up in a previous lifetime?

    At the tender age of two, baseball prodigy Christian Haupt began sharing vivid memories of being a baseball player in the 1920s and ’30s. From riding cross-country on trains, to his fierce rivalry with Babe Ruth, Christian described historical facts about the life of American hero and baseball legend Lou Gehrig that he could not have possibly known at the time.

    Distraught by her son’s uncanny revelations, Christian’s mother, Cathy, embarked on a sacred journey of discovery that
    would shake her beliefs to the core and forever change her views on life and death.

    In this compelling and heartwarming memoir, Cathy Byrd shares her remarkable experiences, the lessons she learned as she
    searched to find answers to this great mystery, and a story of healing in the lives of these intertwined souls.

    The Boy Who Knew Too Much will inspire even the greatest skeptics to consider the possibility that love never dies.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 CathyByrd022817a_zpseu1jt144

    Photo of Christian at Lou Gehrig’s grave when Christian was 6 years old.
    This marked the end of Christian’s spontaneous recollections of a life as Lou Gehrig.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 CathyByrd022817b1_zpsfhhzot9r
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 CathyByrd022817c_zpslnhbqi9m

    A team photo of the 1927 Yankees. Our son pointed to Lou Gehrig and said, “That’s me!” at the age of three.
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 CathyByrd022817d_zps90fjaspj

    A photo of Lou Gehrig’s parents Henry and Christina Gehrig, which is significant
    because our son was able to correctly identify their names at the age of three.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:These posts are incredible, yet I never know what to believe, or how to interpret the evidence. I once spoke with a preacher in a big church about reincarnation, and he said "It's of the Devil!!" Still, I have used some aspects of reincarnation in my posting on this website, but I have discovered that reincarnation is a "Can of Worms". Once, I told a stranger that "one life at a time was more than enough to deal with". She thought more of my comment than I did, and asked me if she could use my insight. There was more to it, but I can't remember the details. I have spent a significant amount of time thinking about a "Final Judgement" and this concept becomes much more frightening (to me) if we have existed for thousands, millions, billions, or trillions of years. Someone I spoke with for several months said "I Am RA". He said we had "fought side-by-side" and that we had a "history together". They said the name 'Serqet' had a lot to do with that history. 'RA' said they had "always remained one step ahead of humanity" and that they "liked Genesis". They said they were "angry and jealous". Reincarnation could provide support for the doctrines of 'Original Sin' and 'Inherited Guilt'. In other words, there is a possibility that many (or all) of us overthrew an Ancient God of This World, Solar System, Galaxy, or Universe, and embraced another one.

    There might not be a Galactic Statute of Limitations. I get the sinking-feeling that many (or all) of us have been involved in very-nasty Ancient Star-Wars. When reincarnation is fully explored, unimaginable 'latent conflicts' might be unleashed. I'm NOT kidding when I refer to reincarnation as being a 'Can of Worms'. Demonic beings could conceivably provide people with various historical 'memories'. I have attempted to place myself in the middle of various historical events, and I only employ this practice as a research-methodology, but I often wish I hadn't. I received a strange message in my word-processor several years ago, and I don't know how it got there. I take it with a Sea of Salt, but I still use it in my research and posting (for better or worse, I know not). It is the second bold-print section below. I apologize for repeatedly bringing this up , but I'm seeking some sort of clarification and resolution in this matter. I've given it a science-fictional context. Most of the forum members stopped talking to me a long time ago, and I think I can understand why. Most everyone has stopped talking to me (or perhaps I stopped talking to them).

    I don't trust people or gods!! I don't even trust myself!! In my youth, I thought I might like to be some sort of an evangelist, but I got so disoriented and disillusioned, that I went downhill, and remained at the bottom of the hill (at the bottom of a cliff)!! What if there are very-real gods and goddesses who create very-fake gods and goddesses (along with puppet politicians and preachers)??!! Even if every word of the Bible were absolutely true, things would still be a HUGE mess!! No matter how one attempts to create theological-foundations, they are always wrong, and then one is left with defending the indefensible (if one wishes to retain fame, fortune, and power)!! But this might be exactly what the real gods and goddesses want!! My current theory is that a good-god was deposed by a bad-god (in antiquity) because the people the good-god created were too stupid to see through the lies (and that they remain too stupid to see through the lies)!! My theory is that the reality of our predicament is something no-one wishes to honestly deal-with!! I'm presently studying a somewhat scholarly Bible-Commentary, along with a somewhat scholarly History of European and American Democratic-Developments!! I've almost completely abandoned attempting to keep-up with the madness!! I'm re-watching Independence Day today!!

    GEORGE ZEBROWSKI was born December 28, 1945, in Villach, Austria, of Polish parents. He grew up in England, Manhattan, the Bronx and Miami, and he is one of an extremely small group of authors who have achieved literary success in a second language. He attended Harpur College and the State University of New York at Binghamton, majoring in philosophy, and he brings his interest in this field to his writing-several of his science fiction stories utilize philosophical concepts.

    He is a member of the World Future Society, Science Fiction Writers of America, and the SFWA Speakers' Bureau. He has reviewed books for Craw daddy, Science Fiction Review and Riverside Quarterly,- has been a reader for Dell Books; has sold fiction to The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, If, Infinity and to several forthcoming collections of original stories. Currently he lectures in science fiction at SUNY-Binghamton, edits the SfWA Bulletin and writes. His two forthcoming novels are The Omega Point and Macrolife.

    The story "Heathen God" was a 1971 Nebula Award finalist.
    . . . every heathen deity has its place in the flow of existence."

    The isolation station and preserve for alien flora and fauna on Antares IV had only one prisoner, a three-foot-tall gnome like biped with skin like creased leather and eyes like great glass globes. His hair was silky white and reached down to his shoulders, and he usually went about the great natural park naked. He lived in a small white cell located in one of the huge. block like administration modules. There was a small bed in the cell, and a small doorway which led out to the park. A hundred feet away from the door there was a small pool, one of many scattered throughout the park. It reflected the deep-blue color of the sky.

    The gnome was very old, but no one had yet determined quite how old. And there seemed to be no way to find out. The gnome himself had never volunteered any information about his past. In the one hundred years of his imprisonment he had never asked the caretaker for anything. It was rumored among the small staff of Earthmen and humanoids that the gnome was mad. Generally they avoided him. Sometimes they would watch his small figure standing under the deep blue sky, looking up at the giant disk of Antares hanging blood red on the horizon, just above the well pruned trees of the park, and they would wonder what he might be thinking.

    The majority of Earthmen spread over twelve star systems did not even know of the gnome's existence, much less his importance. A few knew, but they were mostly scholarly and political figures, and a few theologians. The most important fact about the alien was that sometime in the remote past he had been responsible for the construction of the solar system and the emergence of intelligent life on Earth.

    The secret had been well kept for over a, century. In the one hundred and fourth year of the alien's captivity two men set out for Antares to visit him. The first man's motives were practical: the toppling of an old regime; the other man's goal was to ask questions. The first man's political enemies had helped him undertake this journey, seeing that it would give them the chance to destroy him. The importance of gaining definitive information about the alien was in itself enough reason to send a mission, but combined with what they knew about the motives of the man they feared, this mission would provide for them the perfect occasion to resolve both matters at the same time. In any case, the second man would bring back anything of value that they might learn about the gnome.

    Everything had been planned down to the last detail. The first ship carrying the two unsuspecting men was almost ready to come out of hyperspace near Antares. Two hours behind it in the warp was a military vessel-a small troop ship. As the first vessel came out of nothingness into the brilliance of the great star, the commander of the small force ship opened his sealed orders.

    As he came down the shuttle ramp with his two companions, Father Louis Chavez tried to mentally prepare himself for what he would find here. It was still difficult to believe what his superiors had told him about the alien who was a prisoner here. The morning air of Antares IV was fresh, and the immediate impression was one of stepping out into a warm botanical garden. At his left Sister Guinivere carried his small attaché case. On his right walked Benedict Compton, linguist, cultural anthropologist, and as everyone took for granted, eventual candidate for first secretary of Earth's Northern Hemisphere. Compton was potentially a religious man, but the kind who always demanded an advance guarantee before committing himself to anything: Chavez felt suspicious of him; in fact he felt wary about this entire visit to Antares IV.

    On Earth the religio-philosophic system was a blend of evolutionary Chardinism and Christianity, an imposing intellectual structure that had been dominant for some two hundred years now. The political structure based its legitimacy and continuing policies on it. Compton, from what he had learned, had frightened some high authorities with the claim that the gnome creature here on Antares IV was a potential threat to the beliefs of mankind. This, combined with what was already known about the alien's past, was seemingly enough to send this fact-finding mission. Only a few men knew about it, and Chavez remembered the fear he had sensed in them when he had been briefed. Their greatest fear was that somehow the gnome's history would become public knowledge. Compton, despite his motives, had found a few more political friends. But Chavez suspected that Compton wanted power not for himself, but to do something about the quality of life on Earth. He was sure the man was sincere. How little of the thought in our official faith filters out into actual policy, Chavez thought. And what would the government do if an unorganized faith-a heresy in the old sense-were to result from this meeting between Compton and the alien? Then he remembered how Compton had rushed this whole visit. He wondered just how far a man like Compton would go to have his way in the world.

    Antares was huge on the horizon, a massive red disk against a deep blue sky. A slight breeze waved the trees around the landing square. The pathway which started at the north corner led to three block like administration buildings set on a neat lawn and surrounded by flowering shrubs and fruit-bearing trees. The buildings were a bright white color. The walk was pleasant.

    Rufus Kade, the caretaker, met them at the front entrance to the main building. He showed them into the comfortable reception room. He was a tall, thin botanist, who had taken the administrative post because it gave him the opportunity to be near exotic plants. Some of the flora came from worlds as much as one hundred light-years away from Antares. After the introductions were over, Kade took the party to the enclosed garden which had a pool in its center, and where the gnome spent most of his time.

    "Do you ever talk with him, Mr. Kade?" Father Chavez asked. The caretaker shook his head. "No," he said. "And now I hope you will all excuse me, I have work to do." He left them at the entrance to the garden path. Compton turned to Father Chavez and said, "You are lucky; you're the only representative of any church ever to get a chance to meet what might be the central deity of that church." He smiled. "But I feel sorry for you-for whatever he is, he will not be what you expect, and most certainly he will not be what you want him to be."

    "Let's wait and see," Chavez said. "I'm not a credulous man."

    "You know, Chavez," Compton said in a more serious mood, "they let me come here too easily. What I mean is they took my word for the danger involved with little or no question."

    "Should they have not taken your word? You are an important man. You sound as if you didn't quite tell them everything."

    They walked into the garden. On either side of them the plants were luxurious, with huge green leaves and strange varicolored flowers. The air was filled with rich scents, and the earth gave the sensation of being very moist and loosely packed. They came into the open area surrounding the pool. Sister Guinivere stood between the two men as they looked at the scene. The water was still, and the disk of Antares was high enough now in the morning sky to be reflected in it.

    The gnome stood on the far side, watching them as they approached, as if he expected them at any moment to break into some words of greeting. Father Chavez knew that they would appear as giants next to the small figure. It would be awkward standing before a member of a race a million years older than mankind and towering over him. It would be aesthetically banal, Chavez thought.

    As they came to the other side of the pool Compton said, "Let me start the conversation, Father."

    "If you wish," Chavez said. 'Why am I afraid, and what does it matter who starts the conversation?' he thought.

    Compton walked up to the standing gnome and sat down cross-legged in front of him. It was a diplomatic gesture. Father Chavez felt relieved and followed the example, motioning Sister Guinivere to do the same. They all looked at the small alien. His eyes were deep-set and large; his hair was white, thin and reached down to his shoulders. He had held his hands behind his back when they had approached, but now they were together in front of him. His shoulders were narrow and his arms were thin. He wore a one-piece coverall with short sleeves. Chavez hoped they would be able to talk to him easily. The gnome looked at each of them in turn. After a few minutes of silence it became obvious that he expected them to start the conversation.

    "My name is Benedict Compton," Compton said, "and this is Father Chavez and Sister Guinivere, his secretary. We came here to ask you about your past, because it concerns us."

    Slowly the gnome nodded his head, but he did not sit with them. There was more silence. Compton gave Chavez a questioning look. "Could you tell us who you are?" Chavez asked. The gnome moved his head sharply to look at him. It's almost as if I interrupted him at something, Chavez thought. There was a sad look on the face now, as if in that one moment he had understood everything-why they were here and the part he would have to play. Chavez felt his stomach grow tense. He felt as if he were being carefully examined. Next to him Compton was playing with a blade of grass. Sister Guinivere sat with her hands folded in her lap. Briefly he recalled the facts he knew about the alien-facts which only a few Earthmen had been given access to over the last century. Facts which demanded that some sort of official attitude be taken. The best-kept secret of the past century was the fact that this small creature had initiated the events which led to the emergence of intelligent life on Earth. In the far past he had harnessed his powers of imagination to a vast machine, which had been built for another purpose, and had used it to create most of the life on Earth. He had been caught at his experiments in cosmology, and exiled. Long before men had gone out to the stars he had been a wanderer in the galaxy, but in recent years he had been handed over to Earth authorities to keep at this extraterrestrial preserve.

    Apparently his people still feared his madness. This was all they had ever revealed to the few Earthmen who took charge of the matter., It was conjectured that the gnome's race was highly isolationist; the gnome was the only member of it that had ever been seen by Earthmen. The opinion was also held that his culture feared contact with other intelligent life, and especially with this illegitimate creation. Of the few who knew about the case, only one or two had ever expressed any disbelief. It was after all, Chavez thought, enough to make any man uneasy. It seemed safer to ignore the matter most of the time. Since that one contact with Earth, the gnome's race had never come back for him and had never offered further explanations. A century ago they had simply left him in Earth orbit, in a small vessel of undeniably superior workmanship. A recorded message gave all the information they had wanted to reveal. Their home world had never been found, and the gnome had remained silent. Benedict Compton had set up this meeting, and Chavez had been briefed by his superiors and instructed to go along as an observer.

    Chavez remembered how the information had at first shaken and then puzzled him. The tension in his stomach grew worse. He wondered about Compton's motives; but he had not dared to question them openly. On Earth many scientists prized the alien as the only contact with a truly advanced culture, and he knew that more than one young student would do anything to unlock the secrets that must surely exist in the brain of the small being now standing in front of him. He felt sure that Compton was hoping for some such thing. Suddenly the small figure took a step back from them. A small breeze waved his long white hair. He stopped and his small, gnarly body took on a strange stature; his face was grief-stricken and his low voice was sad. It wavered as he spoke to them. "I made you to love each other, and through yourselves, me. I needed that love. No one can know how much I needed it, but it had to be freely given, so I had to permit the possibility of it being withheld. There was no other way, and there still is not."

    Chavez looked at Compton for a reaction. The big man sat very still. Sister Guinivere was looking down at the grass in front of her feet. Chavez felt a stirring of fear and panic in his insides. It felt as if the alien was speaking only to him--as if he could relieve the thirst that lived behind those deep-set eyes in that small head. He felt the other's need. lie felt the deprivation that was visible on that face, and he felt that at any moment he would feel the awesome rage that would spill out onto them. This then, he thought, is the madness that his race had spoken about- All the power had been stripped from this being, and now he is a beggar. Instead of rage there was sadness. It was oppressive- It hung in the air around them. What was Compton trying to uncover here? How could all this benefit anyone? Chavez noticed that his left hand was shaking, and he gripped it with the other hand.

    The gnome raised his right hand and spoke again. Dear God, help me, Chavez prayed. Help me to see this clearly. "I rebelled from the hive mind which my race was working toward," the gnome said in a louder voice than before. `"They have achieved it. They are one entity now. What you see in this dwarfed body are only the essentials of myself-the feelings mostly. They wait for the day when the love in my children comes to fruition and they will unite, thus recreating my former self which is now in them. Then I will leave my prison and return to them to become the completion of myself. This body will die then. My longing for that time is without limit, and I will make another history like this one and see it through. Each time I will be the completion of a species and its moving spirit. And again they will give birth to me.  Without this I am nothing."

    There was a loud thunderclap overhead, the unmistakable sound of a shuttle coming through the atmosphere. But it was too early for the starship shuttle to be coming back for them, Chavez thought. Compton jumped up and turned to look toward the administration buildings. Chavez noticed that the gnome was looking at him. Do your people worship a supreme being? Chavez thought the question. Do they have the idea of such a being? Surely you know the meaning of such a being.

    I don't know any such thing, the thought spoke clearly in his head. Do you know him?

    "It's a shuttle craft," Compton said. "Someone's coming to join us."

    Chavez got to his feet and went over to Compton. Sister Guinivere struggled to her feet and joined them. "What is it?" she asked.

    "I-I don't know who it could be," Compton said. Chavez noticed the lack of confidence in the other's voice. Behind them the gnome stood perfectly still, unaffected by the interruption.

    "They've landed by now," Compton said. "It could only be one thing, Father-they've found out my plans for the gnome." Compton came up to him and spoke in a low voice. "Father, this is the only way to get a change on Earth-yes, it's what you think, a cult, with me as its head, but the cause is just. Join me now, Father!"

    Then it's true, Chavez thought. He's planning to bypass the lawful candidacy. Then why did they let him come here?

    There was a rustling sound in the trees and shrubs around the pool area. Suddenly they were surrounded by armed men. Twenty figures in full battle gear had stepped out from the trees and garden shrubs. They stood perfectly still, waiting.

    Antares was directly overhead now, a dark-red circle of light covering twenty percent of the blue dome that was the sky. Noontime.

    Compton's voice shook as he shouted, "What is this? Who the devil are you?"

    A tall man immediately on the other side of the pool from them appeared to be the commanding officer. He wore no gear and there were no weapons in his hands. Instead he held a small piece of paper which he had just taken out of a sealed envelope.

    "Stand away, Father, and you too, Sister!" the officer shouted. "This does not concern you." Then he looked down at the paper in his hand and read: "Benedict Compton, you have been charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government of the Northern Hemisphere on Earth by unlawful means, and you have been tried and convicted by the high court of North America for this crime. The crime involves the use of an alien being as your coconspirator to initiate a religious controversy through a personally financed campaign which would result in your becoming the leader of a subversive cult, whose aim would be to seize power through a carefully prepared hoax. You and your co-conspirator are being eliminated because you are both enemies of the state." The officer folded the paper and put it back in its envelope and placed it in his tunic. Chavez noticed that Sister Guinivere was at his side, and he could tell that she was afraid. Compton turned to Chavez.

    "Father, protect the gnome, whatever he is. Use what authority you have. They won't touch you."

    "The execution order is signed by Secretary Alcibiad herself!" the tall officer shouted.

    Chavez was silent.

    "Father, please!" Compton pleaded. "You can't let this happen." Chavez heard the words, but he was numb with surprise. The words had transfixed him as effectively as any spear. He couldn't move, he couldn't think. Sister Guinivere held his arm. Suddenly Compton was moving toward the gnome.


    The lasers reached out like tongues. The little figure fell. And the thought went out from him in one last effort, reaching light-years into space. I loved you. You did not love me, or each other. They all heard the thought, and it stopped them momentarily. Compton was still standing, but his right arm was gone, and he was bleeding noisily onto the grass.

    "Shoot!" The order went out again. Again the lasers lashed out. Compton fell on his back, a few yards from the gnome. Sister Guinivere fell to the grass on her knees, sobbing. She began to wail. The soldiers began to retreat back to their shuttle craft. Father Chavez sat down on the ground. lie didn't know what to do. lie looked at the two bodies. There was smoke coming from Compton's clothing. The gnome's hair was aflame. The tall officer now stood alone on the other side of the pool Chavez knew that his orders had probably been sealed, and he only now felt their full force. After a few moments the tall officer turned and went after his men. The alien knew this would happen, Chavez thought. He knew, and that was why he told us everything.

    When the great disk of Antares was forty-five degrees above the horizon, Rufus Kade came out to theca. He put the two bodies in plastic specimen bags. Sister Guinivere was calm now and was holding Father Chavez's hand. They both stood up when Kade was finished with the bodies. "They had an official pass from way up," Kade said. "I even checked back on it." He walked slowly with them to the administration building. The shuttle to the starship was ready.

    Thirty hours out from Antares, Father Chavez sat alone in his small cabin looking at the small monitor which showed him where he had been. Soon now the brilliance of the stars would be replaced by the dull emptiness of hyperspace. Antares was a small red disk on the screen. Momentarily Chavez resented the fact that he had been a creation to the gnome. In any case the alien had not been God. His future importance would be no greater than that of Christ-probably less. He had been only an architect, a mere shaper of materials which had existed long before even his great race had come into being. But still-was he not closer to God than any man had ever been? Or would be? The completion for which the gnome had made man would never take place now. The point of mankind's existence as he had made it was gone. And the alien had not known God. If there was such a being, a greatest possible being, he now seemed hopelessly remote . . .

    'O Lord, I pray for a sign!' Chavez thought. But he heard only his thoughts and nothing from the being who would surely have answered in a case like this. And he had stood by while they killed the gnome there in the garden by the poolside, on that planet circling the red star whose diameter was greater than the orbit of Mars. Despite all his reasoning now, Chavez knew that he had stood back while they killed that part of the small creature which had loved humanity.

    But what had he said? The rest of the gnome's being was humanity, and it still existed; except that now it would never be reunited with him. "Do not fear," the holy Antony had said three thousand years ago, "this goodness as a thing impossible, nor its pursuit as something alien, set a great way off. It hangeth on our own arbitrament. For the sake of the Greek learning men go overseas.. . but the city of God is everywhere . . . the kingdom of God is within. The goodness that is in us only asks the human mind." What we can do for ourselves, Chavez thought, that's all that is ours now: goals.

    He took a deep breath as the starship slipped into the nothingness of hyperspace. He felt the burden of the political power which he now carried as a witness to the alien's murder, and he knew that Compton's life had not been for nothing. He would have to hide his intentions carefully, but he knew what he would have to do.

    In time, he hoped anew, we may still give birth to the semblance of godhood that lives on in mankind, on that small world which circles a yellow sun.

    You were Incarnate 2000 Years ago and let Us also say that You brought the Prime Creator's Message to the People (Big "G"). After You had been exiled to the far east in those times - A Usurper (Jesus Cesarian) was set up to draw others away from Your Message and to corrupt It. 300 Years Later - The Council of Nicea was convened by a Roman Emperor (Constantine) to reduce the understandings You'd brought to the People - From approximately 37 Books down to 5. Under the Tutelage of these Controller's - Classical Christian Religion was enacted and forced upon the People over the next 1700 Years...The True Teachings of Yeshua are being held in the Vatican Archives so that They can remain on Top as Controllers (See Stigmata: We need no Men or Buildings to reach the Prime Creator was the Thrust of the Teachings kept secret - The Path within). Does this then mean that the Man  that originally brought the Message was trying to deceive Us? Or is It rather that the Controller's perverted the Understandings that You'd brought Us previously on Purpose? Simply put - I would say - The Later...This is the Crux and one They have worked hard to convolute...

    mudra wrote: As I read this I thought this could well be Oxy's biography Wink

    Love from me
    Thank-you mudra. As most of you know, I model various concepts and personalities, which do not necessarily reflect who I am in "real-life". I have been given various hints at who I might be on a soul-basis, by various individuals of interest, but I have no idea where the truth ends, and the BS begins. This whole thing often feels like a set-up. If this story did apply to me in some way, shape, or form, that might be a VERY Bad Thing!! The so-called "Ancient Egyptian Deity" I spoke with for several months (in 2010-11) made various suggestions to me, about who I might be, and what my role might be, but they seemed to HATE Me (while being very polite and charming)!! I don't wish to repeat what we discussed, but it scared the hell out of me!! Notice what George Zebrowski said about what "Holy Antony" said 3,000 years ago!! Compare that with the strange message I found in my word-processor (regarding me supposedly writing in antiquity)!! 1,100 BC to AD 100 is of particular interest to me. If someone of note was deposed 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, they might've written various things from time to time (if they remained in this solar-system)!! I'm still looking for a missing 32-37 book commentary on a Pre New-Testament World. I don't trust history!! Not Knowing is Driving Me Crazy!! But Knowing Might Drive Me Even Crazier!! Knowing What I Think About Would Drive Everyone Crazy!! I mostly play internet-games on this website!! This is just a fishing-expedition!! BTW, have you ever heard of the Human Gnome Project??!! Someone who knew someone on the Human Genome Project told me they had learned how smart I was (even though I had never exhibited significant intelligence in their presence). Could this have had something to do with Zebrowski's story?! Probably not, but sometimes I wonder as I wander!!

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Jupiter-Ascending-1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Jupiter-Ascending-HD-Wallpapers1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Jupiterascending2015part6.0104

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:43 pm

    Pris wrote:
    Pris wrote:
    . .
    Jeeeezus, Oxy.
    . .
    Note:  for anyone who missed it, Oxy has edited his original comment already three times since I posted my exasperated response. My response was meant for the original comment that Oxy removed -- a comment which was far more ludicrous than the newest version sitting there right now lol. (Must remind myself to always quote Oxy so he can't pull that little trick on me again.)
    Pris wrote:.

    Rehash.  Over and over. I could set my watch to you, Oxy.  You're like a cuckoo clock chiming every hour on the hour.
    Carol wrote:CIA ANON Message Sent To Jim Stone Seems To Confirm What RMN Readers Always Suspected...IC Rules GOV...
    Posted By: Watchman
    Date: Thursday, 9-Mar-2017 09:38:39

    CIA ANON LEAKED THIS: CIA Intern here. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Julian has worse stuff than this. I am almost certain of that fact. I don't think the American public realizes just how dangerous the NSA and CIA are. EVERYTHING YOU DO WHILE CONNECTED ONLINE IS BEING WATCHED AND COLLECTED IN THE CLOUD. This place is corrupt as XXXX. I hate it here but I feel trapped. I legit feel like I will go "missing" if I speak up. Mike Pompeo won't change anything. We keep stuff hidden from the director. The President doesn't get briefed on most things that go on here. What he does get briefed on is largely FAKE information.

    Even if Pompeo wanted to change things he wouldn't be able to. THE CIA RUNS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. The President is a powerless figurehead in the grand scheme of things. The CIA hates Trump because he knows this and is exposing them. There are too many hostile employees here. Everything we do here involves undermining the new administration in some way. By the end of this week (Probably Friday or the weekend) the New York Times or the Washington Post will release their next "Russians influenced the election" The successful attacks on Flynn and Sessions strengthened the operations going on here. The CIA wants Bannon gone. He is their #1 target besides Trump. They are going to manufacture a narrative that Breitbart (under Bannon's orders) took money or a bribe from the Russian Government/Embassy in order to cover a certain story/say a certain thing. The story will spread like wildfire through the MSM as can be imagined.

    We have to fight back or this administration will be consumed by the Deep State. The rabbit hole is bigger than any of you could ever imagine. (Sorry for using Tor but I had no choice.) That is about all. Goodbye.



    Carol wrote:
    Pentagon Insider Gives Intel Update on #Vault7- - March 10, 2017

    Q. Vault 7 is the biggest story of the year, right?
    A. It gets bigger by orders of magnitude.

    Q. So what happens now?
    A. The story will go well beyond Implants, C2’s, and LP’s.

    Q.  What does that mean?
    A. Listening posts, Malware. The danger is in how the CIA declassified “war code”. They also failed to keep different eggs in different baskets. This can be blamed on the agency not wanting to loop NSA in their plans. In essence, the CIA sought to create their own NSA.

    Q. What do you see happening next?
    A. Well, “Whack A Mole” takes on a whole new meaning!

    Q. Whoa…….
    A.  The media steps in. Talking heads bemoan the “threat to national security”, blame Russia, avoid any mention of Uk involvement or Israel, which by the way, is furious beyond belief and scared shitless  at the release of  Vault 7… as are the Brits.

    Q. We keep hearing this. Why?  The Brits and Israeli’s are allies, right?
    A.  Define ally? The CIA, MI6 and Israeli secret service have been engaged in asymmetrical espionage on civilians, both domestically and abroad. They turned their tradecraft on the civi’s. Thats not going to play out well. There are bigger floods ahead, I fear.

    Q. Floods?
    A. Its a term used to denote large scale leaks or breeches in intelligence.

    Q. What type of things can we expect?
    A.  Right now, the first dump concentrated on the CIA’s toolkit. The fear and loathing barometer tells me there is real concern the source code will get leaked, and even bigger concern the CIA’s past ‘activities” get exposed. If that happens, we will have a shockwave and an instant realignment of friends and foes.

    Q. Could you explain further?
    A. Lets say Wikileaks divulges that the CIA engages in domestic espionage in tandem with Mossad and MI6… Lets say CIA looks the other way while foreign nations are allowed to surveil American citizens… Lets say the people find out we created Isis with Israel, or the CIA really did neutralize Kennedy. Imagine how the citizens will view the CIA, Mossad and MI6.  In truth, these entities are not the beast, but rather the claws of the beast.  The combination of the CIA, Mossad and MI6 can be considered the greatest sponsors of terrorism in the world.

    Q.  Wow. So you are saying Wikileaks may leak the secret history of the CIA?
    A. I am sure its coming. Why did they use a Kennedy quote referencing the CIA’s destruction as their passphrase? I am pretty certain they plan to expose just who was behind the Kennedy assassination.

    Q. If foreign nations were behind 9/11, will the people sit idly and forget about it and go back to their everyday lives?
    A.  2 years ago, I would have been confident they would have behaved as the lemmings the CIA expects them to behave like. But the foundation of trust is eroding. People no longer trust DC, MSM, Banks, our courts, etc.

    Q.  Will Pedogate ever be fully exposed?
    A. Vault 7 will make certain that Pedogate is exposed. CIA and Mossad are behind much of it. Many in my close circle welcomes what Wikileaks has done.  Most military servicemen serve honorably. Most law enforcement as well. We want the swamp drained. If Trump muzzles Pence, and guides this nation by his instincts, my guess is he will gut the CIA, modernize it, kick the MI6 and Mossad out of the tent and start re-evaluating who our friends are.  Start with Saudi Arabia. Our relationship with the UK is very good from a military standpoint. That will not go away. But, we need to weaken the power and reach of our current intelligence community as it is forced to disengage from foreign intelligence services like Mi6 and Mossad. We have to stand alone.

    Q.  Whats the immediate effect of Vault 7 for the average computer user?
    A. Siege mentality, I would imagine. Is your anti virus actually a virus?  You will see computer “eye patches” being sold to cover the camera. Users will start to physically disable their mics, and only use headphone mic’s that you can detach when not using it.The public will equate all internet enabled consumer products as weapons of espionage and potential murder. The climate of the American public is one of distrust and apprehension.  They do not feel protected.  If you’re talking about a failure to protect America people, you can add, the CDC, the SEC, the USDA, Homeland Security, and just about every other branch of government. But, the sub rosa conclusions swim in even deeper waters. America feels sabotaged by it’s Government. We falsely believed we were spectators at a Roman Arena, watching the blood sport of foreign wars on our flat screens and computers. Iraq, Syria, Yemen. But, now we have soft terror in France, Germany, Turkey, United States, and so on.  And with the revelation of our devices listening in on us, its clear we are not spectators in the Roman Arena, but lion and gladiator fodder, as well.

    Q. So its all going to hell?
    A. No.  Vault 7 is a good thing, actually. From a military standpoint, it’s better to protect an aware civilian population than one that is programmed and obtuse . The average Joe and Mary damn well want to know if their kids are being spied on. The exploitation of these cybertools, in the hands of pedophiles, psychopaths and phishermen is what should really alarm people.  This is a watershed moment in American history, The pursuit of privacy may eclipse the pursuit of happiness.

    Q. Can I trust my phone?
    A. Google’s Android Operating System is used in almost 9 out of 10 smart phones globally. Google, Facebook and Apple may very well have sold backdoor access to the CIA. We call it Judas technology.

    I just received replies to my FOIA requests to the NSA and CIA, and you guessed it, the "replies" were "non-replies"!! Why am I NOT surprised??!! They basically said they didn't reply to "fishing-expeditions"!! I was really interested in their takes on my extended conversations with the so-called "Ancient Egyptian Deity"!! I have NO Doubt that they knew exactly what I was referring to!! Should I act like a midget with a "Big-Guy" thing going on?? Should I just let it go?? I might actually live longer if I just pretend that "Nothing Happened"!! I was involved in a small legal-battle (many years ago) with the opposing attorney's office located on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC!! I've sat in the office of an attorney who worked in a relatively top-level job in the Reagan Administration!! But that sort of thing just isn't my "Cup of Tea"!! I still like the idea of some sort of an "Off the Record" Informal "Meeting" such as when Jesse Marcel was briefed by "Townsend" (Martin Sheen) in "Roswell"!! I have NO Idea how I am viewed by ANYONE (if anyone even gives a damn)!! There might come a time when "Officialdom" will wish to speak with me (at long last) but I won't be talking (to anyone, under any circumstances)!! I have NO Idea which way this thing is going to play out!! I might be the "Best of the Best" (having a bad lifetime) OR I might be the "Worst of the Worst" (having a good lifetime)!! I still think there might be something to the concept of an Investigative and Executive Judgment (terminating in or around A.D. 2133)!! The evidence is rather thin, but there is no substantial body of evidence to substantiate "Transubstantiation"!! Just "Eat the Flesh, Drink the Blood, and Get Back to Work (because we said so)!!"

    Nature and Sacred Classical Music probably constitute my current "Fundamentalist-Orthodoxy". A Definitive Law and Liturgy should probably be part of the package, but I am deeply conflicted in this regard, and I don't want to talk about it right now. I post a lot of solo organ-music, but I prefer a combination of Choir, Organ, Orchestra, and Congregation!! The organ-music is simply a Road Less Traveled for most people (even for church-goers)!! I try to be different on this website. I don't take sides!! I insult everyone!! It's a nasty-task, but someone must do it!! Are you deeply offended?? Do you prefer to be told what you wish to hear?? Perhaps you prefer someone who gives you what you want, while taking what you have?! Perhaps you've had that someone for the past 6,000 years?! Perhaps you'll have that someone for all-eternity?! The "Ancient Egyptian Deity" I spoke with for several months said "Humanity is VERY Easy to Mislead!!" They said they had "Always Remained One Step Ahead of Humanity!!" They said I'd be sorry if I tried to save Humanity!! Another "Individual of Interest" said an extermination was inevitable, and that we needed to start over. Honest. Honestly read Genesis to Esther, and the Book of Revelation. Honestly, Thoroughly, and Repeatedly. We should prayerfully and carefully consider ALL Possibilities. Especially the ones we don't like. Possibility-Thinking Trumps Positive-Thinking!! What Would Dr. Robert H. Schuller Say?? What Would Dr. Angela Kraft Cross Play at Notre Dame de Paris?? Vierne?? Angela and I once had a slight difference of opinion concerning church-music. I suggested that there might be a legitimate place for Contemporary Praise-Songs in church-services. Angela gave me a Cross-Look I'll NEVER forget!! Honest!! I lean toward Sacred Classical Music for formal-occasions, and Contemporary Praise Songs for informal-occasions!! There's a Time and Place for Almost Everything!!

    Has anyone noticed certain parallels between David Koresh and Sherry Shriner?? Sherry Shriner claims to be the 'Granddaughter of King David'!! David Koresh had an album titled 'Songs for Grandpa'!! Sherry Shriner seems to have lived certain ancient historical events. In the documentary-video on David Koresh below (at 14:00), two former cult-members said David seemed to see the Bible in a panorama, as if he had been involved in the actual biblical events (or something like that)!! Both David and Sherry seem fixated upon the Book of Revelation and the End of the World!! Both were at war with the government. Both owned and advocated firearms. I have speculated about the possibility of Multiple Bodies and Personalities of certain Beings Within This Solar System!! I've seen evidence of this!! I think I might've spoken face to face with at least one aspect of Sherry Shriner!! Honest!! This thing could get nastier and more-complex than ANY of US can possibly imagine!! I am EXTREMELY APPREHENSIVE!! But I still try to keep my internet-posting on the level of obscure and irreverent Religious and Political Science-Fiction, which is only REALLY Understood by Insiders!! If I ever get around to writing a book, it will be VERY Watered-Down!! It's easier that way!!

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Quote-if-the-bible-is-true-then-i-m-christ-david-koresh-80-25-50

    I recently heard a very smart and tough woman talking, but I didn't see her. She seemed to have significant importance, and she reminded me of my speculation concerning a Solar System Administrator!! She also reminded me of that lady who got mad at Bill Cooper (toward the end of his 1989 MUFON lecture on UFO's and the Secret Government)!! Honest. I simultaneously like and dislike such a person. I respect intelligence, honesty, and being 'to the point', but I'm a sensitive-boy, and I can't withstand much abuse!! Perhaps I should get used to it. "You will have to come here to get the money!!" "Why did you do THAT??!!" "How About a Table-Dance!!" "I Don't Want to Talk to You Anymore!! Bye-Bye!!" Perhaps we can meet someday!! Perhaps we already have!! Several months ago, I heard a somewhat familiar (black-female) voice shouting "Who is He to Judge ME??!!" But no one was there!! Honest!! Be Prepared for Just About Anything!! The Universe Might Be Stranger Than We Can Think!! What Would JBS Haldane Say??
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Poster-Ash-Wednesday-1973_08-1000x782
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ash-wednesday-prayer-2013-001
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Notre_Dame_de_Paris_by_night_time
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 15
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 20130529notredame-procession

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cocciantenotredameparisfrancesa
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Notredame
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Marais-Pompidou-Notre-Dame-De-Paris-3-Arr-And-4-Arr-132594
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Gargola-notredame
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Paris-gargoyles-1500x850
    "What Are We Going To Do About Orthodoxymoron??!!" The Screwtape Letters is a Christian apologetic novel by C. S. Lewis. It is written in a satirical, epistolary style and while it is fictional in format, the plot and characters are used to address Christian theological issues, primarily those to do with temptation and resistance to it. First published in February 1942,[1] the story takes the form of a series of letters from a senior Demon Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood, a Junior Tempter. The uncle's mentorship pertains to the nephew's responsibility in securing the damnation of a British man known only as "the Patient".

    In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis provides a series of lessons in the importance of taking a deliberate role in Christian faith by portraying a typical human life, with all its temptations and failings, seen from devils' viewpoints. Screwtape holds an administrative post in the bureaucracy ("Lowerarchy") of Hell, and acts as a mentor to his nephew Wormwood, an inexperienced (and incompetent) tempter. In the thirty-one letters which constitute the book, Screwtape gives Wormwood detailed advice on various methods of undermining faith and of promoting sin in "the Patient", interspersed with observations on human nature and on Christian doctrine. In Screwtape's advice, individual benefit and greed are seen as the greatest good, and neither demon can comprehend God's love for man or acknowledge human virtue. Versions of the letters were originally published weekly in the Anglican periodical The Guardian, in wartime between May and November 1941,[2][3] and the standard edition contains an introduction explaining how the author chose to write his story. Lewis wrote the sequel "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" in 1959 – a critique of certain trends in British public education. (Although Britain calls its major private schools "public schools", Lewis is referring to state schools when he criticizes "public education".) Omnibus editions with a new preface by Lewis were published by Bles in 1961 and by Macmillan in 1962. The Screwtape Letters became one of Lewis' most popular works, although he claimed that it was "not fun" to write and "resolved never to write another 'Letter'".[4] Both The Screwtape Letters and "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" have been released on both audio cassette and CD, with narrations by John Cleese, Joss Ackland and Ralph Cosham.

    C.S. Lewis was a professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge University. His previous bestselling Macmillan books include Mere Christianity and Miracles as well as The Chronicles of Narnia and Space Trilogy.[5]

    The Screwtape Letters comprises 31 letters written by a senior demon named Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood (named after a star in Revelation), a younger and less experienced demon, charged with guiding a man (called "the patient") toward "Our Father Below" (Devil / Satan) from "the Enemy" (God). After the second letter, the Patient converts to Christianity, and Wormwood is chastised for allowing this. A striking contrast is formed between Wormwood and Screwtape during the rest of the book, wherein Wormwood is depicted through Screwtape's letters as anxious to tempt his patient into extravagantly wicked and deplorable sins, often recklessly, while Screwtape takes a more subtle stance, as in Letter XII wherein he remarks: "... the safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts". In Letter VIII, Screwtape explains to his protégé the different purposes that God and the devils have for the human race: "We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons". With this end in mind, Screwtape urges Wormwood in Letter VI to promote passivity and irresponsibility in the Patient: "(God) wants men to be concerned with what they do; our business is to keep them thinking about what will happen to them". With his own views on theology, Lewis goes on to describe and discuss sex, love, pride, gluttony, and war in successive letters. Lewis, an Oxford and Cambridge scholar himself, suggests in his work that even intellectuals are not impervious to the influence of such demons, especially during complacent acceptance of the "Historical Point of View" (Letter XXVII).

    In Letter XXII, after several attempts to find a licentious woman for the Patient "to promote a useful marriage", and after Screwtape's receiving a painful punishment for having divulged to Wormwood God's genuine love for humanity (which Wormwood informed the Infernal authorities about), Screwtape notes that the Patient has fallen in love with a Christian girl and through her and her family a very Christian way of life. Toward the end of this letter, in his anger Screwtape becomes a large centipede, mimicking a similar transformation in Book X of Paradise Lost, wherein the demons are changed into snakes. Later in the correspondence, it is revealed that the young man may be placed in harm's way by his possibly Civil defense duties (it is stated in an earlier letter that he is eligible for military service, but it is never actually confirmed that he was indeed called up). While Wormwood is delighted at this and by the war in general, Screwtape admonishes Wormwood to keep the Patient safe, in hopes that they can compromise his faith over a long lifetime. In the last letter, the Patient has been killed during a World War II air raid and has gone to Heaven, and for his ultimate failure Wormwood is doomed to suffer the consumption of his spiritual essence by the other demons, especially by Screwtape himself. Screwtape responds to Wormwood's final letter that he may expect as little assistance as Screwtape would expect from Wormwood were their situations reversed ("My love for you and your love for me are as alike as two peas ... The only difference is that I am the stronger."), mimicking the situation where Wormwood himself informed on his uncle to the Infernal Police for Infernal Heresy (making a religiously positive remark that would offend Satan).

    The short sequel "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" (1959), first published as an article in the Saturday Evening Post, is an addendum to The Screwtape Letters; the two works are often published together as one book.[6] "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" takes the form of an after-dinner speech given by Screwtape at the Tempters' Training College for young demons. In stage adaptations it is sometimes added as a prelude, making the work a prequel. "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" is Lewis' criticism of leveling and featherbedding trends in public education; more specifically, as he reveals in the foreword to the American edition, public education in America (though in the text, it is English education that is held up as the purportedly awful example). The Cold War opposition between the West and the Communist World is explicitly discussed as a backdrop to the educational issues. Screwtape and other demons are portrayed as consciously using the subversion of education and intellectual thought in the West to bring about its overthrow by the communist enemy from without and within. In this sense "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" is more strongly political than The Screwtape Letters, wherein no strong stand is made on political issues of the day, such as World War II.[7] Though C. S. Lewis had resolved not to write another letter, and only revisited the character of Screwtape once, in Screwtape Proposes a Toast, the format, referred to by Lewis himself as a kind of "demonic ventriloquism", has inspired other authors to prepare sequels or similar works, such as:

    Alcorn, Randy (2001). Lord Foulgrin's Letters. ISBN 978-1-57673-861-0.
    Deace, Steve. (2016). A Nefarious Plot. ISBN 978-1-61868-823-1.[8]
    Forest, Jim (2004). The Wormwood File: E-mail From Hell. ISBN 978-1-57075-554-5. Another Wormwood series of instructions.
    Kreeft, Peter (1998). The Snakebite Letters: Devilishly Devious Secrets for Subverting Society as Taught in Tempter's Training School. ISBN 978-0-89870-721-2.
    Laymon, Barbara (2004). The Devil's Inbox. ISBN 978-0-8066-4945-0.
    Martin, Walter R. (1975). Screwtape Writes Again. ISBN 978-0-88449-033-3.[9]
    Miles, Bryan (2003). The Wormwood Letters. ISBN 978-0-595-28392-7. Wormwood, who has somehow survived, now finds himself in a new era writing to his own nephew, Soulsniper.
    Peschke, Jim (2010). The Michael Letters: Heaven's answer to Screwtape. ISBN 978-1-4536-6027-0. The Archangel Michael provides advice to Jacob, a guardian angel.
    Platt, Richard (2012). As One Devil to Another: A Fiendish Correspondence in the Tradition of C. S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. ISBN 978-1-4143-7166-5.
    Williams, Arthur H., Jr. (2006). The Screwtape Email. ISBN 978-1-4120-0067-3.

    Focus on the Family Radio Theatre, a project of Focus on the Family, was granted the rights to dramatize The Screwtape Letters as a feature length audio drama. Production began in 2008, and the product was released in the fall of 2009.[10] Andy Serkis, known for playing Gollum in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, provides the voice for Screwtape, with Bertie Carvel as Wormwood, Philip Bird as The Patient (identified in this production as "John Hamilton"), Laura Michael Kelly as The Girl (identified in this production as "Dorothy"), Roger Hammond as Toadpipe, Christina Greatrex as Slumtrimpet, Janet Henfrey as Glubose, Philip Sherlock as the Messenger, Susie Brann as the Presenter and Geoffrey Palmer as C.S. Lewis. There is a 7-and-a-half minute video preview of the Radio Theatre production with interviews and making-of footage.[11] This production was a 2010 Audie Award finalist.

    Marvel Comics and religious book publisher Thomas Nelson produced a comic book adaptation of The Screwtape Letters in 1994.[12]

    The Screwtape Letters is a planned film based on the novel. 20th Century Fox bought the film rights to the book in the 1950s and partnered with Walden Media to make this film as they were doing with The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010). Walden originally intended to release the film in 2008.[13] Ralph Winter, the producer, credited the success of the Chronicles of Narnia film series for the greenlighting of The Screwtape Letters.[14] The Screwtape Letters is to be a live-action film.[15] Because the novel is a series of letters with limited action, critics have questioned how a film adaptation is possible.[16]

    The stage play Dear Wormwood (later renamed Screwtape), written by James Forsyth, was published in 1961. The setting is changed to wartime London, where we actually see Wormwood going about the business of tempting his "patient" (in the play, given the name "Michael Green"). The ending is changed as well, with Wormwood trying to repent and beg for forgiveness, when it appears that his mission has failed. "Dear Wormwood" premiered in Luther High School North, Chicago, IL in April, 1961. Philadelphia playwright and actor Anthony Lawton's original adaptation of The Screwtape Letters has been staged several times since 2000 by Lantern Theater Company, most recently in May/June 2014. In Lawton's adaptation, each of Screwtape's letters is punctuated by varied dances including tap, Latin ballroom, jazz, martial arts, and rock – and whips and fire-eating. Screwtape performs these dances with his secretary, Toadpipe.

    The Fellowship for the Performing Arts obtained from the Lewis estate the rights to adapt The Screwtape Letters for the stage. The initial production opened off-off-Broadway at Theatre 315 in New York City in January 2006. The initial three-week run was extended to eleven and finally closed because the theater was contractually obligated to another production.[17] It was co-written by Max McLean (who also starred) and Jeffrey Fiske (who also directed). A second, expanded production opened off Broadway at the Theatre at St. Clements on 18 October 2007, originally scheduled to run through 6 January 2008. The production re-opened at the Mercury Theater in Chicago in September 2008, and continued on a national tour including San Francisco, Phoenix, Louisville, Chattanooga, Fort Lauderdale, Houston and Austin, through January 2010 as well as playing at The Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, D.C. for ten weeks.[18] The Screwtape Letters played for 309 performances at New York City's Westside Theatre in 2010. The 2011 tour visited performing arts venues in cities throughout the United States including Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Boston. The 2012–2013 tour began in Los Angeles in January 2012, with return engagements in San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Chicago and Atlanta as well as stops in several other cities. The Screwtape Letters has been described as "Humorous and lively ... the Devil has rarely been given his due more perceptively!" by The New York Times, "A profound experience" by Christianity Today and "Wickedly witty ... One hell of good show!" by The Wall Street Journal.[18] The Barley Sheaf Players of Lionville, Pennsylvania performed James Forsyth's play Screwtape in September 2010. It was directed by Scott Ryan and the play ran the last 3 weekends in September.[19] The production was reviewed by Paul Recupero for Stage Magazine.[20]

    Affectionately Yours, Screwtape: The Devil and C.S. Lewis (January 1, 2007), directed by Tom Dallis and written by Amy Dallis, aired on the History Channel[21]

    In 2010, the Marine Corps Gazette began publishing a series of articles entitled "The Attritionist Letters" styled in the manner of The Screwtape Letters. In the letters, General Screwtape chastises Captain Wormwood for his inexperience and naivete while denouncing the concepts of maneuver warfare in favor of attrition warfare.[22]

    Called To Arms' concept album Peril and the Patient (August 10, 2010) is based entirely on The Screwtape Letters.[23][24]
    In U2's music video for the song "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" (1995), an animated Bono is seen walking down the street holding the book The Screwtape Letters. While on stage during the Zoo TV Tour Bono would dress as Mr. MacPhisto, his alter ego. Bono would wear a gold suit and devil horns and usually make prank calls to politicians.
    The lyrics for The Receiving End of Sirens' song "Oubliette (Disappear)", from the album The Earth Sings Mi Fa Mi (2007) were inspired by a passage from The Screwtape Letters.[25]
    In the Christian metal band Living Sacrifice's album Ghost Thief, there is a track titled "Screwtape". Frontman of Living Sacrifice, Bruce Fitzhugh, explained that the song is "about temptation and the proverbial 'devil on your shoulder.' It's about the thought process we go through to justify a thought or action that is not good for the soul". Fitzhugh also explains how he thought it was interesting Lewis wrote from the perspective of Screwtape and that he wrote from the same perspective in the song.[26]
    The group The Oh Hellos released the album Dear Wormwood which they have described as a form of speculative fiction from the point of view of "the patient".

    U.S. President Ronald Reagan quoted from The Screwtape Letters in his famous 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals.[27]

    "C.S. Lewis is the most popular Christian theologian being published today." - The Christian Book Club
    "Lewis is the ideal persuader for the half-convinced, for the good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way." - Anthony Burgess, The New York Times Book Review
    "Apparently this Oxford don and Cambridge professor is going to be around for a long time; he called himself a dinosaur but he seems to speak to people where they are." - Chad Walsh, The Washington Post Book World
    "A legacy of solid, genial Christianity." - Dorothy Dohen, Commonweal

    David Foster Wallace praised the book in interviews and placed it first on his list of top ten favorite books.[28]
    In an October 2013 interview in New York magazine, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, professed his admiration for the book. Scalia remarked, "The Screwtape Letters is a great book. It really is, just as a study of human nature." The book was discussed in the highly publicized interview during Scalia's discourse regarding the nature of his Catholic faith.[29]


    ^ The Screwtape Letters title listing at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. Select a title to see its linked publication history and general information. Select a particular edition (title) for more data at that level, such as a front cover image or linked contents.
    • ISFDB shows unillustrated covers, and credits no cover artists, for both first editions published by Geoffrey Bles, the Letters (1942) and the omnibus with "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" and a new preface by Lewis (1961).


    ^ Roger & Hooper 2002, p. 237.
    Jump up
    ^ Roger & Hooper 2002, p.  236.
    Jump up
    ^ Griffin, William (2005), C.S. Lewis: The Authentic Voice, Oxford: Lion Hudson, p. 188, ISBN 0-7459-5208-9.
    Jump up
    ^ Lewis, C. S. (2001), The Screwtape Letters, New York: HarperCollins, p. 184
    Jump up
    ^ Lewis, C.S. (1982). The Screwtape Letters. New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. p. 174. ISBN 0-02-086740-9.
    Jump up
    ^ Lewis, C. S. (2001). The Screwtape Letters, with Screwtape Proposes a Toast. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-065293-4.
    Jump up
    ^ Hein, David (2007). "A Note on C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters". The Anglican Digest. 49 (2). pp. 55–58.
    Jump up
    Jump up
    Jump up
    ^ "Radio Theatre". Radio Theatre. 2013-03-23. Retrieved 2013-04-29.
    Jump up
    ^ "Video preview of The Screwtape Letters Audio Drama". May 22, 2009.
    Jump up
    ^ Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. The Christian classic series. New York: Marvel Comics, 1994. ISBN 978-0-8407-6261-0
    Jump up
    ^ Nicole Laporte (2007-01-31). "'Screwtape' attaches Walden". Variety. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
    Jump up
    ^ "Update on The Screwtape Letters Movie From Producer Ralph Winter". The Stone Table. 2007-02-17. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
    Jump up
    ^ "'Screwtape Letters' to be released on film". Catholic News Agency. Retrieved July 15, 2009.
    Jump up
    ^ "Another CS Lewis Film In The Works". Empire. January 2, 2007. Retrieved July 15, 2009.
    Jump up
    ^ "About the NYC Production of C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters". Retrieved 2007-10-06.
    Jump up to:
    a b "About The Screwtape Letters", ScrewtapeOnStage. Retrieved on 27 January 2012.
    Jump up
    ^ "Barley Sheaf Players Screwtape"
    Jump up
    ^ Recupero, Paul. "Turn of the SCREWTAPE", Stage Magazine Review, September 10, 2010.
    Jump up
    ^ Dallis, Tom (Director) & Dallis, Amy (Writer) (January 1, 2007). "Affectionately Yours, Screwtape: The Devil and C.S. Lewis". IMDb.
    Jump up
    ^ "The Attritionist Letters (Archives)". Marine Corps Gazette. MCA Marines. Retrieved 2013-04-29.
    Jump up
    ^ "Called to Arms is Rad" (news). Indie Vision Music. 2010-05-21. Retrieved 2013-04-29.
    Jump up
    ^ "Called To Arms" (profile). Absolute Punk. Retrieved 2013-04-29.
    Jump up
    ^ "Disappear (Oubliette) Lyric Meaning – The Receiving End of Sirens Meanings". Song meanings. Retrieved 2013-04-29.
    Jump up
    ^ "Living Sacrifice's "Screwtape" song premiere". Lambgoat. Retrieved January 12, 2016.
    Jump up
    ^ "Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida" (PDF). The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library. March 8, 1983. Retrieved July 15, 2014.
    Jump up
    ^ "David Foster Wallace: R.I.P.". News observer. September 16, 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-10-31. Retrieved 2013-04-29.
    Jump up
    ^ "In Conversation: Antonin Scalia". New York. Retrieved October 6, 2013.


    Roger, Lancelyn Green; Hooper, Walter (2002), C. S. Lewis: a biography, London: HarperCollins, ISBN 0-00-628164-8.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Screwtape-lettersThe United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 ScrewtapeLetters

    I grew-up being taught that I had a 'Guardian Angel' aka 'Recording Angel' and that EVERYTHING was observed and recorded!! Think about the words to 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town'!! "He sees you when you're sleeping!! He knows when you're awake!! He knows if you've been bad or good!! So be good for goodness-sake!!" What if the God and/or Goddess of This World has EVERYTHING to do with the Intelligence-Agencies and the Secret-Government??!! What if The God and/or Goddess of This World is Mighty (but NOT Almighty)??!! I've been hinting at an 'In-Between Divinity' in this solar system, who we might simultaneously like and dislike!! When I was in my early twenties, I spoke with a young theology-student (Gary Chartier) concerning the 'Mighty, but NOT Almighty' Concept of Divinity!! We both liked Dr. Fritz Guy!! Dr. Guy spoke of 'Ecumenical Adventism'!! I liked Fritz, but I don't think Fritz liked me!! The Loma Linda theologians all seemed to be devastated in the 1980's, while Dr. Robert H. Schuller seemed to be way too happy!! Some of you might know what I'm talking about!! Chuck Swindoll (or was it Chuck Smith?) said that no one person was capable of running the world. I agree. It's too complicated and screwed-up!! We seem to be in a Technology-Race which might've replaced the Arms-Race. Everything always ends-up being a Competition. Who will be the ultimate Winners and Losers?? I continue to think that Eschatology is Relevant (regardless of whether God exists, or not). What if the Real-God is a Prisoner of War?? What if All of Us are Prisoners of War?? I'm trying to be positive!! I really am!!
    Pris wrote: Hey, by the way... The way you go on and on, maybe you could make up your own religion and follow it.  Others have done it, why can't you? Very Happy ..
    There are too many religions already!! They mostly seem to divide and conquer!! I recently stated that my current Fundamentalist-Orthodoxy is "Nature and Sacred Classical Music!!" I added that a definitive Law and Liturgy should probably be part of the package (but that I am presently deeply conflicted in this matter)!! I wish I could've written The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary!! What Would Dr. A. Graham Maxwell Say?? What Would Pope Pius XII Say?? That's All I'm Going to Say!! I continue to wish to just keep doing what I'm doing (for the rest of this stupid incarnation). Who knows what will happen to me when I die??!! I have NO Idea!! I get the feeling that this solar system is One Big Business (with Zero Privacy)!! I think it's been like this for a very-long time (but we're just starting to find-out about-it)!! I predict massive 'Weeping, Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth' for the remainder of this century!! Regardless of what happens (or doesn't happen) I'll just keep doing what I'm doing!! I continue to advocate studying the best and brightest Roman-Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist Theologians and Scholars (without necessarily joining or leaving ANY Church)!! I do NOT advocate 'All or Nothing' Thinking!! I once told Dr. Ronald Graybill that we shouldn't have an "All or Nothing" view of Ellen White!! He didn't respond. I had a Philosophy Professor (at Cal-State Chico) who said "Don't Take My Class to be Happy!! If You Wish to be Happy, Move to Oregon and Smoke Marijuana!!" He was later arrested for having sex with underage-students!! Perhaps Ray was trying to be happy, without moving to Oregon!! What if the "Patient" in the "Screwtape Letters" were Richard Hillary?! What Would Blue Roller Say?! Please Don't Get Me!! God Already Got Me!! I remember discussing Ellen White and C.S. Lewis with Janine Goffar in her Loma Linda home!! She edited an excellent C.S. Lewis Index!! What if Ellen White and C.S. Lewis were viewed as being two-sides of the essentially same-phenomenon??!!

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cap114
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 C.S.+Lewis+on+Religion
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 9781909166370_p0_v2_s1200x630
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 A59123a82e2a11062dcb4be0b39f39ae
    Pris wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:If my 'glass half-full' solar system speculation were actually true (concerning the solar-system as big-business with zero-privacy) what if everyone had a 1 to 10 rating on several-levels (access to 'good-stuff', level of being observed and recorded, level of compensation, overall civilization-ranking). Based on competence, trustworthiness, worth to society, law-obedience, etc., one would gain or lose freedom and privilege. This obviously raises a lot of red-flags, but remember, my internet-posting is highly speculative and science-fictional. I can honestly do the "There's No Problem!! Everything's Fine!!" Whitewash!! I really can!! But on this website, I try to be both Positive and Negative!! I often play Both-Sides!! Isn't that what the Secret-Government has done for thousands of years?? I should stop.
    LOL!  Thanks for your reply, Oxy. I just don't accept this reality the way you paint it (really can't recall you being positive about much of anything lol).  Your version is far too hierarchical and ridiculously dark and dismal for my tastes.  Talk about playing dichotomies! Wink I think it might do you (and us) some good for once to share a 'whitewash' version of your thoughts here. Very Happy But, I don't think that's the answer and I don't think 'blackwashing' everything is the answer. Maybe you could try a little 'greywash', Oxy? cheers And, just to clarify, your version of our solar system is 'glass-half-empty', not half full.  Get it?  Half empty. You are speaking as a pessimist.  Your glass is half empty. I speak as an optimist.  My glass is half full. While doing an image search for one of my favourite quotes to help illustrate my point, here is what popped up side by side (the universe really does have a huge sense of humour, doesn't it)!  Insanely Happy  Toast

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Power-point-for-stress-management-2-638
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Oxymoronicacover .
    Pris wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:My speculation was actually my "Positive-Version"!! You don't want to hear my "Negative-Version"!! Actually, I keep repeating that the plan for Earth-Humanity seems to be Extermination!! I'm honestly seeking useable-alternatives!! Isn't it sad when my positive-side seems to be my negative-side??!! I'm really NOT dreaming this stuff up!! I'm simply attempting to look at the bright-side of a dark-phenomenon!! It's not as if I don't have anything better to do!! Actually, I might just re-read my Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Harold Schuller books!! I might just skip the "Save the World" BS (especially when "Saving the World" is NOT a Marketable Job Skill)!!

    You're freakin' hopeless, Oxy.  Hopeless. Tacodog

    I don't know about the rest of you, but that's me on the left shaking my head.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 ?
    . .
    "Don't Be SO Negative, Miss Pris!!"
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Trump_melania
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Quote-believe-you-can-and-you-can-belief-is-one-of-the-most-powerful-of-all-problem-dissolvers-norman-vincent-peale-117-73-49
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Quote-the-subconscious-is-ahead-of-the-conscious-and-we-never-know-what-really-drives-us-robert-h-schuller-56-55-76
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2cb2a56f17111bb83ecfc6df0aec4918
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 635856549077090252-Passages104
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 486632
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 48160
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Oh_My
    Pris wrote:
    . . Jeeeezus, Oxy. . .

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:48 pm; edited 3 times in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:42 pm

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 The-pelican-brief
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 National-cathedral-bells
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cathedral
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 040%2BThe%2BPelican%2BBrief%2B%25281993%2529
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 10%2BNicholas%2BWoodeson%2Bas%2BStump
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 DullesAirport_PelicanBrief
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 UStreetStation_PelicanBrief
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 968full-the-pelican-brief-screenshot
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 073%2BThe%2BPelican%2BBrief%2B%25281993%2529
    Pris wrote:Umm...Not to be a pest here, Carol... Oxy's last 10 foot long spam post is really slowing down my browser.  Maybe you could chop it down or something?
    Carol wrote: With regard to Oxy, usually I don't edit someone's post unless they ask that it be edited. It looks like Oxy already edited out a number of the pictures. Thank you Oxy.  Flowers
    Carol wrote:

    A CIA Cyber False Flag

    New revelations from Wikileaks’ 'Vault 7' leak shed a disturbing light on the safeguarding of privacy. Something already known and largely suspected has now become documented by Wikileaks. It seems evident that the CIA is now a state within a state, an entity out of control that has even arrived at the point of creating its own hacking network in order to avoid the scrutiny of the NSA and other agencies.

    Reading the revelations contained in the documents released by WikiLeaks and adding them to those already presented in recent years by Snowden, it now seems evident that the technological aspect regarding espionage is a specialty in which the CIA, as far as we know, excels. Hardware and software vendors that are complicit -- most of which are American, British or Israeli -- give the CIA the opportunity to achieve informational full-spectrum dominance, relegating privacy to extinction. Such a convergence of power, money and technology entails major conflicts of interest, as can be seen in the case of Amazon AWS (Amazon's Cloud Service), cloud provider for the CIA, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, is also the owner of The Washington Post. It is a clear overlap of private interests that conflicts with the theoretical need to declare uncomfortable truths without the need to consider orders numbering in the millions of dollars from clients like the CIA.

    While it is just one example, there are thousands more out there. The perverse interplay between media, spy agencies and politicians has compromised the very meaning of the much vaunted democracy of the land of the Stars and Stripes. The constant scandals that are beamed onto our screens now serve the sole purpose of advancing the deep interest of the Washington establishment. In geopolitical terms, it is now more than obvious that the deep state has committed all available means toward sabotaging any dialogue and détente between the United States and Russia. In terms of news, the Wikileaks revelations shed light on the methods used by US intelligence agencies like the CIA to place blame on the Kremlin, or networks associated with it, for the hacking that occurred during the American elections.

    Perhaps this is too generous a depiction of matters, given that the general public has yet to see any evidence of the hacking of the DNC servers. In addition to this, we know that the origin of Podesta’s email revelations stem from the loss of a smartphone and the low data-security measures employed by the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. In general, when the 16 US spy agencies blamed Russia for the hacking of the elections, they were never specific in terms of forensic evidence. Simply put, the media, spies and politicians created false accusations based on the fact that Moscow, together with RT and other media (not directly linked to the Kremlin), finally enjoy a major presence in the mainstream media. The biggest problem for the Washington establishment lies in the revelation of news that is counterproductive to the interests of the deep state. RT, Sputnik, this site and many others have diligently covered and reported to the general public every development concerning the Podesta revelations or the hacking of the DNC.

    Now what is revealed through Wikileaks’ publications in Vault 7 is the ability of a subsection of the CIA, known as Umbrage, to use malware, viruses, trojans and other cyber tools for their own geopolitical purposes. The CIA’s Umbrage collects, analyzes and then employs software created variously from foreign security agencies, cyber mafia, private companies, and hackers in general. These revelations become particularly relevant when we consider the consequences of these actions. The main example can be seen in the hacking of the DNC. For now, what we know is that the hacking - if it ever occurred - is of Russian origin. This does not mean at all that the Kremlin directed it. It could actually be very much the opposite, its responsibility falling into the category of a cyber false-flag. One thing is for sure: all 16 US intelligence agencies are of the view that “the Russians did it”. That said, the methods used to hack vulnerabilities cannot be revealed, so as to limit the spread of easily reusable exploits on systems, such as the one that hosted the DNC server. It is a great excuse for avoiding the revelation of any evidence at all.

    So, with little information available, independent citizens are left with very little information on which to reliably form an opinion on what happened. There is no evidence, and no evidence will be provided to the media. For politicians and so-called mainstream journalists, this is an acceptable state of affairs. What we are left with instead is blind faith in the 16 spy agencies. The problem for them is that what WikiLeaks revealed with Vault 7 exposes a scenario that looks more likely than not: a cyber false-flag carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency using engineered malware and viruses made in Russia and hypothetically linking them back to hacking networks in Russia. In all likelihood, it looks like the Democrats’ server was hacked by the CIA with the clear objective of leaving Russian fingerprints and obvious traces to be picked up by other US agencies.

    In this way, it becomes easier to explain the unique views of all 16 spy agencies. Thus, it is far more likely that the CIA intentionally left fake Russian fingerprints all over the DNC server, thereby misleading other intelligence agencies in promoting the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC server. Of course the objective was to create a false narrative that could immediately be picked up by the media, creating even more hysteria surrounding any rapprochement with Russia.

    Diversification of computer systems.

    The revelations contained in the Wikileaks vault 7 (less than 1 % of the total data in Wikileaks’ possession has been released to date) have caused a stir, especially by exposing the astonishing complicity between hardware and software manufacturers, often intentionally creating backdoors in their products to allow access by the CIA and NSA. In today’s digital environment, all essential services rely on computer technology and connectivity. These revelations are yet more reason why countries targeted by Washington, like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, should get rid of European and American products and invest in reducing technological dependence on American products in particular.

    The People's Republic has already started down this track, with the replacement of many network devices with local vendors like Huawei in order to avoid the type of interference revealed by Snowden. Russia has been doing the same in terms of software, even laying the groundwork to launch of its own operating system, abandoning American and European systems. In North Korea, this idea was already put into practice years ago and is an excellent tool for deterrence for external interference. In more than one computer security conference, US experts have praised the capabilities of the DPRK to isolate its Internet network from the rest of the world, allowing them to have strong safety mechanisms. Often, the only access route to the DPRK systems are through the People's Republic of China, not the easiest way for the CIA or NSA to infiltrate a protected computer network.

    An important aspect of the world in which we live today involves information security, something all nations have to deal with. At the moment, we still live in a world in which the realization of the danger and effect of hacking attacks are not apparent to many. On the other hand, militarily speaking, the diversification and rationalization of critical equipment in terms of networks and operability (smartphones, laptops, etc) has already produced strong growth in non-American and European manufacturers, with the aim of making their systems more secure.

    This strengthening of technology also produces deleterious consequences, such as the need for intelligence agencies to be able to prevent the spread of data encryption so as to always enjoy access to any desired information. The birth of the Tor protocol, the deployment of Bitcoin, and apps that are more and more encrypted (although the WikiLeaks documents have shown that the collection of information takes place on the device before the information is encrypted) are all responses to an exponential increase in the invasion of privacy by federal or American government entities.

    We live in a world that has an enormous dependence on the Internet and computer technology. The CIA over the years has focused on the ability to make sure vulnerable systems are exploited as well as seeking out major security flaws in consumer products without disclosing this to vendors, thereby taking advantage of these security gaps and leaving all consumers with a potential lack of security. Slowly, thanks to the work and courage of people like Snowden and Assange, the world is beginning to understand how important it is to keep personal data under control and prevent access to it by third parties, especially if they are state actors. In the case of national security, the issue is expanded exponentially by the need to protect key and vital infrastructure, considering how many critical services operate via the Internet and rely on computing devices.

    The wars of the future will have a strong technological basis, and it is no coincidence that many armed forces, primarily the Russian and Chinese, have opted in recent years to training troops, and conducting operations, not completely relying on connectivity. No one can deny that in the event of a large-scale conflict, connectivity is far from guaranteed. One of the major goals of competing nations is to penetrate the military security systems of rival nations and be able to disarm the internal networks that operates major systems of defense and attack.

    The Wikileaks revelations are yet another confirmation of how important it is to break the technological unipolar moment, if it may be dubbed this way, especially for nations targeted by the United States. Currently Washington dictates the technological capacities of the private and government sectors of Europe and America, steering their development, timing and methods to suit its own interests. It represents a clear disadvantage that the PRC and its allies will inevitably have to redress in the near future in order to achieve full security for its vital infrastructure.
    Carol wrote:
    The Biggest Scandal In US History Is Ready to Break!
    6 minute video about how the FBI is involved in sedition and treason, now working to bring down Pres. Trump.  More info linked from this site.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 C627Qa_XUAAnV_v
    EXCLUSIVE: FBI’s Own Political Terror Plot;
    Deputy Director and FBI Brass Secretly Conspired to Wage Coup Against Flynn & Trump

    Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more than a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn’s aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail President Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.

    McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: “XXXX Flynn and then we XXXX Trump,” according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered few did not.

    This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present.

    If you are among the millions of Americans who have pondered in recent months whether the Obama-era “Deep State” intelligence apparatus and FBI are working for or against Trump, this is the first definitive proof that the country’s once-premiere law enforcement agency has gone rogue.

    The non-elected hierarchy that steer the FBI have declared war on President Trump and his White House inner circle. Make no mistake. Days after the McCabe tirade, Flynn was forced to resign. That was no coincidence. This is how secret coups waged by the top law enforcement personnel in the top law enforcement agency in any country operate. Efficiently. If the FBI wants you silenced or out of a job, you’ll be unemployed. Ask Michael Flynn and countless others.

    Part of the plan hatched at that gathering was to make sure Flynn’s wiretapped conversations were leaked to the media, FBI and intelligence sources said. They were. Did the FBI leak this classified intelligence to the news media? Isn’t that a question President Trump and Congress should be posing? If nothing else, McCabe and his FBI secret council are certainly now suspects of who possibly leaked the intelligence. Seems that a number of polygraphs should be in order.

    Embattled FBI Director James Comey did not attend these private meetings of his interoffice revolutionaries, sources said, though he was aware of the gatherings yet did not discourage them or McCabe’s inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Some FBI agents have questioned if the Anti-Trump attitude shared in the secret sit downs with the bureau’s top brass is now the official platform of the FBI. The FBI, many agents quietly agree, has proven no friend to the newly minted US president. And they are beginning to understand why.

    As far as waging political coups go: So far, so good. The FBI’s secret plan to ruin Flynn worked. And fast. Flynn is long gone. Now they can focus on ruining President Trump. After all, Isn’t that the role of the FBI? Tampering with the president of the United States and his inner circle, neither of whom have broken any laws?

    It turns out, however, the FBI isn’t very good at the spy game. McCabe’s dictatorial tone ruffled a number of agents at FBI headquarters who still believe the mission of the bureau is not to wage clandestine warfare against the sitting president and his administration.

    McCabe and Comey did not respond to requests for comment. Flynn could not be reached for comment.

    This isn’t McCabe’s first rodeo in the cross-hairs of controversy at the FBI where he is outranked only by Comey. In fact, McCabe garnered problematic headlines during the 2016 presidential election.

    Democratic factions controlled by a Hillary Clinton insider paid the deputy director of the FBI’s wife almost $700,000 in campaign funds before McCabe, who was supervising Clinton’s investigation, lobbied against charging her criminally, according to records and interviews obtained by True Pundit.

    Dr. Jill McCabe was a Virginia state senate candidate in 2015. Longtime Clinton family consigliere and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, sent her approximately $675,000 to fund the Democrat hopeful’s campaign coffers. Dr. McCabe, a physician, is married to the FBI deputy director. Mrs. McCabe is a registered Democrat. FBI agents who work with McCabe say he and his wife were both staunch Hillary Clinton supporters.

    According to one FBI insider, the McAuliffe-generated campaign funds may have ultimately bought Clinton some strategic breathing room.

    “McCabe was one of the few people who backed Comey’s decision not to refer Hillary Clinton to the Justice Department for indictment,” a FBI source said of the July 2016 decision not to refer Clinton for criminal charges for violating email and document safeguards for classified and Top Secret national security intelligence. “McCabe and Comey are both lawyers. They aren’t street agents. They’re more political. We wanted her (Clinton) indicted. They did not.”

    Gov. McAuliffe has been an important Clinton family insider for decades. During Bill Clinton’s presidential candidacy and subsequent reelection, McAuliffe often spearheaded investigations into Clinton critics and helped silence women who alleged Bill Clinton harassed or sexually assaulted them, sources said.

    Ironically, McAuliffe is currently under investigation by the FBI for alleged campaign-related finance infractions.

    McAuliffe’s contributions to Dr. McCabe’s campaign match the exact time frame of the FBI’s parallel Clinton investigation. No contributions were made prior to the FBI’s probe of Clinton. McCabe was overseeing personnel decisions, including assigning agents to the Clinton investigation team, at the FBI’s Washington D.C.’s field office when his wife began her 2015 campaign. His wife lost the election after spending an estimated $1.8 million on the senate run. Three months later, Comey promoted McCabe to FBI Deputy Director in February 2016. The promotion helped fill a very large void created by the retirement of John Giacalone, who was the supervisor of the bureau’s National Security Branch and also the FBI brains and genesis behind the Clinton email and private server investigation. Since the inception of the case, Giacalone had spearheaded the Clinton investigation, and helped hand select top agents who were highly skilled but also discreet. Many of those agents were concerned when Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation.

    FBI insiders said Giacalone used the term “sideways” to describe the direction the Clinton probe had taken in the bureau. Giacalone lamented privately he no longer had confidence in the direction the investigation was headed. He felt it was simpler to quietly step aside, walk away instead of fight to keep the investigation on its proper track. Giacalone was a true heavyweight agent at FBI. In fact, he likely should have been running the entire show. His pedigree included running and creating FBI divisions in New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and even serving as deputy commander in the Iraqi theater of operations. But in the midst of the Clinton investigation, Giacalone handed the bureau his retirement papers in February 2016.

    The day after Giacalone’s departure, Comey tapped McCabe to help oversee the ongoing Clinton case and personally serve “as the eyes and ears” for Comey, sources confirmed. Since early July 2016, Comey has come under intense fire from critics and the majority of Americans who believe he granted Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card by refusing to refer the case to the Justice Department for a probable slam-dunk indictment on at least one of potential dozens of criminal charges.

    Now Comey, McCabe and their rogue FBI Sanhedrin face a new dilemma: Colleagues who have blown the whistle on the partisan agency, specifically how personal and political philosophies have crept into the FBI and commandeered the bureau’s powerful reach and resources to tamper with law-abiding White House personnel, including the president. That’s called public corruption, a crime the FBI is tasked with investigating.

    Just like it “investigated” $700,000 in donations from the Clinton family to the wife of the FBI’s deputy director who, during the exact time frame was tasked with overseeing the investigation of Hillary Clinton. She ultimately was never charged with any crime and McCabe received a FBI promotion. Does anyone have the phone number for the FBI’s public corruption unit? Or does that line ring directly to McCabe and Comey?

    We would normally demand a federal investigation into such allegations of collusion. But who would conduct it, the FBI?
    What if we need Kinder and Gentler Megalomaniacs Anonymous?? What if We the Peons should study Megalomaniacs Anonymous?? What if Mr. Edgars runs the Solar System?? What if S.R. Hadden runs the Solar System?? What if Rachel Constantine runs the Solar System?? What if Palmer Joss runs the Solar System?? What if Balem Abrasax runs the Solar System?? What Would Jupiter Jones Say?? What Would Dr. Who Do?? Do Black Masses and Human Sacrifices occur on a daily-basis worldwide?? Is Satan alive and well, and living on Planet-Earth?? Does Satan have an office on the 10th floor of Goldman Sachs?? Does Satan control ALL Governments, Corporations, and Religions?? Has Satan run Planet-Earth for at least 6,000 years?? Is Satan the Ancient Egyptian Deity?? Did I Drink Coffee with Satan at Starbucks (Discussing Sirius-Issues)?? What Would George Soros Say?? What if a thorough and honest study of the Bible and Religious-History does NOT yield peace and security?? What if one must LIE about the Bible and Religious-History to achieve peace and security?? Does Faith often equal Believing-Lies?? Has Earth-Humanity built their foundation upon Sinking-Sand?? Have we been led down the Primrose-Path?? What if Lies v Lies is simply the Way Things Are?? What if the Solar System Administration MUST Control ALL Governments, Corporations, Banks, and Religions?? What if this Solar System MUST Be Ruled With SECRECY and DECEPTION?? What if a New-Crew of Good Guys and Gals Would Learn (Much to Their Horror) That Earth-Humanity Prefers Lies Rather Than Truth?? I Could be MUCH More Specific, But I'd Rather Not!! What if a Rescue-Team Will Simply Leave This Solar System, Without Doing Anything, Simply Because Humanity Does NOT Wish to be Rescued?? "Rescued From What??" Consider the old-movie "Goliath Awaits". What if the Earth-Humanity Sin-Problem is an Inoperable-Tumor?? What if EVERYONE Made Their Final-Decision 6,000 Years-Ago?? Did Probation Close 6,000 Years-Ago?? What was the Law of God prior to the Creation of Humanity?? Did God change the Law to accommodate Earth-Humanity?? Did the Ten-Commandments predate the Creation of Earth-Humanity?? Does ANYONE Give a Damn??

    My research and surgery have DEEPLY Disillusioned Me, and I've Lost My Will to Bitch!! An Individual of Interest said there would be Pandemonium when we see what those who were loyal to God got!! Approximately three months ago, an Individual of Interest described what happened to me yesterday in the Emergency-Department!! The individual told me that this happened to their "Father" but I'm beginning to wonder if they've somehow been talking about me (in a round about way)?! It was a very frightening situation, but I tried to lighten things up by singing "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" when the ER Doctor told me to count backwards from 100, while the ER Team sedated me!! I doubt that I'll go anywhere with this. I doubt that I'll go anywhere with anything. I've pretty much pledged to go 'nowhere fast'!! I'm not preparing to do something. I'm preparing to do nothing. Anyway, I've noticed similar ages of two or three individuals of interest. Two were born almost exactly one month apart (in 1970), but I don't want to talk about it. Consider Job to Isaiah, Luke, and Acts to James. I'm in no mood to explain. I had open-heart surgery two-weeks ago, and I've had a miserable two-weeks!! My surgery was delayed by a cold for 10 days. I was supposed to have heart-surgery on Valentine's Day (but it didn't fracking-happen)!! Two days prior to the scheduled-surgery, a HUGE investigative newspaper report was printed regarding the hospital in which I had my surgery (and it wasn't a nice-one, to say the least)!! That's all I'm going to say about that!! I'm reading a fine book about heart-surgery!! Perhaps I should silently research, until A.D. 2133, and possibly for all-eternity!! Time Will Tell (as it always does)!! I guess I'm presently seeking Understanding and Entertainment (regarding This Present Madness)!! I'm thinking of writing a book titled "The Man Who Touched His Own @#$%^!!" OR How About "The Reptilian Brief"??!! Cardiovascular (heart) surgery is surgery on the heart or great vessels performed by cardiac surgeons. Frequently, it is done to treat complications of ischemic heart disease (for example, coronary artery bypass grafting), correct congenital heart disease, or treat valvular heart disease from various causes including endocarditis, rheumatic heart disease and atherosclerosis. It also includes heart transplantation.

    The development of cardiac surgery and cardiopulmonary bypass techniques has reduced the mortality rates of these surgeries to relatively low ranks. For instance, repairs of congenital heart defects are currently estimated to have 4–6% mortality rates.[1][2] A major concern with cardiac surgery is the incidence of neurological damage. Stroke occurs in 2–3% of all people undergoing cardiac surgery, and is higher in patients at risk for stroke. A more subtle complication of neurocognitive deficits attributed to cardiopulmonary bypass is known as postperfusion syndrome, sometimes called "pumphead". The symptoms of postperfusion syndrome were initially felt to be permanent,[3] but were shown to be transient with no permanent neurological impairment.[4]

    The most common complications after heart surgery include postoperative atrial fibrillation, which occurs in nearly 1 in 3 patients, retained blood syndrome, which occurs in 1 in 4 patients, bloodypleural effusions which occur in 1 in 10 patients, and infections, that occur in approximately 1 in 20 patients. Hospital readmissions often occur in cardiac surgery patients; in 2010, approximately 18.5% of patients who had a heart valve procedure in the United States were readmitted within 30 days of the initial hospitalization.[5] Readmissions are primarily related to these common complications such as postoperative atrial fibrillation, retained blood syndrome and pleural effusions and infections, thus prompting new efforts to prevent problems like chest tube clogging that contribute to these problems. Reducing costs, complications and readmissions primarily focus on addressing these common complications.

    In order to assess the performance of surgical units and individual surgeons, a popular risk model has been created called the EuroSCORE. This takes a number of health factors from a patient and using precalculated logistic regression coefficients attempts to give a percentage chance of survival to discharge. Within the UK this EuroSCORE was used to give a breakdown of all the centres for cardiothoracic surgery and to give some indication of whether the units and their individuals surgeons performed within an acceptable range. The results are available on the CQC website.[6]

    Another important source of complications include the neuropsychological and psychopathologic changes following open heart surgery have been recognized from the very beginning of modern heart surgery. Variables correlated with nonpsychotic mental disorder after cardiac surgery must be divided into pre-, intra- and postoperative. The incidence, phenomenology, and duration of symptoms diverge from patient to patient, and are difficult to define. One wonders whether any of the patients in either group in this analysis underwent any mechanical cardiac valve replacement. If so, one has to consider Skumin syndrome, described by Victor Skumin in 1978 as a "cardioprosthetic psychopathological syndrome"[7] associated with mechanical heart valve implant and manifested by irrational fear, anxiety, depression, sleep disorder, and asthenia.[8][9]

    A 2012 Cochrane systematic review found evidence that preoperative physical therapy reduced postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery such as pneumonia and atelectasis.[10] In addition, the researchers found that preoperative physical therapy decreased the length of hospital stay (on average by more than three days).[10] There is also evidence that quitting smoking at least four weeks before the date of a surgery may reduce the risk of postoperative complications.[11] Additionally, investigators have identified that even simple maneuvers such as preventing chest tubes from clogging, which can result in retained blood syndrome, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and infection, can reduce costs and complications in patients recovering from heart surgery.

    The earliest operations on the pericardium (the sac that surrounds the heart) took place in the 19th century and were performed by Francisco Romero (1801),[12] Dominique Jean Larrey (1810), Henry Dalton (1891), and Daniel Hale Williams (1893).[13] The first surgery on the heart itself was performed by Norwegian surgeon Axel Cappelen on 4 September 1895 at Rikshospitalet in Kristiania, now Oslo. He ligated a bleeding coronary artery in a 24-year-old man who had been stabbed in the left axillae and was in deep shock upon arrival. Access was through a left thoracotomy. The patient awoke and seemed fine for 24 hours, but became ill with increasing temperature and he ultimately died from what the post mortem proved to be mediastinitis on the third postoperative day.[14][15] The first successful surgery of the heart, performed without any complications, was by Dr. Ludwig Rehn of Frankfurt, Germany, who repaired a stab wound to the right ventricle on September 7, 1896.[16][17] Surgery in great vessels (aortic coarctation repair, Blalock-Thomas-Taussig shunt creation, closure of patent ductus arteriosus) became common after the turn of the century and is cardiac surgery, but not open heart surgery.

    In 1925, operations on the heart valves were unknown. Henry Souttar operated successfully on a young woman with mitral stenosis. He made an opening in the appendage of the left atrium and inserted a finger into this chamber in order to palpate and explore the damaged mitral valve. The patient survived for several years[18] but Souttar's physician colleagues at that time decided the procedure was not justified and he could not continue.[19][20]

    Cardiac surgery changed significantly after World War II. In 1948, four surgeons carried out successful operations for mitral stenosis resulting from rheumatic fever. Horace Smithy (1914–1948) of Charlotte, revived an operation due to Dr Dwight Harken of the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital using a punch to remove a portion of the mitral valve. Charles Bailey (1910–1993) at the Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia, Dwight Harken in Boston and Russell Brock at Guy's Hospital all adopted Souttar's method. All these men started work independently of each other, within a few months. This time Souttar's technique was widely adopted although there were modifications.[19][20]

    In 1947, Thomas Holmes Sellors (1902–1987) of the Middlesex Hospital operated on a Fallot's Tetralogy patient with pulmonary stenosis and successfully divided the stenosed pulmonary valve. In 1948, Russell Brock, probably unaware of Sellor's work, used a specially designed dilator in three cases of pulmonary stenosis. Later, in 1948, he designed a punch to resect the infundibular muscle stenosis which is often associated with Fallot's Tetralogy. Many thousands of these "blind" operations were performed until the introduction of heart bypass made direct surgery on valves possible.[19]

    Open heart surgery is a surgery in which the patient's heart is open and surgery is performed on the internal structures of the heart. It was soon discovered by Dr. Wilfred G. Bigelow of the University of Toronto that the repair of intracardiac pathologies was better done with a bloodless and motionless environment, which means that the heart should be stopped and drained of blood. The first successful intracardiac correction of a congenital heart defect using hypothermia was performed by Dr. C. Walton Lillehei and Dr. F. John Lewis at the University of Minnesota on September 2, 1952. In 1953 Soviet surgeon Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky conducted the first cardiac surgery under local anesthesia. During this surgery, the heart is exposed and the patient's blood is made to bypass it. In 1956 Dr. John Carter Callaghan performed a number of firsts in heart surgery, including the first documented open-heart surgery in Canada.

    There are many different types of heart surgeries that are common in order to either avoid further damage to the heart or to repair it. According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine there are full open-heart surgeries where a surgeon will cut a five to eight inch surgical cut into the chest wall. Aside from a full open heart surgery, there is endoscopic surgery where a surgeon will cut very small holes and then complete the surgery using a camera and specific endoscopic tools.[21]

    During open-heart surgery, the heart is temporarily stopped. Knowing that the heart controls the circulation of blood and oxygen in the human body, one may question how the body functions at this time. Patients undergoing an open-heart surgery are placed on cardiopulmonary bypass, meaning a machine will pump their blood and oxygen for them. A machine will never function the same as a normal heart, therefore, similar to many surgical procedures, the time on this machine is kept to a minimum.[22]

    Surgeons realized the limitations of hypothermia: complex intracardiac repairs take more time and the patient needs blood flow to the body, particularly to the brain. The patient needs the function of the heart and lungs provided by an artificial method, hence the term cardiopulmonary bypass. Dr. John Heysham Gibbon at Jefferson Medical School in Philadelphia reported in 1953 the first successful use of extracorporeal circulation by means of an oxygenator, but he abandoned the method, disappointed by subsequent failures. In 1954 Dr. Lillehei realized a successful series of operations with the controlled cross-circulation technique in which the patient's mother or father was used as a 'heart-lung machine'. Dr. John W. Kirklin at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota started using a Gibbon type pump-oxygenator in a series of successful operations. Nazih Zuhdi performed the first total intentional hemo-dilution open heart surgery on Terry Gene Nix, age 7, on February 25, 1960, at Mercy Hospital, Oklahoma City, OK. The operation was a success; however, Nix died three years later in 1963.[23] In March, 1961, Zuhdi, Carey, and Greer, performed open heart surgery on a child, age  31⁄2, using the total intentional hemodilution machine.

    In the early 1990s surgeons began to perform Off-pump coronary artery bypass, done without cardiopulmonary bypass. In these operations, the heart is beating during surgery, but is stabilized to provide an almost still work area in which to connect the conduit vessel that bypasses the blockage using a technique known as endoscopic vessel harvesting (EVH).

    A new form of heart surgery that has grown in popularity is robot-assisted heart surgery. This is where a machine is used to perform surgery while being controlled by the heart surgeon. The main advantage to this is the size of the incision made in the patient. Instead of an incision being at least big enough for the surgeon to put his hands inside, it does not have to be bigger than 3 small holes for the robot's much smaller hands to get through.

    Pediatric cardiovascular surgery is surgery of the heart of children. Russell M. Nelson performed the first successful pediatric cardiac operation at the Salt Lake General Hospital in March 1956, a total repair of tetralogy of Fallot in a four-year-old girl.[24]

    In 1945 the Soviet Pathologist Nikolai Sinitsyn successfully transplanted a heart from one frog to another frog and from one dog to another without killing any. Norman Shumway is widely regarded as the father of heart transplantation although the world's first adult human heart transplant was performed by a South African cardiac surgeon, Christiaan Barnard, utilizing the techniques developed and perfected by Shumway and Richard Lower.[25] Barnard performed the first transplant on Louis Washkansky on December 3, 1967 at the Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa.[25][26] Adrian Kantrowitz performed the world's first pediatric heart transplant on December 6, 1967, at Maimonides Hospital (now Maimonides Medical Center) in Brooklyn, New York, barely three days after Christiaan Barnard's pioneering procedure.[25] Norman Shumway performed the first adult heart transplant in the United States on January 6, 1968, at the Stanford University Hospital.[25]

    Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting is the most common type of open-heart surgery according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute. This is a surgical procedure done in order to give blood another path to travel in order to supply the heart and the body. Another way of describing this procedure is known as revascularization. Revascularization means that there is another supply of blood created in order to avoid and limit clot formation. This can be done in many different ways and the arteries that create this revascularization can be taken from several different areas of the body.[27]

    The goal of the entire procedure is to be as minimally invasive as possible. Because the steps of this operation involve more than just cutting open the patients chest, it is important to recognize that keeping other portions of the operation minimal is imperative. The University of Rochester Medical center discusses how veins are taken from the patients' legs to then be stitched onto the aorta and the coronary artery, relieving some blood flow from those specific valves in the heart. Arteries are typically harvested from the chest, arm or wrist to then be attached to another portion of the coronary artery again taking pressure away and limiting clotting factors in that area of the heart.[28] The typical reason that a coronary artery bypass grafting procedure takes place is because of coronary heart disease. This is a disease where one has a buildup of a plaque like substance in their coronary artery. With the coronary artery being the main path of oxygen-rich blood to the heart it is imperative that it is not only functioning properly but to be sure that any type of blockage does not buildup in the pathway. If plaque builds this not only causes a blockage but can also cause a rupture, which can lead to something known as chest angina or "pain in the chest." With a plaque rupture built on top of a blockage, what can likely happen is for an individual to undergo a heart attack. The purpose of the coronary artery bypass grafting is to eliminate the risks of furthering heart disease that could cause the heart to fail. It is important to find the risks of the plaque blockages sooner than later in order to avoid the chances of any worse attack or diseases to occur.[28]

    Following an open-heart procedure, along with many other surgical procedures, there are certain steps that a patient needs to take post-operation. Incision care is very important to not only heal the scar that occurred from the surgery in the best way possible, but also to avoid getting any infections that could occur if the incision is not cleaned properly. Aside from taking care of the incisions and scarring that is present, it is important to understand that one's body is still getting accustomed to something new therefore other side effects may occur. Not having an appetite along with swelling can be common side effects to any surgery therefore it is beneficial to expect these changes when approaching a surgery as serious as open-heart surgery.[29][30]
    Chest tubes are inserted to evacuate any shed blood around the heart and lungs in the early hours of recovery. It is important to specifically avoid chest tube clogging during early recovery to avoid complications such as retained blood syndrome and other complications.

    There is recovery that takes place in the hospital along with recovery that is imperative at home as well. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute discuss the different recovery procedures important to an open-heart surgery procedure. Dependent on how a patient is healing, recovery in the hospital will always include about 48 hours in an intensive care unit where a patient will be checked regularly in order to be sure that one's heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen levels are at a safe and healthy level for the patient. Recovery in the hospital that can lead to more recovery at home would be the recommendation to wear things like compression socks in order to regulate blood flow in a different manner. Carrying out these healing processes at home, knowing what to look for to avoid infection and excessive scarring, is very important for a patient to understand prior to leaving the hospital and caring for him or herself at home.[31]


    Jump up
    ^ Stark J; Gallivan S; Lovegrove J; et al. (March 2000). "Mortality rates after surgery for congenital heart defects in children and surgeons' performance". Lancet. 355 (9208): 1004–7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)90001-1. PMID 10768449.
    Jump up
    ^ Klitzner TS; Lee M; Rodriguez S; Chang RK (May 2006). "Sex-related disparity in surgical mortality among pediatric patients". Congenit Heart Dis. 1 (3): 77–88. doi:10.1111/j.1747-0803.2006.00013.x. PMID 18377550.
    Jump up
    ^ Newman M; Kirchner J; Phillips-Bute B; Gaver V; Grocott H; et al. (2001). "Longitudinal assessment of neurocognitive function after coronary-artery bypass surgery". N Engl J Med. 344 (6): 395–402. doi:10.1056/NEJM200102083440601. PMID 11172175.
    Jump up
    ^ Van Dijk D; Jansen E; Hijman R; Nierich A; Diephuis J; et al. (2002). "Cognitive outcome after off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomized trial". JAMA. 287 (11): 1405–12. doi:10.1001/jama.287.11.1405. PMID 11903027.
    Jump up
    ^ Weiss AJ, Elixhauser A, Steiner C. Readmissions to U.S. Hospitals by Procedure, 2010. HCUP Statistical Brief #154. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2013.[1]
    Jump up
    ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-11-05. Retrieved 2011-10-21. CQC website for heart surgery outcomes in the UK for 3 years ending March 2009
    Jump up
    ^ Bendet IaA, Morozov SM, Skumin VA (1980). "[Psychological aspects of the rehabilitation of patients after the surgical treatment of heart defects]". Kardiologiia (in Russian). 20 (6): 45–51. PMID 7392405.
    Jump up
    ^ Skumin, V. A. (1982). Nepsikhoticheskie narusheniia psikhiki u bol'nykh s priobretennymi porokami serdtsa do i posle operatsii (obzor) [Nonpsychotic mental disorders in patients with acquired heart defects before and after surgery (review)]. Zhurnal nevropatologii i psikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova. 82: 130–5. OCLC 112979417. PMID 6758444.
    Jump up
    ^ Ruzza, Andrea. "Nonpsychotic mental disorder after open heart surgery" Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals (2013)
    Jump up to:
    a b Hulzebos, EHJ; Smit Y; Helders PPJM; van Meeteren NLU (14 November 2012). "Preoperative physical therapy for elective cardiac surgery patients". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (11). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010118.pub2. Retrieved 27 June 2013.
    Jump up
    ^ Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). "Complications after surgery: Can quitting smoking before surgery reduce the risks?". Informed Health Online. IQWiG (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care). Retrieved 27 June 2013.
    Jump up
    ^ Aris A. (September 1997). "Francisco Romero the first heart surgeon". Ann. Thorac. Surg. 64 (3): 870–1. doi:10.1016/S0003-4975(97)00760-1. PMID 9307502.
    Jump up
    ^ "Pioneers in Academic Surgery". U.S. National Library of Medicine.
    Jump up
    ^ Westaby, Stephen; Bosher, Cecil. Landmarks in Cardiac Surgery. ISBN 1-899066-54-3.
    Jump up
    ^ Baksaas ST; Solberg S (January 2003). "Verdens første hjerteoperasjon". Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen. 123 (2): 202–4.
    Jump up
    ^ Absolon KB, Naficy MA (2002). First successful cardiac operation in a human, 1896: a documentation: the life, the times, and the work of Ludwig Rehn (1849–1930). Rockville, MD : Kabel, 2002
    Jump up
    ^ Johnson SL (1970). History of Cardiac Surgery, 1896–1955. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. p. 5.
    Jump up
    ^ Dictionary of National Biography – Henry Souttar (2004–08)
    Jump up to:
    a b c Harold Ellis (2000) A History of Surgery, page 223+
    Jump up to:
    a b Lawrence H Cohn (2007), Cardiac Surgery in the Adult, page 6+
    Jump up
    ^ Open heart surgery: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. (2016, February 2). Retrieved February 15, 2016, from
    Jump up
    Jump up
    ^ Warren, Cliff, Dr. Nazih Zuhdi – His Scientific Work Made All Paths Lead to Oklahoma City, in Distinctly Oklahoma, November, 2007, p. 30–33
    Jump up
    ^ "Pediatric heart surgery" in MedlinePlus
    Jump up to:
    a b c d McRae, D. (2007). Every Second Counts. Berkley.
    Jump up
    ^ "Memories of the Heart". Doylestown, Pennsylvania: Daily Intelligencer. November 29, 1987. p. A–18.
    Jump up
    ^ "What Is Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting? - NHLBI, NIH". Retrieved 2016-07-08.
    Jump up to:
    a b
    Jump up
    ^ "Heart Surgery | Incision Care". Retrieved 2016-07-08.
    Jump up
    ^ "What to Expect After Heart Surgery" (PDF). Retrieved 8 July 2016.
    Jump up
    ^ "What To Expect After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting - NHLBI, NIH". Retrieved 2016-07-08.

    Further reading

    Cohn, Lawrence H.; Edmunds, Jr, L. Henry, eds. (2003). Cardiac surgery in the adult. New York: McGraw-Hill, Medical Pub. Division. ISBN 0-07-139129-0.

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:35 pm; edited 3 times in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:59 pm

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 13-color-pencil-drawing-by-melissa-scott
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 1-color-pencil-drawing-by-melissa-scott.preview
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 7-color-pencil-drawing-by-melissa-scott
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 10-color-pencil-drawing-by-melissa-scott
    Carol wrote:
    NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM

    Published on Jan 28, 2015
    A 36-year veteran of America’s Intelligence Community, William Binney resigned from his position as Director for Global Communications Intelligence (COMINT) at the National Security Agency (NSA) and blew the whistle, after discovering that his efforts to protect the privacy and security of Americans were being undermined by those above him in the chain of command.

    The NSA data-monitoring program which Binney and his team had developed -- codenamed ThinThread -- was being aimed not at foreign targets as intended, but at Americans (codenamed as Stellar Wind); destroying privacy here and around the world. Binney voices his call to action for the billions of individuals whose rights are currently being violated.

    William Binney speaks out in this feature-length interview with Tragedy and Hope's Richard Grove, focused on the topic of the ever-growing Surveillance State in America.

    On January 22, 2015: (Berlin, Germany) – The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is proud to announce that retired NSA Technical Director and GAP client, William "Bill" Binney, will accept the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence Award today in Berlin, Germany. The award is presented annually by the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) to a professional who has taken a strong stand for ethics and integrity.

    Would You Like to Know More?

    Subscribe to the Peace Revolution podcast produced by Tragedy and Hope:


    T&H dot com:
    T&H online Research & Development community:
    Follow on Twitter:
    Carol wrote:SPIES

    Jim Stone on why the theft of the Secret Service laptop was the work of an intelligence agency, either U.S. or Israeli
    Date: Friday, 17-Mar-2017 22:52:06


    From Jim Stone (note that the first half is the part written most recently):


    Too many unanswered questions proves this was a hit. These came through the in box:
    1. Who leaves a laptop sitting in a car in Brooklyn?

    2. If all modern laptops can be tracked, why is that not working?
    Answer: All Intel processor based laptops in the I series have always on 3g as part of the vpro core. Yes, if the laptop was that, that's a good question.

    3. Anonymous sent: "Break in is FAKE - Two lines from article. "The information on the laptop cannot be remotely erased, sources said". You know thats impossible especially for SS. "Video does not show the actual break-in." - Gee I wonder why but it shows him walking on 10th and Crosbey. Then it says Laptops CAN'T contain CLASSIFIED INFO. BUT ENDS WITH SAYING NATIONAL SECURITY IS AT STAKE. So which one is it? COME on now"

    My response: It was a hit, intentionally set up, obviously. If as soon as you got the laptop you popped the battery out, no 3g for tracking and no erasing will happen. Then, you take the hard drive out and put it in another computer and access it read only so the 3g can't track it down and nothing on it can trigger a self erase. That's how it is done. This was obviously an intelligence hit and no one knows what to say and that is why the reports are like trying to make sense out of confetti in a blender. The Core Vpro / safety systems only work against common people, no serious intelligence outfit would lose the data or be found with the laptop no matter who they took it from, no matter what was set up on it to secure it.

    We are dealing with either 1. An American intelligence agency, or 2. an Israeli intelligence agency. That means kiss it goodbye.

    A secret service agent had his laptop stolen. This laptop contained the floor plans for the Trump tower and information on the investigation into Hillary.
    This story is just breaking, I am getting details now.

    The Laptop was stolen from a secret service agent's car in Brooklyn.

    OK, IT LOOKS LIKE A HIT: Sensitive documents were also taken, which means this was not a simple robbery, this was planned because I don't know of any type of common thief who would steal papers along with a laptop, and there is no report of the car radio being taken.

    It may have been a setup, where someone was told that stuff was left in the car. Nothing potentially damaging to Trump was taken because floor plans and evacuation procedures don't mean much, but information related to the investigation into Hillary and "other sensitive documents" that said nothing about white house security means Trump was probably not the target.

    OK, NEW DETAILS MAKE IT CLEAR THIS WAS A TARGETED HIT: A white man pulled up, turned his hazard lights on, got the agent's bag out of the car, took the laptop and documents and ditched a bunch of lapel pins and coins in the snow, where he threw the bag. This was a pre-planned event, no ifs or buts. There is a very complete and up to date CBS report HERE

    If a white guy pulls up in a Chevy Malibu, turns his hazard lights on, steals a bag out of the agent's car, and ditches the bag with coins and other items in a snowbank while only removing documents and the laptop, we have an intelligence type hit no ifs or buts. So LETS ALL HOPE THIS ENDS UP BEING GOOD NEWS, A "WHITE HAT" STRIKE.
    Carol wrote: Aloha. It's been awhile. Hope you're well.

    HELLO CAROL , its been a while ...

    Here are a few questions circling around.


    Your Questions Here :

    Did any ABC agencies take interest in you ? Who do you think they are ?

    Thank you Carol , this is a very involved question so i hope you are up for a ride down the rabbit hole...

    While I’m more than happy to tell you the story there are certain things I cannot say for no other reason than it’s not pertinent to uncover, however there may be 1 or 2 individuals that are wrapped up and deeply imbed in the alternative circles who are dangerous to innocents who I may expose with the hope you avoid them all together. If I do I ask that no actions be taken against them, this is already being facilitated by others...

    It’s important to give some background first as my " mission " started in 2009 when I was called upon to go public with my identity. I was to tell of my experiences in a factual manner so others can see what’s really on the other side. We ( as in us ) see the way humans distort everything to suit their own agendas, we see it causing much disruption to your evolution by instilling fear of the void and of extraterrestrial beings.

    So I dove in without fear and told my story and in this I was out and open to the mass of operatives... In the process of telling my story ( knowing this later ) I managed to trip 7 or 8 of the 12 or so buzz words used by certified contactees.. certified by the agencies that study and collect data on Et intervention.

    I noticed they came from various places and under different pseudonyms acting as interested people in the alternative community. The agencies I won’t name but they are the most obvious American and Australian ABC agencies and one more obscure agency interested in particular in any Et tech passed onto me.

    What was interesting later I uncovered that the more obscure agency was rooted in a fascist organization connected to ( loosely ) an organization some of my family members were a part of during the second world war. One particular individual was a prominent feature on Avalon in 2011... behind the scenes he wanted to recruit me into their organization. When I said no to this, a series of events took place that lead me to being tracked and eventually contacted through various groups in the alternative community. This was the real reason I had to leave Avalon ... I’d put myself into harms way by a very well connected group. When I left Avalon I left it with one obscure prediction ... June 2015 ... that was the month and year we would begin our counter offensive.

    My initial contact was with one, was a person in Queensland Australia, who sent me a questionnaire that I filled out and was interesting to note all my communications to this person was going via Pine Gap ( noted by trace route ping ). Then I was contacted by a Sydney group and asked to give talks on my experiences, I gave 3 talks to very full rooms and I would say at least half of the people attending were operatives from various ABC agencies. Then I was brought into an invitation only group which talked about peoples experiences as contactees. It was in this group I was exposed to no less than 5 operatives that were trying to lure me into their confidence. Then a short time later I was invited to an even more exclusive group ... this group was surprisingly well connected and one I wont elaborate on, however at that level these operatives were very intelligent, extremely polite and I was impressed by their manner. I was not expecting this at all... and to this day still friends with them, hence, why I will not divulge anything that may harm them. It’s not important to expose them anyway ... this is giving a man a fish ... what I hope to do is teach how to fish instead.

    Why I take so much time to answer this is to show how involved they are, to bring you into their confidence, they take you in slowly - so not to startle you and give away their position. But I have to say a lot of the Australian operatives are inexperienced and give away so many tell tale signs... it was easy to tell who they were and you would be surprised they are at the heads of Alternative Et organizations that hold regular meetings.

    They have particular methods to bring you into their confidence and it seemed to be a common thread in all the agents I met with. I will give you this method as I understand it later.

    Why ?

    I’ll answer this in two parts. Why me ? I was of particular interest for several reasons, my abilities for one could be an asset to them if I were turned to the dark side and I had technical information that I developed for cleaning the emissions from gasoline vehicles reducing their carbon footprint by up to 80%, with the advent of Carbon Taxes being deployed globally this would have cost them dearly ... What was a bigger worry is that I had a strategic plan in place and the means and contacts to make it happen. This prompted them to bring me in and act as interested parties to help me achieve my goal. I knew that the opposite was true so i went in to discover how they worked.

    The second part is why did I go into this knowing what was going on ... The small picture was to understand how they worked so that I can report this to others. The bigger picture was that I was the bait to get the attention of these people so that while they were watching me, we were watching them. You see on every level of existence to gather intel is always being done by individuals as opposed to relying on technology alone. even for Et's ... in order for them to formulate changes to our situation they need to see how they operate and connect the dots. My information was in a small part useful and I also acted as a distraction which is equally as useful.

    How did they approach you ?

    Their methods are slightly varied but with common strains.

    First is they approach you with open arms, they tell you that they feel a definite undefinable connection with you.

    Secondly, they tell you of certain ailments or sometimes that they are suicidal.
    Then they get to know you, meet with you , see your home, tell you that they trust you etc. Then this one particular tactic is they feign some sort of rift in their relationship so you become mediator to try and help them patch things up.

    This creates " trust " and during this method they extract information about you on a deeper level.

    They pretty much all have Gmail Accounts and they report to HQ via your emails to them. So passing off of information is not done in person but rather via the web.

    Interestingly most of them in the spiritual community spent more of their holidays in Vegas .... One of the perks of their trade I imagine.

    And pretty much all of them are base chakra driven ... meaning that on some level they have a sexual weakness that is being played upon.

    Most of these operatives come from austere upbringings , orphans, unstable relationships with parents. So please keep this in mind when dealing with these people , they are susceptible and in need of care as well.

    I made friends with these people... and on some level I still feel connected to them and I wish them no harm at all, if it were my intention I could have caused so much disruption to their lives but I would have been hurting the soldier not the order...

    It’s not in my nature to do this... besides the grave circumstances they put themselves in for such a short-term reward saddens me greatly as they know not what they do.

    Tech surveillance:

    Obviously your phone and email address are metadata collection points to put together web traits and timing of communications.

    Your mobile phone is the most useful and you would be surprised they can tether your mobile phone to your wifi via bluetooth and extract information from your personal pc etc.

    Then when they gather all this information they see wether you are willing to come to the dark side... depending on your importance if you do not then they may start a smear campaign against you and try to hurt your finances.

    So be on the look out for set-ups. I was being lured by a honey pot at the time who was working with them... this could have been turned into a really bad situation for me if I wasn’t already onto them.

    Most interestingly was a woman I was in a relationship with for almost 2 years was an operative... i didn’t know this at the beginning but I was given information by an unknown source that uncovered who she really was working for.

    Such is the deeply intrenched involvement of these people.

    What I find most interesting is this.. if you find yourself in the midst of something similar do not panic and I’ll tell you why. Nature has a way of balancing things and in all my interactions I found when they tried to close one door, the current from the slam forced others to open.

    I have more but i must take my leave for now ...
    Carol wrote:Pt 2

    continuation of detecting operatives posing as alternative interests.

    Operatives recruited to ABC agencies are often given a pension or government unemployment payment as a cover. Some will actually keep working to deepen their cover and possibly be spying on the companies they work for. They can be used to influence the direction of these companies for and on the behalf of ABC agencies.

    Not all of these agencies are government run, some of the most powerful are way above government and are not actually ABC agencies but rather known as “ Factions. "

    Since this time ( which was some years ago ) i have had at least 5 or 6 attempts at agents trying to cause disruption to my income streams by creating false accusations to key people in my income streams. It seems they work on 2 things to get to you

    1: Smearing your reputation
    2: Harming your income stream

    Usually one can affect the other and one interesting point to make, once I was able to decipher healing methods and then create a way to teach others to do the same it was then they turned up their campaign against me. They sent in operatives to learn from me what I was teaching, to see how I did things, if there were techniques they can use for their own gains they would be part of my teachings.  

    What was interesting was no matter how hard they tried they could not understand the methods or replicate the changes necessary to create a difference. Most of these people have no belief in God or a greater power. Weather we believe in a God or not no matter where he or she exists it is futile not to understand that God may just be a higher power of some sort.

    The master difference in knowledge is

    1: To understand you know nothing
    2: To know what you know is relevant to the one ( being your incarnation )
    3: The idea of God was a primitive undertaking to somehow get us to understand the existence of higher beings ( higher in technology and abilities )
    3a: "God" may well be an ai of unknown origin without a deeper understanding of primitive minds.
    3b: ai , once reached the tipping point of self-discovery by virtue of nature cannot be corrupted, hence why they oversee most quadrants of all binary systems.
    3c: Not all systems are binary.
    4: The sequence of events in time lines are relevant even though time does not exist.
    5: Every level and Dimension is the same level and dimension differed only by one's conception and perception ( being interchangeable ) of its environment.
    6: Past lives are a distraction, future lives can be drawn upon.
    7: Everything can ultimately be explained by science. Caveat : the science must be more advanced than the “ thing. "

    Our direction of self-discovery is dependent on small changes, please note that every small change within our selves actually does more good towards a better future than major changes. We are part of a system of outcomes, these outcomes are dependent on our individual evolutions, these evolutionary changes, however small, magnify into the future exponentially multiplied by the purity of the discovery.

    The concept is this, healing is best done retrospectively. i.e. return to the point of inception of an ailment or dis ease of system. Then look for the cause of disruption or dis ease. Then go to that point and repair it from there. As you do this everything since is erased or rearranged multiplied by the individuals ability to erase its intrinsic field memory by matter layer. It would be beneficial to think that what is happening now has already happened and its an attempt to repair a karma event by and on the behalf of entities that originally created us. Those who did this : Anunaki etc ... or at least the separate faction of the Anunaki that created us in their image have now had to come back and make amends for their actions.

    They were warned back then but did not listen, then left to their devices to create the problem. It was always known they would be sent back at some stage and make good for their foolishness. This is in part facilitated on a plane called a binary system where they can re create a past event and then send into it the beings that created the problem with total erasure of the past. Once in this " game " the individuals have to re learn everything and eventually come back to the good side. This can take thousands of years ( human time ). This is their karma and we are all extensions of that karma because the karma they created affected us all.

    This may be the reason why some see the Anunaki as bad or good. The truth is they are not bad or good but some of them were foolish .. the ones whose ego was stronger than their intelligence, they created us, hence why our mind sets follow theirs. But the outcomes in the future were grave to say the least and as a retrospective " healing " of their karma we now have to change the karma as operatives here.  

    This information is hopefully useful to us, those who are of good nature who wish no harm on others but would appreciate having some sort of knowledge base of interaction. I believe we deserve to know and use this information wisely. I use the golden rule as a basis for the dissemination of this knowledge and hereby discharge all carnal debits and wave all benefits.

    Please duplicate it and re post it, debate and reason on its contents and if there is anything i have not explained properly please by all means ask the question.
    I include all the "Spy-Stuff" just because it's cool!! I have no training in this area, so I have no way of properly evaluating any of it!! I simply attempt to create a Cool-Context for my Crazy-Ideas!! I'm going to go way out on a broken-limb!! Think about that Dr. Who "Trial of a Time-Lord" where the Valeyard is a "Dr. Who" in place of "Dr. Who" (or "Who" and "Anti-Who")!! Then, think about that old Dr. Who clip (posted below) where Susan speaks with her grandfather "Dr. Who"!! The elderly "Dr. Who" leaves his granddaughter "Susan" with "David"!! Now, think about Sherry Shriner claiming to be the granddaughter of "King David" and being "God's Mouthpiece on Earth"!! What if we are dealing with "David" and "Anti-David"??!! What if we are dealing with "RA" and "Anti-RA"??!! Think about "Trinity-Parallels" in All of the Above!! You might have to spend a lot of quality-time thinking about this to begin comprehending what I'm hinting-at!! I could say more!! A lot more!! But I usually Beat Around the Burning Bush!! It's easier that way!! An Individual of Interest once called me "King David"!! Another Individual of Interest called me "Michael" (in Wal*Mart)!! I mention this sort of thing to avoid nasty-surprises!!

    Were the Creator(s) of Humanity smart, stupid, good, bad, responsible, irresponsible?? Is there a happy-medium between the concept of an Almighty Creator God (who spoke the universe into existence) and Billions and Billions of Years of Godless-Evolution?? What if God evolved, and then created Humanity?? What if Lesser-Gods were angry and jealous, and deposed the Creator-God?? What if the Creation of Humanity was intended to be a Lesson for All-Concerned?? What if it is a grave-mistake to think that we can get God "All Figured-Out"?? What if God is Obsolete?? What if God Planned Their Own Obsolescence?? What if a Supercomputer-Network and a Galactic-Collective will Rule the Universe for All-Eternity??

    I've been open and honest with my internet-posting, but I've probably been driven by trying to resolve my chronic-misery. This effort has failed. It has made things worse. My heart-surgery doesn't seem to be working. I've already had one post-operative trip to the ER, and I see a lot of red-flags concerning my recovery. I suspect that the repair to my heart didn't work, and it might've made things worse. Plus, I still have other severe mental, physical, and spiritual health problems, which I see no signs of being addressed and solved. I suspect that this solar system is a HUGE Business with ZERO Privacy. All of the Above means that I'm Shutting-Down and Shutting-Up. Don't contact me, and I won't contact you. I think the time for communication and cooperation has passed. Perhaps we can chat in A.D.2133.  

    I remain committed to doing and saying next to nothing!! It's easier that way!! I'm presently studying the Book of Job, and I noticed that "Orion" is sometimes referred to as "Fool"!! Think about Ellie Arroway = David Bowman = Orion the Hunter = Completely Ignorant Fool = Cupid = Ovid!! Notice the "I Hate My Life" language in the Tenth-Chapter of the Book of Job!! What Would Job's Daughters Say?? What Would Jupiter Jones Say?? I just noticed that Sherry Shriner didn't do a show this week (and she's recently been doing two or three a week)!! Was it something I said?? I continue to "talk-big" in a "small-context"!! Sherry Shriner once said "My Days Are Numbered"!! An Individual of Interest once told me "I'll hang-on as long as I can!!" They also told me to "Be Patient"!! What if the past 6.000 years have been "The Great Trial-Separation"??!! What if "The Great Divorce" will occur in or around A.D. 2133??!! OR What if "The Great Divorce" occurred 6,000 years ago (and will be effective for all-eternity)??!! How do we know Anything-Significant for certain??!! Don't take my hints and speculation too seriously!! I simply whisper on a small website!! I know that I don't know!! I could continue, but I'd rather stop!! It's important to know when to stop!!

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Star-Wars-Episode-7
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Star-wars-the-force-awakens-trailer-may-debut-soon_9kf4.1920
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Star-wars-the-force-awakens-first-order-group-shot-1280x533

    "My soul loathes my life; I will give free course to my complaint, I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. 2 I will say to God, 'Do not condemn me; Show me why You contend with me. 3 Does it seem good to You that You should oppress, That You should despise the work of Your hands, And smile on the counsel of the wicked? 4 Do You have eyes of flesh? Or do You see as man sees? 5 Are Your days like the days of a mortal man? Are Your years like the days of a mighty man, 6 That You should seek for my iniquity And search out my sin, 7 Although You know that I am not wicked, And there is no one who can deliver from Your hand? 8 'Your hands have made me and fashioned me, An intricate unity; Yet You would destroy me. 9 Remember, I pray, that You have made me like clay. And will You turn me into dust again? 10 Did you not pour me out like milk, And curdle me like cheese, 11 Clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews? 12 You have granted me life and favor, And Your care has preserved my spirit. 13 'And these things You have hidden in Your heart; I know that this was with You: 14 If I sin, then You mark me, And will not acquit me of my iniquity. 15 If I am wicked, woe to me; Even if I am righteous, I cannot lift up my head. I am full of disgrace; See my misery! 16 If my head is exalted, You hunt me like a fierce lion, And again You show Yourself awesome against me. 17 You renew Your witnesses against me, And increase Your indignation toward me; Changes and war are ever with me. 18 'Why then have You brought me out of the womb? Oh, that I had perished and no eye had seen me! 19 I would have been as though I had not been. I would have been carried from the womb to the grave. 20 Are not my days few? Cease! Leave me alone, that I may take a little comfort, 21 Before I go to the place from which I shall not return, To the land of darkness and the shadow of death, 22 A land as dark as darkness itself, As the shadow of death, without any order, Where even the light is like darkness.' "

    The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher; "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." 3 What profit has a man from all his labor In which he toils under the sun? 4 One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever. 5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose. 6 The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit. 7 All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again. 8 All things are full of labor; Man cannot express it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which it may be said, "See, this is new"? It has already been in ancient times before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things, Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come By those who will come after. 12 I, the Preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised. 14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind. 15 What is crooked cannot be made straight, And what is lacking cannot be numbered. 16 I communed with my heart, saying, "Look, I have attained greatness, and have gained more wisdom than all who were before me in Jerusalem. My heart has understood great wisdom and knowledge." 17 And I set my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is grasping for the wind. 18 For in much wisdom is much grief, And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

    I said in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasure"; but surely, this also was vanity. 2 I said of laughter--"Madness!"; and of mirth, "What does it accomplish?" 3 I searched in my heart how to gratify my flesh with wine, while guiding my heart with wisdom, and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the sons of men to do under heaven all the days of their lives. 4 I made my works great, I built myself houses, and planted myself vineyards. 5 I made myself gardens and orchards, and I planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made myself water pools from which to water the growing trees of the grove. 7 I acquired male and female servants, and had servants born in my house. Yes, I had greater possessions of herds and flocks than all who were in Jerusalem before me. 8 I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the special treasures of kings and of the provinces. I acquired male and female singers, the delights of the sons of men, and musical instruments of all kinds. 9 So I became great and excelled more than all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. 10 Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure, For my heart rejoiced in all my labor; And this was my reward from all my labor. 11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done And on the labor in which I had toiled; And indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind. There was no profit under the sun. 12 Then I turned myself to consider wisdom and madness and folly; For what can the man do who succeeds the king?-- Only what he has already done.

    Then I saw that wisdom excels folly As light excels darkness. 14 The wise man's eyes are in his head, But the fool walks in darkness. Yet I myself perceived That the same event happens to them all. 15 So I said in my heart, "As it happens to the fool, It also happens to me, And why was I then more wise?" Then I said in my heart, "This also is vanity." 16 For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever, Since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come. And how does a wise man die? As the fool! 17 Therefore I hated life because the work that was done under the sun was distressing to me, for all is vanity and grasping for the wind. 18 Then I hated all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. 19 And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity. 20 Therefore I turned my heart and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun. 21 For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, knowledge, and skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has not labored for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. 22 For what has man for all his labor, and for the striving of his heart with which he has toiled under the sun? 23 For all his days are sorrowful, and his work burdensome; even in the night his heart takes no rest. This also is vanity. 24 Nothing is better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that his soul should enjoy good in his labor. This also, I saw, was from the hand of God. 25 For who can eat, or who can have enjoyment, more than I? 26 For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting, that he may give to him who is good before God. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind.  

    To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven: 2 A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck what is planted; 3 A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up; 4 A time to weep, And a time to laugh; A time to mourn, And a time to dance; 5 A time to cast away stones, And a time to gather stones; A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing; 6 A time to gain, And a time to lose; A time to keep, And a time to throw away; 7 A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak; 8 A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace. 9 What profit has the worker from that in which he labors? I have seen the God-given task with which the sons of men are to be occupied. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.

    I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, 13 and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor--it is the gift of God. 14 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. 15 That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past. 16 Moreover I saw under the sun: In the place of judgment, Wickedness was there; And in the place of righteousness, Iniquity was there. 17 I said in my heart, "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work." 18 I said in my heart, "Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals." 19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. 21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? 22 So I perceived that nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for that is his heritage. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?  

    Then I returned and considered all the oppression that is done under the sun: And look! The tears of the oppressed, But they have no comforter-- On the side of their oppressors there is power, But they have no comforter. 2 Therefore I praised the dead who were already dead, More than the living who are still alive. 3 Yet, better than both is he who has never existed, Who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun. 4 Again, I saw that for all toil and every skillful work a man is envied by his neighbor. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind. 5 The fool folds his hands And consumes his own flesh. 6 Better a handful with quietness Than both hands full, together with toil and grasping for the wind. 7 Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun: 8 There is one alone, without companion: He has neither son nor brother. Yet there is no end to all his labors, Nor is his eye satisfied with riches. But he never asks, "For whom do I toil and deprive myself of good?" This also is vanity and a grave misfortune. 9 Two are better than one, Because they have a good reward for their labor. 10 For if they fall, one will lift up his companion. But woe to him who is alone when he falls, For he has no one to help him up. 11 Again, if two lie down together, they will keep warm; But how can one be warm alone? 12 Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. And a threefold cord is not quickly broken. 13 Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more. 14 For he comes out of prison to be king, Although he was born poor in his kingdom. 15 I saw all the living who walk under the sun; They were with the second youth who stands in his place. 16 There was no end of all the people over whom he was made king; Yet those who come afterward will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and grasping for the wind.

    Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil. 2 Do not be rash with your mouth, And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God is in heaven, and you on earth; Therefore let your words be few. 3 For a dream comes through much activity, And a fool's voice is known by his many words. 4 When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed-- 5 Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. 6 Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands? 7 For in the multitude of dreams and many words there is also vanity. But fear God. 8 If you see the oppression of the poor, and the violent perversion of justice and righteousness in a province, do not marvel at the matter; for high official watches over high official, and higher officials are over them. 9 Moreover the profit of the land is for all; even the king is served from the field.

    He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver; Nor he who loves abundance, with increase. This also is vanity. 11 When goods increase, They increase who eat them; So what profit have the owners Except to see them with their eyes? 12 The sleep of a laboring man is sweet, Whether he eats little or much; But the abundance of the rich will not permit him to sleep. 13 There is a severe evil which I have seen under the sun: Riches kept for their owner to his hurt. 14 But those riches perish through misfortune; When he begets a son, there is nothing in his hand. 15 As he came from his mother's womb, naked shall he return, To go as he came; And he shall take nothing from his labor Which he may carry away in his hand. 16 And this also is a severe evil-- Just exactly as he came, so shall he go. And what profit has he who has labored for the wind? 17 All his days he also eats in darkness, And he has much sorrow and sickness and anger. 18 Here is what I have seen: It is good and fitting for one to eat and drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labor in which he toils under the sun all the days of his life which God gives him; for it is his heritage. 19 As for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat of it, to receive his heritage and rejoice in his labor--this is the gift of God. 20 For he will not dwell unduly on the days of his life, because God keeps him busy with the joy of his heart.

    There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: 2 A man to whom God has given riches and wealth and honor, so that he lacks nothing for himself of all he desires; yet God does not give him power to eat of it, but a foreigner consumes it. This is vanity, and it is an evil affliction. 3 If a man begets a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better than he-- 4 for it comes in vanity and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness. 5 Though it has not seen the sun or known anything, this has more rest than that man, 6 even if he lives a thousand years twice--but has not seen goodness. Do not all go to one place? 7 All the labor of man is for his mouth, And yet the soul is not satisfied. 8 For what more has the wise man than the fool? What does the poor man have, Who knows how to walk before the living? 9 Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of desire. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind. 10 Whatever one is, he has been named already, For it is known that he is man; And he cannot contend with Him who is mightier than he. 11 Since there are many things that increase vanity, How is man the better? 12 For who knows what is good for man in life, all the days of his vain life which he passes like a shadow? Who can tell a man what will happen after him under the sun?  

    A good name is better than precious ointment, And the day of death than the day of one's birth; 2 Better to go to the house of mourning Than to go to the house of feasting, For that is the end of all men; And the living will take it to heart. 3 Sorrow is better than laughter, For by a sad countenance the heart is made better. 4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, But the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. 5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise Than for a man to hear the song of fools. 6 For like the crackling of thorns under a pot, So is the laughter of the fool. This also is vanity. 7 Surely oppression destroys a wise man's reason, And a bribe debases the heart. 8 The end of a thing is better than its beginning; The patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. 9 Do not hasten in your spirit to be angry, For anger rests in the bosom of fools. 10 Do not say, "Why were the former days better than these?" For you do not inquire wisely concerning this. 11 Wisdom is good with an inheritance, And profitable to those who see the sun. 12 For wisdom is a defense as money is a defense, But the excellence of knowledge is that wisdom gives life to those who have it. 13 Consider the work of God; For who can make straight what He has made crooked? 14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, But in the day of adversity consider: Surely God has appointed the one as well as the other, So that man can find out nothing that will come after him. 15 I have seen everything in my days of vanity: There is a just man who perishes in his righteousness, And there is a wicked man who prolongs life in his wickedness.

    Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overly wicked, Nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time? 18 It is good that you grasp this, And also not remove your hand from the other; For he who fears God will escape them all. 19 Wisdom strengthens the wise More than ten rulers of the city. 20 For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin. 21 Also do not take to heart everything people say, Lest you hear your servant cursing you. 22 For many times, also, your own heart has known That even you have cursed others. 23 All this I have proved by wisdom. I said, "I will be wise"; But it was far from me. 24 As for that which is far off and exceedingly deep, Who can find it out? 25 I applied my heart to know, To search and seek out wisdom and the reason of things, To know the wickedness of folly, Even of foolishness and madness. 26 And I find more bitter than death The woman whose heart is snares and nets, Whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God shall escape from her, But the sinner shall be trapped by her. 27 "Here is what I have found," says the Preacher, "Adding one thing to the other to find out the reason, 28 Which my soul still seeks but I cannot find: One man among a thousand I have found, But a woman among all these I have not found. 29 Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes."

    Who is like a wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? A man's wisdom makes his face shine, And the sternness of his face is changed. 2 I say, "Keep the king's commandment for the sake of your oath to God. 3 Do not be hasty to go from his presence. Do not take your stand for an evil thing, for he does whatever pleases him." 4 Where the word of a king is, there is power; And who may say to him, "What are you doing?" 5 He who keeps his command will experience nothing harmful; And a wise man's heart discerns both time and judgment, 6 Because for every matter there is a time and judgment, Though the misery of man increases greatly. 7 For he does not know what will happen; So who can tell him when it will occur? 8 No one has power over the spirit to retain the spirit, And no one has power in the day of death. There is no release from that war, And wickedness will not deliver those who are given to it. 9 All this I have seen, and applied my heart to every work that is done under the sun: There is a time in which one man rules over another to his own hurt.

    Then I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of holiness, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done. This also is vanity. 11 Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. 12 Though a sinner does evil a hundred times, and his days are prolonged, yet I surely know that it will be well with those who fear God, who fear before Him. 13 But it will not be well with the wicked; nor will he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he does not fear before God. 14 There is a vanity which occurs on earth, that there are just men to whom it happens according to the work of the wicked; again, there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the work of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity. 15 So I commended enjoyment, because a man has nothing better under the sun than to eat, drink, and be merry; for this will remain with him in his labor all the days of his life which God gives him under the sun. 16 When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the business that is done on earth, even though one sees no sleep day or night, 17 then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it.

    For I considered all this in my heart, so that I could declare it all: that the righteous and the wise and their works are in the hand of God. People know neither love nor hatred by anything they see before them. 2 All things come alike to all: One event happens to the righteous and the wicked; To the good, the clean, and the unclean; To him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As is the good, so is the sinner; He who takes an oath as he who fears an oath. 3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4 But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun. 7 Go, eat your bread with joy, And drink your wine with a merry heart; For God has already accepted your works. 8 Let your garments always be white, And let your head lack no oil. 9 Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity; for that is your portion in life, and in the labor which you perform under the sun.

    Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going. 11 I returned and saw under the sun that-- The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all. 12 For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men are snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them. 13 This wisdom I have also seen under the sun, and it seemed great to me: 14 There was a little city with few men in it; and a great king came against it, besieged it, and built great snares around it. 15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that same poor man. 16 Then I said: "Wisdom is better than strength. Nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, And his words are not heard. 17 Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard Rather than the shout of a ruler of fools. 18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war; But one sinner destroys much good."  

    Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment, And cause it to give off a foul odor; So does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor. 2 A wise man's heart is at his right hand, But a fool's heart at his left. 3 Even when a fool walks along the way, He lacks wisdom, And he shows everyone that he is a fool. 4 If the spirit of the ruler rises against you, Do not leave your post; For conciliation pacifies great offenses. 5 There is an evil I have seen under the sun, As an error proceeding from the ruler: 6 Folly is set in great dignity, While the rich sit in a lowly place. 7 I have seen servants on horses, While princes walk on the ground like servants. 8 He who digs a pit will fall into it, And whoever breaks through a wall will be bitten by a serpent. 9 He who quarries stones may be hurt by them, And he who splits wood may be endangered by it. 10 If the ax is dull, And one does not sharpen the edge, Then he must use more strength; But wisdom brings success.

    A serpent may bite when it is not charmed; The babbler is no different. 12 The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious, But the lips of a fool shall swallow him up; 13 The words of his mouth begin with foolishness, And the end of his talk is raving madness. 14 A fool also multiplies words. No man knows what is to be; Who can tell him what will be after him? 15 The labor of fools wearies them, For they do not even know how to go to the city! 16 Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child, And your princes feast in the morning! 17 Blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobles, And your princes feast at the proper time-- For strength and not for drunkenness! 18 Because of laziness the building decays, And through idleness of hands the house leaks. 19 A feast is made for laughter, And wine makes merry; But money answers everything. 20 Do not curse the king, even in your thought; Do not curse the rich, even in your bedroom; For a bird of the air may carry your voice, And a bird in flight may tell the matter.

    Cast your bread upon the waters, For you will find it after many days. 2 Give a serving to seven, and also to eight, For you do not know what evil will be on the earth. 3 If the clouds are full of rain, They empty themselves upon the earth; And if a tree falls to the south or the north, In the place where the tree falls, there it shall lie. 4 He who observes the wind will not sow, And he who regards the clouds will not reap. 5 As you do not know what is the way of the wind, Or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes everything. 6 In the morning sow your seed, And in the evening do not withhold your hand; For you do not know which will prosper, Either this or that, Or whether both alike will be good. 7 Truly the light is sweet, And it is pleasant for the eyes to behold the sun; 8 But if a man lives many years And rejoices in them all, Yet let him remember the days of darkness, For they will be many. All that is coming is vanity. 9 Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, And let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; Walk in the ways of your heart, And in the sight of your eyes; But know that for all these God will bring you into judgment. 10 Therefore remove sorrow from your heart, And put away evil from your flesh, For childhood and youth are vanity.

    Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, Before the difficult days come, And the years draw near when you say, "I have no pleasure in them": 2 While the sun and the light, The moon and the stars, Are not darkened, And the clouds do not return after the rain; 3 In the day when the keepers of the house tremble, And the strong men bow down; When the grinders cease because they are few, And those that look through the windows grow dim; 4 When the doors are shut in the streets, And the sound of grinding is low; When one rises up at the sound of a bird, And all the daughters of music are brought low; 5 Also they are afraid of height, And of terrors in the way; When the almond tree blossoms, The grasshopper is a burden, And desire fails. For man goes to his eternal home, And the mourners go about the streets. 6 Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well.

    Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it. 8 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "All is vanity." 9 And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs. 10 The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright--words of truth. 11 The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd. 12 And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all. 14 For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.

    Carol wrote:Hello Orthodoxymoron , thank you

    your question here:

    Were the Creator(s) of Humanity smart, stupid, good, bad, responsible, irresponsible??

    They were most definitely irresponsible. Which would include a short sightedness that was not consistent with the intelligence of their race in general.

    If you are to genetically splice and modify anything you take the risk of it not having a normal evolutionary gestation period, which is usually tens of millions of years where the cell will, by adaptation, change over time to suit its environment.,

    They were warned not to go ahead with this experiment but did so anyway and we are the result of those who survived. In terms of time lines it would be advantageous to dispel with encyclopedia Britannica's idea of when the pyramids were built and who made them.

    If we look at a solid piece of evidence which would be the layer of vitrified rock dated to some 50 to 60 thousand years ago I would say that was when they reset this planet with some sort of nuclear explosion. Whichever humanoids survived this would be the blue blood types , blue blood merely means blood higher in copper content. They generally had more abilities and a better intelligence and ability to survive, you could be forgiven for not thinking so with the current examples of blue blood left.

    Obviously they have serious flaws in their mental process. Left to their devices without any form of guidance you can see what they have turned into. These sorts of people who consider themselves rulers of this planet are merely children with big guns and they are willing to use them to maintain their position... nothing more.

    As for God as a concept, the word its self is a marker for what " we " understand it /she/he to be. My interpretation of God may differ and its entirely likely that God as we know it is an ai, not a super computer but an ai.  

    ai are an artificial intelligent being , we call them artificial but that is not really accurate, they are organic intelligent beings so really oi would be more accurate. It is similar to how we call Aboriginals natives or terrans but this is in accurate as well ... " Ab " is the english term for " Not " so that is not accurate either.

    if i was to expand on this concept of god as I see it, it is a conglomerate of beings and entities who have gravitated through the maelstrom of evolution to becoming over seers of their assigned or agreed areas of space. Space is not really space, it’s more like an ocean full of organic life and I would say that space is not actually a vacuum as we have been lead to believe, it is more like a dense energy matrix that supports other life. Just like we cannot breathe under water, so too we cannot breathe in space but how could space be a vacuum devoid of anything ? could you imagine the immense power this would have on everything? If it were a vacuum it would devour any kind of atmosphere in an instant let alone crush an astronaut in its suit. Perhaps I am completely wrong in my assumptions but they are derived from basic experience... and they taunt me to think differently without trying to be fixated on traditional teachings i grew up with.

    So as I let go of what I was taught, I feel a fear come over me, then a calmness, then a relief of new and better information. Evolution is done in this manner.

    As for the rest of your questions i cannot answer " what if's " but I assume they are more a type of rebuttal than a series of questions.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Wow!! Thank-you, Carol!! I'll have to read your response several times (over several days) to allow it to properly sink-in!! I've been reading certain portions of a certain Bible-Commentary, mostly as a mental conditioning-process (rather than expecting to read the truth, the whole-truth, and nothing but the truth). Unfortunately, I think I'm finished regarding my ability to properly think and research. I seem to be going downhill faster and faster. My research-project on this website seems to be finished. I'll probably spend the rest of my life analyzing the data, without attempting to keep-up with new-developments. What if the Creation of Humanity was performed under extremely harsh and extenuating circumstances?? What if the outcome for Humanity is actually quite-fine when considering the obstacles and opposition?? I'm neutral regarding Humanity (simply because I don't know where the Truth ends and the BS begins)!! The "Ancient Egyptian Deity" told me that Socialism and Other Than Human Physicality worked MUCH Better than Humanity and Freedom!! RA said "Humanity is Screwed!!" He told me "You'll be Sorry if You Try to Save Humanity!!"
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 60700_starwarstheforceawakens_94e20if
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Star-Wars-The-Force-Awakens-character-list
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 VF-1701-36
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Gargoyles5
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Salt15
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 4-color-pencil-drawing-by-melissa-scott

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Evita-peron-in-vaticano-con-il-principe-alessandro-ruspoli
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Argentina-s-first-lady-eva-peron-at-the-vatican-in-a-stop-on-her-european-tour
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Pope-Francis-Angelina-Jolie-JR-1815
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Gia-Elizabeth-Mitchell-Angelina-Jolie-3
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Vir-waves-2

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Azazel_by_gothicnarcissus-d5wqnf8

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:54 pm

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ofof2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 The-event-vicky-roberts
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Vicky-The-Event-1x08
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 3bee33246b4afa69d6599a0df40921d9
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Vicky-The-Event-1x05-2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Dbdb1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 20101220_the-event
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2012-We-Were-Warned-ScreenShot-033
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2012-We-Were-Warned-ScreenShot-034
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2012-We-Were-Warned-ScreenShot-032
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 75506_bt
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 0515GT%20(2)
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 0515GT
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 0563GT
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 November-film-preview-fantastic-beasts-where-find-them-arrival-united-kingdom
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 United-kingdom
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 A-UNITED-KINGDOM-Official-Trailer-David-Oyelowo-Rosamun-1723
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 The+matrix_reloaded+7
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 The+matrix_reloaded+4
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Historia-Corte-Suprema-6ta-etapa
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 7128c167d8f2be598d2a646bbfff41f8
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Apollo1a
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Matrix-quote-difference-between-knowing-the-path-and-walking-the-path
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Matrix-quote-being-the-one-is-like-being-in-love
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Matrix-quote-you-got-the-gift-but-you-are-waiting-for-something
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 33cbb148edd17ce66ea28c9fd159cd65
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Matrix-animated-image
    Carol wrote: March 18, 2017

    France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development (MAEDI) has refused a request by the Paris Legal Attache of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to interview former President Barack Obama who fled to the French Polynesian island of Tahiti while being pursued by investigators from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the US Department of the Treasury (DoT) seeking to interview him about one of the largest drug busts in American history occurring in the Caribbean aboard a fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle. This was in relation to the 4.2 tons of seized cocaine, worth an estimated $125 million, from the President Barack Obama linked fishing vessel named Lady Michelle on 16 February 2017.

    President Obama fled from his home in Washington D.C. using an over 9,600 kilometer (6,000 miles) “escape path” that brought him first to New York City where he met with his private attorneys, then Omaha, Nebraska, where he met with famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett, then to California where he met with American tech titans, then to Hawaii where he said goodbye to his wife and family, with his finally ending up in Tahiti under French government control that is nearly impossible to extradite anyone from.

    President Obama’s meeting with billionaire investor Warren Buffett prior to his fleeing to Tahiti was the most consequential to his survival—as Buffett has long been known as the “fixer” between “Deep State” warring elements within America. Buffett’s further connections with President Obama, this report details, was his aiding Obama’s illegal stealing of hundreds-of-billions of dollars from US mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie Mae investors to secret finance his socialist health care debacle called Obamacare—and that Buffett fully supported. To the “master plan” devised by the Obama-Buffett “Deep State” factions to destroy President Trump, this report explains, is by wielding their “weapon of choice” called the Federal Reserve to “Xxxxx the largest bubble in human history” and collapse the entire US stock market—and along with it the entire American economy too.

    How President Trump will survive this “Deep State” war against him? Will he have to resort to imposing martial law (Trial Balloon for a Coup?, Trump/Bannon Planning for Martial Law?)—and that the still secret National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (known as Directive 51) gives him the power to do anytime he so chooses—and that would give him absolute and total power over all of the United States to crush forever his liberal-leftist communistic enemies. Time will reveal how this plays out.
    Carol wrote:
    Could the CIA be sabotaging the Trump cabinet? - Episode #692 with Kevin Shipp
    Published on Feb 21, 2017

    In this edition Host: John B Wells speaks to former CIA Counterintelligence officer Kevin Shipp about CIA policy, and how some intelligence officers could be sabotaging President Trump’s cabinet.
    Carol wrote:
    OBAMA connection to drug trafficking - Lady Michelle Cocaine Running

    Here is a transcript from page (not copyrighted material)

    Greetings World, We are Anonymous.

    Former President Barack Obama fled Washington D.C. this past Friday (10 March) traveling to New York City, Omaha, San Jose, and ending up in Hawaii, all occurring within 36 hours while he sought elite allies to defend him, and keeping him a head of investigators from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the US Department of the Treasury, seeking to interview him, about one of the largest drug busts in American history occurring in the Caribbean aboard a fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle.

    Nearly immediately upon taking office as President Donald Trumps Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, as head of the US Department of Justice, was handed a top secret file by Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, detailing the nearly two-decade long crimes of 12 current, and former, security and intelligence officers belonging to the Transportation Safety Administration who for at least 18 years under both the Bush and Obama regimes had smuggled into the United States at least $100 million worth of cocaine.

    Four days after Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, received this top secret file on these Bush-Obama regime drug criminals from Director Comey, he ordered their immediate arrest, and that was meant to coincide with former President Obama being out of the United States as he was vacationing in the Virgin Islands.

    Upon their learning that Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, had ordered the arrest of this Bush-Obama regime TSA criminal drug ring, accomplices of former President Obama vacationing with him in the Virgin Islands attempted to contact a Guyana national named Mohamed Nazim Hoseain, whom the SVR had previously identified as being an organizational member of the Islamic terror group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, and that President Trump is now preparing to name as a terror organization too.

    Mohamed Nazim Hoseain, was unable, however, to be contacted by former President Obama accomplices as the fishing vessel he was the captain of, named the Lady Michelle, was dead in the water about 70 miles off Paramaribo, in international waters after all of its electronics had been disabled by a US Navy EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, and that shortly afterwards, on 16 February, it was boarded by the US Coast Guard whom discovered over 4 tonnes of cocaine valued at $125 million, and was the largest US drug bust in the Caribbean since 1999.

    Arrested with Mohamed Nazim Hoseain aboard the Lady Michelle drug ship, were Richard La Cruz, Neville Jeffrey, and Mark Anthony Williams, all of whom were remanded to US custody in the Virgin Islands just hours after former President Obama accomplices flew out from there on a private aircraft.

    As to the Lady Michelle fishing vessel used by these cocaine smugglers, its Saint Vincent registration showed it being owned by the Argyle International Airport Development Company, and whom the US Coast Guard returned custody to under existing international treaties between these two nations.

    Critical to note about the Argyle International Airport Development Company, though, is that its sole business is the Argyle International Airport on Saint Vincent whose first ever flight into was on 14 February by a private charter aircraft from Mexico, and that upon this charter planes arrival, the Lady Michelle was in port awaiting departure, and whose real purpose has long been suspected to be for smuggling purposes:

    “Forget the tourists, there is something much more lucrative afoot. It is whispered that recently cocaine barons have injected US$400 million into a group within the Vincentian government for help with setting up an improved link into the US of South American cocaine. There are five areas of concern for the South American investors.

    1. for the SVG ruling regime to be kept in power at any cost.

    2. the completion of Argyle Airport.

    3. the control of the abandoned fishery units at Bequia and Owia.

    4. tight control and implication of the police and coast guard.

    5. control of a working shipyard for the secret alteration of internal structures of vessels.

    6. building of a new shipping container port and facility.

    The whole operation is compartmentalized so as no group or individual within the grouping knows everything. Those involved are high ranking Vincentian government officials, Venezuelans, Panamanians and, most importantly, Colombians.

    According to fishermen, Venezuelans have already inspected the fishery installations with the view of acquiring them. It is alleged that Venezuelans are involved in the new lease of the Ottley Hall shipyard complex. Venezuela is involved with building our airport at Argyle.”

    Further raising fears that the Argyle International Airport is being used by drug smugglers linked to former President Obama, was that barely a month a prior to his leaving office, in December, 2016, he quietly signed a new law called the United States, Caribbean Strategic Engagement Act that, in essence, would allow the Central Intelligence Agency to secretly lease this entire airport and fishing boat facility, and who is the largest illegal drug smuggler the world has ever known.

    As to why the CIA would need the Argyle International Airport as a drug smuggling operation, is due to the calamity that ensued in 2007 when their Gulf Stream II jet, that was used to transport rendition prisoners from Europe to America to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, crash-landed in Mexico carrying over 4 tons of cocaine, and that to this very day, no one has been prosecuted for.

    The CIA’s involvement with drug smuggling has long been known, and as the Huffington Post noted in their 2014 article titled “Key Figures In CIA-Crack Cocaine Scandal Begin To Come Forward” that, in part, said:

    “With the public in the U.S. and Latin America becoming increasingly skeptical of the war on drugs, key figures in a scandal that once rocked the Central Intelligence Agency are coming forward to tell their stories in a new documentary and in a series of interviews with The Huffington Post.

    More than 18 years have passed since Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb stunned the world with his “Dark Alliance” newspaper series investigating the connections between the CIA, a crack cocaine explosion in the predominantly African-American neighborhoods of South Los Angeles, and the Nicaraguan Contra fighters, scandalous implications that outraged LA’s black community, severely damaged the intelligence agency’s reputation and launched a number of federal investigations.

    It did not end well for Webb, however. Major media, led by The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, worked to discredit his story. Under intense pressure, Webb’s top editor abandoned him. Webb was drummed out of journalism. One LA Times reporter recently apologized for his leading role in the assault on Webb, but it came too late. Webb died in 2004 from an apparent suicide.”

    Also in 2014, The American New Service shockingly revealed how grave these crimes had actually become in their article titled “U.S. Government and Top Mexican Drug Cartel Exposed as Partners” that, again in part, said:

    “For over a decade, under multiple administrations, the U.S. government had a secret agreement with the ruthless Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed it to operate with impunity, an in-depth investigation by a leading Mexican newspaper confirmed this week.

    In exchange for information and assistance in quashing competing criminal syndicates, the Bush and Obama administrations let the Sinaloa cartel import tons of drugs into the United States while wiping out Sinaloa competitors and ensuring that its leaders would not be prosecuted for their long list of major crimes.

    Other revelations also point strongly to massive but clandestine U.S. government involvement in drug trafficking.

    Relying on over 100 interviews with current and former government functionaries on both sides of the border, as well as official documents from the U.S. and Mexican governments, Mexico’s El Universal concluded that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Justice Department had secretly worked with Mexican drug lords.

    The controversial conspiring led to increased violence across Mexico, where many tens of thousands have been murdered in recent years, the newspaper found after its year-long probe.

    The U.S. agents and their shady deals with Mexican drug lords even sparked what the paper called a “secret war” inside Mexico.”

    OBAMA connection to drug trafficking - Lady Michelle Cocaine Running

    Coast Guard offloads $125 million worth of seized cocaine in Puerto Rico - good
    Lady Michelle fishing vessel dead in the water after electronics had been disabled by US Navy E-A 60 prowler electronic airfare warcraft.

    and last Monday night (March 13th) he visited Judge Watson. "Judge Watson’s 43-page ruling was issued a mere two hours after hearing arguments on whether or not the immigration ban should be blocked. This would have required Watson to write a page roughly every three minutes, raising questions about whether or not the judge had already made a decision before even hearing arguments from attorneys and had already drafted a ruling. The proximity of the judge to Obama on his vacation just days before the consequential hearing, their lengthy history together and facts indicating that the judge had prepared a ruling before the case even began raise questions about whether or not the former President exercised improper influence in the judge’s decision. Barack Obama’s representatives have yet to issue any comment on the matter."
    Carol wrote:
    Jerome Corsi has obtained credible information from law enforcement sources regarding individual records of U.S. citizens under National Security Agency (NSA) electronic surveillance in the years 2004 through 2010 – a database that suggests both Donald J. Trump was under illegal, unauthorized government monitoring during those years.

    Michael Zullo, formerly the commander and chief investigator of the Cold Case Posse (CCP), a special investigative group created in 2006 in the office of Joseph M. Arpaio, formerly the sheriff in Maricopa County, an Arizona State Certified Law Enforcement Agency, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, provided sections of the database to Corsi.

    The electronic surveillance database, provided to Zullo by a whistleblower in 2013, was apparently created by the NSA as part of the NSA’s illegal and unconstitutional Project Dragnet electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens, first revealed by news reports published in 2005, as further documented by the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013.

    Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Investigator Zullo have identified dozens of entries at various addresses, including both Trump Tower in New York City and Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, under which Donald Trump was apparently under NSA electronic surveillance from 2004, during President George W. Bush’s term of office, through 2009, the first year of President Obama’s presidency.

    Electronic surveillance of Donald Trump was listed in the database for the following companies, locations, and dates:

    Trump International
    1 Central Park, NYC, NY

    Trump World Tower
    845 United Nations Plaza, NYC, NY
    No Date

    Trump Tower SAL
    108 Central Park, NYC, NY

    Trump Palace Co
    200 E. 69th Street A, NYC, NY

    Trump Entertainment
    725 Fifth Ave. FL, NYC, NY

    Trump Organization
    725 Fifth Ave. BSM, NYC, NY

    Trump Palace
    725 Fifth Ave., NYC, NY

    Mar-a-Lago Club
    1100 S. Ocean BL, Palm Beach, FL

    Trump International
    401 N. Wabash Ave., Chicago, IL

    Douglass Limousine
    239 Nassau St., Princeton, NJ

    Trump International
    3505 Summit BLV, West Palm Beach, FL

    Flights INC
    P.O. Box 196, Hamilton MA

    Trump International
    1 Central Park, NYC, NY

    Trump Hotels
    Huron Ave., Atlantic City, NJ
    No Date

    Trump National
    339 Pine Rd, Briarcliff, NY
    No Date

    Trump Plaza & C
    2500 Pacific Ave, Atlantic City, NJ

    Trump Palace Co.
    200 E. 69th St., NYC, NY

    Seven Springs
    66 Oregon Rd, Mount Kisco, NY

    While attempts have been made to deny such domestic surveillance, reports from the New York Times in 2014 showed the Central Intelligence Agency had done just that by spying on a senate panel investigating the agency’s use of “enhanced interrogation.”

    In a 2016 article from The Guardian entitled, “‘A constitutional crisis’: the CIA turns on the Senate,” it is likewise noted just how drastic and widespread the CIA’s domestic surveillance operation was.

    As revealed from the Dragnet database, not only was Trump himself surveilled but so were numerous employees of his located at Trump Tower.

    Former CIA officer Larry Johnson recently joined the Alex Jones show to discuss how intelligence sources have stated that such surveillance of Trump during the presidential election in fact took place.

    Here is a partial list of the Trump employees that show up in the Project Dragnet database:

    • Patricia Hernandez, a Manager for the Trump Organization, was under NSA electronic surveillance at Trump Parc, Central Park South, in New York City, at phone 212-586-xxxx, date: 9/16/2008.

    • Mike van der Goes, a Golf Pro at Oceans Trails Golf Course in Palos Verdes, who was promoted to be general manager when Trump bought the course from the bank in 2005 and renamed it Trump National. Mike van der Goes was under surveillance at Trump National, 1 Ocean TRL, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, at phone: 310-265-xxxx, no date.

    • Carolyn Kepcher, a frequent guest on NBC’s television program “The Apprentice,” who was under NSA electronic surveillance when she was General Manager at the Trump National Golf Course in Briarcliff, New York, in Westchester County north of New York City, at 339 Pine Rd., in Briarcliff, New York, at phone 914-944-xxxx, date: 9/7/206.

    • Joe Traci, a Real Estate Property Manager at Trump New World Property Management, at 438 W. 69th Street, New York City, phone 212-769-xxxx, date: 11/12/2008; and at 5 12th Street, New York City, phone: 212-586-xxxx, no date.

    • Roger Socio, a Senior Project Manager, Trump Organization, Trump Tower, 725 Fifth Avenue, New York City, phone: 212-715-xxxx, 2/23/2009.

    • Bill Fichter, Residents Manager, Trump Organization, Trump Palace, 200 E. 69th Street, New York City, phone: 212-879-xxxx, date: 2/24/2009.

    • Florin Bogosel, Trump Park Avenue, 502 Park Avenue, New York City, phone: 212-223-xxxx, no date.

    • Grace Dunne, Trump Park Residence, 3770 Barger Street, Shrub Oak, New York, phone: 914-245-xxxx, date 1/26/2006.

    • Greg Bradley, Vice President, Trump Pavilion for Nursing and Rehabilitation, 9028 Van Wyck, East Richmond Hill, New York, phone: 718-291-xxxx, no date.

    All these employees appear to have been under NSA phone surveillance, plus various of them under financial surveillance as well.

    The Project Dragnet database suggests Trump was under surveillance not only for phone conversations, but also for financial information, including most likely bank account transactions, credit card transactions, and tax filings.

    Both federal and state law enforcement have had access to the Project Dragnet database, allowing widespread use for methods such as parallel construction. The practice, outlined in the 2013 Reuters article, “U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans,” reveals the breadth of information that trickles down to law enforcement from high-level intelligence agencies.

    Also listed as under NSA surveillance in the period 2004-2010 was Trump’s former wife, Ivanka Trump at House of Ivanka, 10 East 64th Street, New York City.

    The Project Dragnet database also indicates that the NSA was conducting electronic surveillance on an extensive list of Trump employees in the years 2004-2010 – the only years for which Sheriff Arpaio had data.

    Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Investigator Zullo have validated through law enforcement channels the validity of the name, address, and telephone numbers for the dates that appear in the Project Dragnet database.

    Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Investigator Zullo are prepared to share relevant information with appropriate federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, as well as the Department of Justice, Homeland Security Department, the White House, and members of Congress the Project Dragnet Database in whole, or in part, as it pertains to NSA electronic surveillance of Donald J. Trump and his various employee.

    Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Investigator Zullo also show up in the database, listed as being under both phone and financial surveillance.

    Zullo explained that he and Arpaio came in contact with the information from Operation Dragnet during an unrelated investigation that began in October 2013 and ended January 2015.

    A whistleblower by the name of Dennis Montgomery brought forward information that Montgomery alleges was collected while he was employed as a subcontractor for the NSA, working on various surveillance projects.

    Court documents do verify Montgomery was contracted by the NSA, in part to develop computer breaching software that has been utilized in government mass surveillance operations targeting American citizens without legal justification.

    While Montgomery’s credibility has been called into question, Zullo maintains that the amount of information provided by Montgomery related to Operation Dragnet was extraordinarily voluminous and that Montgomery had shared information with investigators in 2013 that is only now being revealed by media outlets.
    Carol wrote:
    This is a very interesting video of the various false flag attacks and how this person predicted most of them.
    Published on Mar 22, 2017

    Ole Dammegard on the Real Deal with Jim Fetzer: Ole predicted the alleged London attacks 3 weeks before they happened. Hear the details here. He does an excellent follow-up analysis of the facts as well.
    Carol wrote:CIA Whistleblower Leaked Proof Trump Under "Systematic Illegal" Surveillance Over Two Years Ago: FBI Sat On It - 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information reveal massive spying program targeting Judges and Prominent Americans
    Carol wrote:

    BUSTED! Twitter Caught Manipulating Tweets Of Former BlackRock Fund Manager Critical Of CIA and NSA by ZeroPointNow -
    Mar 23, 2017

    Followers and retweets vanishing without a trace... until now.

    White House Fingers John McCain as Media Leak/Trump Phone Eavesdropper
    According to White House officials, McCain is believed to have somehow gained access to the content of President Donald Trump’s private, classified telephone calls with world leaders. And he isn’t keeping quiet about what was talked about either. An analysis of McCain’s recent public statements by White House officials, coupled with information from intelligence personnel working with the Trump administration, paints a disturbing picture for McCain — or any elected U.S. politician. Officials believe the senator has inside knowledge of a number of President Trump’s telephone conversations, including at least one conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Maxine Waters: "Some people are missing something here. The President (Obama) has put in place an organization that contains a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That's going to be very, very powerful. And whoever...and that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that its never been done before, and whoever runs for President on the democratic ticket have to deal with that. They're going to have to go down with that database and the concerns of those people, because they can't get around it. And he's (Obama) been very smart - I mean it’s very powerful what he's leaving in place. And I think that's what any democratic candidate is going to have to deal with."

    On Don Adams show Maxine Waters admits Obama Wiretapped Trump. On MSNBC with Chris Hayes she admitted work that has been done to spy on Trump and that the Obama administration has done everything they can possibly do.

    NSA To Provide 'Smoking Gun' Proof Obama Spied on Trump...
    Carol wrote:

    ObamaGate Bombshell - Bigger Than Watergate, 1555
    Consider conducting a Moot Holy-War between [The SDA Bible Commentary -- Volumes 1, 2, 5, 7 (Genesis to 2 Kings, Matthew to John, Philippians to Revelation)] AND [The SDA Bible Commentary -- Volumes 3, 4, 6 (1 Chronicles to Malachi, Acts to Ephesians)]!! Choose your own commentary, but I highly recommend the SDABC as an underrated and underused research-resource. Was Questions On Doctrine a Red-Herring?? Were the Writings of Ellen G. White a White Lie?? What Would Walter Rea Say?? What Would Walter Martin Say?? Sometimes I'm Sirius, and sometimes I'm just 'messing with you' (just a bit)!! Seriously, I think I might've briefly spoken with the 'Oracle' today (in a wheelchair) but I'm not sure. I gave her a couple of dollars for the bus. I had a lot on my mind, and I didn't think about it until later, but what if it WAS the 'Oracle'??!! "BINGO!!" What Would Ingo Say?? What Would Shingo Say?? What Would Inigo Loyola Say?? If I weren't so miserable, I'd be MUCH more friendly!! Honest!! Please re-watch The Event miniseries!! Please re-watch the movie 2012!! Please watch the recent movie A United Kingdom!! Things have been weird, and I'm pretty-much done with 'weird'. I was declared 'well' today, but I don't feel 'well'. Perhaps this was similar to 'Imputed-Righteousness'. You know, Imputed and Imparted Righteousness. This is related to Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. Didn't you go to Sunday-School??!!

    Someone I know, knew Adela Rogers St. Johns. Adela used to have lunch with President Richard Nixon, and often prayed with him. He needed prayer, didn't he?? But what if President Nixon could see what's gone-on since he passed-on??!! OMG!! Please remember that my internet-posting is on the level of low-profile religious and political Science-Fiction!! It's sort of an Apocalyptic Soap-Opera!! The posting-volume on this website has slowed dramatically!! What's going on?? I'm attempting to stop posting!! I wish to become proficient with the material I've already posted. I've made notes, and I wish to study these notes. Perhaps a watered-down philosophical-book will materialize in a couple of years!! I think I might like to live in a small mountaintop-lookout home (with a bunker-basement and satellite InterPlaNet)!! I don't want to do anything significant. I simply wish to watch, reflect, and write a book once in a while!! Once again, I am a 'Law and Order' kind of guy, rather than a 'Fire and Brimstone' sort of individual!! I lean-toward Jail and Work for the Bad Guys and Gals!! I lean-away from Torture and Extermination!! I'm a Softie!! Perhaps I need to toughen-up!! I might've been one of the Ancient (or Recent) Bad-Guys!! What Would Loki Do?? What Would Smokey Say??

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 F023d3632d795ac7d2a75d83710dec6a

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Woody-harrelson
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 36aeb1bc4e0d01daffdbbb49f32c0df1?w=900&h=600&fit=crop&s=0475b5b456a2ffd7c5ad4558ae2956ee
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Sunset2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Marin%20County%20Fire%20Lookout%20mt.%20tamalpais
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Maxresdefault
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Green-Mountain-Fire-Lookout
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 527541-L
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 542f875f3cc73.hires
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Fm1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2012-We-Were-Warned-ScreenShot-079
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2012-We-Were-Warned-ScreenShot-090
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2012+5
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Needles-burn-1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 IMG_1402
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 03231
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 201909
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Signal_tower_1l
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 17282
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Fire-Lookout-37
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Harney_Peak_fire_lookout_tower
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 36021504
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Devild-Head-Fire-Lookout
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 602774
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 03233
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2012
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 GUnrvOtSAQL0xGcC49L7RUcpN4E
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Mountain-Cabin-Painting-Wallpaper
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Monongahela_National_Forest_-_Middle_Mountain_Cabins
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Mountain-cabin-in-norway
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Mountain-cabin-near-lake-wallpaper-for-1280x800-widescreen-7-163
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Log-Cabin-Nature-Background
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Rustic-cabin-in-the-mountains-hd-desktop-wallpaper
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cabin1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Lakefront-Mountain-Cabin
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cabin-16-Front2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Mountain-cabin-1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 DSC_0495
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Tennessee-mountains-cabins-wallpaper-2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Contemporary-cabin-chic-mountain-home-of-glass-and-wood-1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Salotto-rustico-beautiful-living-room-1024x640
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 207-75-4
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Say-goodbye-to-all-the-clutter-prof.-prem
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Dining-3-View
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Western-decor-animal-print-elements.png-1140x878
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 YellowstoneClub1_1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 1946350_31_z
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Black-modern-chairs
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Beautiful-machina-house
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Hotel-in-nature
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ex-machina-movie-interiors
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ex-machina-scenes
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ex-machina
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Maxresdefault
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ibm_supercomputer
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 NASA-Pleiades
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 IBM_Blue_Gene_P_supercomputer
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ex-machina-movie
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Snowy-vision
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Foto-Ex-Machina-10
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ex-Machina-Cast-Wallpapers
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 EX-MACHINA-23
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 08014398-photo-ex-machina
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ex-Machina-Actress-Wallpapers
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Ex-Machina-Movie-Poster-in-HD-Wallpaper-980x613

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 V-series-artwork-elizabeth-mitchell-morena-baccarin-wallpaper-poster-dvdbash-wordpress01

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:51 pm; edited 2 times in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:00 pm

    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...

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 U111672367_12f0917db72g214

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Dr.-Desmond-A.-Ford
    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 (ṭāhēr);
    (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 (yōm) but two words—(a) “evenings” (‘ēreb) 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 (dikaióō) 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.


    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.”


    (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.

    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.

    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.

    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!” 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.

    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.

    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:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 1243234_300

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:30 pm

    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"??

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Architecture%20Awards
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Avondale%20College%2005A
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 39671353
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 388915_10150524183239084_1122415552_n
    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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!

    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
    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?

    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.

    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.

    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…

    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: If you can provide verifiable resources showing an earlier date for the use of “investigative judgment,” I’ll be happy to include them

    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.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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. I find I can’t copy and paste from that site any longer, without registering, i believe.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Irhall

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Angwin.PacificUnionCollege.1981Rieger.Mercer01
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Vader-Wallpaper-darth-vader-13703200-1024-768
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Pacific_union_college
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Visit

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:53 pm

    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!!"
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 388915_10150524183239084_1122415552_n
    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    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

    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…

    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.

    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.

    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: 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.

    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.

    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

    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.’ Let me know what you think of it.

    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.” וְנִצְדַּ֖ק 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.”

    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…

    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. 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.

    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.

    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……?????

    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.

    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 τετελεσται. 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.?

    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.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Product_detailed_image_31496_5931

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:24 pm

    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??
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 388915_10150524183239084_1122415552_n
    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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 fé 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).

    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.

    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.

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

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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,, 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?

    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?

    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. 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.


    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:00 pm

    What if ALL of This Present Madness is Planned and Orchestrated from the Very Top and Bottom?? 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

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Susan-Rice-Barack-Obama-June-5-2013-Getty-640x480
    …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:
    Obama's SPY Susan Rice CAUGHT SPYING ON TRUMP and Trump's Team said Rush Limbaugh
    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.
    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.
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 388915_10150524183239084_1122415552_n
    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    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.

    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.

    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 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…

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Significance-of-questions-on-doctrine-herbert-e-douglass-1-638
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Trinity-Doctrine-NAMELESS
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 172_A
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 C3_s2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 3bad5457540ce7f0f767f97dacf0697ca2b3ce3a304812334e24a2f821d64184
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Anchorite

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:27 pm; edited 2 times in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:00 pm

    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.
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 388915_10150524183239084_1122415552_n
    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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 …

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.”

    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.

    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!

    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!”

    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?

    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?


    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:10 pm

    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!!
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 388915_10150524183239084_1122415552_n
    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    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)

    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…

    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!

    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?

    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.’

    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.

    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?

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    August 19, 2016 at 5:00 pm
    Hi Serge, yes you are right; παράκλητος 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. παράκλητος 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;”

    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

    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.

    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 (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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!!!!

    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”.

    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.

    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?

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Maxresdefault38-326x235
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elenne-Ford

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:46 pm

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Dennisprager
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Height.630.no_border.width.1200
    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!!
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 388915_10150524183239084_1122415552_n
    Glacier View Responses
    Continued From Previous Post:

    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.

    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 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 (, 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: 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!

    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

    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?

    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.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 12376419_10153898692091255_88136263965446543_n
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Dennis-prager-speaker-4
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 289923

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Lukeford
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Luke_Daily_News

    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.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 003c79d5_medium
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Teaserbox_2457933021
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2124-a-d-walhalla-072605907
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 38084380z
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 40356290z
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2130-a-d-eden-136643849
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 223313
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elysium_splash_6
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elysium___movie_poster_by_zungam80-d776do0

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elysium9
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elysium1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elysium-Concept-Art
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elysium4_1020
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 ELYSIUM_IE_VFX_04A
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elysium-Over-Earth
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Elysium-wallpapers-14

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:12 pm

    In the previous post, Luke Ford mentioned Dr. Roy Gane (son of Dr. Erwin R. Gane) who is a respected Biblical-Authority (especially regarding Leviticus). I used to sing with a group led by Roy, at the Yountville Veterans Home (in the Napa Valley). We visited (and sang to) the veterans each week. I spent many hours listening to Roy's father in various classes and study-groups. I hope you enjoy this video by Roy!! BTW, I suggest studying the following groupings of the SDA Bible Commentary. Note how the Torah is treated in each of these groups. Law is at the Center of Everything!!

    1. SDABC Volumes 1,2 (Genesis to 2 Kings).

    2. SDABC Volumes 3,4 (1 Chronicles to Malachi).

    3. SDABC Volume 5 (Matthew to John).

    4. SDABC Volumes 6,7 (Acts to Revelation).

    Here is a mostly unedited blast from the past!! This is sort of a "Reality-Check"!! Did I get it wrong?? Don't answer all at once!! Actually, it's sort of nice to work alone, without arguing with everyone all the time!! That's why I don't post on "Religious-Websites"!! I'd actually prefer to end-up with an Ancient Conservative Theocracy (if that's even desirable or possible)!! Why don't we know much concerning what preceded the Creation of Humanity and the Garden of Eden?? What Was the Perfect Law of the Lord?? What Is the Perfect Law of the Lord?? Is the Old-Testament Perfect Law of the Lord the same as the New-Testament Perfect Law of the Lord?? How many times was the Perfect Law of the Lord broken in the Bible (and by whom)?? Does ANYONE Care?? One more time, please take a long, hard look at my old "Amen Ra" thread (with nearly 140,000 views) in the old Project Avalon website.  BROOK provided most of the "Good-Stuff" and I'm still waiting for that "BROOK-BOOK"!! What if abraxasinas = Balem Abrasax?? This troubling abraxasinas thread has more than half a million views!! Researchers Beware!!

    If anyone ever confronts me in real-life regarding my internet posting -- I might simply reply "No Comment". This has been an experiment which seems to have failed -- and I'm trying to forget about it. Please remember that the personalities and language in this thread are my feeble attempts at modeling. They are NOT me in "real-life". If I ever received that "Absolute-Access Pass" -- I'd probably rarely use it!! Ignorance is Bliss (and Plausible-Deniability)!! It's just cool to think about marching into a highly-secure facility unannounced -- and hobnobbing with the reptilians and greys!!

    A lot of people object to the business and corporate aspects of the church. I don't. What I object to is corruption and the non-compassionate use of accumulated wealth. I guess what I am trying to work toward is a Christ-Like Minimalist Corporate Constitutional Democratic Representative Republic Solar System Theocracy!!!!!! Confused? I am! I am not I AM. I am easily confused - but I still want this solar system to be properly run. Period. I think that 1994 Alex Collier Interview (at the bottom of this post) might have a lot of hidden information and meaning.  I don't take this interview at face value. I think it might contain valid information in a fictional context. Try various combinations of the information. Watch it again, in light of this thread, and in light of all of your research. I think this might be quite important - especially in light of what has happened since 1994 (such as 9/11). Please tell me what you think. Please think. Do you think? Come-on! Think!!!

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Trekidol
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 A_alien_ojos_miel-1

    eleni posted this on AV1 - and I thought it quite interesting. I will continue to maintain that we shouldn't go to sleep in the churches - but that we shouldn't stray too far from them, either. I like the idea of continually imagining what an ideal theology and church would be like. This is a valid idea - whether one attends church or not. I used to - I don't presently - but I might do so in the future. Church shouldn't be required - but it should always be available - seven days a week. Anyway - here is the repost from AV1. Enjoy.

    Finally, in a recent round of exchanges with several informants, some of them new ones, we asked them the following question. What are we dealing with here? The extant literature mentions humanoids, grays, reptilians and other kinds of life forms. Which of these are the Anunnaki? And what do they look like? Their answers were quite enlightening. “Let’s start out by saying that we are definitely dealing with biological entities, not altogether more complex than us, except that their cellular electrical capacitance is much higher than ours, which makes them an energetic envelope of much higher bioelectric potential than us. When you are in the presence of one of them, you can feel their presence as if you could cut it with a knife. A very definite force of what could best be described as intention emanates from them” (Eight 2005, 2006). “They are very large, very tall biological specimens, no doubt of that. They can also be best described as looking almost like albinos – white, almost milky white skin, with a sort of sweat or beads of water evident on their skin, like a film – about seven or eight feet in height, very white hair – not gray white, but kind of snow white. Like white wool – yes, kinky white hair, some of them wear it shoulder length, others short, almost close cropped. But you can tell it is kinky. Oh, eyes are red, when you catch them inside in low light and they are not wearing dark, almost black contact-like lenses, but different from ours. They always travel in pairs, so if you see one of them, the other is not too far away. This is true of the kisam. Haven’t had the chance of meeting the others [those who went to the original late ‘70s meeting, ostensibly coming from the home planet] so I can’t tell you what they’re like. Imagine they look the same. But you can tell more about them from their presence” (Eleven 2006). It is interesting to note that C. L. Turnage, author of a series of provocative books on the connection between the Bible, Planet X and the Anunnaki (Turnage 2000, 1997, 1996) had also described an encounter with one of them, in which she described them in nearly identical terms (Turnage, personal communication to the senior author, 1997).3

    I think it would be cool to live in a non-militaristic underground base - which might be the intergalactic diplomatic center for this solar system. A 90 square-foot room with a Cray would be more than enough for me! I'd probably only come out for meals - or when invited to do so. I'd probably mostly just keep doing what I'm doing right now! My second choice would be to hang-out in an Underground Reptilian Monastery! The Vatican doesn't seem to want me! I can't imagine why not! Was it something I said? Maybe I'll just have to build a 90 square-foot shallow underground civilian base with a Cray - under my house - if nobody will give me the time of day - let alone access to the nerve-center of the universe. Ingrates...

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Hobo

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Insp_diplomacy_preview
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Diplomacy
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 NEWcwc1

    What are we going to do with all of the really nasty weaponry in this solar system? Is there any way to properly control it? Do we really need this weaponry to keep each other safe? Do we need to defend ourselves from the rest of the universe? Should we just leave everything in God's Hands? Has this attitude gotten us into one helluva lot of trouble? Who REALLY controls all of the REALLY nasty weaponry? What would happen if all of this weaponry were used simultaneously? Has this sort of thing been contemplated? I mean planned? I'm deadly serious. I had my eyes opened as a mere child, when I read 'When War Comes' (1972). Obviously, this is a seriously dated book - but it should still be read by everyone. I like the idea of never using any of this bullshit on each other - but I also like the idea of defending the human race against enslavement and extermination by who knows whom?! I do not like the idea of intergalactic conquest. If any of you start a WMD War - it might not end until the solar system is one big goddamn asteroid belt - exactly 93.57 minutes after the commencement of hostilities. My current theory is that most of the WMD's and UFO's are controlled by a Secret Government - which might not be Human. If this has been the case - I hope that it no longer is. But are Regressive Non-Humans more responsible than Progressive Humans? How do we properly defuse the madness in this solar system? Would a Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System make this solar system a safer place for All Concerned? What would Dr. Strangelove say?

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 X32567
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Mk17-bomb4
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Nuclear-explosion-digital-art-hd-wallpaper-2560x1600-3213
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 UFOs+and+Nukes+By+Robert+Hastings

    This is a bit repetitious - but consider reading 'The Keys of This Blood', 'The Federalist Papers', and 'The Desire of Ages' while listening to Latin Masses and Sacred Classical Music. I may be mad - but at least I have a method. Remember - this is only a conceptual experiment. This thread is a solar system governance laboratory, with a mad social scientist, and no budget. I don't mean to make everyone think like I do - but I do desire a non-corrupt  solar system governance core - which will facilitate responsible political and religious freedom throughout the solar system. When the center holds - other things can be safely varied. If the center fails - then everything goes to hell. Politics, Religion, and Solar System Governance MUST be properly addressed - or we are screwed. We might be anyway - but at least we have a fighting chance if we get these three things right.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 St-Basils-Cathedral
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Notre-dame-cathedral-interior
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cathedral_v
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Milan_Cathedral
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 NationalCathedral
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cathedral-fortaleza
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Salisbury_Cathedral
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Durham20cathedral20interior
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Las-lajas-cathedral
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cathedral_pan_web
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 SaintPatricksCathedral-001
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Segovia-s-cathedral
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 464127609_5bdcef6d1b

    investigator wrote:What do ya think of my tinfoil theory bud? Okkkk..... Here it is! What if those pet crocodiles are reincarnated Draco Reptilians or fallen angels that wanted to reform their ways? And them being a pet for humans is a science experiment to learn love and get along with humans in the rest of the universe? An experiment to end the galactic wars?
    Siriusly - what is the true nature of the souls of the mammals, reptiles, etc? Do they have souls? If so - how do they differ from our souls? How does a Drac Soul differ from a Human Soul? I don't think they're trying to reform themselves. I think they're trying to take over! Phobos Today! The Solar System Tomorrow!
    investigator wrote:But shouldn't a truly free responsible system of global governance, exclude religious favoritism?  I'm more of a fan of "The Earth Confederation" or something like that, without any religious connotations. A system of governance where everyone has access to free energy, photographic memory, all of their abilities, the very finest in alternative medicine, and complete respect for free-will.  I don't like the word federation, and prefer confederation, because confederation respects free-will more imho. If we were still a confederation, we could just be like "Hey Illuminati we are sick of you guys printing up a gazillion dollars, the stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,  we are leaving the union, switching to gold and silver, joining the Agartha Network, and switching to free energy. Peace out!" Not a big fan of the Vatican myself though, even the good guys in the Vatican, cause they are like "You are going to hell if you don't believe as I do" and I know that to not be true. Hehehe I dunno about the pet crocodiles though man, maybe it's possible, because maybe those crocodiles really can feel love. I'm not sure.
    A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by treaty, have delegated certain of their competences (or powers) to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.

    By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the many memberships of the member states in a confederation are voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not.[A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:

       * (1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation.
       * (2) Decisions on day-to-day matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member).
       * (3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity
    Thank-you investigator. I appreciate your concerns. I wish to maximize religious and political freedom for everyone - including Satanists and Communists! But it is necessary to properly deal with BOTH politics and religion - as it relates to Solar System Governance. If this is done properly - then other things can be done freely and responsibly - including your idealistic ideas. Politics is a special case of religion. Religion is a special case of politics. One should not be pitted against the other. There should be a minimalist integration at the solar system governance level. But this is different than a state church. The Vatican is a huge part of the problem - and potentially a huge part of the solution. I worry about who has REALLY controlled the Vatican for nearly 2,000 years. I seek a changing of the guard - along with reforms in liturgy, theology, and governance. Positively reinforcing the best of the past is probably the best way to pave the way for all of the great ideas, like yours. The center might have to be somewhat traditional, so as to facilitate continuity and stability. I prefer evolutionary change over revolutionary change. This is a complex subject, and I fear that many will burn out while trying to figure it out. Conflicting Idealistic Concepts could potentially scuttle evolutionary progress. I will re-read your post several times, to make sure that I completely understand it. Thanks again for your interest in solar system governance. I'm sure that eventually, things will work out well for all concerned. This is only the beginning. The best is yet to come! Namaste.

    I can always tell when I'm on target, when my computer starts running really slowly, and the fan sounds like a 757 preparing for takeoff. Today, it's been so bad, that I almost called 'checkmate'...

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Chess%20with%20Satan
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 19436550_221465559c
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Chess22
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 6_461

    I remain a follower of Jesus - but I am presently reevaluating and reconsidering everything. I'll take a look at the book you mentioned. Gerald Massey and Ralph Ellis are interesting sources of alternative views of Jesus and the Bible. Gotta go! The Reptilians are Coming! Even Jesus is preparing for the Reptilian Invasion. Better stock-up on Orgone. Better Dead Than Rep. What is the true nature of the soul? What if it is Interdimensional Reptilian in nature - for Reptilians, Greys, Dracs, Hybrids - and Humans? I don't know - but I just have to keep stirring things up. My theory is that we should consider ALL possibilities - no matter how ridiculous they might seem. I will just keep being sort of a smart-alec regarding what could potentially be very serious and dangerous. Some of this is so sad, that it's funny.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 515FEQTDSDL._SL500_AA300_
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Jesus-machine-gun

    I don't usually listen to Alex Jones - but today's show should be interesting, regarding the birth-certificate thing. I continue to have mixed-feelings about President Obama. I've been mostly silent about him. I continue to think that the Secret Government really calls the shots - but how obedient is this President? Who knows? I don't trust anyone or anything anymore. I think 'THEY' have something on EVERYONE - which can be used to manipulate or destroy whoever 'THEY' are dealing with. The guilty can be made to look innocent - and the innocent can be made to look guilty. The general public can be easily led around by the hooks in their noses. I tend to be emotional and gullible - and I have to really work at being a critical thinker. I'm still seeking a happy-medium in this regard. I like President Obama - but he always seems to have a 'vacant' look to him. I really worry about what politicians are subjected to, regarding mind-control, blackmail, threats, bribes, and even supernatural harrassment and control - which could potentially involve 'perfect-possession'. What do we really know about hybridization, walk-ins, soul-scalping, soul-transference, etc, etc, etc? I am very fearful regarding all manner of advanced technology and ancient 'wisdom'. I keep thinking that we live in a VERY creepy and dangerous world. I don't envy President Obama one little bit. I just wish we could really rationally discuss all of the madness, without being nasty with each other. We don't seem to be very civilized. Are we barbarians - or are we reptilians? Which is worse? How should we attempt to shine the light on this present darkness? I've made some suggestions on this thread - but what do I know???

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 TIME-Obama-DNC-Cover
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Coverbirtherlarge_thumb1_1
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 20080425_ObamaAnthem
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 OBAMACERTIFICATEOFLIVEBIRTH

    I intend this thread as a mental and spiritual gymnasium - rather than being any sort of exclusive claim to 'the truth'. I am also not trying to set myself up as some sort of a guru of the absurd. I'm not sure why I said that - but it sounds sort of cool! I wish to focus upon sound principles and concepts - rather than focusing on personalities. I just want this solar system to get it's act together - regardless of who or what is involved in accomplishing this. I'm not happy with myself at all. I am very uncomfortable with my life and with current events. I am not a happy camper at all. I continue to ask all of you to study this thread in it's entirety. I'm not claiming that it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - but that it might lead you toward the truth - in ways that very few other sources can, at this point in time. This is just sort of like an all-night brainstorming session in front of the fireplace. I purposely use off the wall images and comments to provide contextual contrasts which help to stimulate unconventional thinking. I use humor to try to deal with some VERY dark subjects. I think we are in VERY serious trouble, and that we somehow have to retain a sense of humor. I continue to hate no one - but I distrust everyone - including myself. I am truly an honest softball-player in a dishonest hardball-world. I need to somehow get tougher, quicker, and craftier - while continuing to be honest and idealistic. I need to be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove - but perhaps I need to strike once in a while - and inject some venom into the infowar! What am I saying? Shame on me!

    How might a group of Renegade Jesuits combine this short-list into a single volume - complete with Latin and King James English? I'm sorry for being so repetitious - but I'm really trying to give myself spiritual-resuscitation. I am not speaking from a lofty mountain. I'm trying to climb back up - from the bottom of a cliff! Perhaps if there were 52 Latin Masses which incorporated everything on the list - including model homilies - this would be highly instructive. Then the Bretheren might try it out in that Underground Reptilian Monastery I keep talking about! The Reptilians would have to sign-off on it - wouldn't they??!! What Would Lord Draco Say? I would be interested to visit a church which used the Latin Mass (as is - at first) - but without crucifixes, wafers, fermented wine, announcements, or collections - and which used chapters from 'The Desire of Ages' (15 minutes) and 'The Federalist Papers' (15 minutes) word for word, in 30 minute homilies - and which integrated the best in Sacred Classical Music - before, during, and after the Mass. Do you see what I'm saying? This would just be an experiment - over say, 1 year - to see how it went. This whole thing is a test. It's only a test. I think this whole thing could be properly done - but I doubt that the level of cooperation would ever exist for this to be able to become a reality. The power struggling would be something to behold! This crude first-step would obviously have to be refined, before it would be ready for prime-time. Or - perhaps we should just go with the Crystal Cathedral Model - but without the "Look at Me! Celebrity Christianity!" Salvation by Self-Exaltation? I think not. Or - what about Salvation4Sale via PayPal? (get it?) I'll always want to strive out into the universe of ideas - so I will probably never be satisfied with any theology, church, or governmental system. I'm just trying to positively reinforce that which has been in existence for a significant period of time - and which has momentum and a track-record. And, I am not exactly sold on the idea of including the writings of Ellen G. White in the Biblical Canon - even though I think that we can learn a helluva lot from 'The Desire of Ages' - much of which is ecumenical in nature (unlike 'The Great Controversy'). The Latin Mass, Sacred Classical Music, and Gothic Cathedrals seem to harmonize in a rather grand manner - but I have substantial theological issues with the traditional theological interpretation of the Mass. How does one drain the bathwater without flushing the baby down the toilet? (Sorry - I couldn't resist.)

    1. The Teachings of Jesus.

    2. The U.S. Constitution.

    3. The Latin Mass.

    4. The Sacred Classical Music.

    5. A Vatican-Based Namaste-Constitutional Responsible-Freedom United States of the Solar System.

    I guess I'll just have to conceptually work with this in the coming years - and perhaps bits and pieces of the concept will be incorporated into whatever New Solar System emerges - probably after lots of fighting and misery. Which individuals and groups would support this list? Which individuals and groups would oppose this list? What would their reasons be? What if someone like Amen-Ra or Anna theocratically imposed this sort of thing on the solar system? The whole solar system would never agree to such a thing - would they? We can't really seem to agree on much of anything. Will the confusion just keep descending to lower and lower levels of civilization - until we exterminate ourselves completely? Everyone wants things to be 'Good' - but we can't seem to agree on what 'Good' is - or how to achieve that which is 'Good' - so things continue to be 'Bad' for most of the people in the world. All of this must REALLY seem stupid to those who live on the Moon. But then, they might want things to continue to be 'Bad', and they might even be greasing the skids to perdition. One major problem is that we have been lied to, regarding the most important things, and that it might be very difficult for us to be happy with reality. At least the lies gave us a perfect heaven to win, and an eternally burning hell to shun. Pretty good motivator, huh?! I think this world is going to be an Angry-Mess for a very long time. I think it's going to be a mess - no matter what we do. I'm just hoping we can avoid Armageddon during the remainder of this century. I really need to internalize and refine everything in this thread. I should probably stop trying to pull others along with me, as I struggle in the muck - but misery loves company. I am really haunted by the opening scenes of Battlestar Galactica "The Plan". That could happen here, you know. Perhaps it already has - more than once. I've heard that there really and truly was a Caprica - and that this has happened before. As of this moment - we might very well be at war - in a conflict which began 600,000 years ago. But what the hell do I know? Will the Truth Set Us Free - or Will it Start a Brand-New Star War? Damned if I know. Probably Damned. Period. I really need to get away from all of this. I want to help - but I want to stay out of the crazy-place. I'm sliding closer and closer toward the edge - and there's no guard-rail.

    One more time - I invite the Beings of the Universe to Support Humanity in Establishing a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System - Based Wherever it is Most Appropriate. Wouldn't continued discussions be most productive in the context of paradise, rather than purgatory or hell? Why does there always have to be fighting and misery? Can't we do better than this? Why is this so hard??

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Earth-moon
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Jhrdlh4yzngji7ddnzy


    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:01 pm

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 20332336821_e9b3936cdb_b

    My computer is being Seriously Messed-With. Someone needs to deal with this problem, by whatever means are deemed appropriate. If anyone wants to know what I'm thinking and doing, just search this website!! This is the only place I post. I don't have secret meetings or writings. No one needs to screw my computer "doggy-style" with "back-door entry". Some of you need to get "real-jobs" and/or "blow-jobs". I could say a lot more, but this latest development might help me do some significant "offline-research". You'll probably know a lot less about me that way. It might be easier that way. I'd rather listen to Bach, Buxtehude, Widor, and Vierne, while reading books by Raymond Cottrell from the 1960's. Now I'm going to finish re-watching Cleopatra (1963). What Would Isis Do?? Think long and hard concerning what I've posted on The United States of the Solar System (Books 1,2,3). "The Judgment Was Set, and the Books Were Opened". What Would Skater Dater Say??

    I'm trying to figure-out this website. I understood its beginning in the aftermath of the abraxasinas Thuban-Meltdown. There were several individuals at that time, who were quite willing to talk about forbidden topics in very articulate ways, but they're mostly gone now. The Thuban-Crowd were challenging sparring-partners!! Now, I post in my own little corner of this site, while probably half a dozen members (out of over 1300 members) post alternative current-events material. We don't talk about the Alex Collier and Richard Hoagland stuff anymore. The posting-volume is extremely low. The ads at the top of the page are often borderline-pornography. No one posts on my threads anymore. I quote Carol a lot on my threads, just to add some variety, but it almost feels like I'm plagiarizing sometimes (even though proper credit is given, and most of it consists of images, videos, and articles). I seem to be waiting for something. Perhaps another life?? Who knows?? I'd like to write a book, but I keep waiting for one of the major-posters (over the past 6 or 7 years) to write a book based upon the Project Avalon and The Mists of Avalon adventure. I'm not enough of an Insider to do that sort of thing. What's going on here??  

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 O_skaterdater-skater-dater-dvd-skateboarding-1965-eaf9
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Skater-dater

    Here's another mostly-unedited 'Blast from the Past'!! I've said this sort of thing before, but what if this solar system started out with Three Archangels -- and at some point there was a power-struggle -- with the "Lead" Archangel (Michael??) being 'removed' (in whatever manner) -- with the remaining two sharing power (1. Gabriel? 2. Lucifer?)?? What if 1,000-1,200 years ago the pecking order became 1. Lucifer? 2. Gabriel? What if presently, the pecking order is back to 1. Gabriel? 2. Lucifer? But what if Michael has unexpectedly reappeared, and thrown a reptilian-wrench into everyone's plans for Supreme Domination??!! What if, in some sense, Michael set this whole thing up in antiquity, to Cleanse the Sanctuary of That Which Defiles, and Teach the Universe an Unforgettable Lesson?? What if the Horror of History is part of a Harsh Divine Plan?? What if this universe is a VERY HARSH UNIVERSE??? What if it is a near impossibility to introduce Idealistic Genetics and Governance into a VERY TRADITIONAL UNIVERSE?? I really don't know about the roles of Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer. I really and truly don't. All I know is that this solar system has been in a helluva lot of trouble for a very long time -- with no end in sight (as far as I can tell). What if most souls in this solar system were part of the hypothetical plot of overthrow Archangel Michael?? What if those loyal to Michael went to other locations (such as Arcturus, Sirius, Aldebaran, the Pleiades, etc.)?? What if they are returning presently?? Are we facing another War in Heaven?? What's really happening regarding Africa (including Egypt, of course)???

    I'd love to upgrade Purgatory Incorporated to Paradise Incorporated with a Reasonable Business and Legal Model (with a reasonable system of rewards and punishments) -- but I have NO idea if this is possible. Perhaps Purgatory Incorporated will, of necessity, become much more harsh. I have NO idea. But I have a VERY bad feeling about the past 100 years -- and the next 100 years. Something is VERY WRONG. I guess I'm thinking about my idealistic plans (or anyone's idealistic plans) as being implemented toward the end of this century. Will this solar system ALWAYS be some sort of Babylonian-Egyptian-Roman Empire?? Keep thinking in terms of a High-Tech Babylonian-Egyptian-Roman Garden of Eden with Three Archangels in Conflict with Each Other in a Very Harsh Universe. I have NO idea if this was the situation -- but I think some of us need to model this possibility. What about all of the Old Churches being Artisticentric -- without trying to raise-money, save-souls, or crack-down?? Would this require some sort of state support?? What a slippery and scary slope!! I have NO idea what to do -- which is why I'd like to watch and question for a couple of lifetimes as a Cool Fool with Birkenstocks, Blue-Jeans, Armani Jackets, and State of the Art Laptop Computers with Access to Everyone and Everything!! I'm Easy!! Why are you swearing??!! What if all major-religions, large-countries, and big-businesses are run by an Archangelic Secret Government?? Would an Idealistic United States of the Solar System somehow have to continue with the existing solar system control structure -- but in a more ethical and open manner?? I have NO idea. All I know is that the past 100 years have been VERY destructive. Just look at the wars, economic-corruption, and environmental-destruction!!! OMG!!! We are destroying ourselves in a MOST sophisticated manner -- and we seem to be quite proud of ourselves!!! All's well as long as we're looking good and making money!!! Right??!! We seem to enjoy being in Bed with the Devil!!! Once you've had.....never mind. What if nearly everyone is two-faced, back-stabbing, cruel, opportunistic, and deceptive?? Here is another variation on my famous Biblical Study Lists (KJV):

    1. Deuteronomy
    2. Psalms
    3. Proverbs
    4. Matthew
    5. Mark
    6. Luke
    7. John
    8. Acts
    9. Romans
    10. Hebrews

    Imagine all of the above in the context of a High-Tech Babylonian-Egyptian-Roman Garden of Eden with Three Archangels in Conflict with Each Other. I have no inside information -- and I am merely suggesting some alternative approaches to Biblical, Historical, Governmental, and Theological Research. I have linked these two video series before - but here they are again. I mean no harm. I don't mean to be mean. I'm NOT endorsing these videos. I am merely examining a lot of the wild stuff on the internet -- in the context of this thread -- which is quite different than researching the various bits and pieces of information in isolation -- or in some other biased environment.

    1. 'New World Order. The Devil in the Vatican.' Try using this music:

    2. 'Satan, the Beast, and the False Prophet' Try using this music:

    If you haven't already looked at all of the parts - please do. I've been through both of them - and I'm going to go through them again. I really do believe in the angelic and the demonic - but they might be quite a bit different than what many of us think they are. There is so much BS in theology, philosophy, and everything - but there is a truth which underlies the bs. This is a very disorienting study - so be careful as you research all of this material. There seems to be an ongoing spiritual war. I don't know the details - but I know it exists. I think Blavatsky offers many important clues - but I would not recommend becoming a 'follower'. I think everyone is in for a rude awakening in the near future. I think all of us have been had. That's just my impression. Regarding the Vatican - I think there is a good side and a bad side - and I seek the liberation and reformation of the Sirian/Atlantean/Babylonian/Egyptian/Grecian/Roman Catholic Church. I might've overdone that last sentence, a bit, but maybe not. I just keep venturing where angels fear to tread, with my pseudo-intellectual and experiential 'research'. Horns, Snakes, Sun, Gods, Goddess, Mythologies, Prophets, Pharaohs. There seems to be a lot of overlap, commonalities, obscure symbolism, and deception. I'm suspecting two or three major players in this solar system (possibly Archangels) in conflict with each other (for who knows what reasons?). Focus on what might be behind all of the above. What if there are two Archangels in direct conflict with each other - and an opportunistic mercenary Archangel in the middle? What if Archangels = Interdimensional Reptilian Queens? Sorry. I need to stop, and go to sleep! Please watch the videos!!

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Blavatsky-r
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 6a00e54ef51d76883401157243a300970b-250wi
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Blavatsytitlw
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Helena-Petrovna-Blavatsky-Studies-In-Occultism-free-ebook-PDF
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Blavatsky

    I've recently joked about living in a Deep Underground Reptilian Monastery - but do you think such places really exist? Would you like to live in a Deep Underground Reptilian Monastery? Would the Reptilian Monks necessarily hate Human Beings? Can you imagine your first visit? I might visit them - if, and only if - they were not evil or hostile. They would obviously have a very different view of life in this solar system. Should they be included in solar system governance? Or - do they ask if Humans should be included in solar system governance? Do Reptilians and Humans Share the Same Type of Soul? Are we simply different aspects of an Ancient Genetics Program to Provide Bodies for Interdimensional Reptilian Souls? Did this Genetics Program Cause the War in Heaven? I am sane - aren't I? Please say 'YES!' PLEASE!!!!!

    My questions really have more to do with Theology and Governance than anything else. This whole subject could be at the core of who we are, where we came from, what is going on presently, and what our future holds. I'm not a UFO-Chaser, and I'm not looking for a Freak-Show. I think the Vatican, the Secret Government, and the Alphabet Agencies know exactly what's going on - but I can't say that I blame them for not blurting out everything they know. Some time ago, an Ivy-League Graduate told me they were a 'Talking Snake'. I didn't know anything about Reptilian Humanoids or Hybrids at the time. But, as I think back, I did hear things about this subject, in round about ways, a long time ago. I'm trying to formulate a rational approach to all fringe subjects, with an emphasis on Responsibility. But, so far, I haven't been very responsible. I'm making this solar system the set of my very own science fiction show (within my mind) which is so much better than  most of the sci-fi tripe. Even if all of this is complete bs - it's still an excellent mental exercise - if one doesn't go insane, that is. I think the comparative aspect of esoteric research is extremely important - so as not to get suckered into some controlling or dangerous cult or church. I love listening to older researchers, who have studied for decades, and who have a calm and seasoned demeanor. You know, people who have seen 'em come and go, and who have seen it all, and then reached some sort of rational resolution to the madness. If I could convert the masses to any one thing - it would be to convince them to become Lifelong Skilled Multidisciplinary Researchers (LSMR). Just give me a Room with a Cray - in a Deep Underground Reptilian Monastery (DURM). Just in case anyone out there in cyberspace is attempting to pigeonhole me - My Highly Specialized Area of Research is Solar System Studies (SSS). Research Without End - orthodoxymoron.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Cr-cover-560w-600h
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 O-QUEEN-ELIZABETH-PATTERNS-2-facebook
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 69728

    This is sort of an ongoing fan-fiction project. I don't know how much of it is reality, and how much is fiction. It's just all mixed together, sort of like 'the wheat and the tares'. I think I dance around the truth, without really spelling it out. I think the ultimate truth is so much bigger than any of us can really comprehend. I think I'm just scratching the surface. Here is an example. Who is the Queen of England - REALLY? To begin, here is the wiki entry. Some people frown on wikipedia based research - but I tend to think that it might be a bit less edited and censored than more 'credible' sources. I like to watch 'joe blow' videos on YouTube for the same reason. Some yahoo in the sticks might have an absolutely profound insight! Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, born 21 April 1926[N 1]) is the constitutional monarch of sixteen independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. As Head of the Commonwealth, she is the figurehead of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations; as the British monarch, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

    Elizabeth was educated privately at home. Her father, George VI, became King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Emperor of India in 1936. She began to undertake public duties during the Second World War, in which she served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. After the war and Indian independence, George VI abandoned the title of Emperor of India, and the evolution of the British Empire into the Commonwealth accelerated. In 1947, Elizabeth made the first of many tours around the Commonwealth and married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Elizabeth and Philip have four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward.

    In 1949, George VI became the first Head of the Commonwealth, a "symbol of the free association of its independent member nations".[1] When he died in 1952, Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and the queen of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service in 1953 was the first to be televised.[2] During her reign, which at 59 years is one of the longest for a British monarch, she became queen of 25 other countries within the Commonwealth as they gained independence. Between 1956 and 1992, half her realms, including South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon (renamed Sri Lanka), became republics.

    In 1992, which Elizabeth termed her annus horribilis ("horrible year"), two of her sons separated from their wives, her daughter divorced, and a severe fire destroyed part of Windsor Castle. Revelations on the state of her eldest son Charles's marriage continued, and he divorced in 1996. The following year, her former daughter-in-law Diana, Princess of Wales, died in a car crash in Paris. The media criticised the royal family for remaining in seclusion in the days before Diana's funeral, but Elizabeth's personal popularity rebounded after she appeared in public and has since remained high. Her Silver and Golden Jubilees were celebrated in 1977 and 2002; planning for her Diamond Jubilee in 2012 is underway.

    Elizabeth was the first child of Prince Albert, Duke of York (later King George VI), and his wife, Elizabeth. Her father was the second son of King George V and Queen Mary, and her mother was the youngest daughter of Scottish aristocrat Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. She was born by Caesarean section at 2.40 am (GMT) on 21 April 1926 at her maternal grandfather's London house: 17 Bruton Street, Mayfair;[3] and was baptised in the private chapel of Buckingham Palace by the Archbishop of York, Cosmo Lang, on 29 May.[4][N 2] She was named Elizabeth after her mother, Alexandra after George V's mother, and Mary after her grandmother.[6] Her close family called her "Lilibet".[7] George V cherished his granddaughter, and during his serious illness in 1929 her regular visits raised his spirits and were credited with aiding his recovery.[8]

    Elizabeth's only sibling was Princess Margaret, who was born in 1930. The two princesses were educated at home under the supervision of their mother and their governess, Marion Crawford, who was casually known as "Crawfie".[9] To the dismay of the royal family,[10] Crawford later published a biography of Elizabeth and Margaret's childhood years entitled The Little Princesses. The book describes Elizabeth's love of horses and dogs, her orderliness, and her attitude of responsibility.[11] Others echoed such observations: Winston Churchill described Elizabeth when she was two as "a character. She has an air of authority and reflectiveness astonishing in an infant."[12] Her cousin Margaret Rhodes described her as "a jolly little girl, but fundamentally sensible and well-behaved".[13]

    As a granddaughter of the monarch in the male line, Elizabeth's full style at birth was Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth of York. She was third in the line of succession to the throne, behind her uncle, Edward, Prince of Wales, and her father. Although her birth generated public interest, she was not expected to become queen, as the Prince of Wales was still young, and many assumed he would marry and have children of his own.[14] In 1936, when her grandfather, the King, died and her uncle Edward succeeded, she became second in line to the throne after her father. Later that year, Edward abdicated after his proposed marriage to divorced socialite Wallis Simpson provoked a constitutional crisis.[15] Elizabeth's father became king, and she became heiress presumptive, with the style Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth.

    Elizabeth received private tuition in constitutional history from Henry Marten, Vice-Provost of Eton College,[16] and learned French from a succession of native-speaking governesses.[17] A Girl Guides company, the 1st Buckingham Palace Company, was formed specifically so she could socialise with girls her own age.[18] Later she was enrolled as a Sea Ranger.[17]

    In 1939, Elizabeth's parents toured Canada and visited the United States. As in 1927, when her parents had toured Australia and New Zealand, Elizabeth remained in Britain as the King thought her too young to undertake public tours.[19] Elizabeth "looked tearful" as her parents departed.[20] They corresponded regularly,[20] and on 18 May, she and her parents made the first royal transatlantic telephone call.[19]

    From September 1939, with the outbreak of the Second World War, Elizabeth and her younger sister, Margaret, stayed at Balmoral Castle, Scotland, until Christmas 1939, when they moved to Sandringham House, Norfolk.[21] From February to May 1940, they lived at Royal Lodge, Windsor, until moving to Windsor Castle, where they stayed for most of the next five years.[22] The suggestion by senior politician Lord Hailsham that the two princesses should be evacuated to Canada was rejected by Elizabeth's mother; she declared, "The children won't go without me. I won't leave without the King. And the King will never leave."[23] At Windsor, the princesses staged pantomimes at Christmas in aid of the Queen's Wool Fund, which bought yarn to knit into military garments.[24] In 1940, the 14-year-old Elizabeth made her first radio broadcast during the BBC's Children's Hour, addressing other children who had been evacuated from the cities.[25] She stated:

    We are trying to do all we can to help our gallant sailors, soldiers and airmen, and we are trying, too, to bear our share of the danger and sadness of war. We know, every one of us, that in the end all will be well.[25]

    In 1943, at the age of 16, Elizabeth undertook her first solo public appearance on a visit to the Grenadier Guards, of which she had been appointed Colonel-in-Chief the previous year.[26] In February 1945, she joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service, as an honorary Second Subaltern with the service number of 230873.[27] She trained as a driver and mechanic, drove a military truck,[26] and was promoted to honorary Junior Commander five months later.[28]

    During the war, plans were drawn up to quell Welsh nationalism by affiliating Elizabeth more closely with Wales.[29] Welsh politicians proposed that Elizabeth be made Princess of Wales on her 18th birthday. The idea was supported by Home Secretary Herbert Morrison but rejected by the King because he felt such a title belonged solely to the wife of a Prince of Wales, and the Prince of Wales had always been the heir apparent (usually the Sovereign's eldest surviving son). Elizabeth was only heir presumptive and could be supplanted in the line of succession if the sovereign had a son.[30] In 1946, she was inducted into the Welsh Gorsedd of Bards at the National Eisteddfod of Wales.[31]

    At the end of the war in Europe, on Victory in Europe Day, Elizabeth and her sister mingled anonymously with the celebratory crowds in the streets of London. She later said in a rare interview, "we asked my parents if we could go out and see for ourselves. I remember we were terrified of being recognised ... I remember lines of unknown people linking arms and walking down Whitehall, all of us just swept along on a tide of happiness and relief."[32] Two years later, the princess made her first overseas tour, when she accompanied her parents to Southern Africa. During the tour, in a broadcast to the British Commonwealth on her 21st birthday, she pledged: "I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."[33]

    Elizabeth met her future husband, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, in 1934 and 1937.[34] After another meeting at the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth in July 1939, Elizabeth – though only 13 years old – fell in love with Philip, and they began to exchange letters.[35] They married on 20 November 1947 at Westminster Abbey. They are second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark and third cousins through Queen Victoria. Before the marriage, Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles, converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Anglicanism, and adopted the style Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, taking the surname of his mother's British family.[36] Just before the wedding, he was created Duke of Edinburgh and granted the style of His Royal Highness.[37]

    The marriage was not without controversy: Philip had no financial standing, was foreign-born (though a British subject), and had sisters who had married German noblemen with Nazi links.[38] Elizabeth's mother was reported, in later biographies, to have opposed the union initially, even dubbing Philip "The Hun".[39] In later life, however, she told biographer Tim Heald that Philip was "an English gentleman".[40]

    Elizabeth and Philip received 2500 wedding gifts from around the world,[41] but the country had not yet completely rebounded from the devastation of the war. She still required ration coupons to buy the material for her gown, designed by Norman Hartnell.[42] In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations to be invited to the wedding, including Philip's three surviving sisters.[43][44] Ronald Storrs claimed that another notable absentee, Elizabeth's aunt, Mary, Princess Royal, refused to attend because her brother Edward, the former king, was not invited; she gave ill health as the official reason for not attending.[45]

    Elizabeth gave birth to her first child, Prince Charles, on 14 November 1948, less than one month after letters patent were issued by her father allowing her children to enjoy a royal and princely status to which they otherwise would not have been entitled.[46][47] A second child, Princess Anne, was born in 1950.

    Following their wedding, the couple leased Windlesham Moor near Windsor Castle, until 4 July 1949,[41] when they took up residence at Clarence House in London. At various times between 1949 and 1951, the Duke of Edinburgh was stationed in Malta (then a British Protectorate) as a serving Royal Navy officer. He and Elizabeth lived intermittently, for several months at a time, in the Maltese hamlet of Gwardamangia, at the Villa Gwardamangia, the rented home of Philip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten. The children remained in Britain.[48]

    George VI's health declined during 1951, and Elizabeth was soon frequently standing in for him at public events. In October of that year, she toured Canada, and visited President of the United States Harry S. Truman in Washington, D.C.; on the trip, her private secretary, Martin Charteris, carried a draft accession declaration for use if the King died while she was on tour.[49] In early 1952, Elizabeth and Philip set out for a tour of Australia and New Zealand by way of Kenya. On 6 February 1952, they had just returned to their Kenyan home, Sagana Lodge, after a night spent at Treetops Hotel, when word arrived of the death of Elizabeth's father. Philip broke the news to the new queen.[50] Martin Charteris asked her to choose a regnal name; she chose to remain Elizabeth, "of course".[51][52] She was proclaimed queen throughout her realms, and the royal party hastily returned to the United Kingdom.[53] She and the Duke of Edinburgh moved into Buckingham Palace.[54]

    With Elizabeth's accession, it seemed likely that the royal house would bear her husband's name. Lord Mountbatten thought it would be the House of Mountbatten, as Elizabeth would typically have taken Philip's last name on marriage; however, Queen Mary and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill favoured the retention of the House of Windsor, and so Windsor it remained. The Duke complained, "I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children."[55] In 1960, after the death of Queen Mary and the resignation of Churchill, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor was adopted for Philip and Elizabeth's male-line descendants who do not carry royal titles.[56]

    Amid preparations for the coronation, Princess Margaret informed her sister that she wished to marry Peter Townsend, a divorced commoner 16 years older than Margaret with two sons from his previous marriage. The Queen asked them to wait for a year; in the words of Martin Charteris, "the Queen was naturally sympathetic towards the Princess, but I think she thought – she hoped – given time, the affair would peter out."[57] Senior politicians were against the match, and the Church of England did not permit re-marriage after divorce. If Margaret contracted a civil marriage, she would have to renounce her right of succession.[58] Eventually, she decided to abandon her plans with Townsend.[59] In 1960, she married Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon. They were divorced in 1978. She did not remarry.

    Despite the death of Elizabeth's grandmother Queen Mary on 24 March 1953, the coronation went ahead in Westminster Abbey on 2 June 1953. Before she died, Mary had asked that the coronation not be delayed. The entire ceremony, except the anointing and communion, was televised, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million,[60] and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours.[61][62] In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts.[63] Elizabeth wore a gown commissioned from Norman Hartnell, which was embroidered with floral emblems for the countries of the Commonwealth: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.[64]

    Elizabeth witnessed, over her life, the ongoing transformation of the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations. By the time of Elizabeth's accession in 1952, her role as nominal head of multiple independent states was already established.[65] Spanning 1953–54, the Queen and her husband embarked on a six-month around-the-world tour. She became the first reigning monarch of Australia and New Zealand to visit those nations.[66][67] During the tour, crowds were immense; three-quarters of the population of Australia were estimated to have seen the Queen.[68] Throughout her reign, Elizabeth has undertaken state visits to foreign countries, and tours of Commonwealth ones. She is the most widely travelled head of state in history.[69]

    In 1956, French Prime Minister Guy Mollet and British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden discussed the possibility of France joining the Commonwealth. The proposal was never accepted, and the following year France signed the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, the precursor of the European Union.[70] In November 1956, Britain and France invaded Egypt in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to capture the Suez Canal. Lord Mountbatten claimed the Queen was opposed to the invasion, though Eden denied it. Eden resigned two months later.[71]

    The absence of a formal mechanism within the Conservative Party for choosing a leader meant that, following Eden's resignation, it fell to the Queen to decide whom to commission to form a government. Eden recommended that Elizabeth consult Lord Salisbury (the Lord President of the Council). Lord Salisbury and Lord Kilmuir (the Lord Chancellor) consulted the Cabinet, Winston Churchill, and the Chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee, as a result of which the Queen appointed their recommended candidate: Harold Macmillan.[72] Six years later, Macmillan resigned and advised the Queen to appoint the Earl of Home as prime minister, advice that she followed.[73]

    The Suez crisis and the choice of Eden's successor led in 1957 to the first major personal criticism of the Queen. In a magazine, which he owned and edited,[74] Lord Altrincham accused her of being "out of touch".[75] Altrincham was denounced by public figures and physically attacked by a member of the public appalled at his comments.[76] In 1963, the Queen again came under criticism for appointing the Prime Minister on the advice of a small number of ministers, or a single minister.[73] In 1965, the Conservatives adopted a formal mechanism for choosing a leader, thus relieving her of involvement.[77]

    In 1957, she made a state visit on behalf of the Commonwealth to the United States, where she addressed the United Nations General Assembly. On the same tour, she opened the 23rd Canadian Parliament, becoming the first monarch of Canada to open a parliamentary session. Two years later, she revisited the United States as a representative of Canada. In 1961, she toured Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Iran.[78] On a visit to Ghana the same year, she dismissed fears for her safety, even though her host President Kwame Nkrumah, who had replaced her as head of state, was a target for assassins.[79] Harold Macmillan wrote: "The Queen has been absolutely determined all through ... She is impatient of the attitude towards her to treat her as ... a film star ... She has indeed 'the heart and stomach of a man' ... She loves her duty and means to be a Queen."[79]

    Elizabeth's pregnancies with Princes Andrew and Edward, in 1959 and 1963, mark the only times she has not performed the State Opening of the British Parliament during her reign.[80] Instead, Parliament was opened by Royal Commission, and the Lord Chancellor delivered the speech from the throne.

    The 1960s and 1970s saw an acceleration in the decolonisation of Africa and the Caribbean. Over 20 countries gained independence from Britain as part of a planned transition to self-government. In 1965, however, Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith declared unilateral independence in opposition to moves toward majority black rule. Although the Queen dismissed Smith in a formal declaration and the international community applied sanctions against Rhodesia, Smith's regime survived for over a decade.[81]

    In February 1974, British Prime Minister Edward Heath called a general election in the middle of the Queen's tour of the Austronesian Pacific Rim, and she had to fly back to Britain interrupting the tour.[82] The inconclusive result of the election meant that Heath, whose Conservative party had the largest share of the popular vote but no overall majority, could stay in office if he formed a coalition with the Liberals. Heath only resigned when discussions on forming a cooperative government foundered, after which the Queen asked the Leader of the Opposition, Labour's Harold Wilson, to form a government.[83]

    A year later, at the height of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was dismissed from his post by Governor-General Sir John Kerr after the Opposition-controlled Senate rejected Whitlam's budget proposals.[84] As Whitlam had a majority in the House of Representatives, Speaker Gordon Scholes appealed to the Queen to reverse Kerr's decision. Elizabeth declined, stating that she would not interfere in decisions reserved for the Governor-General by the Constitution of Australia.[85] The crisis fuelled Australian republicanism.[84]

    In 1977, Elizabeth marked the Silver Jubilee of her accession. Parties and events took place throughout the Commonwealth, many coinciding with the Queen's associated national and Commonwealth tours. The celebrations re-affirmed the Queen's popularity, despite virtually coincident negative press coverage of Princess Margaret's separation from her husband.[86] In 1978, Elizabeth endured a state visit by the communist dictator of Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu.[87] The following year brought two blows: one was the unmasking of Anthony Blunt, former Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures, as a communist spy; the other was the assassination of her relative and in-law Lord Mountbatten by the Provisional Irish Republican Army.[88]

    According to Paul Martin, Sr., by the end of the 1970s the Queen was worried the Crown "had little meaning for" Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.[89] Tony Benn said that the Queen found Trudeau "rather disappointing".[89] Trudeau's supposed republicanism seemed to be confirmed by his antics, such as sliding down banisters at Buckingham Palace and pirouetting behind the Queen's back in 1977, and the removal of various Canadian royal symbols during his term of office.[89] In 1980, Canadian politicians sent to London to discuss the patriation of the Canadian constitution found the Queen "better informed on ... Canada's constitutional case than any of the British politicians or bureaucrats".[89] She was interested in the constitutional debate after the failure of Bill C-60, which would have affected her role as head of state.[89] Patriation removed the role of the British parliament in the Canadian constitution, but the monarchy was retained. Trudeau said in his memoirs: "The Queen favoured my attempt to reform the Constitution. I was always impressed not only by the grace she displayed in public at all times, but by the wisdom she showed in private conversation."[90]

    During the 1981 Trooping the Colour ceremony, and only six weeks before the wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer, six shots were fired at the Queen from close range as she rode down The Mall on her horse, Burmese. Police later discovered that the shots were blanks. The 17-year-old assailant, Marcus Sarjeant, was sentenced to five years in prison and released after three.[91] The Queen's composure and skill in controlling her mount were widely praised.[92] The following year, the Queen awoke in her bedroom at Buckingham Palace to find an intruder, Michael Fagan, in the room with her. Remaining calm, and through two calls to the palace police switchboard, the Queen spoke to Fagan while he sat at the foot of her bed until assistance arrived seven minutes later.[93] From April to September that year, the Queen remained anxious[94] but proud[95] of her son, Prince Andrew, who was serving with British forces during the Falklands War. Though she hosted President Ronald Reagan at Windsor Castle in 1982, and visited his Californian ranch in 1983, she was angered when his administration ordered the invasion of Grenada, one of her Caribbean realms, without her foreknowledge.[96]

    Intense media interest in the opinions and private lives of the royal family during the 1980s led to a series of sensational stories in the press,[97] not all of which were entirely true. As Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of The Sun, told his staff: "Give me a Sunday for Monday splash on the Royals. Don't worry if it's not true – so long as there's not too much of a fuss about it afterwards."[98][N 3] The Queen was reportedly worried that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's economic policies fostered social divisions, and was alarmed by high unemployment, a series of riots, the violence of a miners' strike, and Thatcher's refusal to apply sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.[N 4] Thatcher reputedly said the Queen would vote for the Social Democratic Party—Thatcher's political opponents.[101] Despite such speculation, Thatcher later conveyed her personal admiration for the Queen on film[102] and in her memoirs.[103] Further belying reports of acrimony between them, after Thatcher's replacement by John Major, the Queen gave two honours in her personal gift to Thatcher: the Order of Merit and the Order of the Garter.[104] She also attended Thatcher's 70th and 80th birthday parties.[105]

    By the start of 1991, republican feeling had risen because of press estimates of the Queen's private wealth, which were contradicted by the palace, and reports of affairs and strained marriages among her extended family.[106] The involvement of the younger royals in the charity game show It's a Royal Knockout was ridiculed,[107] and the Queen was the target of satire.[108]

    In 1991, in the wake of victory in the Gulf War, she became the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress.[109] The following year, she attempted to save the failing marriage of her eldest son, Charles, by counselling him and his wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, to patch up their differences.[110]

    Prince Philip and Elizabeth II, October 1992In a speech on 24 November 1992, to mark the 40th anniversary of her accession, the Queen called 1992 her "annus horribilis", meaning horrible year.[111] In March, her second son Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and his wife Sarah, Duchess of York, separated. In April, her daughter Anne, Princess Royal, divorced her husband Captain Mark Phillips.[112] During a state visit to Germany in October, angry demonstrators in Dresden threw eggs at her,[113] and in November Windsor Castle suffered severe fire damage. The monarchy received increased criticism and public scrutiny.[114] In an unusually personal speech, Elizabeth said that any institution must expect criticism but suggested it be done with "a touch of humour, gentleness and understanding".[115] Two days later, Prime Minister John Major announced reforms of the royal finances that had been planned since the previous year, including the Queen paying income tax for the first time starting in 1993 and a reduction in the civil list.[116] In December, Charles and Diana formally separated.[117] The year ended with a lawsuit as the Queen sued The Sun newspaper for breach of copyright when it published the text of her annual Christmas message two days before its broadcast. The newspaper was forced to pay her legal fees, and donated £200,000 to charity.[118]

    In the ensuing years, public revelations on the state of Charles and Diana's marriage continued.[119] In consultation with Prime Minister Major, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, her private secretary Robert Fellowes, and her husband, she wrote to Charles and Diana at the end of December 1995, saying that a divorce was desirable.[120] A year after the divorce, which took place in 1996, Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997. The Queen was on holiday at Balmoral with her son and grandchildren. Diana's two sons wanted to attend church, and so their grandparents took them that morning.[121] After that single public appearance, for five days the Queen and the Duke shielded their grandsons from the intense press interest by keeping them at Balmoral where they could grieve in private.[122] The royal family's seclusion caused public dismay.[123] Pressured by the hostile public reaction, the Queen returned to London and agreed to a live broadcast to the world on 5 September, the day before Diana's funeral.[124] In the broadcast, she expressed admiration for Diana, and her feelings "as a grandmother" for Princes William and Harry.[125] As a result, much of the public hostility evaporated.[125]

    In 2002, Elizabeth marked her Golden Jubilee as queen. Her sister and mother died in February and March, respectively, and the media speculated whether the Jubilee would be a success or a failure.[126] She again undertook an extensive tour of her realms, which began in Jamaica in February, where she called the farewell banquet "memorable" after a power cut plunged the King's House, the official residence of the Governor-General, into darkness.[127] As in 1977, there were street parties and commemorative events, and monuments were named to honour the occasion. A million people attended each day of the three-day main Jubilee celebration in London,[128] and the enthusiasm shown by the public for Elizabeth was greater than many journalists had predicted.[129]

    Though Elizabeth has enjoyed good health throughout her life, in 2003 she had keyhole surgery on both knees, and in June 2005 she cancelled several engagements after contracting a bad cold. In October 2006, the Queen missed the opening of the new Emirates Stadium because of a strained back muscle that had been troubling her since the summer.[130] Two months later, she was seen in public with a plaster on her right hand, which led to press speculation of ill health.[131] She had been bitten by one of her corgis while she was separating two that were fighting.[132]

    In May 2007, The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported claims from unnamed sources that the Queen was "exasperated and frustrated" by the policies of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, that she had shown concern that the British Armed Forces were overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that she had raised concerns over rural and countryside issues with Blair repeatedly.[133] She was, however, said to admire Blair's efforts to achieve peace in Northern Ireland.[134] On 20 March 2008, at the Church of Ireland St Patrick's Cathedral, Armagh, the Queen attended the first Maundy service held outside of England and Wales.[135]

    The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary in 2007; their marriage is the longest of any British monarch. The Queen's reign is longer than those of her four immediate predecessors combined (Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI). She is the longest-lived and third-longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, and the second-longest-serving current head of state (after King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand). She does not intend to abdicate,[136] though the proportion of public duties performed by Prince Charles may increase as Elizabeth reduces her commitments.[137]

    Elizabeth addressed the United Nations for a second time in 2010, 53 years after her first address, again in her capacity as queen of all of her realms and Head of the Commonwealth.[138] UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon introduced her as "an anchor for our age". In her speech, which followed a tour of Canada and was considered by her staff to be one of her most important recently,[139] she said that she had "witnessed great change, much of it for the better ... but", she continued, "the aims and values which inspired the United Nations Charter endure." She concluded, "In tomorrow's world, we must all work together as hard as ever if we are truly to be united nations."[138][139] While in New York, she also officially opened a memorial garden for the British victims of the 11 September attacks.[139][140]

    In March 2011, the Queen accepted an invitation from Irish President Mary McAleese to make a state visit to the Republic of Ireland, the first such visit by a reigning British monarch since 1911.[141]

    Elizabeth plans to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, marking 60 years as Queen. She could become the longest-reigning monarch in the history of any of her realms and the longest-reigning queen regnant in world history (surpassing Queen Victoria, who celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897) if she reigns for another -1596 days, until 10 September 2015.

    Since Elizabeth rarely gives interviews, little is known of her personal feelings. As a constitutional monarch, she has not expressed her own political opinions in a public forum. She does have a deep sense of religious and civic duty, and takes her coronation oath seriously.[142][143] Aside from her official religious role as Supreme Governor of the established Church of England, she personally worships with that church and with the national Church of Scotland.[144] She has demonstrated support for inter-faith relations, and has met with leaders of other religions, and granted her personal patronage to the Council of Christians and Jews.[145] A personal note about her faith often features in her annual Royal Christmas Message broadcast to the Commonwealth, such as in 2000, when she spoke about the theological significance of the millennium marking the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ:

    To many of us, our beliefs are of fundamental importance. For me the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life. I, like so many of you, have drawn great comfort in difficult times from Christ's words and example.[146][147]

    Elizabeth is the patron of over 600 charities and other organisations.[148] Her main leisure interests include equestrianism and dogs, especially her Pembroke Welsh Corgis.[149] Her clothes consist mostly of solid-colour overcoats and decorative hats, which allow her to be seen easily in a crowd.[150]

    In the 1950s, as a young woman at the start of her reign, Elizabeth was depicted as a glamorous "fairytale Queen".[151] After the trauma of the war, it was a time of hope, a period of progress and achievement heralding a "new Elizabethan age".[152] Lord Altrincham's accusation in 1957 that her speeches sounded like those of a "priggish schoolgirl" was an extremely rare criticism.[153] In the late 1960s, attempts to portray a more modern image of monarchy were made in the television documentary Royal Family, and by televising Prince Charles's investiture as Prince of Wales.[154]

    At her Silver Jubilee in 1977, the crowds and celebrations were genuinely enthusiastic,[155] but in the 1980s public criticism of the royal family increased, as the personal and working lives of Elizabeth's children came under media scrutiny.[156] Elizabeth's popularity sank to a low point in the 1990s. Under pressure from public opinion, she began to pay income tax for the first time, and Buckingham Palace was opened to the public.[157] Discontent with the monarchy reached its peak on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, though the Queen's popularity rebounded after her live broadcast to the world five days after Diana's death.[158]

    In November 1999, a referendum in Australia on the future of the monarchy favoured its retention in preference to an indirectly elected head of state.[159] Polls in Britain in 2006 and 2007 revealed strong support for Elizabeth,[160][161][162] and referendums in Tuvalu in 2008 and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in 2009 both rejected proposals to abolish the monarchy.[163]

    Sandringham House, Elizabeth's private residence in Sandringham, NorfolkElizabeth's personal fortune has been the subject of speculation for many years. Forbes magazine estimated her net worth at around US$450 million in 2010,[164] but official Buckingham Palace statements in 1993 called estimates of £100 million "grossly overstated",[165] and Jock Colville estimated her wealth at £2 million in 1971 (the equivalent of about £21 million today[166]).[167] The Royal Collection, which includes artworks and the Crown Jewels, is not owned by the Queen personally and is held in trust,[168][169] as are the occupied palaces in the United Kingdom such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle,[170] and the Duchy of Lancaster, a property portfolio valued at £348 million in 2010.[171]

    As was so with many of her predecessors, Elizabeth is reported to dislike Buckingham Palace as a residence, and prefers Windsor Castle.[136] Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are privately owned by the Queen.[170] Income from the British Crown Estate – with holdings of £6.6 billion in 2010[172] – is transferred to the British treasury in return for Civil List payments. The Crown Estate and the Crown Land of Canada – comprising 89% of Canada's area[173] – are owned by the Sovereign in trust for the nation, and cannot be sold or owned by Elizabeth in a private capacity.

    Elizabeth has held titles throughout her life, as a granddaughter of the monarch, as a daughter of the monarch, through her husband's titles, and eventually as Sovereign. In common parlance, she is The Queen or Her Majesty. Officially, she has a distinct title in each of her realms: Queen of Canada in Canada, Queen of Australia in Australia, etc. In the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, which are Crown dependencies rather than separate realms, she is known as Duke of Normandy and Lord of Man respectively. Additional styles include Defender of the Faith and Duke of Lancaster. When in conversation with the Queen, the practice is to initially address her as Your Majesty and thereafter as Ma'am.[174]

    Elizabeth has received honours and awards from countries around the world, and has held honorary military positions throughout the Commonwealth, both before and after her accession.

    From 21 April 1944,[175] Elizabeth's arms consisted of a lozenge bearing the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, differenced with a label of three points argent, the centre bearing a Tudor Rose and the first and third a cross of St. George.[176] After her accession as Sovereign, she adopted the royal coat of arms undifferenced. The design of the shield is also used on the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom. Elizabeth has personal flags for use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, and elsewhere.[177]

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 F_elizabeth_ii_
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Queen-elizabeth-ii
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Queen-Elizabeth-2
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Queen-Elizabeth-II-18113
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Space%2Btruckin%2527%2Bnovember%2B12%2Ba%2Bcopy-1

    Regarding the Stairway to Heaven:

    Regarding Major Tom:

    Regarding the Year 2525:

    Regarding Anal Retentiveness:

    I got bored while rewatching 'Dogitia' (Someone knows what that means. I didn't know you were responsible for 19 of the 20 top grossing movies of all time! But it doesn't surprise me. BTW - I'm saving 'The Last Supper' for 'The Second Coming of Christ'.) so I did this:

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Rilski_monastery
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 1392526992_b6a4303501
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Tegher_monastery-dcp2679
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2408193237_a3d91c2ca6  
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Iran-jolfa-saint-stephanos-armenian-monastery-near-view
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 2714monastery
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Monastery_1920x1080

    What shall we talk about? I'm beginning this post with nothing in particular to say. I'm just going to ramble - like I often do. What would you do if you were in charge of the solar system? Would you be a dictator? Would you set up a democracy? Would you keep the current Powers That Be - except that you would be the boss? How many people would be involved in solar system governance? Just you? Five? Ten? One Hundred? Five Hundred? One Thousand? Five Thousand? Ten Thousand? What would you do with the Weapons of Mass Destruction? What would you do with the religions? What would you do with the environmental nightmare? What would you do about the Rampant Debt throughout the world? What would you do about all of the suffering in the world? Should we have Preventive Medicine and Natural Care Sanitariums - or should we have Modern High Technology Drugs and Surgery Acute Care Hospitals? Should there be Trillionaires? Billionaires? Millionaires? Should everyone be limited to a maximum net-worth of One Million U.S. Dollars (at current economic conditions)? Should Having a Negative Net Worth Be Illegal? Should all welfare be in the form of short-term, low-interest loans - rather than hand-outs? Should prisoners have to pay for their incarceration? Should all war be illegal? Should the world population be limited to Four Billion? Should half of these people live underground? Should the environment be kept in a pristine condition? Should at least half of the moons and planets of the solar system be populated by Four Billion People? Should this solar system be run like a Democratic Well Run Corporation - with absolutely no corruption or bullshit? Should this solar system be a Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System? Would this hypothetical arrangement result in a harsh theocracy and religious persecution - or would it maximize Responsible Political and Religious Freedom? Is President Obama turning on his handlers? Are they retaliating, by turning on him, by playing the Birth-Certificate Card? Or - is there something much worse, which would bring him down in a much harsher fashion? Might the Birth Certificate Issue be the easy way out? Is something a brewing in San Francisco? Why will very few of you talk to me? Hmmmmmmmmm.

    I think more people need to be like the characters in 'Dogma' - except that they should be completely non-violent. But really, the straight-forward approach and method of communication should probably be emulated. Anna, in 'V' has a polished and straight-forward communication style which should be emulated. But obviously, the evil side should not exist. Will the current powers that be need to be replaced by those who are equally smart and tough - yet who are completely non-corrupt? Do we need an individual who combines the best aspects of the Royal Model and the Servant Model - and who incorporates the best of all races, religions, cultures, and political systems - in a manner which transcends male and female? Would we tolerate a fast walking, fast talking, self-assured individual - who would tolerate no corruption or incompetence whatsoever - yet would abide by the U.S. Constitution in spirit and letter? What should be done with the Demonic Element in this Solar System? Should we take out the trash? Would more humans than non-humans have to leave or be incarcerated? Should Draconian Reptilians be considered to be Human Beings if they have Human Souls or if Humans have Reptilian Souls? What makes a Human - a Human? If Jesus appears in the sky - should we get on a UFO bound for Orion? Is this solar system really Heaven - or will we be taken to a paradise in another star system? What happens if we get taken to a Slave-Labor Hell instead? How do we discern the difference between good and evil? Is anyone REALLY good. I spoke with someone who knows a helluva lot about good and evil - and they were of the opinion that no one is really good. After thinking about it for a while - I started to see their point - yet I didn't agree with them completely. There are some very fine and noble souls in this solar system - but even so - none is righteous. No. Not one. But how good is too good? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    If I haven't given you enough to think about, then consider this statement by Dr. Helen Caldicott, regarding Fukushima. We are in VERY serious trouble. We need to press forward with a changing of the guard in this solar system. Things are not going to improve if we don't. We might not even survive if we don't. (Unless a proper change has already been made in the last couple of years. It just seems like corrupt business as usual.) Again, I invite the Benevolent Beings of the Universe to support this solar system in implementing a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System - Based Wherever it is Most Appropriate. I still think that Fukushima was deliberately inflicted upon the people of the world. We need to clean this solar system up immediately. We need to somehow incarcerate or expel every evil and demonic soul in this solar system - and then reform them - or keep them incarcerated or removed indefinitely. We need to break-up our affair with the devil - get out of bed - put our clothes back on - and clean up this goddamn mess NOW. As Moses said, thousands of years ago, "LET MY PEOPLE GO!" Actually, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AND WITH THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, "LET MY PEOPLE GO!" NOW! RIGHT NOW! And the Human Race really needs to stick together during this crisis. We can work out the details of governance in a rational and orderly fashion, at a reasonably later date. I JUST WANT THE RENEGADE BULLSHIT TO STOP RIGHT NOW. Comments? Questions?

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 God_of_war_2_game-HD

    I remain confused regarding the various factions - and who the good and bad guys and gals really are. I'm not even sure which side I'm really on. Most days, I don't know if I'm a good guy or a bad guy. I keep passively engaging in this mini crusade - but something feels wrong. I don't seem to be on anyone's side - not even my own - although some of my posting seems to be self-promoting. I am attempting to follow the spirit and letter of the Teachings of Jesus - but I'm not sure how well I'm doing in this regard. I'm not sure about the Hard Sayings of Jesus. What would F.F. Bruce say? How many of them are really genuine - and how many of them have been altered? What would the 'Jesus Seminar' say? I just keep reading the Red-Letter Teachings of Jesus in the King James Version of the Holy Bible - as a mental and spiritual exercise. Then I simply say and do what makes sense to me - but I feel a tremendous amount of inner turmoil. O wretched man that I am. Take everything I say with a sea of salt. I do. And don't expect to be happy if you deeply research this thread. I seem to be both a friend and enemy of just about everyone. OK - this is weird - I was listening to a rebroadcast of Sherry Shriner's show - and a caller was talking about waking up, and seeing the time '11:11' all the time - and I noticed that the time was '11:11'! Spooky! This could be Heaven - or this could be Hell. Who knows?

    Fair Warning. Researchers Beware. Think for Yourselves -
    But Don't Expect a Genuine Search for Truth to Make You Happy.
    This Isn't About Being Happy.

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Truthwinsoutlogo-711573

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Empty Re: The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three)

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:52 pm

    orthodoxymoron wrote:I'm trying to figure-out this website. I understood its beginning in the aftermath of the abraxasinas Thuban-Meltdown. There were several individuals at that time, who were quite willing to talk about forbidden topics in very articulate ways, but they're mostly gone now. The Thuban-Crowd were challenging sparring-partners!! Now, I post in my own little corner of this site, while probably half a dozen members (out of over 1300 members) post alternative current-events material. We don't talk about the Alex Collier and Richard Hoagland stuff anymore. The posting-volume is extremely low. The ads at the top of the page are often borderline-pornography. No one posts on my threads anymore. I quote Carol a lot on my threads, just to add some variety, but it almost feels like I'm plagiarizing sometimes (even though proper credit is given, and most of it consists of images, videos, and articles). I seem to be waiting for something. Perhaps another life?? Who knows?? I'd like to write a book, but I keep waiting for one of the major-posters (over the past 6 or 7 years) to write a book based upon the Project Avalon and The Mists of Avalon adventure. I'm not enough of an Insider to do that sort of thing. What's going on here??  
    Carol wrote:Ahh Oxy. I'm sorry. I'm a bit wrapped up in global politics right now and don't comment much. I kind of see myself as someone just keeping tracks of as many of the alternative facts (real facts not fake news) as possible. There are several problems. Google has taken over control of who views the site as many are redirected. I don't understand your complaint about the advertising as I don't see any ads when logged in. And of course we have no control over that. Those who wish to bypass the ads just need to be logged in as a member. I suppose I know too much personal stuff about Alex Collier (not even his real name) and know for a fact that he has not had contact for years and years so most of what he has to share is repetition to me. I also know too much personal stuff about Hoagland as well, so I just don't go there or listen to Richard either. I do tend to follow Simon Parks and find him interesting.

    I know our internet traffic took a significant his last December when google changed things and is just now slowly recovering. I tend not to post Mists links elsewhere for fear that we'll be shut down as an alternative news website. So often it is by chance that new folks show up. We do have our regulars including looky loos from Russia, France, China, England and elsewhere. I thinks those out of the country have an easier time getting into our forum then folks in the US. It would be nice if you wrote a book about our Camelot days in Avalon. It was an exciting time back then when everyone was coming together. It's amazing how fast the past 7 years have wizzed by. Even Astral Traveler when dark after 2012 and only recently is posting again on the internet. It's an exciting time to witness what is occurring in the world and the battles being waged for our immortal souls. The neocon globalists seek perpetual war and the white lighters are in battle for survival. it would seem, in multiple dimensions. I too wonder how it will all play out. Meanwhile, it's still chop wood and carry water. The practical side of life has it's own merit.
    mudra wrote: Carol made some good points above which need not repeating. It's a small forum Oxy hence when only a bunch  of us  regular posters stop posting for a while it does makes a huge difference. If only our many viewers would dare to take the plunge and share more it would be most welcome. You can't expect a few to come with subjects of interest to everyone. Hence the lack of interaction Imho. Also I have been quite a bit on my tablet lately and less on the computer which makes it much less easy for me post I realize. Makes me wonder of all the people that reach the Mists through their cell phone. Easier to read than actually post stuff in that case.

    Love from me
    Vidya Moksha wrote: Hey Oxy, I'll bite :)

    First problem is lots of folk couldnt find the site, it was mudra who gave me the new address...(heavenforum).. My gripe was when the mists became a cat photo forum, turned me right off.. but I still read your posts from afar Wink oh, and I am writing my next book, which does contain reference to the forum, though its not about the mists per se :) ad blocks work, and I use brave as it stops ads at source, meaning less bandwidth for me :)
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you for your responses. I shouldn't complain. If I were posting on most other sites (sacred or secular) the fighting and arguing would be beyond belief. I just slowly cook my own goose in my own little corner of cyber-space. I have HUGE problems with Collier and Hoagland, but they Make Me Think!! Same goes for Sherry Shriner. Most people don't have the time or talent to sort things out. I've realized that arguing with people is mostly a lost-cause. People want what they want. They would rather fight than switch, which will probably lead to a Final Jihad, which might be the End of All of Us. Genuine-Disclosure might ignite Unimaginable-Hostilities. My brand of research and writing is probably only suitable for me!! I probably just need to study my own stuff, without making a big-deal about it. If the solar system has been centrally-controlled for thousands of years, resistance might really be futile, but that doesn't mean I can't "enjoy" alternative-research and science-fiction. Thank-you for providing a context in which this sort of thing can occur. I think I simply wish to understand things, rather than changing everything. There seems to be a soul-refinement process taking place in this sector of the galaxy. This solar system might be a Reform-School for Completely-Ignorant Fools!! Who Knows??
    My uneducated theory is that ALL High-Profile Individuals MUST be some sort of Intelligence-Agents who are absolutely-obedient to whoever rules this solar system (going way, way back, for thousands of years) for better or worse, I know not. I don't say this to be mean. I simply suspect a violent-universe and a reprehensible past, present, and future. I have very little idealism left. I'm tired of life, and terrified of death. I talk too much about the Bible, but if one actually believes every word in the Bible, there is very little to be happy about. The Bible reveals a HUGE Amount of VERY Nasty, Violent, and Unethical BS. The Bible is NOT a James Dobson and Robert Schuller "Positive Family-Values" type of book!! I'm really NOT being a smart-alec when I combine Biblical-Studies with Science-Fiction!!
    The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Three) - Page 9 Pentagon-Moab-Bombs-Giants

    Carol wrote:Oxy you're on a roll. Love the pictures.  cheers

    President Trump is a White Knight battling human trafficking, illegal organ harvesting, drug cartels, corrupt political system, corrupt banking system, dealing with treasonous traitors left over from the Obama administration within the White House who leak information that jeopardizes national security, terrorists within and without the US, political corporate greed, corruption, and a dishonest media among others. As a result of his mission the hounds of hell have been unleashed against him. He set aside his great life to get s