sigh and cry

describing areas of concern in God’s church – the Seventh-day Adventist church

SDA President Ted Wilson’s comment on no Sunday Law “in the pipeline”

Recently quite a few fellow Seventh-day Adventists are calling President Ted Wilson a “Jesuit” for saying that there is no Sunday Law “in the pipeline”. This especially got traction from Amazing Word Ministries’ Pr. Nougaisse’s videos here:
and End-Time Prophecies’ video:

It sounds incredible, so I decided to check out the actual words that Pr. Wilson said. You can find the video here:

Here is the full video contents of Ted Wilson’s comments regarding the “pipeline” question.
“The question has surfaced from time to time as to whether or not there is some connection between the General Conference and its involvement with Sunday laws and that kind of thing. Also strange rumors that have been floating around in the internet for a number of years actually that the Pope has contacted the United States president who has contacted the General Conference president about national Sunday laws and all of this.”

“I want to tell you that this is absolutely incorrect, totally false. Somebody somewhere imagines certain things and puts it on the internet and then people believe what they read.”

“I want to encourage all of you to go back to the Word of God. Go back to the Spirit of prophecy. Read the beautiful chapters in The Great Controversy. Understand that yes, National Sunday laws will come. Persecution will come. But nothing of that sort is in the pipeline at the present time, nothing that we have understood. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a strong proponent of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. We believe in religious liberty for all people. One of these days though, that Liberty will be taken away from us. But until that time, let’s use the time to spread the good news.

Don’t spread rumors. Don’t spread inaccurate information. Spread the truth. The Holy Spirit will help you to do that. God bless each one of you. And don’t be afraid for the future. Put yourself in God’s hands, and he will protect you even through the most difficult times. Thank you for your witness for the Lord. God bless you. Maranatha.”
While I disagree very strongly with Pr. Wilson on his support for abortion, and don’t even consider him my brother in Christ over his support for killing Christ in the womb, he is exactly right on this issue. I call on all those trying to paint him in a bad light on the Sunday Law issue for this “in the pipeline” issue to repent, and ask for God to heal your itching ears.

Pastor Branner also teaches time-setting, contrary to God’s words

Pastor Branner is a SDA pastor referenced by David Gates in his “Even at the Door” sermon. I watched the 2 part series by Pr. Branner, titled “Prophecy Science and the New World Order”.
He says many good things, and I generally am in agreement with what he says. Especially I’m delighted to see he takes the words of God in the Bible to heart – that there will be a literal 3 1/2 year period right before the end.

However, he makes several unfortunate time-setting errors that may turn off some honest seekers for truth. Here were some thots about his part 2 video sermon:
50:10 “The close of probation for God’s people will be within one year”. That’s some time-setting.
52:05 “Wouldn’t God let us know when the judgment of the dead goes to the judgment of the living”? Yes, that will be when the 10 Commandments are brought forth.
1:09:44 He says that the Pope is coming with a Sunday Law, but that’s not according to what Ellen White has written. She writes that after God’s judgments (fireballs etc) people will clamor for a way to get right with God, and the apostate Protestants in America will call for a Sunday Law. The Roman Catholic Church will make sure to do it in Europe and perhaps more, but not in America.

Let’s study to show ourselves approved unto God.

David Read of Fulcrum7 doesn’t believe in words of God

Recently, there was an article on Fulcrum7 by Eugene Prewitt where he quoted Deuteronomy 6:6 that says “these words” in referring to what is in the Bible, and he also wrote: “They should be hearing and thinking of God’s words continuously.” Since this is exactly what I believe, and that he has said before that he doesn’t believe, I asked him if he does believe this now that the words in the Bible are from God. He gave a very strange reply:

“The Ten Commandments are referred to in Scripture as Ten Words. And as they were written with the finger of God I most certainly believe that these Ten Words are, in fact, God’s “words” even in the modern sense of words. But in the Biblical sense, a “word” is often an idea (like in the phrase, “May I have a word with you?” And so I do believe that the whole Bible is the words of God though the vocabulary reflects the language skill and habits of the various prophets who were God’s penmen, albeit not his pen. But I have a hard time imagining that you ask in good faith since we have discussed this to ad nasium in the past. I risk my life on the reliability and authority of Scripture. There is not an idea in Scripture to which I do not bow.”

So he believes that the whole Bible “is the words of God”, but, …… he bows to only ideas in Scripture??? That’s just WEIRD.

I told him that he was welcome to believe whatever he wanted, but when writing that he believes the “words of God”, when he does NOT believe the words are from God, is being self-contradictory.

At this point, David Read jumped into to the discussion to show his double-speaking on the issue as well. “Single issue posters are tiresome, and in your case wrong. If you keep agitating verbal inspiration, your posts will be deleted.”

•Reply•Share ›
I have never advocated verbal inspiration.
I believe the words in the Bible are God’s words.
The author of this article quotes “God’s words” as if he believes in them too, yet says in later posts that he only believes the ideas in the Bible.

Stephen Bohr says Adam didn’t keep first Sabbath!

Pastor Stephen Bohr (Secrets Unsealed) is usually firm for the truth, altho I have never cared for his long-winded style and for refusing to condemn sins such as abortion in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So it is with great surprise that I read today where he says:

Now we are ready to answer fully
the question of why God did not
command Adam and Eve to cease
on the seventh day of creation week:
First, as previously indicated,
Adam and Eve could not
cease from work on the seventh day
because they had not worked the first
six. How could they cease from work
if they had not worked?

I blinked, not believing my eyes. Surely he was leading up to an important point that Adam really did keep the first Sabbath, but then he doubled down by saying:

Third, Jesus could not have told
Adam and Eve to keep
the Sabbath of creation week holy
because He did not make it holy
until He had finished resting the
entire seventh day.



Adam and Eve could not
follow God’s example of
Sabbath observance until He had
first given the example. In other
words, Jesus did not merely tell
Adam and Eve to keep it holy but
rather showed them how to keep it!

This is preposterous. Saying that Adam and Eve “Could not follow God’s example of of Sabbath observance” is tantamount to saying that Adam and Eve broke the very first Sabbath. Like what were they doing, Pr. Bohr? Were they wandering around all over the place doing their own pleasure while Jesus was resting?

Pr. Bohr came out with this article Reflections on a Sabbath debate in which he tries to refute the points made by Steve Gregg in his debate about the Sabbath with Doug Batchelor. But by saying that Adam did not keep the first Sabbath, he has basically shot down his position that the Sabbath is for all humans everywhere from the beginning to the end of this earth’s history.

Stephen Bohr, please don’t barge into debates where your input causes more harm to God’s cause than help.

Ted Wilson is not my Brother in Christ

It’s been on my mind for some time now – how am I to relate to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, seeing as how it openly supports killing baby Jesus in the womb.

1987 years ago, the human leader of God’s “church” supported the death of Jesus. Now, in 2018, the human leader of God’s church supports the death of Jesus.

Many people say I overstate the facts of the case, but this can be verified by reading our “Official Guidelines on Abortion”, adopted in 1992:
Adventist’s Official Guidelines on Abortion

Recently, a self-professed “missionary” doing volunteer translation work etc. in some S.E. Asian country told me how he really supported the church’s stance on abortion. I told him that I cannot consider him my Brother in Christ, if he openly supports killing Christ! That seems pretty straight-forward – that anyone who supports killing Jesus, is definitely not following Jesus.

However, telling him that reminded me of my dilemma in how to deal with Ted Wilson, who is the President of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. I’ve sent him 2 letters, asking him to repent for supporting this heinous sin, and both times was referred to the above-mentioned guidelines, which say that it is the woman’s choice. Here is a video where I show how our SDA church is involved in abortion, and give the details about my correspondence with Ted Wilson:
my video on the Adventist church and abortion

So I’ve come to the point where, to be honest with myself and God, I must declare that Ted Wilson is no longer my Brother in Christ. Just as I don’t believe Caiaphas was a “Brother in Christ” to Jesus himself, I don’t recognize Mr. Wilson, or anyone who supports killing Jesus, as my Brother in Christ either.

While I’m still a Seventh-day Adventist, and still believe this is the only church loved of God, I also recognize it is in a terrible Laodicean state, and WILL be spued out if we do not repent.

I call on all those who love Jesus and are SDAs, to consider what their position should be, and to sigh and cry for all the abominations done in Jerusalem. They are the ONLY ones who will ever get the seal of the living God in the forehead.

Adventist Review attacks Trump, but quietly changes article

The following was my comment to an Adventist Review article titled:
The Moral Challenge of Forcing Apart Migrant Families
Adventist Review The Moral Challenge of Forcing Apart Migrant Families

Quoting the article:
“you already know about the Trump administration policy of separating children from apprehended migrant families.”

I commented:

“One problem with that statement – It started under President Obama!!!

It is sad to see our church following Progressive politics more and more.”

The above comment got removed.

But AR DID change their article to:
“ you already know about the U.S. administration policy of separating children from apprehended migrant families. ”


It’s really sad to see the flagship paper for God’s remnant church go down the dark road of social justice religious oppression.

Secrets Unsealed, Stephen Bohr, SUMTV

Updated May, 2020: Since this post was written, they now do have a streaming service on many platforms which makes most of my point in this post moot.
While Stephen Bohr is quite a strong conservative Seventh-day Adventist preacher, one to be commended for standing up against most wrongs in the Church (nothing about abortion tho….), I’ve never been a “fan” of his because of his insistence on interpreting nearly all the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as being fulfilled in the past (usually called the “historical position).

Recently, his organization, Secrets Unsealed, started a video streaming service called “SUMTV”.
Being interested in what it was about, I clicked on the link to it that came in the email newsletter to which I’m subscribed to.

I was quite surprised to see that it SUMTV is not a project that they do on their own, but is just a live stream on Youtube. Now I understand that there may be more behind their technical processes of making this SUMTV, but the fact that they linked directly to Youtube, makes it look very fishy, like they are trying to pull a quick one. i.e.; they appear to be just having a “live” Youtube channel, and calling it “SUMTV”. That would be deceitful. If they chose to call it “SUMTV Channel”, then that would be truthful. If they said “Watch our Youtube channel”, that would be truthful. But to say “Watch SUMTV” is deceitful, as it is not their own product.

So I wrote several emails to them asking for clarification. Their responses got haughtier and haughtier, until they basically called me “Satan”.

I’ve experienced this before from many, many fellow SDAs – they are completely right about everything, and cannot accept any reproof, no matter how small.

May they repent, and may we all have humble hearts to not only always speak the truth, but to accept reproof where it applies.

Martin Weber, Adventist “scholar” errors on Ellen White and SDA doctrines

Martin Weber has put up his “95 Theses for Seventh-day Adventists” up on the web. He asked people to read it, so I took a look. I got to about #30 before I couldn’t take any more of his dissing Ellen White and liberal mishmash that waters down our distinctive SDA doctrines, so just skimmed the rest. While I do not write a blog post for everyone dissing Ellen White, what prompted me in this case, is that this man was high up in the General Conference of SDAs!

From his web site on his bio:

Retired from four decades of service for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Martin Weber has taught pastors and ministerial leaders on six continents. While a member of the global SDA Ministerial Association, he was an associate editor of Ministry magazine and supervised its outreach to non-SDA clergy. He served on the General Conference Executive Committee and the President’s Council from 1991 to 1995…. He earned his Doctor of Ministry degree from a Baptist seminary…. You can read about their escape from cult-like SDA legalism by clicking on the “My Story” button.

So we see that he was a high-ranking officer in the SDA Church who got his DMin from Babylon (so why was he ever put in a high-up position of responsibility in God’s church???) Anyway, we can see that he is against “legalism” from his bio.

Thesis #1 has: “there is no need to enthrone Ellen White as lord over the Bible.”
Hmmm, while agreed, I’ve never met a believer in Ellen White’s writings who put her over the Bible. This is always a fake shot by those who don’t like something about her.

#3 “SDA doctrine is grace-based, yet we typically present truth in the context of law. We do this in ignorance that “the law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17)”
We are only on number 3, and already we see that he is dissing the law of Moses.

#4 “Adventist pioneers were woefully deficient in grasping the gospel; it is miraculous evidence of God’s leading that their body of beliefs, born and bred in legalism, can now optimally showcase His grace.”
It is unescapeable now – he is upset with our distinctive SDA doctrines, and is taking pot shots at them.

To avoid boring you, I will just quote/paraphrase some of the more egregious errors: Christ adopted us all at his resurrection. Having communion with non-SDAs is great. “Christian living is not an imitation of Christ’s example (a medieval myth)” “experiencing unity while celebrating diversity of gender, ethnicity, culture, personality and age.” etc. etc.

#77. Ellen White, particularly in her early writings, suffered much of the same legalism as her fellow pioneers. For decades her books and testimonies were deficient in such Christian fundamentals as the personhood of the Holy Spirit and the eternal pre-existence of Jesus.
Wow! Somebody as high up in the SDA Church as Martin Weber was, and saying these terrible words against God’s messenger – it beggars belief that anyone in God’s remnant church would employ him, as he is just tearing down what God has built up.

#78. Anyone who insists that Ellen White’s earlier writings are as theologically orthodox or useful as her later writings is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
I am “ignorant” or “intellectually dishonest”. And I will stand on that position.

Will anyone else join me in showing love and reverence for God’s words that he gave his humble messenger – Ellen White?

Please repent, Martin Weber, and turn back to Jesus.

Many Adventists don’t believe in 6 day Creation!

It is entirely a sad day in God’s remnant church, when many of our own members (Conservative members!) openly say that they believe that there was matter here before God started creating this earth. It just boggles the mind that anyone could name the name “Seventh-day Adventist”, and still believe Satan’s lie that God didn’t make everything in 6 days and rest the 7th.

Here are some comments from fellow “Conservative” SDAs:

And I will continue to believe that the Bible is careful with words. God created the Heaven and Earth and the Seas in those six days, just as the fourth commandment indicates. But the land and the waters that He formed into those latter two, and named, were there from the beginning of that week. When He created them, for surely He did, we are not told.

At the beginning of the creation week the Earth was without form and void. Clearly there was something here already, a barren formless void much like Mars. Jeremiah says the Earth again Will be without form and void. Does that mean the planet will cease to exist aka a death star attack? Not only that but he says the Heavens will no light. Perhaps Genesis is written from the perspective of one on Earth and when God says Let there be light, He isn’t creating the Sun ex nihilo but making it visible to an observer from Earth.

I believe the universe is as old as it looks, since God is eternal, and there is no evidence that He did not create worlds and stars billions of years before He created the earth.

Please note that these 3 quotes are all from different authors, and all are generally strong “Conservative” SDAs on most other subjects!!!
Let’s believe God when he says: Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Fulcrum7 Gerry Wagoner and Eugene Prewitt need to repent

This is the narration to a video:
Four months have elapsed since Gerry Wagoner of Fulcrum7 published an article by Eugene Prewitt denouncing me as a “commandment-breaker”. I have given them time to repent of their sin, but they have so far, shown no desire to do so. So it is with a reluctant heart that I make this video, hoping it has the effect of not only bringing these two to repentance, but to help anyone who is wondering whether the Bible is really the words of God, or not. I will also give evidence that material with Ellen White’s name on the cover has been changed.

The article by Eugene Prewitt can be read in its entirety here:

Now Eugene Prewitt is a teacher with name recognition among Seventh-day Adventists, especially those who are usually classified “Conservative”, of whom I consider myself to be. I’m very appreciate of most independent Adventist ministries, and am thankful for Ouachita Hills College, where he used to be Bible teacher for many years.

I met him at the 2010 GC Session in Atlanta, and showed him the original 1858 Great Controversy book that I’ve been trying to spread in various countries around the world. He asked why, and knowing that he knows the book well, showed him the quote: “He who is the father of lies, blinds and deceives the world by sending his angels forth to speak for the apostles, and make it appear that they contradict what they wrote when on earth, which was dictated by the Holy Ghost.” He immediately told me that I was mistaken if I believed the Bible was dictated by the Holy Ghost, which stunned me, and was was even more stunned as he became animated in denouncing the position that the Bible is the words of God.

In the fall of 2016, he wrote an article for Fulcrum7 quoting the Bible several times. I made a comment that it was strange he was quoting the Bible, when he doesn’t believe the words in it are from God. He took umbrage to that, at a level that shocked me, as an entire article basically consigning me to hell was published by Gerry Wagoner of Fulcrum7 on January 3, 2017.

Four points were made in his article supposedly showing where I was in error:
1. He says I make too many comments
2. He says I’m a commandment-breaker for saying Ellen White’s books have been changed
3. He thinks I’m in error for believing the words in the Bible (and SOP) are from God
4. He says I’ve become a negative person

Regarding numbers 1 and 4, these are of course just his point of view – ad hominem attacks. That is fine, but sad. I wish I would be MORE active in spreading the truth for these last days, and am happy to be seen in the same category as Elijah, John the Baptist, and Ellen White as being a “negative person”. Those who call for repentance will always be a “negative person” to those who wish to believe they are alright as they are.

Number 2 is the basis for his argument that I’m a “commandment breaker”, and thus on my way to hell. But this is extremely easy to refute, as all you have to do is to get books with Ellen White’s name on the cover, and then start comparing. One of the clearest examples is to check the first chapter of the 1858 Great Controversy with the equivalent chapter in Early Writings (first printed in 1882). Before you do tho, please read paragraph 5 of the Preface in Early Writings. It says: “… no changes from the original work have been made in the present edition, except the occasional employment of a new word, or a change in the construction of a sentence, to better express the idea, and no portion of the work has been omitted. No shadow of change has been made in any idea or sentiment of the original work, and the verbal changes have been made under the author’s own eye, and with her full approval.”

How does that mesh with what we see when we actually compare them?
It looks like only around 70% of that first chapter is the same!

But some may say: “Well, Ellen White approved it, so it’s OK”. No way. She wrote in {Ms188-1907} regarding the subject of changing her writings: “They come to me, those that are copying my writings, and say, Now here is the better revised words, and I think I will put that in. Don’t you change one word, not a word. The revised edition we do not need at all. We have got the word that Christ has spoken Himself and given us. And dont you in my writings change a word for any revised edition. There will be revised editions, plenty of them, just before the close of this earths history, and I want all my workers to understand, and I have got quite a number of them. I want them to understand that they are never to take the revised word, and put it in the place of the plain, simple words just as they are. They think they are improving them, but how do they know but that they may switch off on an idea, and give it less importance than Christ means them to have.”
So no one is to change the words she wrote, as they are Christ’s words, and there will be revisions near the end of time. hmmmmm. Maybe that is where we are today?

Two more examples of changes to the books: “Sister Davis has just called my attention to an article printed in the Youth’s Instructor of May 31, 1894. The question asked is, Did I design to have this sentence just as it appeared in the Instructor? I am surprised to see it just as it appears–“A meat diet is not the most wholesome of diets, and yet I would take the position that meat should not be discarded by everyone.” I cannot explain why this appears just as it does.” … “I would desire that the sentence should be modified by changing the not–“yet I would not take the position that meat be wholly discarded by everyone,” for instance, by those dying of consumption.” MR v.14.

Also, as printed in the 1992 book “Christ Triumphant”: “Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men and women who fear God, who realize that they are humans only, not God. They should be people who will rule under God and for Him.” But in the original Manuscript 163 (1902): “Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men who fear God, who realize that they are men only, not God. They should be men who will rule under God and for Him.” (see
for more information on how the E.G.White Estate is actively promoting changing the books to make them “gender-inclusive”.

Number 3: In refuting charge #2, we have covered a bit the most important point in this whole issue:

I’m convinced the standard SDA position that only the ideas are from God, and not the words themselves, is the worst error ever received by God’s remnant church. This error will make us stumble on our way to the New Jerusalem, because it makes a path of slippery sand for our feet, instead of the unchanging rock.

My parents were both SDA, and my mother, especially, was a diligent student of the Bible and SOP. We called the Bible the “Word of God”, which no doubt many of us SDAs do. It wasn’t until my late 40s that I found out many of my fellow SDAs claim to believe in the “Word of God”, but not the “words of God”! That type of semantic antic is straightened out by Jesus himself when he says in Matthew 4:4: “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Of course Jesus is quoting what is written in Deuteronomy 8:3. Now according to those who believe only the ideas in the Bible and SOP are from God, Jesus is telling Satan that Moses’ words have more authority than Satan’s??? Even after Moses came under the dominion of Satan for a while???! That is the logical end of this damnable doctrine that is pleasing to Satan. No, of course not, Jesus is quoting God’s words, and showing that they have more authority than Satan’s words. Practically all Christians used to believe this, so it is very strange to see how God’s last church in the end time has thrown out God’s words, and replaced them with only “God’s ideas”.

John 12:48-50 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

So Jesus himself says that he speaks the words from God, and that what he spoke was from God, and that the word that he spoke is what shall judge us in the last day. Really, is there any SDA, or any other Christian for that matter, who doesn’t know that the Bible is the rule book that will judge us in the last day? Six times in the Bible it says: “words of God”. “Words of the Lord” is used 19 times. “My words” and “your words” are used to refer to God’s words multiple times too.

John 14:23 “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” Doesn’t this speak directly to our time today – to Laodicea? Where is the Lord in Revelation 3:20? Isn’t he outside the door, desiring to come in? He tells Laodicea (SDA Church) how to let him in – to “Keep my words”.

Many believers in the doctrine that the words are not inspired base their belief on one quote from Selected Messages vol.1: “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired.” The preface to the 1888 Great Controversy also says: “The truths revealed are all “given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words of men.” But with at least 7 different instances in the SOP of the phrase “inspired words”, and over 100 instances of “words of God”;
3RH 1887-7-19; inspired words
10RH 1915-7-22; inspired words
Steps to Christ p.108; inspired words
Home Missionary 1892-9-1; inspired words
Paulson Collection p.138; inspired words
YI 1895-7-18; inspired words
1888 Materials; words inspired of God
we can easily see that these 2 statement purported to be from Ellen White, are in fact, spurious. Just the name should be a caution flag: “Selected Messages”. Of course a preface to a book is also dubious.

Broadside #2 1849: “I saw that in striking against the visions, they did not strike against the worm, the feeble instrument that God spoke through, but against the Holy Ghost. I saw it was a small thing to speak against the instrument, but it was dangerous to slight the words of God.”

As noted above, not everything with Ellen White’s name on the cover is from her pen. MR4 1883 says regarding how a certain Mr. Curtis twisted her writings: “I am not responsible for all that has been printed as coming from me.” She writes in Testimonies for the Church #11 regarding people twisting what she wrote on the dress reform: “I protest against the perversions of my private conversations on this subject, and ask that what I have written and published be regarded as my settled position.” So even things like Manuscript Releases should not be held on the same level as her published works, let alone Selected Messages or the Preface of any book.

The E.G.White Estate has an article describing how many changes to the 1888 Great Controversy, to come up with the 1911 Great Controversy, were first proposed by W.W.Prescott: Supposedly Ellen White approved the changes, but, as seen above, Ellen White didn’t approve the change of even “one word” that God had given her. Elder Prescott wrote Willie White in 1915: “It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorized books and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people and our average ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use our books as sufficient authority in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things which we know to be untrue…. The way your mother’s writings have been handled and the false impressions concerning them, which is still fostered among the people, have brought great perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to deception, though probably not intentional, has been practiced in making some of her books,”

So how did the changes that we actually see in the books get there if Ellen White didn’t do or approve them herself? In the case of the 1911 Great Controversy, we see that Willie White, who didn’t believe the words his mother wrote were from God, was instrumental in approving the changes.

But perhaps the worst offender was the man who became the publishing director and chief editor of the SOP after James White’s death – Uriah Smith. He did not believe the words Ellen White wrote were from God, and even went as far as to leave out some Testimonies directed to him when he had them edited down to the 9 volume set we have today. He was the chief of 5 men in 1883 who publicly stated in the Review


How bad was Uriah Smith? Ellen White said it was this bad: “I had no rest in spirit in the house of Brother Uriah. I have left the house saying to myself, It is a godless house. I have seen no less than four evil angels controlling members of the family. {Letter3-1869}”.

Interestingly, in Testimony For The Church, No. 13 Ellen White related a vision where she was in Battle Creek, and saw people she knew marching up to her house: “The scene was changed. The appearance now presented was like a Catholic procession. One of the company bore in his hand a cross. Another had a reed. And as they neared the house, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times, “This house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order.” Terror seized me, and I ran through the house, out of the north door, and found myself in the midst of a company some of whom I knew, but I dared not speak a word with them for fear of being betrayed.” What do you think were the “goods” Ellen White had? There is only one reasonable explanation – her books.

In conclusion, we have established that the words in the Bible and SOP are from God, and that Ellen White specifically did not approve the changes to her books. However, it is easy to see actual discrepancies between the books today, and, considering the background of how people close to the heart of the work were being controlled by Satan, and openly stating that they were going to “remove the imperfections”, we can understand clearly that Satan’s hand is involved in these things.

I call on all fellow Adventists to heed the words of God. And especially Br. Eugene Prewitt and Gerry Wagoner, I forgive both of you, and ask you to repent, and resolve to follow all the words of God too, and ingest them as did Jeremiah in chapter 15 verse 16 “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.” 🙂

Adventist Guidelines on Abortion are sinful

Almost Official Adventist Guidelines on Stealing
I’m very sad to see that God’s remnant church – the Seventh-day Adventist Church, supports abortion, the taking of innocent, developing humans’ lives. It is killing Christ in the person of “the least of these my brethren”. Until this horrendous stain is officially removed from our SDA church, God’s Holy Spirit will never be poured out in the Latter Rain.

In an attempt to help God’s people see the seriousness of the situation, and to call for repentance, I’ve done several things like post many articles and comments and make videos calling for that repentance.

The following is a parody of the “Official Statements Guidelines Abortion” by our Seventh-day Adventist Church available here: written by Doug Yowell.

1)Private property is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms private stewardship and requires respect for those things accumulated. However, decisions about private property must be made in the context of a fallen world. Stealing is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus, private property must not be thoughtlessly taken. Stealing should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

2) Stealing is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning theft. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving, caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

3) In practical, tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express it’s commitment to the value of privately owned property. These ways should include: (a)strengthening family relationships, (b)educating every person concerning Christian principles of property management, (c)emphasizing responsibility of all for family budgeting, (d)calling all to be responsible for the consequences of spending behaviors that are inconsistent with Christian principles, (e)creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with stealing, (f)offering support and assistance to those who choose to steal in order to feed their families, and (g)encouraging and assisting both parents to participate responsibly in insuring the financial and dietary needs of their children. The church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, and psychological factors that may lead to stealing and to care for those suffering the consequences of individual decisions on this issue.

4)The church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Stealing for reasons of economic stability, product selection, or personal gain is not condoned by the church. People, at times, however, may face exceptional circumstances that present moral dilemmas, such as significant health threats to the lives of the family providers, excessive tax liabilities, employer fraud, loss of financial investments, rejection of unemployment or disability benefits, future budgetary capability carefully diagnosed by a certified accountant, loss of total assets from actions of other’s criminal behavior. The final decision whether or not to steal should be made by the individual family provider after appropriate consultation.

5)Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of individual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and it’s laws. They make their choices according to Scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempts to coerce people to steal or not to steal should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

6)Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to stealing should not be required to participate in the process or encouragement of stealing.

7) Church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing consideration of their moral responsibilities with regard to stealing in the light of Scripture.

Adventist Theological Society doesn’t believe Bible is words of God

The Adventist Theological Society is considered by many SDAs to be one of the top “Conservative” “Scholarly” groups. It’s Journal is seen as one of the most authoritative voices in the Conservative SDA camp.

According to its constitution, “The centrist focus of the Society places it against all forms of theological extremism, avoiding theological liberalism and legalistic or literalistic interpretations of the Scriptures.”

To denigrate the “literalistic interpretation of the Scriptures” is to denigrate the Scriptures themselves, and of course the Holy Spirit who gave those Scriptures.

The inspired writers did not testify to falsehoods, fearing that the pages of Sacred History would be clouded by the record of human frailties and faults. The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves. They penned the literal truth, and stern, forbidding facts are revealed for reasons that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend.

By Ellen White in Testimony for the Church, Number 26.

I saw it was a small thing to speak against the instrument, but it was dangerous to slight the words of God.

By Ellen White in Broadside #2.

ATS members, I call on you to repent of denigrating the Holy words of God, and resolve to believe in his words.

Ganoune Diop, SDA religious liberty leader trained at a Catholic school?

According to the official SDA Church website,

“Dr. Ganoune Diop is Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. Before his election in July 2015 at the 60th General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, he served as the church’s liaison to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, and as its representative within the international community of civic and political leaders.

Dr. Diop’s passion for God has led him to extensive theological, philosophical, and literary studies. Dr. Diop has a Masters in Exégèses and Theology from Collonges, France, a Masters degree in Philiology from the University of Paris, and a PhD in Old Testament Studies from Andrews University. He is currently a PhD candidate in New Testament Studies. Most recently he was honored with a Doctorate Honoris Causa, granted for his contributions to developing a global culture of human rights and respect for human dignity.”

Well, that doesn’t sound too bad on the surface, but on the Southern Adventist University website, it says of him:

“Ganoune Diop—Ph.D., Professor of Religion, Oakwood College B.A. and M.A., Saleve University; Diploma, Maitrise en Philologie et Histoire de L’Orient Ancien, Institut Catholique De Paris; Ph.D., Andrews University.”

That is very problematic for me for 2 reasons:
1. Someone is not telling the truth. The “University of Paris”, and “Catholic University of Paris” are 2 separate institutions. The University of Paris is famous for training many popes over the centuries, and, well, the other one speaks for itself.

2. We are directly told by the Spirit of Prophecy for our SDA pastors and workers to not get their training from worldly institutions. But here we have them being promoted to the top ranks of the SDA Church! Why are we so blind? And the field of Philology: “includes the study of texts and their history. It includes elements of textual criticism”. Granted, what Br. Diop studied may not have been this particular type of Philology. But it is very, very worrying, as we are told directly that all “higher criticism” is working against God.

Fellow SDAs, let’s work to have a pure church that follows all of God’s words simply and faithfully.

Tell the World movie by SDA Church

Review grade=C (first part A, last part F)
Recently someone sent me a link to the movie telling the early history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church “Tell the World”. It is produced by the Australian Union Conference and is 2:27:52 long. It is reported that they spent 6 million dollars (Australian?) in its production, as it was done by a professional company, and mostly shot in Canada.

I watched the whole thing on this Sabbath and Day of Trumpets. The first part had me crying in several places, as it is a powerful presentation of how tenuous, or fragile, the beginnings of the Advent movement had. William Miller, Joshua Himes, Joseph Bates, the Harmon family, they are all shown in a very realistic manner, and the events speak closely to anyone who is interested in the beginnings of the SDA faith.

I decided to sleep on the first half overnight, right after the Great Disappointment. I was very excited, thinking how I would be happy to help promote this movie. To be truthful, I did have very minor odd feelings with the depiction of the Great Disappointment, as Ellen was just standing all alone in a field for hours, but that was extremely minor compared to the amazingly good story of William Miller and the Advent movement up to the Great Disappointment.

The next day I eagerly looked forward to watching the last half. It is mostly about the prophetic gift of Ellen White, and her and her husband’s work to build up the church. Somehow tho, the feeling was different. The whole spirit of the second half seemed odd, and not according to the excellent spirit of the first half. Many things in the last half were not according to the historical record, either. It seemed somehow “Hollywoodized”, with no Holy Spirit giving guidance.

The last 7 minutes are credits, and at 2:21:11 it says: “Its (SDA Church) core mission, as captured in the prophetic message of Revelation 14:6-12, is to proclaim the good news of God’s love and forgiveness as revealed in Jesus Christ and to tell the world of His Promised soon return.” This is just wrong. The core mission of the SDA church is to give the Three Angels’ Messages. Of course that includes the promised return of Jesus. The 3rd Angel’s Message especially is all about warning us to keep the Sabbath to give glory to God and escape the wrath to come.

I started looking for more info on the movie on Youtube, and saw a video by Adrian Ebens. Now I disagree with him on his anti-Godhead doctrine, but he had a sermon directly on this movie, and showed how some of the workers in this movie had connection with demon possession in other movies they’ve worked in.

Sadly, the casting for the film makes me think that this film should be rejected outright. Tommie-Amber Pirie, who plays Ellen White, has starred in: “How to plan an orgy in a small town”. She also played the part of a possessed woman in a different movie called “Bitten”. OK, maybe playing the part of Ellen White caused her to repent? Well, since she played Ellen, she has top billing in a movie called: “Clusterxxxx”. The last four letters are very vulgar. No wonder the last half of the movie, largely featuring Ellen, James, and Bates, is discomforting to watch.

Timothy Paul Coderre, who plays Joseph Bates, starred in “Rulers of Darkness”, which is about a “terrifying entity in the woods.”

Also, Aaron Hartzler, who did the screenplay for this movie, “is an actor and writer, known for Gay Propaganda (2002).” According to the description for that short movie, it basically does what the title says – spread the gay culture.

I watched the entire movie. While the first part is fantastic, and true to history, the last part has a different spirit. Perhaps the fact that several of the stars (like the woman who plays Ellen) have appeared in Satanic possession movies, has introduced an evil spirit into this film?

I recommend everyone thinking of watching this movie to BEWARE! Perhaps small snippets could be used to good effect, and God could bless, but I really don’t think the movie as a whole is giving glory to God.

NAD Statement on Shooting Deaths in Louisiana, Minnesota, and Texas

The North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists has been busy the past few years opining on every “social justice” issue that trends on Twitter. Their recent one is regarding the shooting deaths of several citizens and police officers.

As NAD has turned more and more leftward in the past 50 years, it is no wonder that their works often get featured in Huffington Post, which is the standard-bearer for leftist thought.

While the Adventist Review is a little more circumspect, editors/moderators there have a definite left slant to things, so often they remove comments that offend them.

On July 15, 2016, I read this article, and saw a truthful comment by an “Evelyn” that had surprisingly been allowed:

Seems too many of our pastors are too learned to preach the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy . Much of the sermons are more story telling than (milk) than the soul searching messages that we need to prepare us to stand in these days of the investigative judgement. And to make it worse the few who sound the warnings are marginalized , refused hiring and denied speaking engagements by the very leaders who feel sympathy for “racist acts”.

I replied to her:

Your post is powerful, Evelyn!
Seems to me, that our SDA leaders have focused on the dreaded “Religious Right” for so long, that they don’t realize they have been almost totally bamboozled by the “Irreligious Left”.

which got removed.

My takeaway is that our church really is in bed deep with the Irreligious Left, and likes that to be kept quiet.

May we pray for our Church leaders to repent, and follow the example given by our lovely Saviour – Jesus Christ.