6. Surely some Adventists do act in a cult-like manner though? What about the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement (SDARM)?

Yes, no doubt some individual Adventists and offshoot organisations conduct themselves in a cult-like manner.  However, similar extremists and offshoots are found in all Christian groups.  It is wholly unfair to tarnish the official SDA Church and all of its 20 million adherents with this same brush.

The Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement (SDARM), is an ultra-conservative SDA offshoot, which has nothing to do with the mainstream SDA Church.  There is also the International Missionary Society of the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement, which is an offshoot of the SDARM - an offshoot of an offshoot!  Then there are the Branch Dividians, Creationist Seventh-day Adventists and a whole range of other weird extremist groups. 

Furthermore, there are a range of 'independent Ministries', comprising SDAs who are formally still in membership with the mainstream SDA Church, especially its conservative wing, but who hold extreme views and often are in conflict with the mainstream SDA leadership.  Sometimes a person will claim to be an SDA pastor, when in reality they are a self-titled layman with delusions of grandeur, who have no official standing as licenced ministers by the SDA leadership. 

Thus, not only do most of these groups have nothing to do with the mainstream SDA Church but they usually claim the mainstream SDA Church is in fact apostate and in spiritual Babylon, for not following their particular extremist form of religion.  For these reasons, be careful in assuming anything that purports to be from the SDA Church is actually associated with the mainstream Church and its formally elected leadership.

For a full examination of extremist SDA offshoots, such as the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement, please visit the 'Sevy Taliban' site:

http://sevytaliban.blogspot.com.au/

 

27 comments:

  1. Don’t label me a cult just because you had a bad experience with a crazy (and usually ultra-conservative) Adventist once. We are not all like that. A friend of mine met another Adventist who supposedly said we all don’t go to movies, wear jewellery, don’t wear jeans or short skirts (if a girl) or dance. That may have been the case in the 1950s (as it was with many Christians back then), and it may still be the case with that Adventist (who obviously is still living in the 1950s) but it certainly is not a proper representation of what I or the majority of SDAs believe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was born in 1980 and I was told I couldn't wear jewelry. I went to SDA schools from around 1986-1994 and again from 1999-2003 and jewelry was banned. I did see some people wearing it on SDA colleg campuses, but we weren't allowed to wear it to our jobs on campus. I have heard that Southern Adventist University has professors who will stop class and make people remove their jewelry. I now see more SDAs than ever wearing it. Yet I grew up believing it was a sin. I don't feel that way anymore about wearing simple, tasteful, and inexpensive ornaments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like most Christian groups, there is actually a huge diversity of practice across cultural and geographical boundaries within the SDA Church. This is even more pronounced in the SDA Church because it is truly a world wide body, not merely a national Church. Thus, an Adventist from say Africa or South America (or in a diaspora Church) is likely to have very different ideas about things such as food, jewelry, worship style, dress, entertainment etc etc than say someone from America or Australia.

    Thus, what a non-Adventist Christian in America considers 'extreme behaviour' from an Adventist is likely to be very different from a non-Adventist Christian in say America. It all really depends upon context and cultural perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love the post by Anonymous on Jan 17, 2012. It all so very true that from one culture, in the case of SDA, country to the next practices vary based upon that group's culture.

    I would like to say that went to the General Conference page looking for information on jewelry. I found nothing in the fundamental beliefs or anything on the page at all.

    The scriptures that most North American Adventists quote regarding jewelry are:

    1 Peter 3:3-5 says:
    "Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God. This is how the holy women of old made themselves beautiful. They trusted God and accepted the authority of their husbands."

    So, let's analyze this scripture with the basic comprehension skills.
    The first thing it says is "fancy hairstyles". Yet, the preachers and teachers of Adventism don't teach against one having elaborate hair. In some denominations, a woman is to cover her hair altogether. I don't see that being taught. Adventism seems to look over that portion of the scripture altogether.

    The second thing mentioned is expensive jewelry. Well, there's an adjective there modifying that noun. Perhaps the problem isn't all jewelry, but expensive jewelry. That adjective is purposefully placed there. Yet, I see many Adventists, including clergy, wearing $500 watches. Because a watch is acceptable. Yet, it is an adornment. But no one is preaching against that.

    Third, is mentioned beautiful clothes. Well, on Sabbath morning, people are really dressed up. A far cry from the Amish interpretation of black and unshapely. I see a sea of colors and sparkles everywhere. Yet, no one is preaching against that. And it's all in that one scripture. But Adventism focuses on one portion of that scripture and drops the adjective clarifying the point.

    My point is, people's interpretations are cultural. And I'm tired of Adventists, especially preachers saying something they are trying to enforce is biblical when really, it's a mere inference of something the Bible mentions.

    Here's another scripture:

    And in 1 Timothy 2:9-10:
    "And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do."

    Again, this verse talking about hair first. I'm telling you, I don't see anyone preaching against nice hairstyles. Further, what about hair color? If you're graying, you shouldn't put effort into modifying your hair. This scripture says don't draw attention to yourself by wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes. Here the objective is not to draw attention with the jewelry, not that the jewelry is bad. But let's say that this author is specifically stating that gold and pearls should not be worn. Well, what about silver? This author is only saying don't draw attention with gold and pearls. Maybe then he's saying that silver and rubies and acceptable. Oh, and expensive clothes. Donna Karan New York is off limits. That Gucci handbag - off limits. Ralph Lauren Polo-off limits. These are expensive clothes. All those name brands that Adventists wear to church on Sabbath. And yet, no one is preaching against that.

    Hummmm??? Why aren't we focusing on the fruits of the spirit? Not once do I see not wearing jewelry listed as a fruit of the spirit. Why does the church focus on cultural things and not Christ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why does the church focus on cultural things and not Christ?"

      The answer in short is - it depends on which Church you attend.

      Even within the SDA Church, even within the same city in which I live, there are Churches where you couldn't wear a wedding ring (supposedly it is pagan). By contrast, in my own local SDA Church, the usual dress code is jeans, a T-shirt, flip-flops (thongs). There are people with piercings, huge earings (those type that create huge holes in your ears), shaved heads and bright blue hair.

      I personally like to live by (as much as any person can, being we are all hypocrites lest we judge others) James 2:2-4:

      "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

      Delete
    2. I have done some research on this because I remembered that wearing jewelry was taught to be wrong and I wanted to see where the Bible taught this.

      The verses that you bring up are some of the right verses on this topic, however, you should get into the habit of using more than one translation and also start using the various center column or bottom page reference systems in some study Bibles if you haven't already done so (these are BIG helps). You can go to Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) and use their site to look up a verse and then add a parallel of a different translation to compare them (up to 5). This is particularly needed because there are so many different translations out today. Remember that each translation has to be at least 30% different from the rest, because of copyright laws, and as more and more translations came out, more are way off of what the original Hebrew and Greek books really meant. I would stick with the KJV translation for that reason alone but that's just my opinion.

      Where the verse talks about hairstyles, what it is saying is not to "plate" your hair (look at the references to see this), which meant not to have braided hair, however, we must always keep these verses in proper context. There is nothing wrong with braiding your hair. This verse is referring to the practice of very elaborate hair braiding that would take hours to do just to look better than others or to show that they were better off because they could afford to do that to their hair. This took time and money to do, all of which a person following Christ's example wouldn't care to do.

      Second, the verse talks about jewelry and although you may be right in saying that it's only talking about expensive jewelry, it might not be. What it comes down to is asking yourself; "Would God want me to buy this and did Jesus give us an example about this?" Jesus is the king of kings and while on this earth He didn't adorn Himself with jewelry. He was meek and humble. He would have rather given His money to a better cause than to buy shiny metal or rocks to adorn Himself with.

      Third, you can get from the context that it's not beautiful clothes that we shouldn't wear but rather expensive clothes. Beautiful clothing is fine as long as it didn't cost too much. Basically, this verse is saying not to put so much money in how you look, whether it be expensive hairstyles, jewelry, or clothes, we shouldn't care about them.

      Delete
    3. Basically it all comes down to this; if we are followers of Christ and we are to be a light and a representation of Jesus to the world then we shouldn't look like the world or think like the world and not wearing expensive items would be one thing to do since the world teaches that having expensive items is good and important.

      If you were taught at an SDA church that expensive watches and clothes are ok but you just can't wear jewelry then that was a mistake, and a misrepresentation from my experience, of what SDA churches teach. In my church I remember being taught not to put a lot of money or importance on material things because they will all be gone one day but rather we should put importance on eternal things.

      One last thing is that Bible verses may be interpreted differently by different cultures but I believe that when God inspired these verses He had an intentional meaning that He was stating and we need to study the entire Bible to make sure we understand the verses correctly. I believe that there are biblical truths that are absolute regardless of what culture they are being taught to and that every culture would understand them if they correctly studied the Bible.

      I can't remember particular names of pastors teaching not to were expensive items but I know that I heard it and it's what I've been taught. Sorry you've had a different experience but labeling the SDA church as a whole isn't the right thing to do either.

      Bottom line, Christians shouldn't spend a lot of money on how they look but rather they should put value, time and energy on how they act and how they look to their heavenly father who is watching them and values what's on the inside which, sadly, according to the Bible, is rare in His sight.

      Delete
  5. I don't feel that an issue such as not wearing jewelery or going to theaters was really what the person who created this question had in mind when they stated "cult like manner." Generally, "cult like" would insinuate things within a movement that were practiced such as brainwashing, heretical theological beliefs, mind-control, following of one extremist individual, etc. If Christians across the board were following these said "1950's" practices, they would then not be considered "cultish". With that said, it is true that many Adventists believe in living simply {as pointed out in the above comment} and allowing the beauty of God reflect in our lives instead of the beauty of outward adornments and expensive items. However many interpret this differently - I personally wear a necklace but still feel that I live a godly "simple" life that I pray reflects HIM. What you are missing is that simplicity is a PRINCIPAL not a "rule" that must be followed. There is nothing in our fundamental beliefs that address these "lifestyle" issues because they are heart issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the point of the post is that Seventh-day Adventists are no different from other Christian denominations in that of course there will always people who act in an over the top manner. I don't think one could say for example that not wearing jewelry is cultish, because many other conservative Christians share those beliefs.

      Delete
  6. Well....hmmm.....
    then why does the Seventh day Adventist church hold on to Ellen White then? Because she directly wrote against wearing jewelry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do Lutherans hold onto Luther, who was an anti-Semite who said the Jews should be persecuted, or Catholics the Pope (I don't even need to mention the false and even Popes in history), or Anglicans Henry VIII, or a range of other denominations whose leaders were both inspired but very flawed individuals. Why do we read Paul for that matter, given he endorsed slavery? You will say, but Paul was addressing a particularly cultural circumstance of his day - exactly! Don't judge Ellen White by 2012, but by her own day in the later 19th Century. You must always compare oranges with oranges, not oranges with apples.

      Delete
    2. Sam, how about we judge Ellen White based upon her failed prophecies? I don't mean we are to judge her salvation, that is for God to do, but her failed prophecies show that she was a false prophet.

      Why do you keep bringing up Luther, or the Popes, when confronted with a question about EGW? Who cares about Luther or the Popes, we're discussing SDAism.

      Why do you feel a christian must belong to an organisation anyway? If there is so much variations among the SDA church, why belong at all? Why not just obey God?

      I have been a Sabbath keeper for almost 50 years, I keep God's Feast days too, don't eat unclean meat, etc. I was once a member of a cult, the WCG, but I learned that to truly obey God we must not rely on organisations of men.

      I'm able to fellowship with any and all groups, but I'm not a member, will never be, my membership in God's church is written in heaven. Why do we need anything else? What church organisation did Abraham belong to?

      The proplem with most SDA is that they believe the SDA organisation is the Remnant church spoken of in Revelation, it is not. There are millions of christians out here who keep the commandments (Sabbath) of God and have his testimony (no his testimony isn't the writings of EGW. His testimony is the wirtness of Jesus Christ.

      Have you never heard of the True Jesus church in China? There are over a million and they keep the seventh day Sabbath.

      Yes, the SDA church is a cult because they do teach that at the end one must be a member of their church to be saved. The SDA church teaches that after the close of probation, that to be saved one must be a member of their church.

      So, salvation is determined after probation by the membership roles of a man made organisation. If that doesn't define a cult then what does?


      Kevin McMillen
      Morgantown, WV
      kljcmc@comcast.net

      Delete
  7. You cannot compare the relationship between Ellen White and the Adventist church to the relationship between Luther and the Lutherans. Lutherans do not have an official statement of belief stating that Luther is a "continuing and authoritative SOURCE OF TRUTH."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do followers of Luther call themselves 'Lutherans'? That seems pretty cultish to me. At least Seventh-day Adventists don't call themselves 'Whiteans.'

      Moreover, your argument is a straw man. Not all Adventists believe in Ellen White, and those who do believe, have a diverse range of views about her. Even those who do believe in her strongly admit that her gift is to be exercised in accordance with the list of spiritual gifts in Eph. 4. The SDA Fundamental explicity says:

      “18. The Gift of Prophecy:

      One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)” (emphasis added)

      I suggest you check out post #35 if you want to discuss Ellen White

      Delete
    2. My point being, even thought FB belief says Ellen White is 'a' continuing and authorative source of truth, you will note it doesn't say 'the' continuing and authoriative source of truth. The FB then goes on to scribe what sort of 'authority' this 'truth' is: comfort, guidance, instruction and correction.

      What does the Bible itself say in 1 Cor. 14:1-5:

      "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue[a] does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues,[b] but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,[c] unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified."

      Finally, the FB makes clear that Adventists do not hold Ellen White as the Truth (capital 'T'). Only Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, is the 'Truth' being the 'Word' of God (capital 'T', capital 'W'). This is again made very clear in the FB itself:

      "They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested."

      This stance is entirely consistent with the NT teachings about the spiritual gift of prophecy. It is far less 'cultish' than the supposed powers of Papal infallability of Popes and Bishops. It is also arguably far less cultish that the so-called faith healers and excorsists of many rock-start Prosperity Gospel TV Evangelists.

      Delete
    3. "You cannot compare the relationship between Ellen White and the Adventist church to the relationship between Luther and the Lutherans. Lutherans do not have an official statement of belief stating that Luther is a "continuing and authoritative SOURCE OF TRUTH."

      I am not sure if Lutherans have an 'official' statement but Martin Luther is certainly used by Lutherans as a de facto source of authorative truth in interpreting the Bible. Consider for example the Book of Concord (1580), which was written precisely because after Luther died various factions started to argue amonst Lutherans as to the correct interpretation of scripture. Then if you actually read the Concord, one will notice that Luther's views are commonly cited on a range of doctrines as if he had de jure prophetic status. If you don't believe me, read it yourself:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Concord

      Delete
    4. "You cannot compare the relationship between Ellen White and the Adventist church to the relationship between Luther and the Lutherans. Lutherans do not have an official statement of belief stating that Luther is a "continuing and authoritative SOURCE OF TRUTH."

      I note Martin Luther compared himself to OT prophets, claimed he was a messanger from God, and that others might consider himself a prophet, although he was too humble to admit it:

      "Do we not read in the Old Testament that God commonly raised up only one prophet at a time? Moses was alone in the Exodus, Elijah was alone in King Ahab’s day, Elisha, after him, was alone, Isaiah was alone in Jerusalem, Hosea alone in Israel, Jeremiah alone in Judaea, Ezekiel alone in Babylon, and so forth. Even though they had many disciples, called “children of the prophets,” God never allowed more than one man alone to preach and rebuke the people.........

      I say not that I am a prophet, but I do say that the more they despise me and esteem themselves, the more reason they have to fear that I may be a prophet . . .

      If I am not a prophet, yet for my own self I am certain that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I have the Scriptures on my side, and they have only their own doctrine. This gives me courage, so that the more they despise and persecute me, the less I fear them."

      -(An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull, 1521; from: Works of Martin Luther [PE], Vol. III, 12-14; translated by C. M. Jacobs)

      This seems very similar to the SDA view of Ellen White. She never called herself a prophet either, although others used that term to describe her. She did claim to have a message from God though, expounded in the scriptures.

      Therefore, I think it certainly is arguable that one can compared Luther to Ellen White as persons who probably did have the gift of prophecy. Not in the modern day-cultish Mormon sense, or in the RC sense of Papal infallability, but in the NT sense of a spiritual gift.

      Delete
    5. And I note some Reformed people do consider people such as Augustine and John Calvin prophets:

      http://www.galaxie.com/article/3247

      Delete
    6. Sam, with all due respect, why do you feel the need to be a member of the SDA church? There are millions of Sabbath keepers out here, why belong to one organisation? I personally fellowship on the Sabbath with many groups, including the SDA but I don't believe that God requires of us to "join" a physical organisation. Why do you feel that need?

      Kevin McMillen
      Morgantown, WV
      kljcmc@comcast.net

      Delete
  8. It's a cult. However way you want to justify it, the fact remains it's a cult. How can ANY otherwise rational adult believe that a girl who got hit in the head w a rock (a SEVERE injury that left her in a coma for months mind you) all of a sudden had Jesus talking to her and had the answers to the kingdom of upstairs??? If I came up to ANY of you today and told you I was hit in the head w a rock and God spoke to me and told me to start a church, I'd be placed in a looney bin (rightfully so) for evaluation. She was a crazy fraud, just like Joseph Smith. Her con lives to this day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean like someone who once claimed they had a vision of Jesus, and said Jesus had come and talked to him from beyond the grave. And then he went blind. What was that's guy called again...oh yes, it was the Apostle Paul. If you went up in 34 A.D. and said you had a vision from a guy who had been crucified by the Roman authorities, and that this Jesus guy told you to start a new Church, preaching to the Gentiles (whom everyone knew as non-Jews were not chosen), then you too would have been considered worthy of the looney bin. No doubt people in Paul's day thought he was a crazy fraud, and when the other Jerusalem Christians heard of his sudden conversion, they actually all ran and hid from him. Then when he suggested he had a special mission to the Gentiles, and was in fact more special than the Apostles who actually knew Jesus, then many would think Paul a fraud. Some might say the Apostle Paul's con lives to this day as well.

      I am say someone like Richard Dawkins would think all the insults you have just made would apply just as much to the Apostle Paul and a number of other Christian leaders. Dawkins would probably think Jesus Christ Himself was the biggest con artist of all time. It appears many of the Jewish leaders (the 'established Church' in those days) thought exactly that.

      Thus, whether someone is a cult really is dependent on one's own perspective. No doubt whatever Christian denomination you belong to - one could claim your own beliefs and practices are cultish. If you are too cowardly to identify yourself and what you believe, then that just proves my point.

      Delete
    2. Comparing Paul with EGW, just how cultish are you Sam? Can you prove that Paul was struck blind without the bible? No! Christianity relies on faith in the bible. SDAism relies on faith in the bible and EGW.

      I really find it hard to believe that you compared EGW with Paul. That Sam really shows that you are caught up in the cult mindset, please reconsider.

      Again, I am a Sabbath keeper, have been for almost 50 years. I once was taught that Herbert W. Armstrong was God's Apostle. I learned that was false and the WCG was a cult.

      While I still keep the sabbath and Feasts over 20 years after leaving all organisations of men, I don't rely on any man, or organisation for my relationship with God.

      I truly wish that all SDA could learn to rely on God as I have.

      EGW was not a prophetess. She prophecied that some that attended the battle creek meeting would see Jesus return. They are dead. I actually recently had a SDA minister tell me that was a conditional prophecy. Such blindness. If that was a conditional prophecy then how can we determine false prophets? All they have to say is that their failed prophecy was conditional. Come on, we should be more intelligent than that.

      Sam I guess your defense of the SDA church could be considered commendable, but why do you feel the need to defend a man made orgaisation? The church that Christ built is a spiritual organisim, not a physical organisation. There is no such thing as a one true church organisation. There is only one church and that is the one being built by Jesus, those who God has given his Holy Spirit and we do not all belong to one denominational organisation. If you believe there is one church organisation then you have truly been deceived.


      Kevin McMillen
      Morgantown, WV
      kljcmc@comcast.net

      Delete
  9. I don't belong to any Christian denomination. I speak as a liberated former SDA. Your logic is flawed because you assume I believe in the story of Paul and the other fairytales. I do not believe in any of that. What I believe is not in question here. The fact remains that EGW suffered serious brain damage and trauma and that a lot of her so called "visions" are consistent with what one would see during a seizure caused by damage to the frontal lobe. What remains a fact is that she palgerized. It's a cult that encourages judgement of outsiders and it is isolating. The lady is and was a false prophet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, it certainly points your points in perspective. By your agnostic/athiest views, no doubt Jesus Christ himself was a crazy cult leader, as were his Disciples. As a non-Christian, I don't see how you could possibly claim to be in a position to judge whether a prophet is false or not, because surely in your mind any person who claims to be a prophet from God is simply a crazy person.

      In all seriousness though, I am very sorry that you had a terrible experience in the SDA Church - I assume you grew up in it? Yes, there are indeed many judgmental biggots. However, if you simply turn on Fox News anytime, you'll probably realize that many so-called professed Christians have a similar spirit of judgment of outsiders.

      As much as you won't believe me, not all Adventists and not all Adventist Churches are that way. Many are, but not all. I would like to think you would be welcome in my local SDA Church, where the regular dress code is t-shirt, jeans and flip-flops; where many of our attendees are non-Adventists (especially foreign students who come just to make friends and practice their English); where many of other attendees are asylum seekers from the local detention centre (even with guards in tow); where visitors can and do smoke and drink without much of a raise eye-brow; and where every Christmas we have a massive Road to Bethlehem walk-through-drama that attracts about 3,000 people from our local area (the majority of which are non-Adventists, especially after some 11 years).

      Then again, I am in Australia. When I lived in England, I had a terrible experience - so much so that I stopped attending Church. I don't know if it was a cultural thing, but I found all the local Churches, which were effectively Afro-Carribean, to be extremely conservative and unwelcoming. After a while, my wife and I actually started attending the central Hillsong London Church, because at least there we had a sense of some sort of Christian experience - more the ironic because we usually sang the Hillsong songs in our home SDA Church. I am not sure if this is any way relates or makes any difference to you - maybe it doesn't.

      You might think Jesus, Paul and Ellen White are just a fairy tale. I seriously doubt there is anything I could say that would alter your views of Christianity and the SDA Church in particular. If being 'liberated' makes your life better, then I certainly wish all the best. As for me, if I no longer believed in God or the hope of the free gift of Jesus Christ's death, I am not sure if life would be worth living, and might think I might as well become a hedonist or just grab a gun and top myself.

      Best of luck. It certainly demonstrates the most common and vocal opponents of the SDA Church are not objective outsides but subjective ex-members.

      Delete
    2. If the Christian God, as Christians believe, is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, why is he "talking" to all kinds of "prophets" and lieing to them giving them different instructions and telling them ther church is "the one"? This contradicts everything about Christianity. The Mormons believe God talked to Joseph Smith and SDA's believe God talked to EGW. Either they're both crazy or your God is a liar. You can't have it both ways.

      Delete
    3. I fully understand your point. The thing is, if you are correct, Ellen White is not the only fraud - so is Peter, Paul, Moses, Elijah and Jesus Christ Himself! On that basis, your critique is valid, but it is relevant to the wider question of whether Christianity in of itself is a delusional cult - as Richard Dawkins would argue. Your criticism is not relevant to the more narrow question of whether the SDA Church is a cult.

      The Bible clearly says that prophecy is a spiritual gift (Eph. 4). Therefore, whether one claims to be a prophet is not determinative either of credibility or lack thereof. Rather, what matters is if the claimants passes the test prescribed in scripture. That my friend is an entirely different question to the one you are currently asking, which is just a dig at Christianity more generally.

      The purpose of this blog is not to prove or disprove the existence of God or Christianity. Rather, the blog is primarily aimed at looking at Adventism within the presumed discourse of Christianity, as noted in the heading:

      "How do these criticisms stack up against the standards and criteria other ‘mainstream’ Christian groups apply to themselves?"

      If you would like to complain about Christianity generally, there are certainly plenty of other websites to do that.

      Delete
    4. Again comparing EGW with Peter, Paul, Moses, Elijah, etc.

      You have been blinded Sam. I'm not like anonymous, I believe the bible and your comparing EGW to biblical prophets is demeaning if not blasphemous.

      Have you ever considered that the book of Revelation was written about the end times? That the seven churches, while existing in 90ad, and probably existing down through the following 2000 years, they or the attitude also most likely will exist at the end times. Why do you think that Jesus warned the Thyatirans about following a woman who was called a prophetess? That taught her followers to partake of things offered to false Gods?

      EGW taught that it was ok to keep Christmas and Easter, both of pagan origins. Mixing chirstianity with paganism.

      Personally I would hope that anyone believing that they are living in the last days, and who believe in a prophtess would seriously consider what Jesus said to the church of Thyatira. How many other churches in the end time claim to have a prophetess?

      Again, comparing EGW with Paul and Peter and the others is blasphemous.


      Kevin McMillen
      Morgantown, WV
      kljcmc@comcast.net

      Delete