Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
B/W Photodude

The Days of Wine And Roses

Recommended Posts

B/W Photodude

The Days of Wine And Roses

"Dan “crooner” Jackson, in the midst of his now famous not-so-charming fulmination, bursts into Sinatra’s song, and then, without missing a beat, rightly declares our old days of Wine And Roses and Legalism over.  But the theme song lingers.  Jackson owns it.  And he owns the updated, refined, sensitive, cultured version of Laodicea-La La Land.""   

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2019/1/11/the-days-of-wine-and-roses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

Kevin H

Elder Jackson is their latest villain. He gets to join the list that includes the post 1888 Mrs. White, Willie White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and others. Of course they have a history of as time goes by they end up baptizing their villains saying that they were actually good historical Adventists and attack the new villains of the time they are living in as the ones who started to cause the problems. So if time were to last and this sub-group of Adventism were to remain true to their past history, in about 100 years Elder Jackson will be painted as a strong supporter of the ideas of Folcrum7 and that the problem's did not start until later as they give their new list of villains.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
On January 12, 2019 at 2:29 AM, Kevin H said:

Elder Jackson is their latest villain. He gets to join the list that includes the post 1888 Mrs. White, Willie White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and others. Of course they have a history of as time goes by they end up baptizing their villains …

Oh Pulease! Who has been the villain of the liberal left of the church ? Who even has a well known Adventist writer comparing him to Hitler?! Sorry, Jackson does not get to join any such list!

Seriously,  it is well past time for the Wilson haters to do some serious Biblical study on the concept of "lawlessness."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudywoofs (Pam)

from Fulcrum7's article:

Quote

All hail the shaken booty’s of the Hallelujah Hooey Hop

 

LOLOLOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
8 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Oh Pulease! Who has been the villain of the liberal left of the church ? Who even has a well known Adventist writer comparing him to Hitler?! Sorry, Jackson does not get to join any such list!

Seriously,  it is well past time for the Wilson haters to do some serious Biblical study on the concept of "lawlessness."

I'm sorry B/W but this is Adventist history. I read some books such as "With Cloak and Dagger" which complains about how ideas came in to the church in the 1950s. Also those who are critical of the trinity has a quote spreading around the internet saying that the trinity was brought into the church in the 1950s by Froom.

Yet when I was at Andrews, in the White Estate I read similar complaints of ideas that "With Cloak and Dagger" said came in the 1950s, only these complaints were written in the first decade of the 20th century, 50 years too early, for "Cloak and Dagger" and of course the villains  from the complaints written in the early 20th century was whining about these heresies being brought in by the post 1888 Mrs. White and people such as Willie, Prescott and Daniels.  Much of what I read in "Cloak and Dagger" was a repeat of the complaints of the early 20th century, only the names and dates changed.

Also, that statement that the anti=trinity statement is saying about Froom, is almost (if not identical) to a quote from the first century of the 1900s only instead of blaming  Froom for brining in the trinity in the 1950s, it blamed Prescott for brining in the trinity in the 1890s.

The minister's who's views grew into what became the so called "Historic Adventists" and who's views are reflected in Folcrum7,  have a history of spreading a gospel of the good news that the church is going to hell in a handbasket and that they are the only true and faithful Seventh-day Adventists. And if you read these publications they started out with the list of heretics bringing in a new, false theology, starting with blaming the post 1888 Mrs. White, and the other names I repeat. But as time goes by they no longer have the post 1888 Mrs. White as a heretic bringing in these ideas but pretend that the ideas they are criticizing are newly coming in and the people who their great grandparents criticized as horrible heretics, are later pictured as faithful to this train of thought. If time was to last and history were to repeat itself in about a century Historic Adventists would hail Elder Jackson as a firm supporter of the ideas of Folcrum7 and have a new person to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
8 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

The minister's who's views grew into what became the so called "Historic Adventists" and who's views are reflected in Folcrum7, 

Most who say they are "historic" Adventists, are in fact something else. They don't know what they are talking about when they parrot ancient complaints and try to insert those into current issues. Also, if they actually would read Froom's material before whining about it; they would have a tough time making their "complaints" stick.

I agree; F7 is a bunch of hooey. lol

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
22 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I read some books such as "With Cloak and Dagger" which complains about how ideas came in to the church in the 1950s. Also those who are critical of the trinity has a quote spreading around the internet saying that the trinity was brought into the church in the 1950s by Froom.

Yeah, I got the book laying on my desk that I will get to one of these days. Might be an interesting read.

However, not sure where the rest of the post was from as the thread started out regarding the behavior of Dan Jackson. I know some are in his corner and few will address the issues of:

The vote at the GC was a vote of delegates from the worldwide church, regardless of whether the NAD and a couple of other divisions are getting their knickers in a twist over it. Elder Wilson has the job of implementing the voted motions that pass at the BC convention. While true, he may support those votes, it is not his doings. Jackson is not in charge of the church regardless of how much temper tantrum throwing he does.

Jackson's conduct in telling those who disagree with him to "buzz off" was conduct unbecoming a pastor and especially one who is leader of an entire division. What is that teaching your children? Telling people to "buzz off" is about as close as he dare come to giving the proverbial "one finger salute" without actually going there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
22 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Most who say they are "historic" Adventists, are in fact something else. They don't know what they are talking about when they parrot ancient complaints and try to insert those into current issues. 

I would say there are people on both sides of the controversy that just love a good fight. Both sides of this "discussion" need to be aware of the Adversaries efforts to take captive those not on their watch.

22 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I agree; F7 is a bunch of hooey. lol

F7 is only one of many good websites out there that are not trying to bring in deceptions into the church. However, there is one or two that post very unChristian stuff on that site and I am surprised they allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pierrepaul

I have a different opinion on Fulcrum7. They usually remind me of the sorts of people who are never happy unless they are complaining about something, and are often on the look out to find or dream up some reason to be offended or outraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudywoofs (Pam)

I agree with some of what Fulcrum7 publishes; some of it I don't. — which is sort of what I find in all groups.  So... I use what I like, discard what I don't, and thank God that He didn't clone us to think and behave identically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
4 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

They usually remind me of the sorts of people who are never happy unless they are complaining about something, ...

Seriously?! Just do a review of reader comments between F7 and the well known liberal site and compare the general level of dissatisfaction and general surliness of the two groups. It would almost beg for someone to do a qualitative/quantitative analysis for the "true" level of complaining.

Another thing I notice is that few will actually respond to an article for what it says, but would rather just complain that they are complainers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I agree with some of what Fulcrum7 publishes; some of it I don't. — 

They really are not part of a "vast right wing conspiracy!" Different people can write on different topics and some is interesting and some isn't. Don't like it, move along! There are writers there that I will not read because I tend to think they are over impressed with themselves and are seriously ethically challenged. But others write well thought out articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudywoofs (Pam)
2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

They really are not part of a "vast right wing conspiracy!" Different people can write on different topics and some is interesting and some isn't. Don't like it, move along! There are writers there that I will not read because I tend to think they are over impressed with themselves and are seriously ethically challenged. But others write well thought out articles.

Agreed.  F7 is no more of a conspiracy group than Spectrum is.  I think both use bombastic writing styles at times to make a point — which sometimes comes across as "mocking" — which, of course, would not set well with the "opposition" (whoever *they* are)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
23 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

would not set well with the "opposition" (whoever *they* are)...

good comment re "the opposition." lol Its like when people say "they say..." no one ever says who "they" is or are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
4 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

There are writers there that I will not read because I tend to think they are over impressed with themselves and are seriously ethically challenged. But others write well thought out articles.

I definitely do agree with this statement. I did recently read an article there that came close to curling what little hair I have left on top of my head; but I believe it was you who cited a link there recently which I did find very well-written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

There is both a liberal extreme in the church and a conservative extreme in the church. Folcrum7 tends to be one of these two ditches. Too often Spectrum publishes articles from the other extreme. I am equally scared of both camps, yet I also believe that both camps point out facts that it is important for us not to forget. These two extremes, on both points, rather than being outright wrong (although they are on a couple points here and there) they tend to do more of a dividing of truth between them, with the truth being a straight and narrow path between the two.

My biggest concern about Folcrum 7 is that they tend to want to pretend that these two ditches are the only two options. Since one is critical of Mrs. White and questions 1844 and that God can really change our lives, since they accept Mrs. White (when filtered through people like Elders Washburn and Wilkinson) and accept 1844 and the gospel changing our lives, they picture themselves as the only true group. They use scare tactics (such as in the book "With Cloak and Dagger" to try to scare people into their group.  I've had "historical Adventists" tell me that I do not exist. That there are only two choices; to either believe exactly like them, or to believe exactly like Des Ford. But there are different sub groups of Adventism that do not fit those two categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
On 1/18/2019 at 12:11 AM, Kevin H said:

there are different sub groups of Adventism that do not fit those two categories

I would submit that there are not discrete groups within Adventism, but a continuous 3 dimensional spectrum of groups that don't fit these extreme categories.  At least within the groups I know, most SDA's are reasonable people who don't seek to offend or judge other SDA's on their little nuances of belief.  Most (well - many) of us have our "pet" opinions on the details of various beliefs, but we tend not to argue about them with other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
54 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I would submit that there are not discrete groups within Adventism, but a continuous 3 dimensional spectrum of groups that don't fit these extreme categories.

Within the F7 website are almost 150 different writers who have summed up their thoughts on a particular topic and submitted them to F7. Other such site include Advindicate and AdventMessenger. There are a ton of other sites runs by different individuals as regular websites and/or blogs.

Of course, you have the sites like aToday and Spectrum. Plus, you likely have a lot of websites/blogs that are varying degrees of liberal.

You have quite a variety of viewpoints of those who consider themselves SDA. Then you have a lot of sites with varying degrees of not SDA but seem to be solely focused in criticizing the church in one way or another. These run all the way from the former SDA forum to the simply haters of the SDA church and/or haters of EGW.

FWIW, and sadly, even among those that claim to be SDA, there is a subtle to outright dislike and disregard for EGW. This includes those who are trying to alter her writings for their own political agendas. Sometimes one wishes that they could just get off the fence and say she is either a fake or a true messenger of God with a special message for his people at this time of this earth's history. I say this as I am getting well into the first of the Testimonies to the Church and as I read and compare to what I see happening in the church, … it is troubling. (Not that there were not already many things that were of concern before. :(  )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

Good post B/W, I agree with you. What concerns me is that there are also people (and yes I see the Fulcrum7 and similar groups as in this category) who are off the fence and say that she is a true messenger of God. The problem is that they do not accept her on her terms. They accept her first of all on the terms of the fundamentalists, and among this group are those who accept her only as filtered through people such as elders Washburn and Wilkinson and their agenda.

Mrs. White and Willie wrote a lot about what visions did and did not do for her. She wrote about these in things such as the reform dress, the ill fated testimony # 11, letters to Elder Haskell, and the letters between Mrs. White or Willie to people such as Washburn and Wilkinson and others from this subgroup. The Ellen White that Ellen White wanted us to follow is rejected. It is Ellen White as viewed first from a fundamentalist perspective, and going beyond the more moderate fundamentalism that Haskell had and which became main line Adventism, it is the Ellen White as filtered through people such as Washburn and Wilkinson and others who received sharp testimonies from Mrs. White and Willie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
14 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

The Ellen White that Ellen White wanted us to follow is rejected.

thats actually a really good point. Over they years I have seen many "re-invent" the wheel so to speak and conjure up a much different version of Ellen White, than what she actually was and said to the world that she was. Still, even on this forum, there are some who craft their postings of her writings, as if she gave "support" to their agenda, which upon a closer examination it can always be seen that they are doing with her writings just what she said not to:

Wrong Use of the “Testimonies”

Quote

The first number of the Testimonies ever published contains a warning against the injudicious use of the light which is thus given to God's people. I stated that some had taken an unwise course; when they had talked their faith to unbelievers, and the proof had been asked for, they had read from my writings instead of going to the Bible for proof. It was shown me that this course was inconsistent and would prejudice unbelievers against the truth. The Testimonies can have no weight with those who know nothing of their spirit. They should not be referred to in such cases. {CCh 95.2}

Other warnings concerning the use of the Testimonies have been given from time to time, as follows: {CCh 95.3}

"Some of the preachers are far behind. They profess to believe the testimony borne, and some do harm by making them an iron rule for those who have had no experience in reference to them, but they fail to carry them out themselves. They have had repeated testimonies which they have utterly disregarded. The course of such is not consistent." {CCh 95.4}

"I saw that many have taken advantage of what God has shown in regard to the sins and wrongs of others. They have taken the extreme meaning of what has been shown in vision, and then have pressed it until it has a tendency to weaken the faith of many in what God has shown, and also to discourage and dishearten the church.” 124 {CCh 95.5}

 

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
On 1/19/2019 at 4:16 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Of course, you have the sites like aToday and Spectrum. Plus, you likely have a lot of websites/blogs that are varying degrees of liberal.

"Varying degrees of liberal"  Will we be getting some specific examples? Is it "liberalism" or mercy, as in His mercy endureth forever. Some people are ALSO like that.

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
On 1/13/2019 at 11:41 PM, Kevin H said:

Also, that statement that the anti=trinity statement is saying about Froom, is almost (if not identical) to a quote from the first century of the 1900s only instead of blaming  Froom for brining in the trinity in the 1950s, it blamed Prescott for brining in the trinity in the 1890s.

well; in mho whoever did bring that doctrine into the church should be thanked, not cursed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

I received a message asking about the "ill fated Testimony # 11" and was asked to reply in a message to not change the direction of the thread. I then came back here and was reading the other posts and I feel that the answer would fit in with this thread.

Once in Battle Creek, when James was on a long trip, doctors came to Mrs. White and asked about the things she saw in vision about our health work. Among the things she discussed was seeing a good sized building with towers. This lead to a huge fundraising campaign to raise money for this building. The testimony was published and spread around and work on the building was started. Loans were taken out to help as the pledges came in.

When James came home and found out what was happening he realized that the church was not yet financially able to finance this building. He ordered the building to be torn down and the materials sold off even at a loss, and to repay the loans.

Members were shocked in how can James rebel against a message from God.

Another issue was the reform dress. Mrs. White described what she saw. Members began latching on each and every detail, even measuring distance of the skirt from the ground, and Mrs. White was bombarded with letters asking for more detail and specifics trying to make the reform dress exactly perfect as the divine inspired message was commanding God's people to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
20 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

"Varying degrees of liberal"  Will we be getting some specific examples?

Articles from the first two are frequently seen here at Adventistan:
Spectrum Magazine
https://spectrummagazine.org

Adventist Today
https://atoday.org

Liberal or progressive, you pick your adjective!:

Adventists for Progress
An Adventism for Progressive Change
https://adventistsforprogress.com

Reinder Bruinsma
http://reinderbruinsma.com

Liberal Adventist Pastor
http://liberaladventist.blogspot.com

SJWs make it to the Adventist church (this site includes lots of links to other liberal Adventist blogs):
Adventists for Social Action
https://advactivism.wordpress.com

"Progressive Adventism" on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Adventism

Some liberal Adventists may object to this page:
What is a “Progressive” or a “Liberal” Seventh Day Adventist?
http://leavingsda.com/liberal-adventists/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

Thank you B/W. Yes, spectrum has usually been liberal, but had also been from time to time a place where moderates and  conservatives who are not "Historic Adventists" have been able to get submissions printed.

I have equal concern about the liberal sites and especially those influenced by Dr. Ford as I am for the so called "Historical Adventists" and those influenced by people like Washburn and Wilkinson. Both are two ditches that I am afraid of, I'm afraid of, I'm afraid of. And it scares me that the two ditches picture themselves as the viable solution to the other. One group down plays Mrs. White's inspiration, 1844, and the fact that the Gospel can really change our lives. The other group filters Mrs. White through people like Washburn and Wilkinson instead of accepting her on her terms, have a more legalistic approach to 1844, and sees the changes that the Gospel makes in us as a uniform list of does and don'ts one size fits all and a one size fits all that no one has ever reached before and will only be reached by the last generation and that God is waiting for this last generation to reach these does and don'ts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...