For what it's worth, this is my exposure to Desmond Ford:

1. My son was in his religion class at PUC and appreciated his teachings a great deal. They were not "off-center" or reactionary in any way. [My son was a chemistry major, not a theologian.]

2. I heard Dr. Ford speak in person at an Adventist weekend conference in Monterey, CA almost two years ago. He spoke three times over that weekend. Although I personally found it difficult to understand his strong accent, I felt he was totally sincere in his message. He did say "The Catholic church has apologized, but the Adventist church never has" (as someone here mentioned). But it wasn't said in a disparaging manner.

3. His theology didn't offend me in the least. I don't know whether he even mentioned the year-day principle. However, he did say the 2300-day prophecy does not prove what we were formerly taught to believe. Actually, that did not shake my faith in any way, because I don't worry about when Christ will "begin" the investigative judgment. [I actually believe God doesn't need years and years to review and judge the actions of those on this earth. He can do it instantaneously. The only reason I think God has a "Judgment" process is to bring all of us into an understanding of why our loved ones are (or are not) saved in heaven.]

4. I was impressed with his sincere Christian attitude. He never spoke ill of the Adventist brethren in any way. He emphasized that he is still, currently (and always has been) a member of the Adventist Church in Australia [I forget what local church he's a member of].

5. I heard Dr. Ray Cottrell speak at an Adventist Forum meeting a few years ago; he said the Adventist church owes Desmond Ford a huge apology for the Glacier View fiasco.

Very nice comments, no rants!

This is very true. Ellen White also said that the Lord allows false doctrines to enter into the church in order to get people to study the Bible and dig for truth as for hidden treasure.

Every generation, and every individual, of the Seventh-day Adventist Church must study the truth out for himself personally and prove whether the doctrines are true or not. This applies, particularly, to the Investigative Judgment and the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, but includes all the other Bible doctrines.

However, once a pastor or teacher is convinced that the church's doctrines are false, they should realize they cannot be paid by the church to attack the fundamental doctrines of the church.

I do not see why the church owes Dr. Ford an apology any more than the church owed A.F. Ballenger an apology for teaching basically the same false doctrines.

Dr. Ford does not believe in any Investigative Judgment at all.

You may be confusing the Investigative Judgment with the judgment that occurs during the millennium following Christ's Second Coming. The IJ is often also called the Pre-Advent Judgment, which, as the name implies, occurs prior to the Second Coming. According the Spirit of prophecy and Seventh-day Adventists, this Pre-Advent Judgment commenced in 1844 and will continue until the end of human probation just before the falling of the seven last plagues. The 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8: 14 and the Investigative Judgment are at the very core of the reason for the existence of the Seventh-day Adventist church. We wouldn't exist as a separate entity without it, and it explains the urgency of our message, as well as the importance of such truths as the Sabbath.

The "'Judgment' process" you speak of is the judgment that takes place during the millennium, not the Investigative Judgment. The millennium judgment is when we will look over the life records of people who are not saved for the purpose of understanding all of God's dealings with the human family, to clear up any questions we might have concerning His fairness and justice with regard to those who are lost.

Dr. Ford believes in this judgment. The judgment he rejects is that which precedes the Second Coming and which our church teaches is going on right now.

His reasoning for rejecting it is basically four-fold:

1) Ford says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven as soon as He ascended to heaven in 31 AD.

2) Ford says that God has nothing to learn from the Investigative Judgment and therefore it is unnecessary.

3) Ford says that Christians do not come under judgment.

4) In Ford's view, Ellen White was simply wrong in what she wrote about the Investigative Judgment, a central doctrine of the church and of her writings. Yet Ford continues to champion Ellen White as a true prophet of God.

My experience of Dr Ford's preaching is similar to Jeannie's, I have heard him on quite a few occasions but the last was about 5 years ago.

What does concern me in Jeannie's statement is her description of his 'strong accent'. He does NOT have a strong Australian accent, compared to many......I hope you could understan me, if we met, Jeannie.

Thanks. That's helpful information. Assuming it's true. Do you have a reference, by chance? Is this just common knowledge?




I was under the impression that Jack Sequeira was good friends with many in the conference and is still on the payroll, getting paid from the tithe. Is this true or not?

They way I see it, Desmond Ford and Jack Sequeira are like Billy the Kid and Jesse James. They are famous for doing evil. What kind of a sick world are we living in? People sell their souls to the Devil for fame and fortune. The Devil's part of the bargain is that they will promote his propaganda and glorify evil and carnal pleasures, to cause people to sin and to sympathize with him and to hate God's Word and His plan of salvation.

And the people don't have a clue, but they actually make gods out of these wicked men, these murderers and thieves.



That seems to fit my theory.

What I've given you is from his writings on the subject of the sanctuary. It is fairly common knowledge among those who study Dr. Ford's theology and ideas. There are things online he wrote which you can access and read.





Of course, as you probably know, Dr. Ford and Jack Sequeira have different theologies, although they do agree on some key aspects of righteousness by faith. Jack S. does not reject the Investigative Judgment. I've read a few of Sequeira's books but I am not up on his current status or relationship with the church.

I know little about either Ford or Sequeira ... but what I have seen I like. They are both very Gospel centered with love and tolerance. They are not dogmatic or extremists like some of my fellow conservatives.

Have you read their books?

If so, what do you think of one or two of them? How do the views of Sequeira differ from Ford's?

I haven't. Like I said ... I know little about either of them. But what I have seen is that they both agree on the important issues. They ... like most people ... will disagree on minor issues ... but the Gospel is central. And that is what I focus on. Do they have a grasp on what is important?