Laurie, that's an interesting story. Do you have a link to your grandfather's autobiography?

Hi, Jeanne -
A link? I've got a photocopy of it at home.

Quote:

---

I suspect the biggest reason is pride (then as now).

---

The studies say that there are three basic reasons for leaving. (a) Sincere disagreement with some fundamental interpretations of the Bible, (b) the organization does not meet the individuals basic needs for comfortable fellowship, or (c) they no longer wish to be organized christians at all.

Many ex-SDA are still very sincere and motivated christians. To accuse them of leaving because of pride is to refuse to face up to this fact. Many ex-SDA take up active membership in other churches.

----
JOINING
My parents were SDA - both adult converts. By 1965 my father had stopped attending because he could not stand the disorganisation and the lies that were being actively told by the denomination about the origins of the SOP writings. In particular, it became well-known in the late 1950's that EGW had literary assistants, and had copied both words and structure from other writers - but the denomination was actively denying it.

As an intelligent and thoughtful yet trusting child, I believed the simplistic interpretations of the origins and meaning of the Bible - I sincerely believed that the elders and preachers were smart men.


STAYING
As a teenager, I began to realise that the colporteurs, elders, pastors were just sincere but uneducated people. I heard them state as facts enough things that I knew to be wrong that they lost credibility. Still the theologians and higher-up people I heard sounded credible.

Then the White Lie and the Ford controversy hit. Suddenly I discovered the 1919 Bible Conference material. I discovered all about the EGW white-wash. The over-simplifications of complex issues of scriptural interpretation.

My wife and I moved to the USA in 1982, and we almost decided to drop our church membership during the move. However the need for fellowship was strong, and the other christian denominations had even more flaws in their beliefs, and the local SDA church was VERY friendly, so we stayed SDA and became very active members.

Furthermore the denomination seemed to have learnt something from the Ford and Rea crises and became much more tolerant and accepting of an range of intelligent views of the origins of the bible and SOP.

LEAVING (already partially written in the Origins area under the title From a Short-Age Christian to a Long-Age Christian to ex-SDA)

In another post I have listed some of the evidence that finally persuaded me that the long-age people were right.

About 1980-1985 I realized that whenever I looked out the window of church, I drove down a road, I looked down from an airplane, I went to a museum, the world shouted "LONG AGE" to me.

I had to change my understanding of the book of Genesis. To match archeology I had to see it as the product of generations of oral histories, legends, camp-fire stories. God had never intended it to be a science text.

I still have an all-powerful God with a plan of salvation. I just have a less simplistic view of the origins of the world on which Eden was placed.

When I talked to SDA friends who were teaching science at SDA colleges and universities, I discovered I was not alone. The biology department at Andrews University had hall-way displays that clearly explained evolution and made no attempt to disprove it. The SDA church publications in general avoided the topic. It was no big deal. I was later to discover than about 50% of the science faculty at Canadian Union College were closet long-age believers.

It didn't matter. Nobody minded.

Furthermore the information about the origins of the SOP was not being denied. EGW was being seen, correctly, as not settling theological issues. 1844 was correctly being seen as a debatable topic.

Then, in 2000-2002, it began to change. The SDA mainstream publications, including the Adventist Review and the SS lesson pamphlet clearly hit strongly that SDA's should believe short-age creationism, 1844, and EGW.

In my local church, elders misrepresented and criticised my beliefs from the platform and during communion service.

There were other stresses in my work and family life going on at the time, and there were other aspects of SDA theology that I never saw strong Biblical support for.

One day I realized "there is too much stress in my life". There were three sources - family, work, and church. I refused to abandon my family, I needed my job, maybe I should drop my denomination?

A few weeks later I came home after yet another horrible church board meeting (I was the treasurer) and found a Clifford Goldstein editorial equating evolutionists and Satanists.

I wrote my letter of resignation that week, within a month had it passed at a business meeting, and have only been inside an SDA church about ten times since then.

I really should thank Clifford for spurring me into making the decision to resign - It certainly reduced my stress levels, and has given me time to take up being a volunteer EMT in my town, and do many other things that have enriched my life.

/Bevin

I'm probably too much of a simpleton to see it as a problem, but what's the big deal about E G White having literary assistants who worked with her on her books? Didn't Paul have helpers? Why should this be an issue? Of course, not having been raised an Adventist no doubt colours my understanding of this issue.

Quote:

---

what's the big deal about E G White having literary assistants who worked with her on her books?

---

The 'big deal' is the SDA church and the EGW Estate taught from about 1910 to about 1970 that she was an uneducated girl from Maine who personally wrote all this marvellous stuff that the Lord had shown her in visions and dreams - and that the volume and quality of the work was evidence of her gift.

/Bevin

The White Estate made those claims? No doubt. I certainly wouldn't argue the point. The White Estate was wrong to put that twist to Mrs. White's writings (though to extent they are right). Why would they do that? Because they didn't have sufficient faith in her gift and in her experiences and felt they needed to prop her up. That was very wrong for them to do - for any number of reasons. The Lord did "show her marvelous stuff in visions and dreams" and I don't believe her prophetic gift can be disputed. Unfortunately, until Jesus comes this church of ours and its various entities will be filled with severely faulted humans who are capable of great perfidy, cruelty, intellectual dishonesty, guile, jealousy, and hatred. Oh, don't let me leave the sanctimonious, venal, and self serving off the list. The human condition hasn't changed in six thousand years and won't until Jesus comes. I'm neither surprised, discouraged nor especially dismayed by the way people in our church behave. Grieved a bit but not surprised. There's a shaking coming (is it here already?) and the chaff will be sifted out, those with uncircumcised hearts will fall away. Can we persevere to the end?

The White Estate made those claims? No doubt. I certainly wouldn't argue the point. The White Estate was wrong to put that twist to Mrs. White's writings (though to extent they are right). Why would they do that? Because they didn't have sufficient faith in her gift and in her experiences and felt they needed to prop her up. That was very wrong for them to do - for any number of reasons. The Lord did "show her marvelous stuff in visions and dreams" and I don't believe her prophetic gift can be disputed. Unfortunately, until Jesus comes this church of ours and its various entities will be filled with severely faulted humans who are capable of great perfidy, cruelty, intellectual dishonesty, guile, jealousy, and hatred. Oh, don't let me leave the sanctimonious, venal, and self serving off the list. The human condition hasn't changed in six thousand years and won't until Jesus comes. I'm neither surprised, discouraged nor especially dismayed by the way people in our church behave. Grieved a bit but not surprised. There's a shaking coming (is it here already?) and the chaff will be sifted out, those with uncircumcised hearts will fall away. Can we persevere to the end?

IMHO, the Clifford Goldstein editorials have done more harm than good, overall. But I can't really see his heart. I just know he comes from the legalistic Jewish background, so it could be expected that his writings would reflect that perspective. I've come to avoid his writings, intentionally. Although for some I realize they've been a great help.

What I'm trying to say is, we're all of many and varied backgrounds, yet Christ died for each one of us. He accepts us regardless of our race, color, educational background or orientation.

I do believe, however, that the more highly educated one becomes, the more difficult it is to find a comfortable church home. You are probably the best educated person in your church, especially including your pastor. It's tough - sitting in the pew and listening to poor grammar, poor homiletics, and poor exigesis all coming from the pulpit. But we do have the power and ability to study on our own. And I love listening to taped sermons from other preachers whom I admire. They keep me spiritually fed.

And nowhere is it written that one's name must be listed on an Adventist church roll in order to go home to heaven with Jesus when He comes.