Comment on President Randal Wisbey’s response to Asscherick by John Bayne.
I am an impartial observer here as an ex baptized member of this denomination, but have a sense of justice, and while looking for an email contact for David Asscherick, stumbled across this site, although I am writing here in clear support of David Asscherick’s very fair, factual, reasonable and respectfully polite letter, I would like to chide him and other genuine SDA speakers like him, such as Pastor Stephen Bohr, as not providing any kind of site or place upon which to allow two way communication from anywhere in the world. I think, being extremely busy is no excuse, for a cursory glance at least and systematic choice of a sample at least of incoming emails would be better than nothing. But back to the issue here, I would like to declare that President Randall Wiseby’s refusal to do both justice and basic civil right’s, showing the spirit of accountability rather than authoritatianism, would at least preserve his good name and integrity regardless of what was said. But such an unjust, discourteous and misleading presentation of David Asscherick’s letter would only fail to reveal this undesirable trait of character to those who had not read David’s letter, or who were sufficiently uneducated as to realize just how reasonable, factual, politely respectful and deserving of a fair and just answer to his charges. It is, in many respects as bad to paint an unjustly negative and misleading picture of David Asscherick’s letter as it is to allow heretical doctiness to be taught in an SDA institution. David has presented a strong enough case, that there is ample enough evidence that doctrines, which would be unequivocally condemned by Isaiah 8:20, they are so opposed to “the law and to the testimonies” if it is true that they are being taught as fact rather than taught as Satan’s doctrines against what the Bible teaches, that failure to even attempt to reply direct to David Asscherick personally while clearly addressing each issue raised in David’s letter, is as much an admission that the fears which David expresses in the letter are true, as refusing to take a breath test, when asked by a police officer suspecting drinking while under the influence of alcohol, is taken as an admission of guilt if a blood test is also refused.