Ron: This obviously doesn’t apply to this time since slavery/”bond” …

Comment on WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation by Bob Pickle.

Ron: This obviously doesn’t apply to this time since slavery/”bond” does not exist in the US at this time. Things will have to get a lot worse before the US re-institutes slavery.

(Cough.) Slavery does exist currently in the U.S., and has so for a number of years. That’s why Pres. Bush and Gov. Jeb Bush held a conference on slavery in Florida during their terms of office. That’s why National Geographic did an article on slavery several years ago, discussing the three guys in Florida who were convicted and sent to prison over running an agriculture-related slave camp.

But as far as EGW’s predictions go, she seemed to associate at least some of her predictions with violations of Sunday laws. And it is a fact that the Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolished slavery made an exception for those convicted of crime.

Thus, slavery for convicted criminals is still to this day constitutional in America.

Bob Pickle Also Commented

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation

Charles:
@Bob Pickle:
Meaning?

LSU stated:

Though the University’s eight-year regional accreditation is not affected, WASC has identified concerns regarding the role and composition of the La Sierra University Board of Trustees and issues related to institutional autonomy.

So what does that mean? That means that the WASC wants LSU to operate independently of the denomination. “Institutional autonomy.” And the WASC is concerned about how many church leaders and/or members are on the board, it appears.


WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
Sounds like the WASC wants LSU to become an independent ministry.


Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
Think it at all possible that clinicians, plural, located somewhere, at some point in time prior to the interview, did indeed tell Dr. Risch that? It doesn’t seem to me that aggregate data at the CDC can be used to prove that no clinicians told him such a thing.

One obvious problem is that averages for the whole country can’t necessarily tell us what specific locations have experienced, but it does give us an idea of what the probability ought to be.

If no clinicians really did tell him such a thing, and he really did make that statement, then there ought to be consequences.

Is there anything that hinders reporting break-through infections? Another question might be whether there is less testing of vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, and whether that results in under-reporting break-through asymptomatic cases.


Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
Sean, you write above, “However, this doesn’t prove or even suggest a correlation with the vaccines.”

Isn’t that going too far? I agree that, from a scientific standpoint, this doesn’t prove a correlation. But to say that the numbers don’t even suggest a correlation seems to go too far. It’s like an evolutionist trying to claim that there is no evidence for creation.

According to the WSJ article “Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?” posted at https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-11624381749 or https://oltnews.com/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-the-wall-street-journal and written by a Yale professor of epidemiology and a UCLA professor of medicine, concerns arising from the VAERS data isn’t just about the #’s of thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, deep vein thrombosis, and death happening within days of getting a covid-19 vaccine. For example, “Vaers records 321 cases of myocarditis within five days of vaccination, dropping to almost zero in 10 days.”

Certainly that does suggest a correlation, for the numbers to be that high within 5 days and that low in 10 days. Proven? No. Suggest? Most certainly.

Really, your discussion needs to deal with this issue. Certainly people die every day. But if numbers for those four specific adverse events rise soon after a vaccination and then drop, those facts must be addressed. Why the drop?

As far as folks surrendering their civil and religious liberties go, I still think it is unethical for any entity, including a hospital, to coerce employees or others to receive an unapproved medical treatment, a treatment not yet approved by the FDA. Sure, the FDA might soon approve one of the vaccines, but none of them have been approved yet, based on what I could find yesterday at the FDA’s website.

About signing a statement that says one is receiving it voluntarily after coercion and shaming, I just don’t think such a statement is going to work in the court of God. Sure, it happens all the time on earth. A car dealer or whoever makes all kinds of claims, and then you sign a statement that says you understand that nothing of what you were told is binding. But it’s not honest.


The Arguments of Adventists Opposed to Vaccines
1. Any idea when the FDA might approve one of the covid vaccines?

2. Any idea when health authorities might gain confidence that immunity from the illness or a vaccine might last longer than 90 days, or whatever current research is showing now?


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, you above state: “… a lack of a specific statement in the GC’s Working Policy that explicitly forbids the ordination of women as pastors. As far as I’m aware, such a statement simply doesn’t exist.”

Try BA 60 10 which states: “The world Church supports nondiscrimination in employment practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the Church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”

The footnote makes clear that the exception regarding ordination to the gospel ministry is one of gender, not race or color.

Also, B 10 22: “All organizations and institutions throughout the world will recognize the authority of the General Conference Session as the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church under God.” Here we have part of the Working Policy saying that there is no higher authority under God in the Adventist Church than the sessions that voted down WO in 1990, 1995, and 2015.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, in your update you write:

Sean Pitman:
“On the other hand, it also seem clear that on the issue of ordination, in particular, that the “final authority” has been given to the Union level of governance within the church (not to the level of the General Conference) to act as a buffer against too much centralized power within the church. …

“In any case, since honest confusion remains between many honest and sincere members as well as leaders of the church, ….

There certainly is honest confusion regarding this, but I can’t see how everyone is honestly confused.

1. Local churches decide who will be members and who will not, but local churches do not have the authority to make tests of fellowship. Thus the criteria for membership is decided by the world church, while that criteria is applied to individual cases by the local church.

Similarly, though unions decide who will be ordained, they don’t unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination.

2. If unions could unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, there would have been no reason to bring the matter to the GC Sessions of 1990 and 1995. Particularly in 1995, it seems clear that church leaders understood that without GC division authorization, unions could not approve women for ordination, and that without GC Session authorization, GC divisions could not so authorize.

3. The first I remember hearing that unions could act on their own was after Dan Jackson’s open letter of, I think, Jan. 2012. Maybe we can find this idea being promulgated prior to that date in left-wing journals, but maybe not. Since there certainly has been discussion in some circles about getting rid of unions, it seems difficult to have simultaneous promotion of the idea that we need unions so that women can be ordained.

How it comes across to me is that some want their way no matter what, and are grasping at anything they can to justify their position. For those some, I don’t think the label “honest confusion” fits. Now if they can come up with some sort of historical documentation that local churches can unilaterally determine the criteria for church membership, or that unions can unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, OK. But I have yet to see any such documentation.