AdventNetwork of Southern Africa Issues Statement After Annual Council Compliance Vote

Keep laughing then.
Have a good day Sir.

Would it be fair to also label you guys liberal, post modern and lacking spine? No it would not be nice. We don’t discuss persons nor resort to names and labeling. We must discuss issues i believe.

The trouble is you don’t discuss, monologues are not discussion.


When i commented and you commented and i responded and you responded, is that not called a discussion? school me then my brother…

When one considers and reflects on the comment of another, in your case based on analysis of the various comments you have made over the last 3 days it appears only 20% of the time you discussed specific point with the person you responded to. When asked direct questions you mostly responded by asking a litany of other questions and feigned surprise when peopled called you on that. You most restated your position without actual reflecting any thoughts from the person you dialog with.

If you do this in real life you would almost certainly be regarded and narcissistic and in this forum you appear to demonstrate strong traits of oppositional defiance disorder. This may be due to either your anonymity in the forum or that you are in a position of some authority either in the family or in church matters and are unable to process ideas or thoughts that vary from the standard you feel appropriate.


You post a mouthful but once again, some items which arent founded in fact. you seem to be a good statistician i see…To which post of mine for example have i expressed surprise at being called out? lets talk facts not fiction my dear brother. You only joined this forum a few months ago and so i dont see how you can judge me on being young on this forum. I have followed this forum since even before the issues of Paul Ratsara for the SID etc.

If i have cornered you in my responses because i go against the grain and pith of the majority on this forum, then its tough? I stand for what i believe to be from the Word regardless of majorities who are on the side of their views (unless those views are truly bible based).

Please dont use me as a respite to take a breather as you seek to find other ways to put points on the subject topic. Lets discuss the issue. I am not the topic nor am i swayed by your downgrading me by your statements. Ive gone through worse, and what you’re doing is childs play.

Should i remind you of the topic?

See the examples below for your references
a) starting with this the most recent response where you requested that ‘school me then my brother’. You have expressed surprise in this post in the following way 1) shocked that I responded to your request and performed analysis ‘you seem to be a good statistician’ 2) you make a statement regarding the lack of time in the forum and imply you should not be questioned 3) you state that you with to discuss the issue and then say ‘I am not on topic’

b) Eric Webster responds to your question of whether your non-compliance would be ok when the day comes the WO is voted as a yes. He states that your conscience would be respected and that we would follow the model of Acts 15. You then respond by saying

You ignore the answer he gives and insist he is wrong to say that he would respect your conscience. You here also imply surprise by saying that WO was not a topic and ignore the methodology describe to overcome an issue at the time that actually brought unity. Declaring that there is no connection in principle on how to resolve issues. You state that because a topic discussed was already being phased out it wasn’t a big deal. Here is where you completely ignore historical context: WO is a big deal now and Circumcision was a big deal then as it is the whole topical issue at hand and until then no one had thought about ‘phasing it out’. Your comments are wholly argumentative, adversarial and ignore context/principle as pointed out by the Eric.

c) In response to George you feign suprise and imply ignorance of the term ‘discrimination’ and then once explained you then ask if God calls it discrimination and through this misdirection, knowing well that the Bible doesn’t discuss this in so many words, claim that since the Bible doesn’t make direct reference it is irrelevant. (see quotations below) In this example when the writer points out what doesn’t fit your narrative (in this case word definition) you then tell him he is still wrong and what he says doesn’t matter and he’s wrong.

d) It this example you once again feign suprise and simply trivialize the issues of conscience of the writer (George) by saying you respect choices but you losers are annoying. You also feign surprise at and imply discrimination by definition is not relevant and blatantly say attitudes of those who apply this term as applicable are the reason unity is not achieved and are bigots. You once again selfishly label everyone not agreeing with you as losers and bigots. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

Using these examples (of which are but a few) you requested I let the readers judge rightly.

1 Like

I am as skeptical as you are, lol.

But on the serious side, it is the way to “save (the) face”, that they are so concerned about. How refreshing it would be for the GC to make an announcement that they made a mistake by offering the vote (in truth-violated SDA policy) and retract the issue and encouraged the Unions to make a WO decision for their own territories. What a refreshing precedence of honesty that would bring.

I’m not holding my breath.

More likely, work will begin on catching up with the Halakhah so 144 compliance committees can be formed.

1 Like

Please don’t You don’t want to die by suffocation…


I agree. Let the readers judge rightly the merits and points given to the discussion. 100% with you there. Blessed day.

Who determines that something is a big deal? The bible and SOP speak on the issues of new light and increasing light as we near the 2nd Advent. It is not social issues or pressures that should determine our movement forward, but the study of the Word… We are all against discrimination of women and i have even given personal examples from my own person, but we will not agree on the corporate methodology you are proposing regarding WO…Which is what has triggered this compliance document. You can post mouthfuls on this forum downgrading me and saying im ignoring what others say; it doesnt matter. The readers will not be interested in the grandiose idioms and linguistical parlance exhibited in trying to bury the points i have made. simple.

This compliance document would not be an issue had some unions and visions been in harmony with the voted decisions of GC session 2015.

Thank you so much for writing back the way you did as this is a perfect example of what a discussion is :slight_smile:

What is a big deal and who determines it - This is a good question and is useful when comparing the past with the present. Evidently at the time circumcision was thought to be very important by enough people who had varying levels of thought regarding importance and urgency. What we see now is also the same in that enough people are also talking about this who have varying levels of thought regarding importance, urgency, etc. It was, at the time, that circumcision was, as described in Genesis, a requirement to be part of the family of God. In a similar way some hold that it is not for humans to deny Holy Spirits choice of Male or Female and that a church Policy, as has been implemented, usurps Gods authority (this is how many view it even if you and I don’t).

In both situations we have enough people talking about this that it has been brought to the group at large with leadership. With others suggesting various solutions and some passionately for/against and others wonder what the big deal is. So who decided it was a big deal? Then, like now, it is just that enough people are concerned that it has taken on a life of its own and worked its way around to where we are now.

The human condition is the study of the words and social issues or pressures are discussed and dealt with in various ways in the Bible as in the case we have used so far. For the apostles I have no doubt that this issue of circumcision was by some thought of as a Jewish social issue but for Jews it certainly was clear from scripture that was not the case. The Genesis record was very clear and unambiguous for the Jews and in their minds not a social issue. Just like now some may think it is a social issue while others do not and they will also point to various precedent and principles. How did the apostles of the time deal with this? Did they create compliance committees, did they insist that everyone follow the Genesis command? Nope they didn’t did they, knowing that even though it was a direct command from the Bible they discerned that circumstance and situation had changed. In what must have for some looked like apostasy they chose to allow those whose conscience lead one way or the other to decide for themselves.

Indeed this was exactly the same problem that we face now and like the apostles we want to focus on the message. However we must also face issues that are of concern and create unity through solutions that don’t pit winners against losers or engage in that spirit or level of thinking. The situation that the apostles faced was new light to them and the solution did not impede the ability to spread the word, but rather sped it onward.

Some think WO is increasing light, shedding tradition of men, others do not think so, however like the apostles we must also be courageous and act in a manner that doesn’t impede unity but rather embraces it.

As it is we all agree that the current solution has not created unity, this is our crime and it is also our punishment. We can look to the apostles example to create unity only if we have the courage to do so without forcing you or I to practice against conscience.


…With time conditions bro… Especially when you read Pauls messages on this in his epistles. The apostles did not decide for a yes/no vote on an issue they knew was not applicable post Jesus and His crucifixion. Col 2v14-14 also applies to the various ceremonial laws which some SDAs are also calling for to be implemented.

The issue of yes/no vote on WO is equated to discrimination as if its the only symptom or evidence of discrimination. Some who are pro WO dont even treat their wives and daughters well; but are the first to clamour for equal rights on a political scale.

I still maintain my thought patterns. The compliance doc is relevant and useful even though i accept that it could have been studied by all world wide. But its voice and principle is still fine.

1 Like

This is perfectly ok, and I respect that and I would hope you also respect others as well :slight_smile:

In all kindness Brother Denny just remember that the Compliance document was placed on the agenda by a vote of 32 for and 30 against and two abstentions. Basically 32 versus 32. Are you comfortable with that method as a sincere Christian and child of God?

Just for clarification, can you please describe what were actually “the decisions of GC session 2015?”

Its pretty obvious what the main issue was at GC 2015… The no vote regarding WO meaning unions could not decide for themselves to ordain our sisters to the gospel ministry.

"A big deal"

There are in society some “big deals” that are naturally established, they don’t need to be explained over and over again to adults who mature normally. Yes, they are repeated to children, who are learning them. But, for adults, they should already be part of their adult persona.

For example, honesty, truthfulness, respect to others, these are just examples of what any child should be taught at an early age, and that should be already part of the normal behavior of any adult.

Is non-discrimination also a “big deal?” Absolutely!!! It should be taught by parents, churches, society at large to every single child. Otherwise we end up with a bunch of adults that discriminate against others (including women!), thus corrupting the moral content of our community.

Discrimination is, in itself, a (bad) big deal. I only don’t understand why discriminators usually appear to be proud of it, when they should actually be ashamed of it - because it only shows that their maturation process is yet incomplete.And this is another (negative) big deal…

1 Like

Could you please quote me the actual wording of the motion put before the 2015 GC session? Thank you.

You just shot your both feet!
Did you ever read the question that was voted at the GC2015 in SA? Obviously NOT.
What you just stated reveals that you either,

  1. Never read the question that was subject of the voting
  2. Read it but actually misread it, not understanding what it said
  3. Decided to ignore what was voted and decided to make misleading statements that are completely (100%) wrong and inaccurate.

Which one is it? Please, before telling which one it is, read here the question voted on and compare it with your statement (that I quoted above):

After your thorough study of the Bible, the writings of Ellen G White, and the reports of the study commissions on ordination, and; After your careful consideration of what is best for the Church and the fulfillment of its mission, Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No

It clearly says that the Divisions cannot make decisions ion ordination - which has always been a prerogative of the UNIONS. And after the voting (“NO”), Ted Wilson stated that nothing changed.

Isn’t it clear enough? Why are you spreading false info about what happened in SA in 2015?

1 Like