Allen Shepherd, Des is not a preterist.
Jim, some of the responses to your fine review are disappointing. In my sixties I went back to university and studied history. I have recently finished a twelve-hour video series on the history of Glacier View, mainly for those who might write on it one day. I focused, not so much on the doctrinal issues, but on how the administration fired Des. The bottom line is that the decision to fire Des was made before Glacier View. GC men were witnessed saying beforehand both in public and private that he would be fired.
The consensus statements, largely written by scholars and voted on, during the Friday morning meeting, were never used to discipline Des. Instead, Neal Wilson asked six people, including Des’s best friend, to write ten points where Des differed with the traditional Adventist position, viz the Dallas Statement of 27 Fundamentals. The Dallas Statement, written four months before Glacier View, had actually changed on the sanctuary doctrine, but Neal Wilson insisted that this was only semantics. This ten-point statement (Des vs. the traditional view) was read to the assembly, but it was never voted on.
During the Friday afternoon meeting, where members of PREXAD and the Australasian Division convened to discipline Des, the ten-point statement was the only document used. It contained no biblical evidence. When asked what he thought of the consensus statements, the brethren were gobsmacked when Des said they moved in his direction in at least seven key areas. The brethren denied this was true. This was the only reference to the consensus statements during the Friday afternoon meeting. What this means is, the work accomplished and voted by the scholars at Glacier View was completely ignored. You may choose not to believe me on this, but it is all contained in the notes of Spangler and others written at and after the Friday afternoon meeting. I have these notes, and I have typed them out and read them out in my videos.
The brethren spent a lot of time Friday afternoon on the subject of Bob Brinsmead (he was not discussed in the GV meetings themselves and only vaguely alluded to in the Ministry). Much of the rest of the time was spent berating Des. Remember, though I was an eye-witness to much of this, I wrote my history using the brethren’s notes.
The background for the accusations about Bob Brinsmead was never divulged to us—before, during or afterwards. This meant we didn’t know what was behind the questions. I found out years later that John Brinsmead, upset with his brother, went down to the Division Office about a year before Glacier View (and possibly more than once). John told Parmenter that Des was colluding with Bob. They were attacking separately, and later were going to join forces to attack the church. None of this (abbreviated for lack of space) was true, but we were never informed that this had happened except for a vague reference in one of Parmenter’s letters. Parmenter and the GC brethren believed these accusations, but they did not tell us what was behind them. We both denied collusion, but nobody there believed us. Look, at the same time, there were many followers of Bob upset with Des because he didn’t collude with Bob. Over the years, much of the time, Des and Bob thought differently, but they maintained a mutual respect.
You have to remember that Des had answered questions in the Signs of the Times in Australia for over 30 years, and as head of the religion department at Avondale, he was responsible for dealing theologically with dissidents. While we were in England in the 1970s, Des was called to GC to take part in deliberations between the GC and the Brinsmeads. Des and Bob certainly met and exchanged, but there was no collusion between them. It was Elder Parmenter, Australian Division President, who colluded with John, not Des who colluded with Bob. The rumours of Des’s so-called affiliation with Bob—none of it true—flew around the Australasian Division, but we had lived in USA for three and a half years by then and knew nothing about it till later. There is written and oral evidence about John’s going to the Division from both the SPD and Brinsmead sides.
Des was also accused of leaking the Glacier View manuscript. He did not. In fact, we know one person who did, and it was an ex-GC President who let his doctor read it!
During the Friday afternoon, Elder Parmenter asked Des 1. to damn Bob Brinsmead in the Review; and 2. he must completely change his mind on his views and state he had been wrong. At the time, Bob was preaching the gospel of righteousness by faith, and Des would not oppose him on this. And, to state he had changed his mind would have been a lie. He refused to do either and thus the process for termination began that Friday afternoon.
Des is 89 this weekend. He tells me he was born to go to Glacier View. He is perfectly at peace about it, and his forgiveness of those who treated him so unfairly is amazing. Go ahead if it makes you feel better. All the slings and misfortunes and nasty epithets you can throw at him will only slide off the duck’s feathers on his back. He has peace because he is right with God right now, and he lives in the light of the gospel that he has offered to you all his preaching life.
The doctrine of the investigate judgment needs constant challenging until it dies. Don’t read the sanitized version put out by some scholars, a pre-Advent judgment full of hope and assurance. Go back and read Great Controversy again. Refresh your mind with what Adventists have officially taught. In 1844, an investigative judgment began. Soon, we know not when, the living saints will come into judgment. Every word, every deed will come under scrutiny. Believers will have to be sinlessly perfect by the close of probation. The Holy Spirit will be withdrawn from the earth. Now go and read 1 Corinthians 13 and see how well you match up. The investigative judgment is a mental torture equivalent to the purported physical pain of the doctrine of hell taught by others churches. Time to despatch it as non-scriptural—as many throughout Adventist history have taught and fallen on their swords for the sake of truth and the people and the defense of the gospel. Jerry was one of these noble souls. Despite the intense pain of his experience with the church, he had to be true to Christ and the gospel. As a sign of his continuing love for the denomination and the Lord he serves, he has written a book about it in hope the church will see the light and change.
How alien the IJ is to the gospel of Jesus Christ, where he goes into judgment with us as our substitute and representative. The judgment was at the cross, and we participate in this judgment at the moment we receive Jesus. We continue to receive that judgment “passed from death to life” daily. At the end, God ratifies that decision. How much harm the IJ doctrine has done, least of all in creating generations of miserable Adventists who don’t know they are saved and don’t want anyone else to be, who think their role in life is to judge and condemn those who bring a knowledge of the love to Christ to the people—to put others through the investigative judgment, but not themselves. They forget that the accuser of the brethren, the one who brings a false report about the saints, is the devil himself
The Great Controversy/Prophet and Kings version is contrary to what Ellen White taught elsewhere about the gospel and assurance. In Great Controversy, she copied it from Uriah Smith and J. N. Andrews, and they were wrong. By not admitting Ellen White is a fallible prophet, the church has caused many to hate her and leave the church. In our house she is highly respected, but she is not infallible.
People are sick of this subject, but it wasn’t addressed at Glacier View. The brethren compared Des’s ideas to traditional Adventism and fired him over that. They did not take into account what the scholars said at all. The documentary evidence proves it. In fact, Glacier View was a hoax. The issue over the investigative judgment will keep raising its head until the denomination is honest. It hasn’t happened yet.