Did Desmond Ford Receive a Fair Trial?

…as harpa said…must’v got out before too late…

(But there are exceptions to the rule boys) :kissing_heart:


Particularly when makes his own, strangely!


That is not a responsive answer; that is a semantic quibble that only serves to deflect the question.

Here is what I asked:

Let’s just put it bluntly, to make it impossible to misunderstand the question, Danny:

Are you saying that Gill Ford and Ray Cottrell were lying when they said the instructions were to judge Desmond Ford’s theology by the 27 Fundamental Beliefs rather than the Bible?


Were the 27 Fundamental Beliefs used as the evaluative standard in Desmond Ford’s trial, Danny, or is Cottrell lying?

Or is he just mistaken?


James Londis was there, and he’s also here.

Gill Ford was there, and she’s also here.

Put your testosterone to good use and take this bull by the horns, Danny! Don’t weasel out.


Danny, just because I ask a question doesn’t mean you are obliged to answer it, of course. Your choice.

But if you’re going to go on and on about Christian men being unmanly, you might not want to paint yourself in the same corner by giving evasive non-answers.

Give the trumpet a certain sound!


You can read about “Type 2 spiritualism” here in this article from Spectrum:


This is just a hoax. You are certainly walking back your original claim of major research supporting your theory that Adventist pastors have lower testosterone levels. So, actually, you have no evidence whatsoever, @Danny; pure opinion, isn’t it? Opinion you are wishfully thinking would be so.

Admit it. You have NO evidence. False news.


Since you just posted Chudleigh’s history of the headship theory, I have no regrets calling this belief false and heresy. It is, indeed. Let’s call it what it truly is. No Crusades. No molotov cocktails. Just the truth. Headship is not Biblical. It’s the brainchild of Piper and his cronies to push women out of spiritual leadership and exercising their gifts from the Holy Spirit.

1 Like

Would you be kind to give us a definition of “wusses?” Is it purely from a testosterone level? I’ve met a number of alpha men who are first to physically abuse their wives and sexually abuse their step children. I frequently ask them why don’t they take their frustration on someone who would fight back physically and they can give no satisfactory answers.

Perhaps a “wuss” is someone who takes advantage of others and knows not how to behave in a civil manner.

1 Like

I have absolutely no problem with you calling things as you see them, of course, and we agree in substance, it goes without saying! :slight_smile:

I’ve gone with the more neutral term, “moral panic,” as engineered by moral entrepreneurs with a priori agendas, such as Piper and Bacchiocchi, so that I don’t have the baggage of building a whole case of what is, and is not, heresy.

And I can also apply the same reasoning to other similar moral panics, such as the Desmond Ford Moral Panic.

It seems to me that Adventism is prone to moral panics, and I think it might be helpful to analyze this as a category so we can get some perspective on it.

Thanks for the link! I’m also watching Laurel Damsteet on YouTube about Type 2 Spiritualism, and I find her to be a moral entrepreneur par excellence—very skillful at laying the groundwork for a full-blown moral panic.

The Traditional Adventist in me must remain aware to avoid being swept up with her rhetoric.

(And, boy, does she have the credentials, as she was not shy to inform us.)

I could say she is promoting heresy, but that would imply that I sit in a position from which I may judge such things from above, which I don’t find realistic or desirable.

Anyway, however we describe it, people in pressing circumstances are prone to herd behavior, like moral panics, so Adventists are sitting ducks right now, it seems to me.

Headship ideology is a very pervasive cultural wind in Christendom, and Adventism seems to have lost its rudder and broken its mast.

It seems that you would rather talk about anything than about the question at the top of this page, Danny:

Did Desmond Ford Receive a Fair Trial?

We can talk about wusses and testosterone until the cows come home, but you won’t touch that question, will you?

I’m calling your bluff.

Generalities and unsupported assertions don’t work.


Is it the one entitled: Women’s Ordination #2 - “The Impact of Spiritualism on Feminism and Gender Issues Today”?

1 Like

That’s the one.

The irony is that Ellen White is indistinguishable from a trance channeler.

Let me walk that back a bit. That may have been too general…

1 Like

Irony noted…

Thanks, I’ll give this a look-see.

I think I used too strong a term there, but:

  1. The difference between the states she was in and a trance?
  2. Talking to spirit beings of uncertain provenance?

She better not have gotten anything wrong.

But she did.

In any case, trucking with spirits was a “thing” in the mid-nineteenth century, especially for women. It was a new career choice.

1 Like

For the record, it is “headship” that I have no reservation in calling heresy. Piper’s theology of headship goes well beyond Adventism prohibiting the ordination of women. It prohibits women from directing choirs with boys over 12 or men, teaching S.S. classes with boys over 12, having ANY position in which she leads, guides, or undertakes where a male would be “under” her instruction. His most recent controversial statement is that women should never teach in a seminary.

We will agree to disagree on this.

But I do see this like J. Lee Grady:

Just remember the camel only has his nose in the tent right now, harrpa!

Laurel Damsteet thinks women’s rights are satanic spiritualism, per EGW.

If it were up to White, women would still be in the nineteenth century, not being able to vote, and a thousand horrors besetting them that you may not be able to imagine as vividly as I can remember them.

As I said to David Larson, This “thing” is on your plate, and you must eat it before it eats you.

You are going to be assimilated by the Borg if you’re not careful.

I prefer to call it misogyny, but I’ll split the change. It will devour you.

I wasnt there so how can I judge what was said? I think what your doing is making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

If they did say it, “word for word” - I dont know of have no way of knowing as those in charge have not been quoted? - it could be just hearsay?

Maybe they did mean “the scriptures” - even blind freddy can see the 27 are based on scripture…does it matter?..are you assigning evil intent to the leaders at GV? I have been part of many nasty church debates and know ho evil intent is apportioned when not warranted.

Maybe what your doing right now Cassie is semantic quibble?

If it is true that Desmond Ford was judged by the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, rather than Scripture, would you say he received a fair trial?

Trial by “summary?”

Sound fair to you?

1 Like

Lots of questions Elmer…I like to learn as well. I will answer your first one as the rest is subjective. The short answer is basically an emasculated male…if your interested in becoming one then check out this long answer.