Did Desmond Ford Receive a Fair Trial?

It might be higher in sda women…which would make sense of the exit of men…

Feels like Groundhog day for me too George…

Here is Desmond Ford’s 73-page retrospective on the fateful PUC Meeting in 1979:


I think we all need to have a break from the page…some are going a bit manic…it was inevitable but.

I didn’t see anything whatsoever that you wrote that addressed the issues; please tell me which post number, or link.

Your choice. Perhaps it’s just you who wants to leave, however?

Leaving without saying anything of substance about the issues doesn’t leave a good impression that conservatives believe Desmond Ford had a fair trial.

I think we all know he didnt.

If Ted Wilson were a great man (and I think he could be), he might consider issuing an apology to Desmond Ford for what occurred during the administration of his father, Neal Wilson.

Not for the merits of his father’s beliefs, but perhaps because of the overzealousness of the process.

Fiat justitia ruat cælum

Matt. 6:10


Amen, Carmen!

And, before I go, I want to say thank you to Des and Gill for all you’ve done. You gave your best to try to help us, and I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. It had to be so discouraging, but you kept your faith, and set an example for us all.

Much love to you and your family


How can a trial be fair when the verdict is written before the trial even occurs, or ends?
This doesn’t make sense to a 10-year old. But apparently it makes sense to some adults… :astonished::astonished::astonished:


===== Ted Wilson apologizing to Des Ford.
The most accurate oxymoron I’ve ever heard of.

1 Like

That Fords name is equated with “spiritual McCarthyism” is enough to suggest that he did not receive any justice whatsoever at the hands of the black suits in the vege-smoke rooms and hunkered down in the catacombs of Silver Springs. I fear, and pray they repent before the coming judge judges them by their own manner and metric.

Recall well known physician friend being queried by some GC moles back in the late 80’s-
You’re a FORD man, aren’t you”?

His answer was priceless; “No, after the Cadillac they’ve always been Lincolns”


To quote that enduring line from Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride; “I don’t think it means what you think it means”. This study shows that males with the least religious exposure to religious activity and the highest testosterone levels are the most likely to be sexually active. It makes absolutely no conclusion about any association of religious activity and testosterone levels. In statistical terms the dependent variable is sexual activity and the independent variable is testosterone level and cofactor is church attendance. There is absolutely nothing here that indicates that the cofactor church attendance is correlated with the independent variable testosterone level. Only someone with conformational bias would think that.


What are you even on about Paul? The link provided isnt the one about clergy but was placed there by me for the interest on the topic…it shows church boys have lower levels than boys who dont go to church or go infrequently…it could very well be the conditioning within the environment…

OK, we all heard your argument. And now what?

What about @Cassie’s question, “Do you think Des Ford received a fair trial?” Want to give it a shot yet?

1 Like

george, glacier view wasn’t a trial…first of all, we don’t have tribunals in the adventist church…but second of all, glacier view was all about executing a decision that had already been made…des ford could have written about little red riding hood if he’d wanted to…no-one would have bothered to read or consider it…everyone had already formed their conclusions based on what he’d said at the PUC adventist forum in 1979, and the fall-out that was rocking the church…no-one was unclear on what des’ positions were, or the effect they were having on the church…

Do you even read the studies you cite as evidence? This article DOES NOT show that church boys have lower levels than boys who dont go to church of go infrequently.

In fact the abstract specifically says

“Using panel data for approximately 100 boys who were 12.5/13.0 years old at study entry, significant additive effects of free testosterone and frequency of attendance at religious services were demonstrated on the transition to first intercourse and other aspects of sexual behaviour and attitudes. No interactive effects of the two predictors were found.

Do you understand what that means? It means that your conclusion was at best a bald faced trumpism.

What has this to do with Desmond Ford? Something I think as the ministry and administration of the SDA Church at the highest levels are not immune from normal human behaviour and there are those who would wield power.

Your contend that church is producing low levels of testosterone because ministers have low levels of testosterone. It is an issue of association but as any competent scientist knows correlation does not indicate causality. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov/pubmed/2283592

“Occupational differences in testosterone concentrations, focusing on actors and ministers, were explored in 3 studies. The 1st examined salivary testosterone in 7 occupational groups and an unemployed comparison group and found actors and football players higher than ministers but no other significant differences. The 2nd examined salivary testosterone in 2 kinds of actors (stage actors and comedians) and 2 kinds of ministers (pastoral ministers and missionaries) and found actors high and ministers low but no differences between subgroups within each occupation. The 3rd examined serum testosterone in entertainers and ministers in a archival sample of military veterans and found entertainers high and ministers low. The results are interpreted in terms of dominance and antisocial tendencies, with the conclusion that these variables are complex and can affect occupational preference in subtle ways”.

It may well be that ministers usually do not engage in retaliatory behaviour or aggression to the same degree as those in other occupations.
Contrary to the meme of the manosphere testosterone is no magical substance that will solve societies problems.
1] Testosterone is increase by the act of wielding power particularly in women but also to a limited extent in men. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/45/13805
2] There is a putative but complex association between high levels of testosterone to cortisol in response to stress in psychopaths https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166523/
3] Testosterone and aggression are modulated by self-construal. Beware of the man or minister with independent self-construal with high testosterone. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov/pubmed/27816624
4] Aggression and violence is a feature of anabolic steroid use. And those with XYY genotype are at risk of abnormal neurological development with increase in ADHD and ASD

Which brings us back to the question of the seeming adoration of the concept of the human alpha male rife in the manosphere. A concept borrowed from our relatives, troops of monkeys and apes and arguably not applicable to humans. The distorted view in the manosphere however is that every male has the god given right and can be the alpha male.

Dean Burnett writing in the Guardian Oct 2016 in an article “Do alpha males even exist?” points out that the concept of alpha males was popularized in the 1960’s with the book “Chimpanzee Politics” and by the popularity of the book “The Game” which derived from the strategies of pickup artist from the manosphere. Burnett makes the observation;

"Maybe the supposed human alpha male is a combination of disgruntled male wish fulfilment and borderline-pseudoscientific justification for resorting to bullying, intimidation and generally all-round unpleasant behaviour by men hoping to impose their will on a world they find too complex and unnerving so revert to their baser instincts to get what they want, despite knowing deep down they don’t deserve it and shouldn’t have it?

In fairness, “alpha male” is a lot more succinct."


So…trumpian alpha male…is… Hyperandrogenism?

Certainly is implicitly suggestive of the cause(s) of trump animus.


So, Jeremy, you are saying that Glacier View was just a farce, right? A fake attempt to examine Biblical evidence presented by one of the most brilliant minds that ever visited Adventism.

WOW! I never heard this one about GV. So they actually wasted all that money just to put up a façade? Are you sure a Wilson would waste Church’s money that way? (It reminds me the #1MI TOSC…) :wink: Are the Wilsons mere “façadists?”… :innocent:

I wonder if you did, but almost everyone who talks against Des’ position and the Biblical evidence he presented, actually did NOT read his document. So their voice is completely unwarranted on this matter.

And, YES, I read/studied the document in 1980, in full, and after that I haven’t seen a single person actually capable of invalidating the Book of Hebrews… Not yet… :wink:

1 Like

For some reason it reminds me of “canis fidelis” and “trumpis infidelis”… :wink:

1 Like

i don’t say it was a farce, because it’s purpose wasn’t a fact-finding trial…like i’ve said, we don’t have tribunals in adventism…

much of what ford presented at the PUC adventist forum had been rejected by egw when she reproved albion ballenger as strongly as she did…neil wilson, and others, would have already known that…actually even ford knew that, which is why he felt it so necessary to denigrate her doctrinal authority at the forum…

the higher ups in our church knew what they needed to do before GV…because they were looking at a clear case of divergence from the voice of our prophet, they really didn’t have much choice…all this wrangling over the ins and outs of GV misses this point…if our church was to stay true to egw, ford had to go…it really was that simple - it was a black and white case…even today, you’ll notice that people who are sympathetic to ford have no time for egw…

scroll up a bit and take in my exchange with james peterson…you’ll see that the book of Hebrews doesn’t substantiate ford’s teachings…there are many people now who’ve studied Hebrews who can see that…objections to 1844/IJ on the basis of Hebrews is an old hat…it doesn’t hold any water…

Have already replied to this George ages ago.

1 Like

Danny, I missed it. What was your answer?

1 Like