Did Desmond Ford Receive a Fair Trial?

I’m not familiar with that term—please elaborate, if you care to!

For my part (and no criticism of you!), I’d like to see the word heresy fall into disuse among Christians, and be labeled archaic in dictionaries.

The word is fraught with so much bloody history, so many suffering martyrs, so much strife and division.

Can any equal relationship involve calling one’s interlocutor a heretic?

In the video below, Des Ford says that there were three days of meetings that preceded Glacier View that were recorded. Perhaps those were the recordings you heard? (I have no idea.)

If you think that it is scriptural to have an Adventist Magisterium teaching authority that conducts heresy trials according to official church tradition, i.e., the Creed of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, rather than the Bible, then you are, at the least, out of harmony with James White, who repeatedly affirmed that his only creed was the Bible, and Ellen White, who said, “The Bible and the Bible alone is our rule of faith.”

You are also out of harmony with pioneer Loughborough, who said:

  1. The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe.
  2. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship.
  3. The third is to try members by that creed.
  4. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed.
  5. And fifth, to commence persecution against such.


So, as I see it, the important preliminary question is: Danny, are you saying that Gill Ford and Raymond Cottrell spoke untruths by saying that the Glacier View instructions were to judge Desmond Ford’s theology by the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, rather than the Bible?

If that is what you are asserting, I would like to see some evidence for it.


Yeah I know…sounds a bit like “before you lose credibility” :rofl:

Thanks for your bio…it all makes sense now.

Me? I live in Tasmania and have a BA Theology Degree from Avondale. Was a pastor for 6 years for the Seventh-day Adventist Church; a state School Chaplain for 2 years, a Family Court Mediator for 5 years. Also been editor and regular contributor to papers like, Adventist Today, Record, Fulcrum7, Advindicate, Trench Mail, The Mashup and other online Christian publications. Also a Men’s ministries pioneer helping establish it in the Adventist church in Australia.

I left ministry in 2000 because of my wifes health. I just never went back and felt more freedom as an itinerant preacher/writer without my pay packet being tugged at.


The 27 are not a Creed but a summary of our beliefs based on scripture…not the commentary parts which were not voted on…but the statements of faith highlighted at he beginning of each chapter…some of the commentary have errors…

1 Like

But I don’t believe that anyone can deny that the Denomination has instilled in the minds of millions of SDAs the idea that they (now 28… and counting) are actually an Adventists Creed.

1 Like

A matter of opinion.

You could using the same reasoning say the assembly of any scriptural list by a church leader is a creed…even Luthers 95 Theses could be a creed…

In the 1870’s when James White listed his handful of "GENERALLY ACCEPTED Beliefs"
he did NOT insist that ALL SDAs believed ALL of these. In fact, the way he described it,
apparently there were some SDAs who DID NOT believe in ALL of them.

This did NOT seem to bother him at the time. He seemed to be OK with the facts.
A LOT different than with our current brethren in the GC.


Steve, one of the major issues currently afflicting the Adventist Denomination is this the race for centralization of power on the top. The black suited guys upstairs are trying to get everything in their hands, stripping the Unions/Conferences/Churches from their traditional powers.

I firmly believe that they are actually heading toward a split. Should we call it,
“Operation Split?”


Prophylactic frontal lobotomy, this abrogation of conscience, even for uniformity.
Otherwise known as a prehumous theological autopsy.
Sort of like the salem trials-if the autopsy doesn’t result in death,
then they were not witches (or heretics).
If the parishioner does not spiritually survive either procedure,
then he was predestined to die abd deserves to lose his faith, and church.

Absent this zombie-apocalypsis surgery, one cannot be a “true” Adventist.


Well, this is not what I expected considering your previous comments about pastors and low testosterone levels. :sunglasses:


That’s why he got out!


Must be!

Levels dropping…dropping…dropping…

Mayday! Mayday!


The more obvious and primary symptoms of low testosterone include diminished sexual drives and erectile dysfunction. When Pastor Danny @Danny left the ministry, I wonder how long it took to him get back to his normal self and grow his hair long again and develop muscle mass.

Personal testimony is the most powerful evidence when one is defending a certain cause… LOL

1 Like

Hey, but what could probably have been his motivation to continue being a pastor anyway after he left the denomination? Remember that he loved the work and even pursued some independent ministry as I understood. Maybe he was already hooked to low T when he left… Too little too late to get out unimpaired? … :slight_smile: :innocent:

1 Like

…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: