From Our Desk: Spring Meeting Day 1 and Community Now

From Alexander Carpenter, executive editor:

After a restless Sunday night in which I dreamed about General Conference meetings, I woke up just before my 4:00 a.m. alarm went off. Ted Wilson appeared on my device screen via YouTube to welcome the General Conference Executive Committee to its annual Spring Meeting. Between reports from a few division leaders or a parade of new materials—they dream up a lot of ways to spend money in Silver Spring—two agenda items proved of significant note: money and sexuality.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

To unilaterally impose a set of values on all its members based on its own narrow interpretation of Scripture

This is a perfect example of the problem with arguments from many Adventist LBGTQ+ advocates. The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is not the GC’s own narrow interpretation. It is literally a fundamental belief of the church, democratically voted on and approved, and has been decades; and the view of the church for as long as it has existed. Secular beliefs have moved away from this view in certain parts of the world. But, right or wrong, Adventism hasn’t. Pretending otherwise is just foolish.

1 Like

This is a very personal matter the church has incorporated in its “fundamental beliefs”. Is this the “hill to die on”? We are going to have to re-work our beliefs on the “fundamental” teachings on “the last day events”. Who knew it wasn’t going to be about Sunday laws! Not even EGW.

The bigger question is - does any church or organization have rights to be in anybody’s bedroom?
In case that doesn’t clarify the issue, what other behaviours, or thoughts must the church be privy to without a “confessional”?



Well, that’s easy. It says nothing whatsoever about these things because the concepts didn’t exist in the bible writer’s heads.

Right. We should follow the bible’s examples of marriage. Only, well, that would be illegal.


Yet another taskforce to “study” something about which there is disagreement. How much money has been spent studying women’s ordination - only to have the recommendations of that study shelved? The NAD has already published an article stating that sexual orientation itself is NOT a sin. That doesn’t seem to satisfy those pressuring Ted Wilson, though. Meanwhile, more and more LGBT people, their families, and their friends are leaving the church, or at least retreating into their own congregation if it is “safe”. And Ted excuses that by saying it is just the “shaking” that has been expected. Why should the question of one pastor in Germany who is not married to a woman or a man cause this overreaction? That sounds pitifully defensive to me!! (And thank you Sirje for reminding us that no Adventist has a right to be in anybody’s bedroom. Do only people who are considered straight have a right to privacy?


This is NOT about gay marriage, Bart! If you read the article/report you can tell clearly that this is about sexual orientation and NOT about sexual relationships. I hope you know the difference - it is important.

Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International stands with Seventh-day Adventist LBGTQA+ individuals and their right to live in committed relationships that they find valuable and rewarding.

Given this quote from the statement, I have no idea how you interpret it as being about orientation, and not about marriage, aka committed relationships.

That is a quotation from Kinship, Bart. Not from the GC. You need not conflate the two. One is a response to the other!!

And my comment was a response to the statement from Kinship. Hence my quoting it, and introducing my comment as an example with the problems with arguments from LBGTQ+ advocates.

Short version:


(Wilson Appointed Purity Police)


I’d like to add to that list of resources - Kinship, LGBTQ+ members and family. If you say you are going to use all the resources, then use all the resources, not just cherry pick those that will agree with you.


Isn’t this the first principle of all organized religion?

Doesn’t the group get together thinking they all agree on a few core issues only to learn, as time goes on, that they disagree on many others, at which point, since for religious people think there is no answer other than religion, other religions must be started, ad nausea?

Is it possible that one day religious people will realize that they don’t need religion in order to communicate with their maker?

Should anyone refrain normal respiration while waiting for that to happen?



Actually number two. The first is take up an offering.


Yes, while explaining the evils of money to the sheep.


“Wilson promised it will be inserted again in a few years in order to help keep the tithe and offerings flowing.”

I was outraged that in the quarter promoting Stewardship, it was only about money. There was not one week dedicated to stewardship of the environment. I guess that’s because, since Jesus is coming soon, we don’t have to live up to the principles God established in Eden, right?


This is the essential nihilism which goes by the name of Adventism, and extends to anyone who accepts the “truth” of original sin.

According to this philosophy you can do your best but in The End, human hearts and minds are inherently and even genetically corrupted from birth which problem will only be magically corrected “in a twinkling of an eye” upon Jesus return.

IOW, life on earth is a waste of time, at best, or at worse, a hell to be endured for “a little while”-two millennia and counting-so by logical extension, one’s best approach would seem to be is self-elimination, if only suicide wasn’t considered a mortal sin.

This rather than trying to do anything like respect nature or be good stewards of The Eden our planet used to be and, to some extent, still is.



This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.