Even individuality can become a cult idol. Western civilization has pushed individualism to such an extreme that it is in tension with the reality of the Body of Christ as taught in the New Testament. Individualism is often the "cultic force" driving average people, who see themselves as nice people, to support cruel structures of social injustice, to lose any sense of compassion for the suffering, the poor and the marginalized.

What is needed is some balance, I think. Truly Christian communities respect and support the individual, but also hold them accountable to larger principles and purposes. Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit that works in this way with those who are genuine in their commitment to follow Jesus. But one of the ways that the Spirit works is through communities of believers. The community cannot take away the role of the individual heart and mind, but it can foster a conversation that probes values and encourages a serious self-assessment on the part of individuals.

Adventism has made itself more vulnerable to these destructive cults by drifting toward a faith that is more and more focused on individual salvation (How can I be saved?) and away from the more wholistic faith of its early years which was equally concerned about reform of social institutions, freeing the slaves, healing the sick, etc. It also makes itself more vulnerable by an unbalanced focus on the apocalyptic. Things like David Koresh and this latest group grow out of a religious environment that is overly detached from the outside world and from objective standards of scholarship and logic, overly focused on the apocalyptic and overly charged with a radical individualism. These are people completely detached from the larger Christian tradition of Bible study, etc. And these groups become structures in which there is no dialog, no debate; they are run by little dictators.

Thanks for the comment, Monte.

I emphasize individuality as an antidote in the cult context, but it also appears that the group-think of cults fills a space lacking in our increasingly individualistic world.

Balance may become clearest when we pay attention to our social contexts.

Here are some fast facts on this latest incarnation of the Messiah - from mahalo.com

Born: May 18, 1941
Full name: Wayne Curtis Bent
Birthplace: Riverside, California
Parents: Ralph and Elizabeth Bent
Received masters degree in religion from Loma Linda University
Served in U.S. Navy, honorably discharged
Predicted end of world to be October 31, 2007

Here's a statement from this Messiah from the group's blog conversation at strongcity.info:

Michael Travesser [alias]. May 5th at 5:35 PM
Serenity: I know what you mean, but dear friend, men are so stupid they cannot retain anything longer than a few minutes. They must be reminded over and over. Even then, when their terror comes upon them, they will go babbling off to 911 or some other earthly savior. They will utterly miss the moment of their destruction.

But, I simply write what my Father gives me to say. I know that He says things over and over, but He certainly knows why this is necessary. Mankind is so diminished, it does not have the intelligence of a monkey or a dolphin. All it can do is follow its belly around, hoping for tomorrow’s feeding. And soon, I shall never need to write again. I look forward to that day with great anticipation. I would greatly love to not have to talk to snakes anymore.

Just fyi, I read in the SF Chronicle yesterday that "Michael Travesser"/Wayne Bent was arrested this week for inappropriate sexual contact with minors. You're right, Alex, that for some reason these cults/new Messiah personalities always seem to have sexual themes. For some reason these cult figures always get exclusive privileges to have sex with whomever they like (or lie naked with young virgins, as in this case). Makes me wonder about some of the root ego issues that lead to these situations.

I watched the documentary (the BBC version, that is), and I couldn't get over how brainwashed the people looked, but especially the women. They honestly had a look in their eyes not unlike the cheesy old movies where someone gets hypnotized unknowingly and wanders around under the spell as the plot evolves.

Monte,

You say, "Individualism is often the "cultic force" driving average people, who see themselves as nice people, to support cruel structures of social injustice, to lose any sense of compassion for the suffering, the poor and the marginalized."

Reality Check...
It seems to me that "cults" such as this one are "seeking community" and true individualism and human dignity are unknown.

As I have commented with Alex, If you want to keep community confined to the church and it's personal activity in the area of compassion for the suffering, the poor and the marginalized within the church and to those who come asking for help...then I can relate to that activity as many churchpersons have through the ages.

"It seems" however that what many on this blog want exceeds the above. They want a political-social-economic program of government for all of society which they seemingly think is "Applied political-social Christianity."

I question the merits of that being anything else rather than a particular view of how a political system should function rather than "Christianity" which has no explicit "political role" defined in scripture.

Daneen,

You comment, " For some reason these cult figures always get exclusive privileges to have sex with whomever they like (or lie naked with young virgins, as in this case). Makes me wonder about some of the root ego issues that lead to these situations."

First, I am glad they are incarcerated! I suggest it is plain 'ole lust of the flesh by some who are able to entice naive unstable souls who are seeking identity and purpose in a supposed "spiritual community" which of course rather turns out to be one of unhealthy co-dependence and error.

Sickening!

Regards,

pat

I agree with Pat that individualism is not to be blamed for cultic involvement. Rather, I think it is the other way round. People who have a strong sense of identity, who are used to questioning authority, who insist or reasons for doing things, are probably less likely to get involved in a cult than those who grow up in authoritarian, collectivist movements.

And why are some Adventists drawn to such movements? The main reason is probably that SDA evangelists for more than a hundred years have been advertizing for people fascinated by sensational conspiracy theories(e.g. how the Pope is not who he says he is, but Satan's sock puppet) and who love the hermetic idea of small societies of initiated who alone possess the truth (present truth). Couple this with a church run on authoritarian principles, where offenses against orthodoxy is met with swift exclusion while offenses against decency are swept aside for fear of bad publisity, and you have the first inches on an incremental scale that ends in Waco and the Arizona desert.

It's rather shocking to see how vulnerable Adventists are to cultic personalities. I remember the frenzy stirred up by a con man named John Todd, who preyed upon evangelicals and Adventists in 1978-79 with the story that he was an ex-member of the Illuminati conspiracy, which controlled the world, behind the scenes, and that Jimmy Carter was one of it secret leaders. (Todd was Mr Credibility!). The first time I ran into his preposterous story, which was being circulated all over the Adventist church, was on the steps of the J.N. Andrews Library at AU in the fall of 1978. Steve Schneider, who ended up as David Koresh's second-in-command in Waco in 1993, was regaling me (I knew him from Newbold College) and a friend with the shocking information divulged by Todd. I also remember how the two of us, after Steve left, stood there, doubled over by laughter.

But were apparently among a minority that laughed it off. That fall Roland Hegstand, then editor of Liberty Magazine, came to Andrews to address Todd's conspiracy gospel, because of the apocalyptic hopes it had stirred up amoung the faithful. Pioneer Memorial Church may have been fuller, although I never saw it so packed as it was that night, probably between 2000-3000 people were there. I'm not saying that they were Todd supporter, by any means, but the phenomon was disconcerting, to say the least.

Jack Chick, of Chick Publications, who popularized the sensational revelations of Todd and another con man who called himself Alberto Rivera, was thrown out of the evangelical publishing association in 1978 or 1979 for spreading this manure.

Roland Hegstad was later identified by an Adventist publisher of the Rivera conspiracy as one of four Jesuits who had been infiltrated into the SDA church to bring it under Vatican control (the others were Walter Rae, Desmond Ford--well, I forget the forth).

In the interest of cultivating a healthier church, I would appeal to SDA evangelists that they would do much to create a healthier group of recruits to the Adventist church if they left off the aweful, 19th century anti-Catholic conspiracy theory--a libel if there ever was one--which does nothing good, except set some people up for moving on to other and more potent cultic ideas. Out in a desert somewhere.

Aage Rendalen

In considering sexual extremes, didn't EGW counsel wives not to wear anything that might arouse animal passions in their husbands and that was a word from god?

Great story, Aage.

Yeah, there's a weird common information receptor in some parts of the church that makes folks who like Dan. and Rev. seminars susceptible to this conspiracy stuff.

It really is astounding how susceptible some folks are to this group think about other groups.

I remember as a teenager reading the Illuminati books with academy friends, attending Walter Veith (who combines evolution-bashing with UN bashing, oh and, "freemasonry, the Jesuits, Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Skull and Bones") seminars, and hanging with SS#-free Adventist militia sympathizers in Northeastern Washington during the fun of the post-Ruby Ridge Clinton/black helicopter days.

There's a good short story in there somewhere. . .

Anyway, it is kind of funny to see grown men running around like little frightened school girls mixing their Adventism with their apocalyptic fantasies.

A lot of them are relatively well-read/informed, but it's stunted. They don't actually read enough to get to that level where comparative analysis starts to provide contingency. The place where a sort of always curious cognitive dissonance resides may be the same place that helps folks avoid cults and laugh at themselves once in awhile. : )

This last weekend I spoke after two very respectable scientists about climate change to a group of Adventist Forum members and after an in-depth discussion about the data, one denier said, yeah, but Rush Limbaugh says. . .

Everyone should ask questions, but when people don't instantly understand the difference between multiple double blind peer review and AM radio, I can see why cults are born and people think that Jesuits and the UN is out to get them.

But hey, maybe Spectrum is part of the NWO?

The SDA-type Revelation seminars pander to those who are attracted to conspiracy theories and revel in being privy to something that the ordinary citizen is unaware of. They have the "truth" and know the future and with that mind-set, most anything becomes possible.

The church has shot itself in the foot by such methods, or sowing the wind, have reaped a whirlwind.

Alex,

Then there is the liberal "conservative conspiracy" that questions Al Gore today who said "global warming" caused the cyclone in Burma...sounds a little like Pat Robertson almost with a different agenda and topic! Wonder if they ever had cyclones 100 yrs.ago? Guess not then or Gilligan's Island tropical storms!

Then their is always Hillary and Bill's "conservative conspiracy" that made Bill do it and accused him falsely.

Such is life!

Our traditional apocalyptic and law emphasis have made quite the cocktail. It has created the pre-conditions for Pharisaism, and at its most extreme, our version of Essenism. This article takes us out even further to the lunatic fringe.

Now, I would venture that the overwhelming majority of people won to Adventism through Rev. seminars are not out on the fringe. But, I must say, that in my own recent experience, some of the most imbalanced people I have encounterd in the church are people who have come in through the 'scary beast' avenue.

They have not drunk any kool-aid, but they have imbibed heavily of the above cocktail!

Thanks...

Frank

Dick,

That's one of those instances if so that we need other council!

There you go again, Pat. : )

Like your completely inverted APA stats, you're demonstrably wrong on the Gore quote.

Al Gore said, that cyclones, among other storms might be one of the "consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with global warming."

You choose to over-interpret and apply the unwarranted word: "cause."

I know that you know what subjectives mean. : )

Listen to it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90190092

At min. 27:00

Gore (who I don't particularly care about either way) addresses the difference between natural causes and Robertson/Hagee claiming sin as cause.

But Gore is talking about what scientists say, feel free to look it up.

From the NOAA:
"An implication of the GFDL studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms."

Did you look up his quote before you wrote that? Care to share the source of your statement?

A sort of sloppy misinformation sharing, to make some sort of ideological point, is becoming a pattern with you and discredits your commentary on global warming, anti-evolution, homosexuality, and Biblical literalism.

I know that a chasm lies between being repeatably factually inaccurate (it happens to me too) and the subject of this post, but, it seems that in my brief experience in life that in the context of important religious ideas, we all can't afford not to check our sources.

Too funny Pat. Yes, isn't animal passions one of the perks of being married? Forget EGW, put on that skirt that flashes some ankle and pass the spicy food :)

Well ... on the "animal passions" theme I caught in the video clip the statement that "sex is one of the very common control mechanisms used in cultic groups. If you're able to control someone's sexuality or their sexual behavior that's reaching into the deepest part of that person."

I find the quote above by Trevan Osborn to be quite interesting.

He notes that there have been several groups like this that have sprung up out of Adventism.

Doesn't anybody else find it ironic that what is described here fits to a tee the "Little Flock" of 160 years ago.

Is it any wonder that an apocalyptic sect/cult of a 160 years ago, that holds tightly to its foundational extra biblical source of truth as its final word on end time events would continue to spawn cultic offspring.

I find it interesting that nobody sees how utterly small a leap it is from Adventism of the 1850s to today's Historic Adventism, to the David Koresh's of the 1990s.

Randy

Alex,

Adelaide Australia Advertiser says of Gore and Burma, “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

Don't know what caused that strong storm 50 yrs. ago in China...But “We’re seeing” …Seems that Al has gone from the subjunctive to imperative. :~)

It's amusing to me Alex that every strand and subject can suddenly get off topic and be a segue to your favorite topic of "global warming."

(above..."This last weekend I spoke after two very respectable scientists about climate change to a group of Adventist Forum members and after an in-depth discussion about the data, one denier said, yeah, but Rush Limbaugh says. . .)

pat

PS.A NOAA article for you Alex:
http://ratfish.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/05pielke.pdf

Pat
Given the fact that the AM-radio theory of Global Warming and the Evangelical "scientific creationist" theory are the two most prominent conspiracy theories of the age,it's hard not to bring them up when the context is conspiracy theories and conspiracy mentality.

The AM-radio theory of Global Warming, for instance, implicitly argues that the climate scientists of the world have conspired together to misrepresent the facts available, for political ends. Creationists, likewise, imply that the world's natural scientists are so hell-bent on dethroning God that they have conspired to suppress "the truth" and to inflict a group-think on those poor, honest, wavering souls that might have broken rank if an army of Ben Steins had stood up for them earlier on.

RJG
The "little flock" was certainly a "wild bunch", speaking in tongues, hollering and screaming during worship, crawling on floors to mimic children and holy-kissing each others on the mouth. But given the fact that EGW distanced herself so far from those early days as to deny that these things ever happened when critics brought them up in the 1870s, I don't think it had much significance on the later development of the church. But the fact that the church built much of its evangelism on a conspiracy theory (against Catholics) and sensational interpretations of prophecy, I think, predisposed some people to give apocalyptic cults a second look.

Pat and Aage, it is true that if people were more individualistic they would question cult leaders and be less likely to get involved. It is also true that if the individuals who start cults were less individualistic and more willing to participate in a community where they could vet their ideas, fewer cults would get started. It is also true that if people trusted less in their own opinions and sought counsel, really listened in conversations and read widely, they would be less likely to get involved in "home-made" religions or various ideologies.

I am not advocating a collectivist or traditionalist society, but one with human-scale institutions and Christlike, unselfish care for the needs of others, whether they are among our friends or the larger community.

Aege,

Your late to the conversation on anthropogenic caused global warming. The short of it is that global computer model expectations do not match the empirical evidence of temperature changes seen in the troposphere by weather balloons according to John Christy, lead author of the 2001 IPCC report. The troposphere is where the heat is moved around and possibly expelled. Also there is the view of homeostasis and "negative feedback" that may be preventing any out of range fluctuations.

There has also been a subtle shift to calling things "climate change"(as if it always hasn't) as a term that weather hot or cold somehow anthropogenic global warming is the cause.

If interested check all of our previous post. Personally I am tired of viewing the world through Alex's global warming filter.

Monte,

These cult people are sick people...period. They do not represent true individuality or dignity.

As to your politically desired state preferences that is why we have a free vote in the community of the US.

It really is about politics because you wish the "state" to carry out your perceptions of what "human-scale institutions and Christlike, unselfish care for the needs of others, whether they are among our friends or the larger community" looks like. You may say, "I am not advocating a collectivist...society"...shall we just say "Christian Democratic Socialism?"

You have not limited your ideas to the role of the "church community" absent state application which does have foundation in the term Christianity.

pat

Pat
I haven't even watched Al Gore's movie, and I have nothing to contribute to the finer or coarser points of the science. My point is that if there is a consensus within the scientific community that our current climate change is driven by "anthropogenic" factors, I would classify deniers as conspiracy theorists.

I expect there to be a vigorous debate about issues within any science community but as long as there is agreement on the broad lines, I would conclude that the scientific community has a leg up on AM-radio or any other talking head.

I don't have blind faith in science--science is a process and not a creed, but what else is there but mere opinion (unless there be divine revelation, evidence of which I'm still looking for).

Aage,

So the primary author of the IPCC report is a "conspiracy theorist."

There is something out of whack with that thinking I suggest.

"Consensus" does not necessarily constitute "reality" in science as theory or for that matter little else in life. I was raised with the expression and skepticism that the "majority" is usually wrong.

The noaa article also points out the political overtones in this debate.

Fair enough...and enough on the topic for now for me.

pat

PS. Happy Mothers Day weekend...be sure to not get to "heated" after those cards, flowers etc.! Especially you Beth!

A parting chuckle on "Experts."

"This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done...the bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert of explosives."

Admiral Leahy advising Truman of the impraticality of the US atomic bomb project,1945.

I watched Larry King Live on CNN last night. I am embarrass whenever there is another cult, one way or another, linked with Adventism. I know that there is nothing in the mainstream Adventist theology that in any way suggests the teachings of Michael Travesser (Wayne Bent) or David Koresh. However, a question needs to be asked if there is anything in the traditional Adventism that feeds the imagination of people such as those two, and others like them?

Pat
It was actually a countryman of mine who coined the phrase "The majority is always wrong"--Henrik Ibsen, the playwright.

Happy mothersday!

Tihomir,

I think the above posts delve into some of the possible links between traditional Adventist thinking, (i.e. Christian and world government conspiracies, apocalyptic event rather than gospel focus, remnant self identification... us as the only, and in the end persecuted, purveyors of truth vs. Babylon and rest of the world, etc.) and the extrapolations of the lunatic fringe. Not all of it can be blamed on Adventist excess or mis-focus, but it may be one of the pre-conditions for such leaps.

Thanks...

Frank

Alex,

While this is off-topic, you may want to check out an interesting article by Walter Williams about global warming and the experts 'wild' predictions.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/07/environmen...

UPDATE:

A PASTORAL MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT DON SCHNEIDER
To the Members of the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

As members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we are troubled by recent news accounts from New Mexico and a recent documentary on the National Geographic Channel. This concerns the reported actions and beliefs of Wayne Bent, a former Seventh-day Adventist minister.

Many of Bent’s alleged actions and opinions as stated on the National Geographic documentary are repugnant and are inconsistent with the beliefs and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Bent left the Adventist ministry in 1982 and reportedly concluded his relationship with the Church in 1987.

Still my compassion goes out to these people and the families that are affected. After all, we all are sinners whose actions and opinions were certainly offensive to the Godhead when Jesus was sent to this earth to die in our place. Some of Bent’s followers were once part of our church family and all of them are people for whom Christ died.

While I strongly disagree with the course that Bent and his followers have chosen to take, I want to make sure that my reaction is appropriate as a follower of Christ. Therefore, I recommend each individual to the same place where I have found safety – the grace of Jesus Christ. My role is not to be a judge but to recommend everyone to the Lord in prayer. I hope you will do the same.

– Don Schneider, May 8, 2008

Thanks Aege,

I googled and found "The minority is seldom right and the majority is always wrong." clever thought.

David,

You must realize that Walter williams is a conservative economist and therefore discredited as paid off by the oil companies and a part of the concensus deniers and "conspiracy theorist." He therfore has no credibility as anyone else who disagrees.

My point is that the Creator of heaven and earth did not create a conundrum at this level of "sustaining" the universe so that human beings who really don't have the slightest idea of all the variations and input that go into global weather patterns/temp. could have a say in our safety as a species...as perhaps a Neo-darwinist is compelled to think in a "naturalistic" required maintainence of the planet.

regards,

pat

Ah, yes, the Advertiser, a "daily tabloid." If anyone doubts the danger of international single corporate control of media, perform the following experiment in Google News.

Type in Al Gore cyclone.

Almost all of the few outlets returned which take the time to twist this language are owned by one company.

In all this populist expert bashing, let's perhaps parse the difference between experts and collective expertise. Everyone is wrong some of the time, and like that Townhall op-ed points out, sometimes organizations are wrong, but it is telling that it's actually the global warming deniers who rely on single experts now. . .and much, much fewer data, while double blind, peer-reviewed studies (which helps to mitigate the idol of single experts dominating) and hundreds of thousands of scientists, all competing for to prove each other wrong are coming to the same conclusion.

For instance, here's Pat's expert, John Christy:

"I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist - and there are many - that simply think that is not true."
Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary, 2007)

It's not the number or the expertise, but the quality of the work, and John Christy, as I've pointed out before, has had to publicly backtrack on his "yes-we're-warming,-but-not-that-fast stance. It is always essential to listen to the outliers, but there is a corollary of danger of treating outliers as ends in themselves.

Back in October 2007, you wrote:
Alex the significance of this opinion from a “true scientist” should be apparent. True science must be able to be repetitive and predictable. Presently , Global Circulation Models do not meet that criteria according to John Christy.

And here you go around the same time:
Roy Spencer, formally with NASA and Satellite atmosphere monitoring.He states, "Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there's a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it's warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there's this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don't agree with the idea that we are causing climate change."
May 2, 2007

Note this reliance on experts. By the way, Spencer is believes in Intelligent Design and Christy has an M.Div from a Baptist seminary. Something tells me that something larger than the data is influencing their science. They both work closely together.

It should be clear above that you're actually prioritizing a couple of experts, and I am not.

But, how much do you trust a scientist who compares thousands of double-blind, peer-reviewed articles to the clear hoax of the Oregon petition?

Again, there no one wants to just fight over experts, I'm more concerned with the quality of expertise.

Here's a fun little email exchange that addresses quality.
How do we really know that humans contribute to global warming?

And think the above commenter is right in noting parallel in trusting experts and religious leaders. There is such a thing as the cult of denial.

Mike Oard, a professional Meteorologist for 30+ years in the US weather service, and a YEC, recommends caution about the Global Warming issue. He notes that while there has been a rise in the global average of a perhaps 1 degree, to assign this as the result of human impact is exceedingly unwarranted. The upward trend started long before hydrocarbons peaked and drop off.

He points to the strong correlation between long term sunspot activity cycle as a more probable cause. During the Middle Ages warm era that had warmer temperatures than today, sunspot activity was very high. While during the Little Ice Age, from about 1300-1870, sunspot activity was very low. During one year in the mid-1800s there was a total sunspot count of about 70, compared with the typical thousand or so per year today.

Global warming is real, but not nearly the supposed threat seen in media hype.

Christian Skeptic

Anthropogenic climate change aside--and I'm NOT going to get into that cult here--this thread finds me of two minds.

First, no, I don't see any significant similarity between these cults and the "little flock." Quite the contrary.

On the other hand, I've been talking about the problem of Adventism and cults for more than twenty years

Far too many of our evangelistic efforts have emphasized three factors. First, the Christ-is-coming-very-very-soon-and-you're-not-ready fear factor. Second, we-have-the-truth-and-you-can-be-wise-like-us-too, and
Third persecution-is-always-just-around-the-corner-you're-only-safe-with us.

Too many use this toxic fear+pride potion to manipulate people into the church, and then they're shocked, SHOCKED! that someone with a more intricate conspiracy theory, and more charismatic personality--a better manipulator--lures them into his more select, more in-the-know, more likely to be persecuted remnant.

This is not a coincidence. Rather, it is a consequence of the recruiting technique. By our methods, we select for these characteristics, and then wonder why we end up with too many people fixated on end-time conspiracies.

Now, I know that we have some good evangelists. Not all employ the methods I have described. But we have scores, if not hundreds of self-selected and poorly trained evangelists at all levels, and our main criterion is numbers of baptisms.

At this point, having alienated nearly everyone, I relinquish the soap box. But I have observed this phenomenon for more nearly forty years, and its a source of frustration for me.

If there's anyone I haven't yet upset, I have to say, the whole climate crisis thing just seems like deja vu all over again.

Ed Dickerson

Look at that, another single expert, one who also just happens to be a creationist. (I see a pattern.) Who's really relying on single experts?

From Creation wiki:
He has recently retired from the (US) National Weather Service where he worked as a meteorologist/weather forecaster, and now dedicates much of his time to creation science research. Since 2001 he has served on the board of directors of the Creation Research Society.

From Answers in Genesis:

Recently retired from the National Weather Service, meteorologist Mike Oard gives fascinating illustrated talks—at an easy-to-understand level—on the compelling evidence for Noah’s Flood and the Ice Age that resulted, and how the incredible wooly mammoth connects to biblical history. Based in beautiful Montana, Michael is now accepting invitations to speak all over N. America—and with just a few weeks’ notice. In addition to his technical writings (e.g., the monograph ‘An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood’), Michael is the author of a children’s book, ‘Life in the Great Ice Age,’ and a book for teens and adults, ‘The Weather Book.’

Fascinating, indeed!

Let it be known that those who deny, cite single weathermen, who write children's books, not that there's anything wrong with that!

A friendly suggestion. Instead of dropping off a comment here or there, here's an excellent guide for addressing these classic questions.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Wow! Jesus had to suffer the symbol of the cross, and Mr. Bent has to suffer seven wives! (see ~5:50 on the first video)

It's interesting that with such a slick documentary, even the explanation of why they justify their child abuse - the various prophecies spinning off from each other - are so confusing and unconvincing to folks not already indoctrinated. This is not how documentaries typically try to persuade their audiences - but then again, this is not a typical documentary but a propaganda documentary for a cult, so the confusion is part of the brainwashing technique.

It's not just the cult that uses media however. The woman trying to expose the cult appears to be somewhat e-savvy, as are many of the folks who put up websites trying to bring down the cults that dragged them in.

Alexandar
I mentioned that he was a YEC so what's the surprise with what you found? Like, Duh!

But he is also a scientist trained in meteorology (and I don't mean those TV "meteorologists"). From what I remember hearing him say, I may be inaccurate here, is that in professional meteorological publications the idea that man is responsible for the warming is not really considered.

Ed
"Far too many of our evangelistic efforts have emphasized three factors. First, the Christ-is-coming-very-very-soon-and-you're-not-ready fear factor. Second, we-have-the-truth-and-you-can-be-wise-like-us-too, and
Third persecution-is-always-just-around-the-corner-you're-only-safe-with us."

I've attended many, many Evangelistic meetings in my life. None of them every portray the Bible and Adventism in this way. This is twisted propaganda.

Christian Skeptic

But getting back to the topic of cults and how information becomes self-referential. Thanks Ed.

For whatever good it does, our evangelism does not model the best in critical thinking skills. As Audrey notes, the wheel-in-a-wheel hermeneutical techniques tend to foster more of the same or eyes-glazed-over acceptance.

Seems like a common theme. . .in fact, almost anyone can do this linking of events and apocalypse.

Nicely put Ed (I tried to put your soap box speech on a tone I would remember from 5th grade)

I was thinking about this unlikely reincarnate god today and wondered if in prison he will be able to get inmates to disrobe and lie with him so he can fill them with God and then it struck me, maybe this was his way of positioning himself to do prison ministry. Aren't we kind of expected to do something like that?

Allen,

Been to a couple or three evangelistic efforts myself through the years...and I have to agree with Ed. His take is not twisted propoganda.

I attended one particular series, sponsored by one of our major evangelistic organizations, where the speaker pounded home the papacy/beast scenario by the third meeting, presented the truth as exsisting nowhere else but what you are hearing here, and offered the sin against the Holy Spirit as the subject of the final presentation, in order to "appropriately welcome" people into the family. Couple this with his nightly ruminations on the coming Y2K crisis (anyone remember that?), and it was easy to see that fear-mongering and conspiracy theorizing were the not so subtle undertones being employed (maybe not consciously) as emotional leverage.

I could not say that all Adventist evangelism is like this. But, I'm sure I'm not the only person here to have experienced something like what I've described. And, for those who are prone to extremism, the leap from this to more hard core cultic thinking is not so great.

Frank

Frank
"the speaker pounded home the papacy/beast scenario by the third meeting, presented the truth as existing nowhere else but what you are hearing here, and offered the sin against the Holy Spirit as the subject of the final presentation,"

All of it 100% true. Fear mongering? Hogwash.

Christian Skeptic

Allen,

Nothing like lifting a portion of what someone is saying out of context to dismiss the entirety! Plug what you quoted back into what I said about the speaker's preoccupation with Y2K, and you have a more conpiracy/fear-based tone to the whole presentation. I heard it; I was there! With that said, I do not necessarily disagree with you on the factual nature or verity of the individual presentations... it was the context, timing and tone that were more of the problem.

Yes, the sin against the Holy Spirit is something the Bible speaks of, but is this the last taste that new people should leave with in their mouths after attending their first public presentation of Christ? Jesus spoke about the sin against the Spirit to Pharisees who were attributing his miracles to the power of Satan; he wasn't addressing people who were honestly searching, like the people in attendance at this series! Jesus knew that context and timing matter, that truth spoken at the wrong time to the wrong people can end up doing more damage than good.

And yes, we have certain distinctive truths, but do we really believe that God is limited to us in presenting the truth of the gospel to people? No one else leads people to a saving relationship with Christ but us? I have heard this type of reasoning too often cross the line into what sounds like a denominational arrogance, and a self focused world view.

People attended this specific campaign not knowing the love and mercy of God, a God who cares and could help them through their life problems, a God of forgiveness and grace. Instead, they learned from the get-go that the papacy was the beast. The good news was in short supply.

EGW speaks of this type of mis-contextualizing and mis-emphasis when she counseled not to be so in your face with new people about Adventist doctrinal and prophetic distinctives. To paraphrase: Let people first know that you love them and care about them, that your Christianity is real, and there will be time enough for doctrine later.

While she was speaking on a personal level to someone doing missionary work, I believe this could be applied to the particular series I've described, and to certain types of public evangelism in general. People first need to know that God loves and cares for them; they need to experience the depth of his mercy and forgiveness that pours forth from Calvary as they come face to face with Jesus and themselves; and, they need to experience the freedom that comes through the power and grace of the gospel, as they allow Christ into their lives. While this can happen through their personal contact with us, it is something that they also need to hear first and foremost if they come to a series. The simple gospel! The gospel that saves!

Prophetic scenarios and doctrinal distinctives are out of place, until this core is in place. I'm not saying that this order and emphasis is never done in SDA evangelism, but unfortunately, I've too often seen it done in reverse. And, over the years, I've seen the resulting extremism, from the mild to the lunatic fringe, too often as well.

Frank

I'll tell you what strikes me:

"Messiah was spoken into him."

The above quote resonates with the heresy of Nestorianism, condemned in 431 CE.

This experience reminds me of the importance of an orthodox Christology, as synthesized in the teachings of the ancient Ecumenical Councils. If we depart from that foundation of our faith, we place ourselves in danger.

Ergo, a "Strong City" now consumed by blasphemy.

I just checked my google chat.

A good Adventist, a Walla Walla grad who is about to graduate with a law degree from Santa Clara was telling me about her Sabbath in Salt Lake City.

She said that I could quote her:

my "searching" friend from high school decided to go to an SDA church last week-- and guess what the sermon was?
yes, of course, what else, a slide show of the pope and G. Bush
and little horns
and whores
and talking about Marks of Beasts.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Sent at 10:16 PM on Saturday

This goes to confirm what Ed was talking about, except that it happens even outside of the evangelistic context. And despite the knee-jerk reaction to call the truth-tellers propagandists, the fact is that we lose more souls than we gain over this stuff.

A few years ago a class from a nearby Bible college required students to attend several different churches in the area. It was nice having them and at least a few of us felt we were forming some good bonds. Then one of the elders felt moved to preach on the subject of how the SDA Church was the only true church. He felt truly lead by God and many other felt God had really lead in those young people hearing the "truth". We never did see them back though. I guess the class had learned all they needed.

Alex and Dick,

I don't know whether to scream, cry, or both, when I hear stuff like this. Then we wonder why people look at us like we're a cult!

What happened to "...We do not preach ourselves, but we preach Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as servants for your sakes?" I just resolve to make a difference in my local church, that we will head down this road, and never the ones you've described.

Thanks...

Frank