Grace,

Thank you for your post. You said a lot of things that are valid.

You wrote this:

“So I will end on this, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of priase, dwell on these things.” (Phil. 4:8 )”
---------------------------------------------------

If we have said anything untrue, then this forum exists for all parties to voice concerns and to point out statements that are not true. But it should be pointed out that this thread was started after multiple attempts were made to express my concerns to the FAF administrators. When I was still an FAF Bible study member, I met privately in a face to face meeting expressing the concerns that Rick Barker and I had regarding statements of one forum member that were highly inflammatory and irresponsible. There was no concern expressed by them about this kind of posting. Since being suspended, I have expressed in many emails my concerns and even invited them to participate in this discussion.

With regard to Phillipians 4:8, which talks about whether things are pure, and true, and of good report, then, how does the unfair representation of a group by calling names like “Satanic Cult"--when this is grossly untrue, or making the trumped up claim that the “SDA Jesus is a demon”, fit the admonition of Phil 4:8?

This thread directly started when a direct attempt by Jackob was made to directly counter a post where a claim was made that Adventism is a satanic cult, and that Ellen White was a satanist, yet, when this claim was challenged, it was removed and considered out of bounds. So, who are the ones breaking the spirit of Phil. 4:8?

As Greg says, FAF at this point, is a ministry that is accountable to no one, but themselves. Colleen holds an incredible amount of influence not only in areas of theology, but in family relations as well. When it is stated that there is absolutely nothing good in Adventism, and that the SDA Jesus is a demon, some members will then believe that their family members are in a dangerous satanic cult, when, in fact, many of their family members may be Christians, but deceived by the bondage of Adventism.

When a group has this kind of strong influence among the former SDA community, of which I am one, then, someone has to call them on their actions when they go beyond the bounds of a Christian spirit as Phil 4:8 talks about. We have tried to point out the problems with a gentle spirit, but where I have failed, I am sorry. I am not angry or bitter in anyway to the circumstances in which I was removed from FAF. All of this happened under the absolute sovereign will of God.

I still have a high regard for the personalities involved, and I greatly miss the Friday night Bible studies and fellowship. I am troubled that it has to come to this but will continue to pray for everyone.

Stan

Thanks

I know I am out of my league. Even Paul said: “Now we see through a glass darkly.” Even as Christ said, “Judge not that ye be not judged!” I can’t fathom calling anyone satanic.  I think one can call a belief system not square with the Gospel and calling open sin by its right name. I also believe an editor has more than a proof reading responsibility. Without question, there are increasing cultic beliefs and practices within Adventism and among its former members. Such thought and practice should be identified and countered with Gospel truth. I believe that this thread has done this in the spirit of brotherhood.

Having been rejected. I think the thing to do is to move on. Naturally one would grieve over any continuing tension between brethren. One can hardly imagine how Christ must have felt to be rejected by even His chosen ones.

I continue to get the alumni journals from Andrews University and Andrews Academy but when my class has a reunion I never get an invitation. Afterwords, they say in personal notes:  “Sorry Tom, we didn’t have your address.”
Being left out isn’t bad but having them lie about it to cover their “snub” is hard to take without responding in kind. Yet this is the first I have mentioned it beyond immediate family. The long and short of it is: If not being there makes them more comfortable, I am glad. 

The FAF site now has a new look and is very attractive.

The rules have been tightened up on and now forbids the posting of material from those who have been banned from the site, which would now make linking to 4TG off limits, and discourages debating with the moderators. It also bans links to other blogs or discussion forums. This gives the appearance of even a tighter controlled environment.

I am praying that with the new look on their web site, that they also have a new spirit of public discourse, and will give a credible witness to current SDAs and former SDAs.

Gabriel,
Thanks for your excellent assessment as to why all people need to hear the gospel.

Stan

[quote author="Grace"]IF after discussing it with the leader (and I already know your feelings about your attempt to do this first step), and the situation is still disturbing to you, then pray that God place you somewhere else where you can feel more comfortable to grow (which I believe you have found that here at forthegospel) AND (here’s the important part), KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!!!

I’m going to have to disagree here. Would you feel the same way if those on a conservative SDA forum said the same thing to you when you complained to both SDAs and non about the dangers of being on that forum and about the way you’ve been treated there?  Would you not feel the need to warn people about what is happening there as you feel that blatant error is being promoted?

This is no different.

[quote author="Grace"]Do you really think that this discussion is helping Adventists?

Speaking as an SDA..absolutely. However, I don’t have to take Stan’s word for it. Mere minutes perusing that forum is enough to make my eyes sore from them rolling around at the clap-trap, paranoid, cultic mentality that some over there are promoting. I’m glad that one can come here to see from people’s first hand experiences why any SDA should stay away from there be they dedicated, questioning or transitioning.

[quote author="Grace"]Do you really think that Adventists are seeing this as an opportunity to rethink their theology?

It has nothing to do with rethinking theology. It has to do with rational thinking and behavior and common decency toward a group. Any SDA who needs to read ‘the SDA church is satanic’and ‘EGW has demon familiars’ to ‘rethink their theology’, not only needs to have their head examined but also really ask themselves if they were that gullible and stupid that they joined a satanic cult to begin with. (Something I wonder about for those on FAF who espouse such nonsense as well. Is anybody other than Charlie Manson’s girls, that naive and brainwashed that they were sucked into such an organization to begin with??).

[quote author="Grace"]How do you think this affects someone who is just beginning to process out of Adventism, who already has a lot of fear? 

Very positively. It tells them that they should stay away from those irrational forums where fear,extreme censorship and cultic thinking is promoted be it an uber-conservative SDA forum or a former-SDA forum like FAF.

Stan, Greg, and Gabriel’s experience is more than enough evidence that many over there eat their own...why would any SDA want to go through that??

[quote author="Grace"]The question of “who’s right?” or “who is acting more Christian-like?” is really insignificant.  What IS significant is the ministry.

When ‘who is (or is not) acting more Christian-like’ is affecting the ministry it needs to be addressed. The ministry is not fear mongering extremism. It is not tearing down an organization with slander and lies. It is spreading the gospel. That is the ministry. How in the world can the message get through when the medium is so abused?

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

I feel like this is mudslinging towards the people who loved you all on FAF. No one has ever said a bad word about any of you, especially Colleen or Richard, and yet you point fingers, make judgements, and now label us “cultic”. If some say things that you disagree with, it was always appropriate to say, “I don’t agree with that.” However then there came a time when disagreeing wasn’t enough and you insisted that whoever offended you “take it back” as if their opinions couldn’t count. It really felt like you were in “bully” mode with some of us. As a member there I’m almost afraid to say anything any more because I might end up on this site, or WoW’s, labeled an evildoer, or cultic. Stan, you got to slam certain evangelists over and over in the private section and no one made an issue over it. And now you’re defending Ellen White? It’s hard to understand, but I truly hope this doesn’t end up as the FAF hate site as WoW has developed with constant reporting of posts or people you don’t approve of.

Just my heart

As Stan said, and perhaps in response to the discussion on this thread, today there are new forum rules posted on the Former Adventist Fellowship homepage.

For those who have difficulty reading the fine print, here they are:

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum

Purpose:
To be a safe, supportive, and healing environment for questioning, transitioning, and former Adventists, and those associated with them.

Rules:
1. Former Adventist Fellowship Forum (FAFF) is a private forum. You must be a member to post messages or view the member’s only area.
2. Posts must be in harmony with the purpose of the FAFF.
3. Members are not allowed to reveal posted messages in the member’s only section to non-FAFF members.
4. One membership account is allowed per person. You must be at least 12 years old to be a member of FAFF.
5. Links are allowed in posts only for the purpose of reference to topic in thread. No promotions or advertisements. No links are allowed to blogs, discussion forums, chat rooms, etc.
6. No inappropriate images or avatars.
7. No taking the Lord’s name in vain or speaking offensively about Christianity.
8. No personal attacks or statements that are unlawful, divisive, abusive, threatening, inflammatory, libelous, defamatory, offensive, obscene, vulgar, indecent, pornographic, profane, or sexually explicit. No use of alternate characters which imply words which are not allowed.
9. No posting copied text from other sources unless it is a minor part of the post and does not violate coypyright law.
10. No posting of material from banned forum members.
11. No posting under a new username if you have been banned.
12. Discussion of differing viewpoints is welcome, if you wish to debate please go to another forum where that is appropriate.
13. Do not argue with the FAFF administrator or moderators concerning discipline. Do not post questions or discussions of disciplinary actions taken. Do not attack FAFF members on other forums or blogs.
14. Right to delete all posts of a person who breaks any of the FAFF rules is reserved.
15. Posts may be deleted or edited without notice. It is your responsibility to archive your own posts.
16. English only must be used in forum, except in special language areas, where the designated language must be used. Do not use all-caps.
17. Your permission to post is revocable at any time at the sole discretion of the owner or administrator.
18. Please inform the administrator by email of any violations of these rules.

Discipline:
Your permission to post is revocable at any time, at the sole discretion of the owner or administrator.

1. First offense may result in a warning or suspension
2. Second offense may result in suspension or expulsion
3. Third offense may result in expulsion

====

Certainly the FAF administrators have the right to enforce whatever rules they desire.  But it is puzzling to me that a forum designed to expose the errors of Adventism needs so many rules to protect themselves from the same level of scrutiny.

This thread remains open to everyone for comments (including the FAF administrators), but I guess those with FAF accounts will want to keep rule number 13 in mind.

Greg

Hi “anonymous” and welcome–you are more than welcome to speak your mind here.

You said: “If some say things that you disagree with, it was always appropriate to say, ‘I don’t agree with that.’”

In my experience, this was unfortunately not the case.  I questioned Colleen’s assertion that “No Adventist knows the true Jesus” and I lost my posting privileges without warning.  Stan lost his privileges under similar circumstances.

Stan and I attempted to discuss our concerns with Richard and Colleen in private (per Matthew 18:15-20) but they refused to meet with us.

We waited over six months to publicly express our concerns about FAF, and only after several events made clear to us that more harm would come from remaining silent.

Anonymous, your very ability to post a critical response here is a privilege that Stan and I no longer have on FAF (and indeed it is forbidden for FAF members–see above), but we welcome your criticism, even if we disagree with it.

Greg

Anonymous said:

“Stan, you got to slam certain evangelists over and over in the private section and no one made an issue over it. And now you’re defending Ellen White? It’s hard to understand, but I truly hope this doesn’t end up as the FAF hate site as WoW has developed with constant reporting of posts or people you don’t approve of.”
-------------------------------------------------------

First of all, could you point out an example of when I have defended Ellen White? I am defending her against name calling such as “murderer”, “Satan Worshipper”, and “Satanist”. Also some have already consigned her to an eternally burning hell. I am not ready to go this far. I had too much respect for Dr. Walter Martin who concluded Ellen White to be a very mistaken and deceived individual, but, nonetheless a Christian. I am not sure one way or another, but I would rather leave this to God’s judgment.

As far as slamming other evangelists, I will never take back anything I said about TBN and TD Jakes or Benny Hinn. These are all false prophets. I tried to be careful with regard to Rick Warren. I was mainly critical of his methods, but never used the false prophet label for him.

Please email me at to discuss the above concerns that you have. I will be happy to answer any concerns.

As Greg pointed out, everyone is free on this site to bring up any concerns about what we are saying. We are not hiding behind “locked threads”. Everything we do is out in the open and can be challenged at any time. We are not able to post on FAF, so this is the only forum we have to try to answer some of the outrageous and over the top comments.

And, no, the bulk of this website is spent talking about the pure Gospel of Christ. This thread plus one or two other threads have addressed the issues we have with FAF. I wish everyone on FAF all the best, as they perform the unique function of a support group very well in many cases. This site will never turn into an FAF bashing site. I am basically finished with my comments on this thread for now, but I will comment from time to time as deemed appropriate.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

I feel as if you’re attacking me, as I am an active member on the forum. You’re calling me a cult member because you don’t like the rules of the FAF forum. I had many exchanges with each of you and cared about you both, Stan and Greg. To call the whole of us a cult because you did not agree with the them or approve of how they run their support forum is hurtful to each of us personally. Is that you’re intent? I guess I don’t understand why the personal attacks? Especially when no one has singled you out or personally attacked you from the forum. It feels like revenge. It has been hard enough dealing with an SDA family that constantly points the finger at me because in their eyes I’m “lost”, but then I find a place where I thought I felt safe, and now pointed at again, as I’m a cult member.

Please answer my questions. Stan was very sympathetic and supportive of WoW, and I hope for the same consideration.

“Anonymous”, I don’t know who you are, but you are free to email me if you would like to discuss this more personally ().

I don’t think anyone is calling you a cult member, but what has been pointed out is that the same censorship and lack of ability to ask questions of the leadership one might expect in a closed religious group is also found on FAF.  The solution to this is open dialogue and accountability, two factors that are not currently present on FAF.  The latest iteration of the forum rules have made this even more unlikely.

This is not simply “disapproval with how the Tinkers run their forum”, it is genuine Christian concern for individuals who are making irresponsible statements.  I would do the same thing (and I have) for an Adventist–not out of revenge, but out of genuine concern.

Again “anonymous”, you are free to post here or email me.

Greg

Anonymous said:

“Please answer my questions. Stan was very sympathetic and supportive of WoW, and I hope for the same consideration.”
-----------------------------------------------------

Which questions? I will be happy to answer specific questions.

I disagree with most of WOW’s theology. I just believe he had the right to be treated decently. He was banned on Thanksgiving Day and nobody on FAF was told about the fact that he couldn’t answer. There were multiple persons asking why and even ridiculing WOW for disappearing and not answering questions. It was not known until January 2 that WOW had been banned, and the person who brought up this fact on FAF had his post removed.

BTW, Anonymous, are you the one who was defending Benny Hinn on FAF?

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Greg, thank you for the reply. Frankly I’m afraid to e-mail you or Stan for fear that my name will end up in the Colleen, Richard and Jeremy bin.

I appreciate being able to express myself here (although I also feel that I can do the same on FAF) and really wanted you to know that other people besides those mentioned are affected and hurt by some of the generalization you’re making here in this thread. Maybe you just wanted to reach the Tinkers, but the accusations here have gone beyond that. My feelings are mostly hurt because I thought Stan was my friend, at least for a while. I still miss most of his posts. When he lost Fonz, I cried and prayed for him. This really hurts.

I don’t know if you’re going to continue this until the Tinkers say “uncle”, but I do hope there will be a time when you can move on.

I appreciate the rest of your site in sharing the Gospel. 

Anonymous wrote:

“My feelings are mostly hurt because I thought Stan was my friend, at least for a while. I still miss most of his posts. When he lost Fonz, I cried and prayed for him. This really hurts.”
------------------------------------------------

Anon,

You are still my friend. Thanks for crying for Fonz. We now have a new standard poodle puppy who is just waiting for me to come on down and play with him outside.

Seriously, I don’t want to harbor hard feelings about this.

We will happily move on to other topics.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Stan, I never defended Benny Hinn. I just always read your posts (as long and numerous as they were) and looked forward to what you had to say.

I hope you can find forgiveness in your heart for Colleen and Richard. They are kind and loving, even if they aren’t always perfect. We can’t all be.

I’m finished now. Outside of sharing my name, I’ve been as vulnerable as I can get here and now I’m beat. I don’t just “wish you the best”. As someone who really liked you I wish you God’s blessings and peace.

Anon.

Posted anonymously by: Dinolf

I have been following the FAF for some time and find it to be a healing place for hurted SDA´s. One good point they have is to find out what theological issues that is from the Bible alone and what issues is colored by the teaching of EGW (and all the editors and white estate people). This is good - to bring forth the pure gospel. I have for myself raised the question on FAF about the SDA mentality to bring Satan into every discussion when they like to warn angainst unsecure behaviour and new spiritual movements. When coming to the issue discussed in this thread, it is clear that the FAF-admins in that sence, take a traditional SDA definition of Satan into their own arguments AGAINST the SDA. I would find it a more evangelical way to be careful in statements like that.

In Christian traditions the use of prophetic word or the warning for satanic deception is common when emphasis what is to be said. Why? It is a common use by the authors of the Bible and even by Jesus himself. When you state something with the use of the spirit (or satan) this is as to say - the last word. It can´t be questioned.

Read Matthew 16 about Peter. In the same chapter he is both the bearer of a message from God (the spirit) and later - talking the message of satan “..you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men” Matt 16:23. 

So when dealing with a question aboth truth, there is three lewels of “source”, the Spirit, man-made ideas and satan. In the case of Peter we see that he was not only in one of these positions. So was not EGW, Doug Batchelor, Benny Hinn or any other person claiming to give the gospel. As Batchelor once said - “listen to what the preacher says - but spit out the seeds (like when eating a melon). The gift of prophecy can be missused.  Many times a profetic message would better be catagorised as “things of men”. Like the story about the ladies arguing in church about the color of the curtains on the wall. When one of them had a prohecy at a meeting the the curtains should be yellow (or whatever) the discussen was closed…

In Christ

Dinolf