The Confessing Seventh-day Adventist

As it probably is for most people here, my path in arriving at this forum has been a long one. I actually came across this website some years ago, but I wasn't ready at that time to understand the disobedience problem of the SDA church. I knew something was wrong, but I didn't know what.

Two years ago I sat down to read the church manual. I was shocked at how many rules were being broken. On page 19 of the manual it says:

No attempt should be made to set up standards of membership or to make, or attempt to enforce, rules or regulations for local church operations that are contrary to these decisions adopted by the General Conference in session and that are set forth in this Church Manual.

So I started bringing up the section on discipline in Bible study. Every time I would get attacked in one form or another. Each time, I regrouped for next week prepared to counter the previous attack(s). Eventually they had to start misrepresenting what I said by redefining Biblical words to the same way that the world uses them. Then when I pointed that out, I was immediately back stabbed after class. I was slandered by someone who went to gossip about "how to deal with him (me)", when I had done nothing but defend myself from mischaracterization. The leader they sought counsel from listened, and did not direct them to Matthew 18:15-17. That leader, who bent their ear to gossip, later brought it up to me, during a private discussion on discipline. I was hurt, and immediately told the leader that they have offended me. The excuse given was that they "were trying to help me". That is obviously an idiotic excuse, because then that would be a loophole for open sin.

So I brought in another leader to witness, and was shocked that they agreed with the other leader. So I brought up the topic in a church board meeting. They all voted me down, and I was mocked at times. I spent a year away from church, and not one person visited me to talk about why I wasn't going to church.

I went back recently, because I had boned up on the church manual. I saw that I could bring up issues, by making a movement, at a business meeting. When I found out they hadn't had a business meeting in a year I thought I had them. The church manual says they should have one once a year. But the church board voted against it, and I was once again back stabbed. But this time it was to the entire board.

I found out about their decision and went to most of the leaders to point out the business meeting rule. The response was that the manual is a guideline, or a suggestion. I pointed them to page 18-19 (authority of the manual), and they either made a specious argument, or got agitated and ran away. They denied the clear language in the manual. I have contacted other levels of leadership, and I have either been ignored or given the same old "it's a guideline" excuse.

I will add that they were breaking many other things in the manual concerning adultery, behavior in the sanctuary, and unilateral leadership decisions. In addition to being mocked, back stabbed, and slandered I have been yelled at hysterically, threatened (cops). These things happened with witnesses, and nobody ever came to my defense.

I focus on the manual, because it is the easiest to prove wrongdoing. I decided to start doing some research on lawsuits concerning broken charters, or contracts, and I came across this forum again.

I think I have a valid legal case against church. They do not follow the church manual even though the manual says it must be followed.

It seems to me that if such a lawsuit were victorious, we would instantly have the necessary groundwork for bringing obedience back into the church. The church manual has the basic principles of discipline, and how to enforce it. Leadership actually has far less power than they think. In fact, most leadership have never read the manual, can't remember anything in it, or didn't realize it exists. Many church members agree with us on discipline, and would vote to dismember those who are openly sinful. They are just fearful of their human rulers. Then immediately everyone will be much more careful about their actions, and read The Bibles rules more closely, or become educated through interactions with each other. Unity would be restored, because politics would no longer be used to decide arguments and Matthew 18:15-17 would be used instead.

Since we have a church manual the court will not have rule on doctrine, which they can't do. I think the law falls under private law, and specifically I think under the branch of contract law. I would like to get other peoples thoughts on this, and have a discussion, so I can get counsel concerning my idea. I cannot afford a lawyer at this time, but I do have time to investigate this avenue further. My next step is to look into Maryland state law.

Effectively what I am doing is appealing to Caesar. I don't think I'm contradicting The Bible, EGW, or the church manual. Please show me if otherwise, but only if you are open minded and reasonable about what your reference necessarily says.

ourlordsaviorjesus wrote:Then when I pointed that out, I was immediately back stabbed after class. I was slandered by someone who went to gossip about "how to deal with him (me)", when I had done nothing but defend myself from mischaracterization. The leader they sought counsel from listened, and did not direct them to Matthew 18:15-17. That leader, who bent their ear to gossip, later brought it up to me, during a private discussion on discipline.

Hi OLSJ,

I assume then that you would appreciate my Spirit of prophecy compilation titled Why do Seventh-day Adventists Approve of Church Membership for Cannibals?

ourlordsaviorjesus wrote: In addition to being mocked, back stabbed, and slandered I have been yelled at hysterically, threatened (cops).

There is a good legal term for that: Modus operandi, which means “mode of operating or working.” You have discovered how morally challenged Seventh-day Adventists behave.

ourlordsaviorjesus wrote:I think I have a valid legal case against church.

Since we have a church manual the court will not have rule on doctrine, which they can't do.

Effectively what I am doing is appealing to Caesar. I don't think I'm contradicting The Bible, EGW, or the church manual. Please show me if otherwise,

I have legal and theological experience in this area since I have been sued by the Texas Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Therefore, I can assure you with great confidence that the courts can not consider what is written in a church manual. To the courts, a church manual (such as the SDA church manual) is doctrine. Also, Scripture and the Spirit of prophecy are against your notion of suing the church. Please consider the following links:

What did Ellen G. White mean by Seventh-day Adventists crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting him to open shame?
Eugene Shubert - What do you mean by this slanderous statement?
Threats, Intimidation, and the Kingdom of God
Adventist Pastors Strive for Character Assassination
Do Whistleblowers Suffer Economic Hardship?

I don't look at it as taking the Seventh-day Adventist church to court. They are Pharisees and Saducees. While they preach grace, it is still a form of legalism. The true church was organized, and the church manual is a descendant of that. My case is that we restore the church to its proper owners, which is the church members.

Since I am up against Pharisees, I look at it more like how Paul appealed that he was a roman citizen and deserved a trial. He also appealed to Caesar.

I think it is possible that EGW was speaking towards matters of differences of opinion, where people were using a lawsuit to try to steer the work in ways they themselves deemed to be proper.

ourlordsaviorjesus wrote: My case is that we restore the church to its proper owners, which is the church members.

The biggest problem with your proposal is the current state of the church. Jeremiah said it best: “A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way." Jeremiah 5:30-31. And you seem to be lightly esteeming, if not entirely disregarding, the solution outlined in the Spirit of prophecy. According to Ellen G. White, the church is to be purified by a shaking message, not a ruling by a secular court. Please read the thread The Coming Purification of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I've been thinking over the resources you gave me, and your reply, and came to the conclusion a few hours ago that a lawsuit isn't the right thing to do. I came here to say that, and then saw your last post.

Jeremiah 5:30,31 is spot on. And it never occurred to me that it is the message that will refine the church. At the moment I concluded that a lawsuit was a bad idea, I immediately asked myself how things will ever get better. Of course I trust that God can do anything, but I was uneasy. Thanks for the article, that really brings this search I've been on to completion. God as usual has perfect timing.

I just thought of something.

Could the church's dismissal of the church manual be used against it if the General Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists brought a trademark infringement lawsuit against someone opening a church that uses SDA or Seventh-day Adventist?

The manual specifically states "Church Manual of the Seventh-day Adventist Church", and the general conference does publish the manual. They don't follow it, and readily admit to that, so why are they the official owners of the trademark? I mean the church manual has been around a lot longer than the trademark has. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I'm not saying one should purposely draw them into the lawsuit, I'm just saying that perhaps the term could be reclaimed or motivate the church to reexamine the wisdom behind the church manual. Either way, you would be safe going back to a Seventh-day Adventist church.

I don’t believe that there is an exception in trademark law that says that if a corporation doesn’t live up to its advertising or corporate slogans, then all its trademarks are null and void. For example, Google is known for its motto, “Don’t be evil.” In particular, Google’s “'Don't Be Evil' manifesto” states: “Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." Similarly, the sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil.”

Isn't it well-known that Google cooperated with the Chinese government a few years back and give them the passwords of Chinese dissidents that were using gmail? Do you have any doubts about that being evil? Does Google’s demonstrable evil mean that I am legally and morally entitled to start an internet search engine company with the Google name?