Hal Steenson And John Lomacang, Power Options

[awesumtenor]

My understanding is that Ed is married. He can correct me if I am wroing, and he wants to right a wrong. NOTE: Have you ever failed to see Ed attempt to right a wrong?

Depends on whether he is the source of said wrong...when he is, he fails constantly in that regard...

By the way, people who know Ed personally have told me he actually is nice in person!

People who disagree with him?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Panama_Pete]

Did you ever read a discripyion or see a picture of the Reform Dress that Ellen G. Whte recommended? It consisted of long pants underneath a shorter skirt. Quite revolutionary in those days?

Why didn't this work?

[awesumtenor]

Why didn't this work?

For starters, all she lacks is a mustache to look like John Wilkes Booth in drag...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ed White]

he is a divisive speaker.... and not in a good way.... do a search cause we have discussed him here, or PM Di about what happened when he was in her area....

Clay since you and Di have vital information about S. Lewis, me or any church member of open wrongs/sins, by all means don’t be found PM everyone of our open public sins start a thread about them like you did me in the Theology section and let everyone on the forum know. If we were on a church outing on a walk through the wood & YOU saw a rattlesnake, by all mean shout it out. “Rattlesnake!! But if our sins are of the private nature, by all means the good book should be followed and send the PM to us. Isn’t that what Christianity is all about? If isn’t it should be.
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Matthew 18:15-17
Yes, I have posted words on this thread about John Lomacang & Hal Steenson and in other places and other names and not in the least am I ashamed to mention the error they teach because they teach openly subjecting innocient people to their error. Whatever they choose to do and teach behind closed doors is their business and not mine. I realize the SOP I quote from offends a lot of people on this forum, but the bible also equally offends these same people. And for that reason I will state that.
"Open rebuke is necessary, to prevent others from being ensnared.
To believe that evil must not be condemned because this would condemn those who practise the evil, is to act in favor of falsehood. If, after a man has been given many cautions and warnings, to save him from his hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong, he takes offense, and refuses to accept the message graciously sent him from heaven, and puts aside the reproof of the Holy Spirit, his heart and conscience become hardened, and he is in great darkness. {SpTB02 10.1}
I gave a link on another thread of a 1921 letter to the GC president, if anyone would just read this letter from start to finish, then those thinking on this forum to have already me figured out & those still waiting would be well equipped in doing so by reading this letter.

http://remnantprophecy.sdaglobal.org/Libra...39;s-Letter.pdf

[sister]

I was there for the majority of Steven Lewis’ meetings at 3ABN, a few of his messages were very good, but what I observed of his followers during the church services at Thompsonville, that were not televised, was quite disturbing. The young people who were with him would sit in the pews and read their Bibles during the entire service, not participating, ignoring all everything around them until Steven Lewis was on the pulpit. At that time they would close their Bibles and sit in rapt attention, their eyes fixed upon their leader.

Lewis called his ministry Present Truth Ministry and I once overheard him refer to those he baptized as Present Truth people. The majority of the baptisms that took place were re-baptisms of church members and those people became fiercely loyal to Lewis as an individual.

John Osborn told Steven Lewis once, that he was heading in the same direction that Osborn had when he left the SDA church. And where is Steven Lewis now?

During Lewis’ meetings plans were made for Lewis to open a “school of the prophets” on land adjacent to existing 3ABN property. Later the plans were scraped, that is another story, and the land was donated to 3ABN.

By the way, Hal and Mollie Steenson were big fans of Steven Lewis. He was the one who baptized them. Of course that fact has never stopped Mollie from dressing in pants...


This post has been edited by sister: Dec 24 2006, 05:48 AM

[Observer]

Just to make certain that everyone understands: The woman in the Reform Dress photo was NOT Ellen White.

This post has been edited by Observer: Dec 24 2006, 07:30 AM

[Richard Sherwin]

The people of the time were just not ready to accept it. It looked too strange and the idea at the time of pants on women was just too much. Mrs. White, in her writings was disapointed because it was a more healthy form of dressing.

Richard

Why didn't this work?

[Ed White]

Clay since you and Di have vital information about S. Lewis, me or any church member of open wrongs/sins, by all means don’t be found PM everyone of our open public sins start a thread about them like you did me in the Theology section and let everyone on the forum know. If we were on a church outing on a walk through the wood & YOU saw a rattlesnake, by all mean shout it out. “Rattlesnake!! But if our sins are of the private nature, by all means the good book should be followed and send the PM to us. Isn’t that what Christianity is all about? If isn’t it should be.
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Matthew 18:15-17
Yes, I have posted words on this thread about John Lomacang & Hal Steenson and in other places and other names and not in the least am I ashamed to mention the error they teach because they teach openly subjecting innocient people to their error. Whatever they choose to do and teach behind closed doors is their business and not mine. I realize the SOP I quote from offends a lot of people on this forum, but the bible also equally offends these same people. And for that reason I will state that.
"Open rebuke is necessary, to prevent others from being ensnared.
To believe that evil must not be condemned because this would condemn those who practise the evil, is to act in favor of falsehood. If, after a man has been given many cautions and warnings, to save him from his hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong, he takes offense, and refuses to accept the message graciously sent him from heaven, and puts aside the reproof of the Holy Spirit, his heart and conscience become hardened, and he is in great darkness. {SpTB02 10.1}
I gave a link on another thread of a 1921 letter to the GC president, if anyone would just read this letter from start to finish, then those thinking on this forum to have already figured me out & those still waiting would be well equipped in doing so by reading this letter.

http://remnantprophecy.sdaglobal.org/Libra...39;s-Letter.pdf

============
Sorry to bring this to the front again, I was only trying to edit the link & clicked the wrong button. But concerning this picture, please someone keep reminding me when to laugh as I don't want to laugh out of turn. I am not locked in by never laughing, I just refuse to at the expence of another.
Sister is right about those young minds exposed to S. Lewis & his control over them. Maybe he just doesn't know any different from his Adventist schooling.

This post has been edited by Ed White: Dec 24 2006, 08:05 AM

[seeshell]

:: OK, I am having a hard time believing that picture depicts what Sis. White meant by reform dress, because she also said to not go out of our way to be a "gazing-stock" ie, look ridiculous. The pattern she recommended at one point had a skirt that was 8 or 9 inches from the ground, and that monstrosity is not 8 or 9 inches from the ground, for one thing. I think what she had in mind was much more tasteful. That may have been someone else's distortion of "reform dress".

The pants under the dress thing... My apologies to anyone here who wears pants under dresses, but I just won't do it. One or the other, but not both at the same time! Unless I'm lost in the Rockies in the dead of winter. I'm no fashion maven, but I got my limits!

I believe Sis. White also gave instruction to the effect that if the fashion of the day is reasonable and modest, wear it, "and let not the dress question fill the mind". It's not our duty to look as weird as we can for Jesus. There are clothes for ladies available today that are reasonable and modest...they may be a bit harder to find, but you can locate them if you look.

At any rate, if Mr. Lewis is calling the church Babylon, I'm afraid he has destroyed any influence he might have had with me, though I might have agreed with some of the other things he said...can anyone document that he now claims this?

OK.

This post has been edited by seeshell: Dec 24 2006, 08:35 AM

[Richard Sherwin]

Ed give it up, we all know by now that you hate all things Adventist, even if they are not Adventist but you can somehow twist them around to be. Again I invite you to actually go to an SDA school, like the academy that's a mile from my home, go out with the students giving a Bible study, shed a tear at a play about the last days of Jesus taken from the Desire of Ages, or watch the tumbling team witnessing to the public schools. Observe the students leading out in an evangelistic series while giving up their free time and study time to do so. These kids are on fire for God like you can never imagine Ed, they love the Lord. They need our encouragement, not our bricks thrown at them. Forget the past wrongs of the church, which I freely admit are many, and look to a glorious future like these young people are doing. Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. More than dress reform you (and all of us) need mind reform. Constantly bashing the church is not from God.

Richard

============
Sorry to bring this to the front again, I was only trying to edit the link & clicked the wrong button. But concerning this picture, please someone keep reminding me when to laugh as I don't want to laugh out of turn. I am not locked in by never laughing, I just refuse to at the expence of another.
Sister is right about those young minds exposed to S. Lewis & his control over them. Maybe he just doesn't know any different from his Adventist schooling.

[Richard Sherwin]

I do believe she did say that, about modern fashion being fine as long as it meets certain criteria. Thanks for bringing that up. I agree that pants under dresses is not pretty, I would never wear them like that

Richard

:: OK, I am having a hard time believing that picture depicts what Sis. White meant by reform dress, because she also said to not go out of our way to be a "gazing-stock" ie, look ridiculous. The pattern she recommended at one point had a skirt that was 8 or 9 inches from the ground, and that monstrosity is not 8 or 9 inches from the ground, for one thing. I think what she had in mind was much more tasteful. That may have been someone else's distortion of "reform dress".

The pants under the dress thing... My apologies to anyone here who wears pants under dresses, but I just won't do it. One or the other, but not both at the same time! Unless I'm lost in the Rockies in the dead of winter. I'm no fashion maven, but I got my limits!

I believe Sis. White also gave instruction to the effect that if the fashion of the day is reasonable and modest, wear it, "and let not the dress question fill the mind". It's not our duty to look as weird as we can for Jesus. There are clothes for ladies available today that are reasonable and modest...they may be a bit harder to find, but you can locate them if you look.

At any rate, if Mr. Lewis is calling the church Babylon, I'm afraid he has destroyed any influence he might have had with me, though I might have agreed with some of the other things he said...can anyone document that he now claims this?

OK.

[watchbird]

:: OK, I am having a hard time believing that picture depicts what Sis. White meant by reform dress, because she also said to not go out of our way to be a "gazing-stock" ie, look ridiculous. The pattern she recommended at one point had a skirt that was 8 or 9 inches from the ground, and that monstrosity is not 8 or 9 inches from the ground, for one thing. I think what she had in mind was much more tasteful. That may have been someone else's distortion of "reform dress".

The pants under the dress thing... My apologies to anyone here who wears pants under dresses, but I just won't do it. One or the other, but not both at the same time! Unless I'm lost in the Rockies in the dead of winter. I'm no fashion maven, but I got my limits!

I believe Sis. White also gave instruction to the effect that if the fashion of the day is reasonable and modest, wear it, "and let not the dress question fill the mind". It's not our duty to look as weird as we can for Jesus. There are clothes for ladies available today that are reasonable and modest...they may be a bit harder to find, but you can locate them if you look.

At any rate, if Mr. Lewis is calling the church Babylon, I'm afraid he has destroyed any influence he might have had with me, though I might have agreed with some of the other things he said...can anyone document that he now claims this?

OK.

I agree. This picture looks to be the "Reform dress" introduced by public figures at the time, which Ellen spoke AGAINST. Her own idea of "dress reform" included such things as shortening skirts (which fashion at the time decreed should have "trains" on the back, which actually swept the streets as someone walked... unless they held them up in their hands) so they would NOT do this; allowing the waist to be a natural fit rather than having the waist cinched into a "wasp waist" by strong corsets reinforced by whalebones.... etc.

And yes, she also stated that our purpose in dressing "diferent from the world" was not to call attention to ourselves, but for practical purposes and modesty, and if "the world" introduced a fashion that met our criteria then there was nothing wrong in adopting it.

I do believe she did say that, about modern fashion being fine as long as it meets certain criteria. Thanks for bringing that up. I agree that pants under dresses is not pretty, I would never wear them like that

Richard

I can think of several"good" responses to this.... but I think I shall refrain.....

[awesumtenor]

... she also said to not go out of our way to be a "gazing-stock" ie, look ridiculous.

Obviously, many in this church didn't get that memo, not only going out of their way to be a gazing-stock but often going completely beyond to being a laughing stock... and then rationalizing it by saying they are supposed to be a "peculiar people"... not realizing that it is not by anything we do or say that we are 'peculiar'; it is God's selection, election, affection and grace extended to us that makes us peculiar and not what we say or think or eat or drink or do etc.

In His service,
Mr. J

Constantly bashing the church is not from God.

It does bring to mind one who was known as the accuser of the brethren who accused them before God day and night, however...

Not saying that Ed is he... but he does have a propensity to emulate him where the church is concerned.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ed White]

Ed give it up, we all know by now that you hate all things Adventist...

Richard this "we" you tell about are you going to have those people by your side for support when really needed? Just because you were schooled into this bogus thought by others doesn't mean you need to stay in the shallow in of a wadeing pool with them, launch out into the deep, become informed! Click on that link I gave of Edson White above and print it out on paper and un plug your computer for a day and go read this letter with a hanky among your bee hives and return with something to say with substance instead of just shooting from the hip.

This post has been edited by Ed White: Dec 24 2006, 10:37 AM

[Pickle]

D. M. Canright wrote a book in which he blasted Ellen White over the reform dress. He stated that she condemned a dress that went halfway to the knee, with pants underneath, and claimed that she then a year later advocated the same style of dress slightly modified.

What Canright failed to tell his readers is that the dress condemned, according to Ellen White, went halfway from the hip to the knee, while the dress advocated went halfway from the floor to the knee, if 8 or 9 inches would be halfway.

Who in their right mind but Canright and close-minded, anti-Adventist critics would call a dress halfway from the hip to the knee the same dress slightly modified as one that went halfway from the floor to the knee? Is a long dress really a slightly modified mini skirt?

There is a non-Adventist professor at a university who teaches a class on the history of fashion and dress. She has her students read Canright and study Ellen White, though she knows next to nothing about Ellen White, as of several years ago.

Why? Because she wants all her feminist students to get the point that it wasn't just radical feminists that were pushing for dress reform in the 19th century. Even religious folks, who the average student just assumes would want everyone to stick with corsets, heavy street sweepers, etc., were into advocating reform.

And this professor claims that the type of reforms Ellen White called for went mainstream after the turn of the century, if I remember her email to me correctly.

Why does she have her students study Canright too? Because she wants them to see what senseless resistance and stupid arguments some folks came up with to battle the ideas of the likes of Ellen White.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Dec 24 2006, 10:42 AM