the silver trumpet, vol. 1, no. 9

THE SILVER TRUMPETLet Elohim arise, let Their enemies be scattered; and let

those who hate Them fee from Their Presence. - Psalm 68:1

IMMATERIALITY...true reflection?...

Vol. 1, No. 9 New Moon 1st Month Abib (March 22, 2015)

Yahweh spoke to Moses, Make two trumpets of silver; you are to makethem from a single hammered piece. And they shall be for assembling thecommunity and for directing the traveling of the camps. When they blowthem both, all the community must come to you to the entrance of the tentof meeting. But if they blow with one trumpet, then the leaders, the heads ofthe thousands of Israel must assemble themselves. When you blow analarm, then the camps that are located on the east side must begin to move.And when you blow an alarm the second time, then the camps that arelocated on the south side must begin to move. An alarm must be soundedfor their journeys. But when you assemble the community, you must blow,but you must not sound an alarm. The sons of Aaron, the priests, must blowthe trumpets; and they will be to you for an eternal ordinance throughoutyour generations. If you go to war in your land against an adversary whoopposes you, then you must sound an alarm with the trumpets, and you willbe remembered before Yahweh your Elohim, and you will be saved fromyour enemies. Also in the time when you rejoice, such as on your appointedfestivals and at the beginnings of your months, you must blow with yourtrumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifces of your peaceofferings, so that they may be a memorial for you before your Elohim: I amYahweh your Elohim. - Numbers 10:1-10

The Silver Trumpet Vol. 1 No. 9 1

The Detrimental Effects of Immaterialismupon Reasonable Thinking

by Trent Wilde

In discipline and repetition we have an opportunity for our mindsto grasp a hold of the truth. So, we ask the question, What has beenthe focus of this message for the past six months? - Priesthood andTemple! Yes, you have been called to be builders and priests. Thinkon this; contemplate this truth. Have you responded as did thosenewly returned exiles in the days of Haggai? Think on this. What sayyou? Do your actions testify to your belief, or is there an idea in yourmind which has caused you to view reality as a fction and fction as areality? Again, you have been called into priesthood! You have beencalled to build a spiritual temple! Is this fact or fction? How do youview these things? What is it which could cause you to see, but notperceive, and hear, but not know that it is so?

As you know, our Heavenly Family has been attempting to buildTheir spiritual house (1 Pet. 2:5) for some time. This work of buildingTheir people as a temple on earth is intimately connected with thework of the grand anti-typical sanctuary in Heaven as can be seen byreading Daniel 8. The enemy of souls has destroyed the truth of theHeavenly Tabernacle in the minds of the professed followers of Christ.Thus disconnected from Christ, Satan has been able to cause blindnessto grow and sin to fourish in the church. As these sins increased andwere recorded in the books of Heaven, the sanctuary became moreand more polluted, and Christ has had to continue His anxietystricken intercession crying, My blood, Father, my blood, my blood,my blood (EW 38). In this way, the devil has been able to touch evenHeaven itself and the very Gods whom he used to serve.

Our Heavenly Family, though, had another plan. They sent TheirAngel (Rev. 10)1 to commence the restoration of all things, whileThey, at the same time, began to cleanse the Sanctuary above.Revelation 10 shows the restoration of all things to begin with thetruths of the frst angel's message, the second angel's message, themidnight cry, and the third angel's message. Thus at the end of the2300 days came the restoration of the truth.2 And what was this truth?

1 See The Return of the Shekinah by Doug Mitchell.2 See The Shepherd's Rod, Vol. 2, pp. 130-133.

2 The Silver Trumpet Vol. 1 No. 9

Was it not the sanctuary truth? As the sanctuary was seen in vision,was there not also seen the ark containing the ten commandments(EW 42)? And as these truths were being restored, did not ourHeavenly Family also restore the truth of the personhood of theFather and the Son (EW54)? All these truths are the foundation of ourfaith as Seventh-day Adventists. These are the truths which havemade us who we are as a people.

By the 1880s, there were many who were newly coming into thefaith of the third angel's message. Those who came in at that time didnot have the experience of the disappointment and of the years whichfollowed in the settling of the vital points of truth connected with themessage, nor did they see the manifestation of the Holy Spirit throughEllen White in confrming these truths. The condition of things hadbecome a wilderness of theory, and the truth was taken for granted.Pride and striving for supremacy were gaining ground among thosewho would be leaders of the church, and the unique truths were nolonger being taught as they once were. The church turned back fromfollowing Christ her leader and steadily retreated toward worldliness(5T 217). Our Heavenly Family then sent a message which was towake the sleeping people, to moisten the dry bones, and to bring life tothose dead in trespasses and sins. This message of righteousness byfaith, brought in 1888, was pitifully ridiculed, despised, and rejected.

This true story becomes sadder still when we follow the history ofthose through whom the message came. Jones and Waggoner, alongwith Kellogg (who had also been sent of Heaven to accomplish a greatwork), went astray from the faith. Later, others, such as A.F. Ballenger,departed from the faith, accepting falsehood in place of truth. Thissame folly has been practiced from ancient times, and it has beenrepeated and repeated, and it will be repeated yet. Let us see what itwas that caused these men to fall away:

Let us all cling to the established truth of the sanctuary. Thosewho are so shortsighted that they will begin to do the work thatsome others have been doing in advocating the sentiments contained inLiving Temple, are departing from the living God in spiritualistic,satanic experiences that will not do the souls who receive them anygood. They are departing from the faith, seeking to tear down thefoundation of truth. The men who have lost their hold on the truths ofthe sanctuary question as they have been presented by men who havebeen under the Holy Spirit's guidance, had better pray more and


talk less. I testify in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is ledby satanic agencies and spiritualistic, invisible leaders. Those whohave the guidance of the Holy Spirit will turn away from theseseducing spirits.3

The Lord would have us at this time bring in the testimonywritten by those who are now dead, to speak in behalf of heavenlythings. The Holy Spirit has given instruction for us in these lastdays. We are to repeat the testimonies that God has given Hispeople, the testimonies that present clear conceptions of the truthsof the sanctuary and that show the relation of Christ to the truths ofthe sanctuary so clearly brought to view.

If we are the Lord's appointed messengers, we shall not springup with new ideas and theories to contradict the message that Godhas given through His servants since 1844. At that time manysought the Lord with heart and soul and voice. The men whomGod raised up were diligent searchers of the Scriptures. And thosewho today claim to have light, and who contradict the teaching ofGod's ordained messengers who were working under the HolySpirit's guidance, those who get up new theories which remove thepillars of our faith, are not doing the will of God, but are bringing infallacies of their own invention, which, if received, will cut thechurch away from the anchorage of truth and set them drifting,drifting, to where they will receive any sophistries that may arise.These will be similar to that which Dr. J. H. Kellogg, under Satan's specialguidance, has been working for years.4

The attacks of the devil in shutting out the light of justifcation byfaith as brought in 1888 and in carrying away the messengers whobore that message, consisted in the subtle deceptions of spiritualisticsophistry. In this message, we have learned that spiritualism is muchmore than communicating with demons fronting as dead relatives. Wehave learned that spiritualism is simply the belief in the immaterial, or,to put it another way, the idea that there is a non-physical reality.Thomas McElwain, in his book Adventism and Ellen White, A Phenomenonof Religious Materialism, rightly summarizes the early Adventist use ofthe term spiritualism in this way,

3 MR760, p. 4 (1905)4 MR760, p. 14 (1905)


The term spiritualism or spiritualizing theology is used in relationto materialism or materialist theology, as any system of theologythat appeals to the existence of the immaterial, denying the basicpremises of materialism...5

A review of early Adventist literature bears this out, as can be seenby reading the writings of the pioneers themselves.6 What they taughton the subject of spiritualism versus materialism as it relates to thesanctuary are immovable truths old landmarks. Consider thefollowing statements:

Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast;they are not remembering how they have received and heard.Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars ofour faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or ofChrist, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring inuncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor7

You [Kellogg] are not defnitely clear on the personality of God,which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the Lord GodHimself.8

Here the truth is clearly defned. The belief in spiritualistic ideas,the belief in immateriality, virtually destroys God Himself. This will beseen to be true when considering what immateriality really is. Thetruth though, is that immateriality cannot really itself be defned. Itcan only be defned as to what it is not. The immaterial is notmaterial. It is the absence of anything and everything that we canpossibly name or conceive of. There is no objective distinguishingbetween the immaterial and the non-existent, there is only a differencein saying - some say that the immaterial is real, but none would daresay the same thing concerning the non-existent.

How do we know what is real and what is not? What is thedifference between imagining a thing and a thing really existing? Well,let's see. If you imagine a bird landing in your hand, that is differentfrom a bird actually landing in your hand, right? What is thedifference? Is it not that one was merely conceptual whereas the other5 Adventism and Ellen White, A Phenomenon of Religious Materialism, p. 126 See pages 37 and 60 of this article.7 MR760, p. 9 (1905)8 Ellen White to Kellogg, Letter 300, 1903


is actually a part of the physical world? Similarly, those of you whohave been studying this message for some time have probably heardthe question asked, Why is such and such a thing true? For instance,if I say, You are reading these words right now, is it true? Well, yes,of course. Why is it true? Is it not because it is actually what ishappening in the material world? These undeniable facts leave us withthe truth that materialism is indeed how we know the differencebetween what is real (true) and what is not.

In fact, without materialism, there is no way of knowing what istrue and what is not. Most Christians believe in what is called substancedualism, which is the belief that the universe is made up of twofundamental substances - the material and the immaterial. God,angels, heaven, hell, souls, spirits, etc. are said to be immaterial, whileeverything that we experience with the natural senses is said to bematerial. God Himself is conceived of as a great mind which is presentin all places since he is not limited to space or time. What does thisdualistic view mean in terms of discerning between what is real andwhat is not? With this thinking, what is real cannot be determinedbased off of whether it exists in the material world or not, for it is heldthat immaterial things exist. Since the mind is conceived of asimmaterial, and what is immaterial is held to be real, then how doesone distinguish between imaginings and reality? What justifcationwould there be for not holding everything we conceive of as beingtrue?

Here is the truth immateriality is non-existence. In fact, wecannot even conceive of the thought of immateriality, all we can do istry not to think of anything. Herein lies the primary subject of thisarticle - how does immaterialism affect one's thinking? Ellen Whitewas correct; to believe in the immaterial virtually destroys God, for itmakes Him nothing.9 More than that, it destroys any and alljustifcation and ability to discern between what is real and what is notreal, what is true and what is not true. Materialism is the foundationof truth; to destroy it, is to destroy all. The assertion that theimmaterial is real is the assertion that the non-existent exists, in thevery idea of it. It is, at its core, the declaration of that which is not trueas being true and is therefore the idea of a lie itself.

It is the lie which was introduced by the arch deceiver, it was the liethat led the antediluvian world astray, it was the lie that established

9 For more on this, see our video study Did God Create Time?


Babylon, that controlled Pharaoh, that held up the religions of theCanaanites, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Greeks. It was the liewhich took the form of Plato's transcendentalism and which came intoJudaism via hellenization and corrupted the true faith of the Messiahand took the form of Christianity. The lie is responsible for the darkages and for every other wicked catastrophe which has reared its uglyhead to demolish all that is good, whole, and pure. The lie is what ledastray Jones, Waggoner, and Kellogg. The lie is what has polluted thesanctuary, destroyed the priesthood, and so long delayed the buildingof the spiritual house.

Branches, you have recently been called to enter into priesthoodand to build the temple of Yahweh. If you have not been flled withlove and zeal for the truth, and exchanged your thoughts for thethoughts of our Heavenly Family, know that the lie has a hold on you.

How will truth re-enter? How will reason and love take the day?Exercise your will; stretch your minds to comprehend the truth.Receive correction, let your mind be molded according to the divinesimilitude!

Here is materialism the truth is the truth. If materialism is true,there is only one fundamental substance and only one reality. What isfundamental to reality cannot be destroyed, for to destroy it would beto destroy reality itself. Since matter cannot be destroyed,10 it isdemonstrated to be the foundation. What does this mean? It meansthat things simply are what they are. If a circle is a circle, it is simply acircle not a square. This is what some know as the law of non-contradiction. It simply means that two contradictory claims cannotbe true at the same time, in the same sense. A thing cannot be acertain way, and yet not that same certain way. No one truth canconfict with itself or with any other truth. There is only reality; theremay be contrary claims to that reality, but reality is consistent withinitself. This is the foundation of all logic and reason. Withimmaterialism, there is no reason for reason and no grounds for sense.

For a practical illustration of the law of non-contradiction, we offerthe following example: If you say you believe the Branch message, andthe Branch message teaches you that to believe it is to take in Christ'swords (John 6:35, 63) and to abide in him (John 15:5-7) and that inhim is no sin (1 John 3:5), and yet you sin, then can it really be truethat you believe it? Both cannot be true can they? If you fnd yourself

10 While any composite structure of matter can be destroyed, matter itself cannot be.


in sin and yet claiming to believe the message, then let it be evidenceto you that your mind is still running in the way of immaterialism.

Many who have heard the truth of materialism as has been putforth in this message, have seen it to be true and acknowledged it assuch (in fact, none have dared to openly deny it), yet few haveevidenced the workings of the truth of materialism upon their way ofthinking. The truth needs to be settled into, both intellectually andspiritually. What does it mean to settle into the truth? It means toactually let it be what it is. And for it to be what it is, is for it to standwithout contradiction, for as we have learned, reality (truth) cannothave contradiction. Therefore, settling into the truth intimatelyinvolves the casting out of falsehood and every false way of thinking. Itestablishes reason upon the throne of the mind.

One principle which materialism establishes in the mind is theright way of thinking about thinking itself the right way of coming toconclusions as to what we believe and why. So, let's say that someonemakes a claim about something. If that claim is true, it must be true inthe material world. If we are to hold it to be true then, should we notrequire material evidence?

Unfortunately, those of us who have been infuenced byimmaterialism have formed the habit of coming to particular beliefsbased off of something other than material evidence. Often, we believesomething simply because it supports, or seems to support, our other,more foundational, beliefs. Any evidence which seems to confict withour foundational beliefs we tend to ignore, give it little weight, or fnda way to interpret it in some way which harmonizes with our beliefs,even if that interpretation is inconsistent with the facts, or is a skewingof the idea itself. This mode of thinking is based in immaterialism as itpractically makes our imaginings, or beliefs, to be as esteemed, or evenmore esteemed than material reality. This way of reasoning will neverlead one to the truth.

This matter of how we come to our beliefs touches on every aspectof life and is therefore vitally important to comprehend. We are told tobe close, critical thinkers (LLM 428). Therefore, whatever the truthmay be, it is that which we want to accept, and we want to accept itbecause it is truth. It is the truth which sanctifes, or educates, us (John17:17), and we must experience the truth ourselves, having it close andnot at a distance it must be truly experienced (1 John 1:1). We mustbecome intimately connected with, and aware of, reality. Therefore,


we must obtain knowledge, not hearsay or by our own impulses, butby observation and experimentation.

Train and discipline the mind by study, by observation, byrefection.11

As his [God's] representatives and witnesses, we need to come toa full understanding of the saving truth which we must know by anexperimental knowledge.12

I saw that there is not one in twenty who knows what experimentalreligion is.13

A correct knowledge of God is not a hearsay report, but anintelligent, experimental knowledge.14

We can be assured that we shall receive the Holy Spirit if weindividually try the experiment of testing God's word.15

Experience is knowledge derived from experiment. What we need isexperimental religion. How shall we know for ourselves God's goodnessand his love? The psalmist tells us--not, hear and know, read andknow, or believe and know; but--"Taste and see that the Lord isgood." Instead of relying upon the word of another, taste foryourself.16

Experience is said to be the best teacher. Genuine experience isindeed superior to mere theoretical knowledge, but many have anerroneous idea as to what constitutes experience. Real experience isgained by a variety of careful experiments, made with the mind free fromprejudice, uncontrolled by previously established opinions and habits. The resultsare marked with careful solicitude, and an anxious desire to learn, to improve,and to reform on every point that is not in harmony with physical and morallaws.

That which many term experience is not experience at all; it hasresulted from mere habit, or from a course of indulgence,thoughtlessly and often ignorantly followed. There has not been a

11 Review and Herald, Nov. 13, 1883, par. 1312 Gospel Herald, Jan. 1, 1899, par. 513 Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 49614 Review and Herald, July 20, 1897, par. 915 Review and Herald, May 5, 1896, par. 116 Signs of the Times, Jan. 11, 1883, par. 24


fair trial by actual experiment and thorough investigation, with a knowledgeof the principles involved in the action. Experience which is opposed tonatural law,which is in confict with the unchangeable principlesof nature,is not to be relied upon. Superstition arising from adiseased imagination is often arrayed in opposition to reason and toscientifc principles. To many a person, the idea that others maygainsay what he has learned by experience, seems folly, and evencruelty itself. But there are more errors received and held through false ideas ofexperience than from any other cause. There are many invalids today whowill ever remain such because they cannot be convinced that theirexperience is not to be relied upon.17

Our so-called experience is not to be relied upon. Our past beliefsare not to be relied upon. Let us not try to confrm our biases. Let usnot start with a conclusion and then endeavor to prove it true. Let uslook at material reality and let it govern our beliefs. If we would knowthe truth, we must require empirical evidence.

Since we have all been conditioned to think immaterially, we haveall accepted beliefs which are not based in reality. These unfoundedbeliefs must be rooted out. In the messages of truth which ourHeavenly Family has sent, They have sought to remove these errors,but we have been slow to learn. When Heaven corrects an idea, ahabit, or some cherished view, most are unwilling to part with theiridol. Some are willing to give up certain positions, but other ideas,they are unwilling to be separated from. They give Heaven permissionto reprove them on points which are not of special interest orimportance to them, but they hold other areas as untouchable, evenby the hand (message) of God.

God leads his people on step by step. He brings them up todifferent points which are calculated to manifest what is in theheart. Some endure at one point, but fall off at the next. At every advancedpoint the heart is tested, and tried a little closer. If the professedpeople of God fnd their hearts opposed to the straight work ofGod, it should convince them that they have a work to do toovercome, or be spued out of the mouth of the Lord. Said theangel, "God will bring his work closer and closer to test them, andprove every one of his people." Some are willing to receive onepoint, but when God brings them to another testing point, theyshrink from it and stand back, because they fnd it strikes directly at some

17 Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, p. 109


cherished idol. Here they have opportunity to see what is in theirhearts that shuts out Jesus. They prize something higher than the truth,and their hearts are not prepared to receive Jesus. Individuals aretested and proved a length of time to see if they will sacrifce theiridols, and heed the counsel of the True Witness. If they will not bepurifed through obeying the truth, and overcome their selfshness,their pride and evil passions, the angels of God have their charge,"They are joined to their idols, let them alone," and they pass on totheir work, leaving them with their evil traits unsubdued, to thecontrol of evil angels. Those who come up to every point, and standevery test, and overcome, be the price what it may, have heededthe counsel of the True Witness, and they will be ftted by the latterrain for translation.18

The principles we are speaking of need to be thoroughlyunderstood, received, and experienced. Those who fail to do this willsoon fall away from the truth. I know of no better way tocommunicate the light which our Heavenly Family has given me onthis subject than to present examples of the employment of thisimmaterialistic way of thinking so as to make manifest its truecharacter. If we speak of these things in general terms and one fails todigest the truth, they will either not apply these principles in such away to change their thinking, or they will only apply them selectively.

What is required of us is a radical change in thinking. Since thisimmaterialistic thinking effects every area of life, we will be goingthrough examples from a variety of felds of knowledge, but by nomeans are the examples and felds we mention here the only onesaffected. Our hope in going through these examples is that the generalprinciple will be highlighted and that each of you can take theseprinciples and apply them to all areas. Our purpose is not to dwell forlong on any of these subjects or to make special advocation of anypoint in particular. Rather, our goal is to highlight the principle ofhow we come to conclusions as to what we will believe.

Health

There are numerous contrary theories in the feld of health. Howshould we decide what to believe? Some have had bad experienceswith mainstream medical doctors or treatments and so decide that

18 Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 2, p. 225


mainstream medicine is bad. Others have political views that eitherdemand or cohere with negative views of the medical feld. Still others,because of religious or spiritual inclinations, take on a view of healthwhich conforms to their metaphysical beliefs. Are any of thesemethods of formulating beliefs an expression of right thinking? Thestraight answer is no, and here is why: None of these views addressphysical reality and come to conclusions about causal relationsbetween various substances by means of critical examination ofempirical data. Instead, they all depend on individual experience orpersonal preference.

Most religious people, including Adventists, Davidians, andBranches, have adopted spiritual views of health because we havebeen led to believe that that is in harmony with our religion or ouroverall world-view. Many have accepted unsubstantiated practicessuch as homeopathy, acupuncture, and so-called energy healing.These practices are rooted in immaterial ideas, as can be readily seenby an examination of their history and underlying principles, andshould therefore be entirely avoided. What is important in relation tothis discussion, though, is to understand your own thought process asto why you used to (or still do) accept these theories.

What we really need to do is to carefully conduct experiments andreason from cause to effect. When we are unable to do this ourselves,we ought to consult the best available information. Please consider thefollowing statement from Victor Houteff, which we exhort all whoprofess to believe in the Inspiration of the Rod message to take veryseriously:

Now at the outset of our study let us note what the Testimonies tothe Church say on the subject of health reform. Here are thestatements, "Our workers should use their knowledge of the laws oflife and health. They should study from cause to effect. Read the bestauthors on these subjects, and obey religiously that which your reasontells you is truth." Councils on Health, p. 566, and here are theconditions upon which they are made. The command to inquirefrom the best health authorities is a positive declaration to health seekersthat Sister White's knowledge of food values and their effect uponthe human machine did not originate with her and not withHeaven, but with the best health authorities in her day. Since wetherefore take the part of her writings that originated with her asinspired, we are defnitely charged by Heaven Itself to inquire from


the "best health authorities" in our day as she did in her day if wecare for our health. And what ever their fndings be that is what wemust believe, and their recommendations we must accept and obeyin preference to their recommendations of her day, for in her dayknowledge on the subject had just begun. Anything short of this,therefore, is direct violation against Inspiration's appeal as it isagainst the individual's health interest. The great question that nowarises is not so much what she teaches on diet as it is to know whothe best health authorities are and what they teach. Who are they? Certainlynot those who label their products, writing and professional practices Health,Nature, Drugless, and so on. These are not health authorities at all, andmost of them are in the feld to sell either their profession or theirso-called health product. Then, too, these professionally shrewd,studiously downing19 all popular products and professions, for they wellknow that their only opportunity to sell something to the publicdepends on making people prejudiced against and fearful of theproducts and professions of all others. They know that in no otherway their so-called health and cure stands a chance at all. So, theyspend years in studying how to frighten the public from the wellknown markets and professional places, and how to drive them to theirown so-called health shops and places of professional services. And asthere are multitudes of people who are ever looking for somethingnew and better, many thoughtlessly fock to these unapproved placeswhere they in time discover that they have swallowed a quack's bait,sinker, hook and line. At last they fnd themselves hanging on a fshpole as it were with empty pockets and with infamed stomachs.20

Have those from whom you have received your health educationlabeled their products, writing, and professional practices Health,Nature, Drugless, and so on? Have they downed the popularproducts and professions and the well known markets andprofessional places? If so, then you, along with so many of us, havebeen educated by pseudoscientifc minds who are not true healthauthorities at all.

Who are the true health authorities then? True authority lies not inposition, in reputation, or in number of adherents; rather, it lies solelyin truth.21 Since truth is the material reality, then the true authorities

19 All the sources that we have for this tract read downing though it probably would have been corrected to down if it had ever gone through due process of publication.

20 The Entering Wedge, Part 2, pp. 15-1721 See our video WTC4 Church Authority?


must be those who present reality as it really is. The only way to knowthe nature and function of material reality is by material evidence.Therefore, whoever speaks the truth concerning the material reality ofany given health issue and supports that truth with sound materialevidence, is a true health authority.

This brings to view, perhaps more than ever before, the need fortrue scientifc inquiry. From this point forward, when we hear claims,let us question and consider the evidence. This we must do whetherthe claims come from those in the mainstream medical feld orproponents of alternative medicine. For example, many in thealternative health feld speak in opposition to vaccines, whereas themajority of those in the mainstream medical feld speak very favorablyabout vaccines. The questions at hand are, How shall we go aboutexamining the claims? and What are the underlying principles bywhich I have operated in order to come to my present belief?

Just to be clear, we are using the example of vaccines to illustratethe principles at hand, not to advocate one position or another onvaccines. The vaccination issue is also a good example because it isone in which people are very emotionally invested and concerningwhich people have very strong beliefs. The principle is that whateverthe truth of vaccines may be, whether they are good or bad, it cannotbe determined by our hearsay, individual experiences, or biases,whether medical, political, spiritual, or otherwise. The principle isthat, That which many term experience is not experience at all.Real experience is gained by a variety of careful experiments, madewith the mind free from prejudice, uncontrolled by previouslyestablished opinions and habits. The results are marked with carefulsolicitude, and an anxious desire to learn, to improve, and to reformon every point that is not in harmony with physical and moral laws.Experience is knowledge derived from experiment.22

A little more specifcity concerning this vaccine issue will help tohighlight the principle all the more. In truth, there are many contraryreports concerning vaccines. Some say they contain aborted fetaltissue, others say they do not. Some say vaccines are injected directlyinto the blood stream, others say they are not. Some say they containmercury, some say they do not. In order to fnd the truth and in orderto be of the most beneft, both to ourselves and to others, we must becareful not to accept any of these proposed ideas simply because it

22 See quotes on page 8.


agrees with our perspective. For example, someone may stronglybelieve that vaccines are safe and so they will say, Of course vaccinesdo not have aborted fetal tissue in them. On the fip side, anotherone may be strongly opposed to vaccines and hear it said that vaccineshave aborted fetal tissue and believe that it is true because it promotesthe idea that vaccines are bad. Let's just say that vaccines really arebad, but that they do not contain fetal tissue would saying that theydo contain such tissue really help? Well, what if some medical doctorwho knew for certain that there was not fetal tissue in vaccines heardyou say there was? He could easily disprove the claim and then cast ashadow on the whole case against vaccines.

The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of large-scalescientifc experiments which have been conducted, and those whohave conducted them have said that they demonstrate the safety andeffcacy of vaccines. Should we not examine their evidence withunbiased minds? After all, if it is not true, it won't stand the test ofreality so we really have nothing to lose so long as our focus is truth.Let's say that it turned out that material reality dictates that vaccinesare safe and effective, does this mean that we should all go and startvaccinating ourselves and our children? Well, not necessarily. Even ifthe vaccines in general are safe and effective, one would still have tobe aware of any particular vaccine and know that its ingredients aresafe and in harmony with Heaven's laws. Not only that, but if it ispossible to achieve the same immunity to viruses by other methodsthan vaccines, such as right healthful living, then we should by allmeans promote that as the right way instead of vaccines. Whateverthe truth is though, let us fnd it out and zealously promote that, evenit it means we must have a radical change of paradigm and have tocompletely change the beliefs to which we most tightly hold.

What we are talking about is removing our biases andpreconceived notions on every issue. We must learn to not decide whatwe will believe based on feeling, but rather, on reality. We must notshrink back from an open and honest investigation of controversialissues. We must come to understand and to abide by the principles oftruth, logic, and experimental investigation. If one vaccine is provensafe and effective it does not mean that the rest are as well. Likewise, ifone is proven to be unsafe and ineffective, it does not mean that therest are as well. Principles, oh beloved principles! Let us forever settleinto them. Let us judge everything on its own right. When becoming


Adventists, or Davidians, or Branches, we learned that we could notcome to the truth by believing those preaching against those messages,we had to investigate them on their own right to see if they are true.Let us apply that same principle to all health claims as well as all theother claims in any feld of knowledge. It all comes down to whetheror not we are willing to deal with reality on its own terms or if weprefer to believe the theories which we adopted while our minds wereoverrun by immaterialistic thinking.

Physics

Due to the lack of information most people have about physics,when we hear a view presented concerning it or its implications, wetend to judge the view by our biases, or, by what we already believe. Ifa theist hears someone present a view concerning physics that seemsto disagree with how he perceives God, he will likely reject that viewsolely on that basis, without further investigation. Likewise, if there is aview presented which claims to prove the existence of God, he will bevery likely to accept that view, regardless of whether or not it is true,and especially if its primary advocates are of his same faith.

Most religious groups promote a spiritualistic view of metaphysics,which states that fundamental reality at minimum includes some sortof non-material stuff. Since most believe God to be non-material,these views of metaphysics are adopted and cherished. Such is the casealso with views of quantum mechanics. Ideas are put forward, whichare in principle no different from the spiritualism of oriental religionsor the animal magnetism of Franz Mesmer, but are described in sucha way as to sound scientifc. Words and phrases such as vibrational,quantum, energy felds, energetic frequency, probability waves, and soon, have been used to make the same old spiritualistic doctrines soundscientifc. True experiments are misrepresented and false experimentsare conducted. But because some of these theories claim to prove theexistence of God or of a spiritual realm or some other supernaturalor mysterious force, they are accepted by those with a supernaturalperspective. All this, in spite of the fact that these views are based onmisrepresentation and wishful thinking, and not on the actual facts ofthe material universe.

We need to beware of accepting mysticism put forward in the guiseof science. We need to check the facts and see what the physical


universe is really like and how it functions by means of ground-upinvestigation by simply observing and seeing what facts emerge.

Archaeology

As with the other felds of knowledge, many come to their belief ofarchaeological theories by means other than material science. Peoplewith spiritual views tend to view things in the distant past as beingmystical or supernatural, or to have come about by mystical orsupernatural means. Others believe that ancient peoples had to havehad power tools, laser technology, extra-terrestrial involvement, orother sorts of highly advanced technology in order to build things likethe pyramids or stonehenge. Claims are put forward concerningdifferent structures and artifacts from the ancient world of which thegeneral public has little to no knowledge. When hearing fantasticclaims, people often accept them simply because they are fantastic andft in with their overall belief system, despite the fact that there havebeen very reasonable explanations put forth by archaeologicalspecialists as to how these things could have been built using veryprimitive technologies.

The principle is that we should not accept someone's claims justbecause it happens to ft with our beliefs. In fact, when a claim isadvocated in favor of a true belief, and then the claim is proven false,the result is a reproach against the truth. We'll give one specifcexample to illustrate this point. We feel not only the freedom, but alsothe duty to cite this particular example due to the fact that the primaryadvocate of this claim was a Seventh-day Adventist whose doctrinesare promoted by certain circles of Seventh-day Adventists and otherSabbath keeping groups.

The claims to which we refer are those of Ron Wyatt, who, inaddition to claiming to have found Noah's ark, and certain biblicalsites, also claimed to have found the ark of the covenant upon whichhe claimed was the blood of Jesus. His claim is that the blood of Jesusdoes not have the 46 chromosomes normally contained in humancells, but that it contains 23 chromosomes from his mother and onefrom his Heavenly Father. These claims, if true, are thought by manyto be proof of the historicity of the Bible and proof of Jesus, and theyare accepted for that reason. But what are the evidences for the truthof these claims? Do they stand up to material reality? Do they stand


up to the light of scripture? We do not hesitate to declare that the Christ which Ron Wyatt

taught is not the Christ of scripture, nor the Christ of reality. TheMessiah of Nazareth had the same blood as you and I (Heb. 2:14).The teaching that Christ's human nature was somehow different fromours is the teaching of anti-christ (1 John 4:3) and is no less detri-mental than the doctrine of Rome.

All are to judge for themselves, but do not judge by your opinionor your experience or by your desire for a thing to be true. That isthe method of a mind which has been stripped of reason by theillusion of immaterialism. Rather, judge by a variety of carefulexperiments, made with the mind free from prejudice, uncontrolled bypreviously established opinions and habits. Judge by reality.

The results of Wyatt's claims stand as a lesson to us as to what willbe the results if we hold on to any unfounded ideas, thinking they areevidence for the truth. Archaeologists and historians shake their heads,those from other religions mock, and level-headed Adventists areashamed. There are not a few who have used Wyatt as an example forhow religion destroys coherent thinking. Anti-Adventists use hisunfounded theories as a reproach against the Advent movement and areason to reject the three angels' messages. Woe to all who byunfounded theories keep some back from the truth. Let us enter intothorough self-examination that we may cast aside all false ideas andthus not be a source of darkness and perpetuate death, but be a sourceof light and impart life to others.

History

History is yet another area where people believe unfoundedtheories for no other reason than their biases. Again, this method isthoroughly immaterial as it disregards the need for empiricalevidence, which disregard is a direct result from an immaterialisticview of reality. The examples we are going to consider in this sectionare ones in which people's view of history has been skewed by theirtheology. This comes about when people adopt a theology which hasno true foundation in reality. And when they hold up that theology asbeing more valued or more true than reality, they chooseimmateriality over materialism, they choose a lie over the truth. Thissort of theology is really only a theoretical idea, based off of private


interpretation, which is the manifestation of immateriality in the mindof a professed follower of God.

One such ideology which has arisen is that of British Israelitismwhich teaches that the ten lost tribes of Israel migrated to WesternEurope and, in effect, became the British Empire, along with other ofthe anglo peoples. This idea has been thoroughly disproven by history,linguistics, and signifcantly, by genetics. In spite of this, there aremany, mostly of Western European ethnicity, who hold to this view.And Why? Well, because theology is considered to be the decidingfactor as to what constitutes truth rather than reality itself.

There are others who hold that the true Israelites are the blacks inAmerica and that the recognizable Jews of today, particularly theAshkenazi Jews, are not truly of the lineage of Jacob. This too hasbeen disproven by history and genetics, and yet it is still held to bymany because it fts their ideology.

Both of these theories, and many others, are based off of idealisticand theologically motivated views of history, as well as commonmisconceptions concerning the relationship between ethnicity andparentage.23 The fact of the matter is that lineage and ethnicity aretwo very different things. Both Brits and Black Americans areprimarily from lineages other than Israelite lineages and AshkenaziJews are just as much Jews as Sephardic Jews or other non-disputedJewish populations, as has been proven by DNA.

To disregard these empirical facts in favor of a cherished ideologywould indeed be to discard reason and place oneself on the ground ofimmateriality. Favoring cherished ideas over material facts is the rootof dogmatism, the history of which has proven to be utterlydetrimental to the whole of the human race.

23 In short, people commonly think that if people are of the same lineage they will beof the same ethnicity, but this is not true. For example, let's say a Native Americanman had children with a Native American woman, and their children inter-married strictly with other Native Americans and bore more children. Those children would be ethnically Native American and would be of his lineage. Let's say his frst wife died and he married a Caucasian woman and bore children with her, who all intermarried and bore children strictly within Caucaisan circles. Those children would still be of his lineage, but would be ethnically Caucasian. The same would apply if he took a third wife who was Black, or a forth wife who was Asian.


Politics

The same principles we have discussed thus far apply also, ofcourse, to politics. Many Adventists, due to awareness of certainabuses by governments, such as Sunday legislation and other actswhich prohibit religious liberty, have started down a line of thinkingwhich conforms to an anti-government perspective. Many, andperhaps most, in the Branch movement have been infuenced by thisperspective among Adventists as well as by other anti-governmentperspectives in the world.

Theories are held to which can neither be proven nor disproven.We have tended to accept theories which charge governments orcertain people or groups in government with very serious crimes, andthis has been done without a thorough knowledge of the facts of thecircumstance. We hear common ideas such as 9/11 was an insidejob, Zionists are ruling the world, Muslims are taking over thegovernment, and many many more theories, and have come toaccept them. But why? Are we truly aware of the facts? Have weconsidered the other side of the story? Or, do we only read somethingfrom a conspiratorial website or watch an anti-governmentdocumentary and accept whatever they put forth as evidence becauseit agrees with our ideology? What is worse is that many then take thisinformation, which they have not critically examined orindependently verifed, and pass it on to others as fact!

Once again, we have adopted these theories and ideologies whileour minds were dominated by immaterialism. Should we hold to theseideas, then, as untouchable by our Heavenly Family? Can God notcorrect us on this point? Is there no chance that we have wronglyaccepted political theories and perspectives? Our Heavenly Familyrequires us to unlearn our previous methods of acquiring knowledgeand formulating beliefs. We must be rid of every bias. We must bereal people, logical thinkers (2TG 24:23).

The truth of the matter is that as Branches, our Heavenly Familyhas not given us the time to devote to politics. We have truth to learnand a message to proclaim. We are dealing with the everlasting gospel!Let us realize that there is much that we thought we knew that wereally don't know. Let us no longer publish political sentiments or anti-government propaganda, but instead publish the gospel of peace -justifcation by faith. If you can see that you have been in the wrong


regarding these things, it will be for your own beneft to reform. Morethan that, you must realize that if you fail to reform both yourbehavior and your thinking in these lines, you will not only bring greattrouble upon yourself but upon the whole Branch movement, andthat, prematurely and unnecessarily. Please deeply contemplate thefollowing selection from The Testimonies for the Church:

By some of our brethren many things have been spoken andwritten that are interpreted as expressing antagonism togovernment and law. It is a mistake thus to lay ourselves open tomisunderstanding. It is not wise to fnd fault continually with whatis done by the rulers of government. It is not our work to attackindividuals or institutions. We should exercise great care lest we beunderstood as putting ourselves in opposition to the civilauthorities. It is true that our warfare is aggressive, but ourweapons are to be those found in a plain "Thus saith the Lord."Our work is to prepare a people to stand in the great day of God.We should not be turned aside to lines that will encouragecontroversy or arouse antagonism in those not of our faith.

We should not work in a manner that will mark us out asseeming to advocate treason. We should weed out from our writings andutterances every expression that, taken by itself, could be so misrepresented as tomake it appear antagonistic to law and order. Everything should becarefully considered, lest we place ourselves on record asencouraging disloyalty to our country and its laws. We are notrequired to defy authorities. There will come a time when, becauseof our advocacy of Bible truth, we shall be treated as traitors; butlet not this time be hastened by unadvised movements that stir upanimosity and strife.

The time will come when unguarded expressions of adenunciatory character, that have been carelessly spoken or writtenby our brethren, will be used by our enemies to condemn us. Thesewill not be used merely to condemn those who made thestatements, but will be charged upon the whole body of Adventists.Our accusers will say that on such and such a day one of ourresponsible men said thus and so against the administration of thelaws of this government. Many will be astonished to see how manythings have been cherished and remembered that will give point tothe arguments of our adversaries. Many will be surprised to heartheir own words strained into a meaning that they did not intendthem to have. Then let our workers be careful to speak guardedlyat all times and under all circumstances. Let all beware lest by


reckless expressions they bring on a time of trouble before the greatcrisis which is to try men's souls.

The less we make direct charges against authorities and powers, the greaterwork we shall be able to accomplish, both America and in foreigncountries. Foreign nations will follow the example of the UnitedStates. Though she leads out, yet the same crisis will come uponour people in all parts of the world.

It is our work to magnify and exalt the law of God. The truth ofGod's holy word is to be made manifest. We are to hold up theScriptures as the rule of life. In all modesty, in the spirit of grace,and in the love of God we are to point men to the fact that theLord God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and that theseventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.

In the name of the Lord we are to go forward, unfurling Hisbanner, advocating His word. When the authorities command usnot to do this work, when they forbid us to proclaim thecommandments of God and the faith of Jesus, then it will benecessary for us to say as did the apostles: "Whether it be right inthe sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judgeye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen andheard." Acts 4:19, 20.

The truth is to be set forth in the power of the Holy Spirit. Thisalone can make our words effective. Only through the Spirit'spower will victory be gained and held. The human agent must beworked by the Spirit of God. The workers must be kept by thepower of God through faith unto salvation. They must have divinewisdom, that nothing may be uttered which would stir up men toclose our way. Through the inculcation of spiritual truth we are toprepare a people who shall be able, in meekness and fear, to give areason for their faith before the highest authorities in our world.

We need to present the truth in its simplicity, to advocate practical godliness ;and we should do this in the spirit of Christ. The manifestation ofsuch a spirit will have the best infuence upon our own souls, and itwill have a convincing power upon others. Give the Lordopportunity to work through His own agents. Do not imagine thatit will be possible for you to lay out plans for the future; let God beacknowledged as standing at the helm at all times and under everycircumstance. He will work by means that will be suitable, and willmaintain, increase, and build up His own people.

The Lord's agents should have a sanctifed zeal, a zeal that iswholly under His control. Stormy times will come rapidly enoughupon us, and we should take no course of our own that will hastenthem. Tribulation will come of a character that will drive to God all


who wish to be His, and His alone. Until tested and proved in the furnaceof trial, we do not know ourselves, and it is not proper for us to measure thecharacters of others and to condemn those who have not yet had the light of thethird angel's message.

If we wish men to be convinced that the truth we believesanctifes the soul and transforms the character, let us not becontinually charging them with vehement accusations. In this waywe shall force them to the conclusion that the doctrine we professcannot be the Christian doctrine, since it does not make us kind,courteous, and respectful. Christianity is not manifested in pugilisticaccusations and condemnation.

We should remember that the world will judge us by what we

appear to be. Let those who are seeking to represent Christ becareful not to exhibit inconsistent features of character. Before wecome fully to the front, let us see to it that the Holy Spirit is pouredupon us from on high. When this is the case, we shall give adecided message, but it will be of a far less condemnatory characterthan that which some have been giving; and all who believe will befar more earnest for the salvation of our opponents. Let God have thematter of condemning authorities and governments wholly in His own keeping.In meekness and love let us as faithful sentinels defend theprinciples of truth as it is in Jesus.24

Many Adventists have failed to heed the above counsel, as havemany Davidians, and yes, even Branches. All Branches are now calledto heed this counsel with exactness. If you have been sharing things onsocial media sites or in e-mail, or even in conversation with anyonewhich contains sentiments which could even be interpreted as anti-government, then for the sake of Heaven and for the sake of theKingdom (and for your own sake), withdraw those statements, removethose posts, and cease to share things of like nature. Our HeavenlyFamily has given us a mission They have given us a message to bear,and most Branches are not half as acquainted with the message asthey should be. Heaven has not granted us the time to read, watch,listen to, or share these political theories. We must learn the truth andwe must share the truth. People are dying for a lack of the knowledgeof the gospel and it is that which we must give to them.

24 Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 394-397 (Our Attitude Toward the Civil Authorities)


Philosophy

To illustrate how immaterialism affects one's way of thinking inregard to philosophy, we'll only consider one primary example,though it applies to every area of philosophical inquiry. What we willconsider here is the philosophy of time.

The vast majority of people do not give much thought to what timeis and how we should think about it. Resultantly, the ideas that mosthave concerning time are not acquired by the combining ofexperimentation and careful thought, but are instead acquired by amisapplication of a seemingly related, yet superfcial, thought. Forinstance, most Christians believe that God created everything andtherefore, if someone asks, Did God create time? they answer, Ofcourse, God created everything. It is usually simply left at that.25While the idea that God created time has its own immaterialisticimplications, which we will mention here to some extent, our focus isactually on how the belief in the immaterial has infuenced thethought process of the one who believes that God created time.

So, here is the truth of the mistaken idea of time in contrast withthe truth of time itself:

First, it is important to mention that, in this context, we are notspeaking of the measurement of time, but of time itself.Dictionary.com provides the following defnition of time:

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to anyother, as past, present, or future; indefnite and continuous durationregarded as that in which events succeed one another.26

Time is indeed a system of sequential relations, an indefnite andcontinuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed oneanother. Succession (one thing following another) is how we know that

25 The idea that God created literally everything is somewhat misleading. For example, if one was to say, God created everything, therefore God created truth, we would be left with the conclusion that there was a time in which God existed but truth did not (for He had not yet created it.) But if that were true then we would have a God without truth, which is only a lie. The fact is that truth and reality are synonyms and therefore for anything to exist, for anything to be real, is to be true. If God existed, then truth existed as well. In other words, if anything exists, truth exists, so it would not be necessary for God to create it.

26 See the frst defnition at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?s=t


time is real. Another way to put this is to distinguish between what issimultaneous and what is not simultaneous. Non-simultaneity is proofof the existence of time since there is actually a sequential relationbetween two events. If we had complete simultaneity (if everythinghappened simultaneously) in the universe, we would have no proof oftime, and even no time itself since there would be no sequentialrelation.

So, let us start with the idea that God created time and follow itslogical conclusions to see whether it is true, or even could be true.

If God created time, then God would have necessarily had to be inexistence before creating time, correct? Otherwise he would nothave been able to create it for a cause must precede an effect. Nowsince before is a temporal term, it really cannot be used in context.It would be better expressed by saying that God exists in a non-timeoutside of time.

If that were true though, there could be no succession within thatnon-time existence, for once you have succession, you have proofthat time exists. If there was no succession you cannot have one actionfollowing another, no, not even one thought following another. So, ifGod exists in a non-time, then he cannot have any succession ofthought, which means that if he has thoughts at all, he is thinkingthem in absolute simultaneity. This means that there has never been,and could never be, any change in his thinking. He could not haveany difference in his thoughts whatsoever - not today, a thousandyears ago, or a billion years from now.

Now, if that were true, then we have three options. God is eitherthinking no thoughts in that non-time, some thoughts (but not all), orhe is thinking all thoughts.

If God were thinking no thoughts, then he could have nopersonality and in fact could not be a person or a being at all, whichwould render the term God useless.

The second possibility is the idea of God thinking some thoughtsbut not all. Why would someone even believe this idea? Well, somemay very well believe it due to seeing major problems with the othertwo options and are left with this. This option, though, has problemsof its own. For instance, if God were only thinking some thoughts inhis non-time experience, then he would have to enter into time inorder to think the rest of his thoughts. If this were the case, then youwould have a part of God in time and a part of God outside of


time. The part of God that is outside of time would not be able tocomprehend what the part of God inside of time comprehends.More than that, the part of God that is outside of time would noteven be able to comprehend when his other part entered into time,or know at which point in time he was, or know of any of hisexperiences or thoughts that he experienced in time. But again, thatwould be no more information, knowledge, or thoughts than he hadoutside of time. On top of all this, how could there be any possiblecommunication or relation between that which is in time and thatwhich is outside of time. Because of the nonsensical notion of thisoption, people usually adopt the third possibility.

The third option for the proponent of the idea that God is outsideof time is that God is thinking all thoughts simultaneously in the non-time. That is, every single thought, including all thoughts that can beconceived of, as well as those that we cannot. If this were true, then itwould mean that God is thinking every possible thought in relationto any and every given thing at one simultaneous non-time. Forinstance, concerning the world, God is (in this theory) simultaneouslythinking I am about to create this world, I am currently creatingthis world, and I already have created this world. He would haveto be, in this non-time of complete simultaneity, thinking Such andsuch a person is about to exist, ... is currently existing, and . .. nolonger exists. Since these thoughts are all part of all thoughts, thenGod would have to be thinking them in simultaneity, and God couldnever leave that simultaneity, for to do so, or to even have a thoughtto do so, would be an experience only possible in time. Here weagain have two options:

The frst option is that the world, or the person, actually did notexist at one point and does exist at another, and will actually not existagain in the future. A practical example of this is to say that you as anindividual actually do exist now and did not in the past. If this is truethough, that would mean that not all of God's thoughts are true, andin fact, he is totally self deceived and would be totally unaware ofwhen a thing actually does happen. This renders God totally uselessand meaningless.

The second option is to say that all of God's thoughts are indeedtrue. But if this were so, one would have to say it is true that I amabout to exist, I currently exist, and I no longer exist. Thisthought necessitates the person, the world, and everything else, to be


in existence before time existed, for in the non-time before time,God was thinking, this person exists. This makes you and I andeverything else just as eternal as God. If this is so, then all thingsalways existed and God did not create anything. More than thatthough, it would also have to be simultaneously true that all thingsdid not yet exist, and that all things no longer existed. This would be,in truth, saying that everything both exists and does not exist in thesame context and in the same way. This is a direct self contradictionand if consistency matters at all, the theory is totally destroyed..

To expand on the implications of this even more - if the secondoption is true (again, the second option is the thought that God isoutside of time, thinking all thoughts in simultaneity, and that all histhoughts are true) then, as stated before, God really didn't createanything, for we always existed, and did not exist, along side him. Theonly sense in which it could be said that we exist within this scenariois to exist in the mind of God. If this were so though, we wouldnecessarily be part of God, for God would only be mind. All thingswould be a part of God this is pantheism. Even Satan himself wouldonly be another expression of the mind of God.

The moral implications of this are incredible. First, if one holdsthat God is good, then he would have to say that all things whichhappen (since it is all just a part of God) are good, whether it isstealing, lying, killing, or raping. On the other hand, one could justdiscard the idea of morality and say that all things are morallyneutral or amoral. This would only be saying that nothing is goodand nothing is bad. One could also say that that which we experienceas bad actually is bad, and that which we experience as good actuallyis good, but in this case, God becomes the most twisted mind in theuniverse. Truly though, God would be the only mind in the universe.Basically, all this would mean is that God is a solipsist27 and that weare all fgments of his twisted imagination. Lastly, if one acknowledgeshow twisted all of this would make God, he may just conclude thatGod is evil.

Ultimately though, any of these options demand God to have nosuccession in thought, and, as we have seen, all of these optionsdemand for God's thoughts to be utterly confused and totally non-sensical. Whether God thinks no thoughts, some thoughts, or all

27 A solipsist is one who believes that the only person who exists is him or her self and that everything and everyone else is just a fgment of their imagination.


thoughts, he must be thinking them simultaneously if he is thinkingthem in a non-time. Moreover, with all these thoughts taking placesimultaneously, one has no means of distinguishing between thoughtand thought. How would we know that God isn't just thinking one bigextremely intricate and confused thought? But if that is so, whatjustifcation do we have to call it a thought at all? Wouldn't everythingjust become one giant metaphysical blob of contrary existence? Godhas no room for personality in a universe such as this, rendering theterm God useless. To still try to be a theist with construct wouldessentially just be labeling this confused blob of contrary existenceGod. This would actually mean that there is no God and thatexistence is extremely contrary and confused.

Notice as well that immateriality is necessary in all of these vainphilosophies. For God to be outside of time would mean that hecould have no movement. Since thoughts are actually processes of aphysical brain and since processes are only possible in time then thethoughts which God is proposed to think in the non-time arenecessarily not physical. This is in harmony with the popular viewanyway since it is believed that God is beyond space and time. Inother words, God is conceived of as being consciousness, not aphysical being. And since all things would necessarily only exist in themind of God then all things would necessarily be immaterial.

As we have seen, the logical conclusions of all these theories are selfcontradictory. Also, we have seen that God could not exist if thesetheories were true. This all clearly demonstrates that it is impossiblefor an immaterial God to exist. It is impossible for a God who isoutside of time, or who created time, to exist. That God is indeednothing.

Thankfully though, none of these vain philosophies could possiblybe true. One of the reasons why we know this to be so is by theexperience of time. If any of these possibilities are true and there is anon-time, the experience of time would have to be nothing more thanan illusion. But the fact of the matter is that even the concept of anillusion depends on the existence of time, for one becoming deceived byan illusion is indeed an experience of becoming, which is temporal.In other words, if non-time exists and if we experience time, thatexperience would necessarily be an illusion, but for one to be deceivedby an illusion would require time. Therefore, the experience of timecannot be an illusion. The truth of this requires that time is real and


therefore, could not have had a beginning because that wouldnecessitate a non-time before time, but the non-time necessarilyresults in all the confused and vain philosophy we just went over.

So you see how holding to one belief, namely, the belief in animmaterial God (which is a form of immaterialism), necessarily resultsin holding a number of other very confusing and self-contradictorybeliefs. These beliefs have many negative practical implications.28They actually destroy reason in the mind and cause one to hold whatis real to be somewhat of a fction and what is fctional to be somewhatof a reality. Most people simply do not think these things through anddo not realize the implications of their own beliefs, nor how they affectthe overall workings of their mind. But these beliefs do indeed affectthe mind and actually, how one thinks about everything else.

Though we have only here covered one philosophical theory oftime, and one example of how immaterialism affects one's thinkingabout philosophy, there are indeed many more. We will briefymention another version of the philosophy of time in order tohighlight the principles of truth all the more:

The big bang theory states that space, time, and matter all hadtheir origin in the big bang - that the big bang is the point at whichthey all came into existence. What does this imply? Well, it impliesthat before the big bang, there was no matter and therefore,whatever it was that exploded in the big bang would necessarily havebeen some sort of immaterial substance. This is just as muchimmaterialism as any other theory which proposes the existence ofnon-matter. Likewise, if the big bang was the point at which timecame into existence, then before the big bang, there was only non-time. But if non-time was real then, it must necessarily be real now, forthere would be no time for it to transition out of non-time or forthere to be any change made to it at all. And, as we have already seen,the supposed existence of non-time necessitates that the non-time isone block of existence and that time is another block. The idea of ablock universe of time necessitates that our experience of time is anillusion. But, as we have already seen, an illusion of time is animpossibility.

Moreover, time coming from non-time and matter coming fromnon-matter are both contrary to reason and only end up in self-contradiction. Indeed it is an impossibility for anything to come from

28 See our video Did God Create Time?


non-time, since it is ceaselessly unchanging and can have nointeraction or relation to anything else. Likewise, as we have seen,non-matter is non-existence, and so to say that matter came from non-matter is to say that existence came from non-existence. This isequivalent to saying that matter is derivative of non-matter, but aderivative of something must be composed of the original thing. Andwhat is there to derive from non-existence? If there is any thing toderive from a supposed immaterial substance, it must necessarilyalso be immaterial, and so therefore, matter would be, in itsfundamental essence, immaterial, which is a contradiction of terms.Taken all together, if the big bang theory were true, it wouldnecessitate that both time and matter are illusions and it thereforeremoves any and all grounds for discerning between the real and theunreal and is thus thoroughly immaterialistic and therefore, untrue.

The fact of the matter, though, is that every experiment everconducted, and indeed, every experience ever had, testifes to the factthat there is indeed such a thing as reality. Everything cannot possiblybe illusion. I'm sure you are all familiar with the phrase, I think,therefore I am. Not only this, but everything, including allexperiments, testify to the fact that there is a difference between thereal and the unreal. For example, if you imagine getting hit by a car, itdoes not damage you, whereas actually getting hit by a car doesindeed cause damage. The proof of reality, the proof of materialism, isall around you. You yourself are part of that proof.

The belief in the immaterial impairs our judgment for discerningreality. It is this impairment which has led to the various philosophieswe have discussed. A careful examination of the material worldviewed through the lens of reason does not leave us with any of thesetheories, but instead, exposes their folly.

Theology

The feld of knowledge under consideration in this section is that oftheology. Before beginning, we want to quote again a statement fromEllen White that we have referred to earlier, but this time we willinclude more of her statement, as it pertains to religious, or theologicalmatters:


Experience is said to be the best teacher. Genuine experience isindeed superior to mere theoretical knowledge, but many have anerroneous idea as to what constitutes experience. Real experience is gained by avariety of careful experiments, made with the mind free from prejudice,uncontrolled by previously established opinions and habits. The results aremarked with careful solicitude, and an anxious desire to learn, to improve, andto reform on every point that is not in harmony with physical and moral laws.

That which many term experience is not experience at all; it has resultedfrom mere habit, or from a course of indulgence, thoughtlessly andoften ignorantly followed. There has not been a fair trial by actualexperiment and thorough investigation, with a knowledge of the principlesinvolved in the action. Experience which is opposed to natural law,which is in confict with the unchangeable principles of nature,isnot to be relied upon. Superstition arising from a diseasedimagination is often arrayed in opposition to reason and to scientifcprinciples. To many a person, the idea that others may gainsay whathe has learned by experience, seems folly, and even cruelty itself.But there are more errors received and held through false ideas of experience thanfrom any other cause. There are many invalids today who will everremain such because they cannot be convinced that their experience is not to berelied upon.

Erroneous habits and customs gird men and women as with ironbands, and they too often justify themselves in these customs bywhat they term experience. Many of the grossest habits arecherished under this plea. Many fail to reach that physical, mental,and moral development to which they might attain, because theycling to an experience that is opposed to the plainest revealed facts . Men andwomen whose wrong habits have destroyed their health, andbroken down their constitution, will be found recommending theirexperience as safe for others to follow, when it is this veryexperience that has robbed them of health and vitality. When youseek to instruct them, they defend their course by referring to their experience.

Here is where we have met the greatest diffculties in religious matters. Theplainest facts may be presented, the clearest truths, sustained by theword of God, may be brought before the mind; but the ear and theheart are closed, and the all-convincing argument is, my experience.Some will say, The Lord has blessed me in believing and doing asI have; therefore I cannot be in error. My experience is clung to,and the most elevating, sanctifying truths of the Bible are rejected.29

29 Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, pp. 109-110


Perhaps there is no greater example of what Ellen White is heretalking about than the rejection of the truth of materialism by theprofessed religious world. Notice though, that Ellen White ishighlighting the principle of how people erroneously come to theirtheological conclusions based off of something other than empiricaldata gained by experiment. People go off what they call experience,when it is not true experience at all. Again, this method of acquiringknowledge is founded upon immaterialism. More specifcally,immaterialism has removed the need to determine what is real frommaterial facts; it has, in fact, removed any and all means for trulydiscerning between what is real and what is not. What people are leftwith, then, to decide what they will believe and what they will notbelieve is their own biases which are formulated by theirexperiences. Reasonable thinking departs and emotion, preference,prejudice, and ignorance take over.

This, as we have seen before, is the root of dogma. Since what isconsidered true is no longer determined by what is evidenced fromreality, but is instead determined by what is believed and by whatone's theology is, the basis for authority also dramatically changes.Real authority is only found in the truth. When truth is defned byconclusions acquired because of biases, preferences, ignorance, etc.then authority is determined by who dictates the conclusions. This isdogmatism. It is the idea that truth is what it is because a certain beliefhas declared it to be so and therefore those who decree the belief arethe ones with authority. There have been not a few times when thisdogmatism has resulted in maniacal tyrants murdering countlesspeople simply because they believed something contrary to, or otherthan, the dogma. Dogmatism, though, is not always accompanied bytyrannical authority fgures. Sometimes it is as simple as a personholding to a belief, and then when that belief is challenged, theybecome angry at the challenger, or withhold love from that person.This is just as much dogmatism as are the other examples, itsconsequences are just not carried out to the same extent. We must berid of dogmatic ways of thinking and dogmatic theology.

Our frst example of how immaterialism affects one's thinking inregard to theology is dealing with the doctrine of King JamesOnlyism. This doctrine takes on various forms, but basically states thatthe King James translation of the Bible is the inspired, infallible, andauthoritative word of God and as such, it is the only one we should


use, or at least, the only one we should really consider to be theBible. Most who hold to this belief are simply unaware of the historyof the Bible, both in regard to the formulation of the various Christiancanons, as well as in regard to the textual transmission of the variousbooks that compose those canons.

The means of establishing this doctrine are riddled with logicalfallacies such as assuming what you are trying to prove in order toprove it. For instance, many KJV Only advocates argue by comparingthe King James Version side by side with other, typically modern,versions. When there is a difference it is said, See, they have changedthe word of God. The problem with that sort of reasoning is that italready assumes that the King James Version is the inspired, infallibleword of God and then compares with other versions to prove the samepoint. When something is present in another translation that is not inthe King James, it is viewed as an addition to the word of God andwhen something is absent in another translation that is present in theKing James it is viewed as subtracting from the word of God. But howdo we know that the reverse is not true? What if a different translationcontains readings that are closer to the original text written by theoriginal writer than what the King James contains? Also, could notone reason the exact same way if they were to start with anothertranslation and assume it to be the inspired, infallible word of God?

The truth is that the belief in King James Onlyism cannot bearrived at by simply looking at the empirical data of the history of theBible and the transmission of the text. This being so, it is only theimmaterialistic assumption that our beliefs or ideas are as valuable asreality that could cause one to believe in KJV Onlyism.

Often in religious groups, and perhaps even especially in Adventistand Messianic congregations, there are teachers which present ideaswhich sound exciting or awe inspiring. People love the experience ofhearing something new and profound. People love having aconnection made which seems to establish some other belief, andwhich will wow them. People want to believe things like the ideathat the garment of John the Baptist was the mantle that Elijah worebecause they feel it forms a connection or is a cool idea. They think,Wow... John came in the Spirit and power of Elijah and he evenwore the mantle of Elijah himself! thinking that it is some profoundtruth. But what is the evidence for this? And even if it were true, whyshould it be thought of as profound? Believing in these sorts of


unfounded ideas will do nothing for a person other than dig themdeeper in the pit of private interpretation and immaterialistic thinking,thus preventing them from hearing and accepting the truth and beingsaved from their sins.

Similarly, many adopt beliefs such as thinking Adam sinned at theage of 33 because that makes a cool connection with Jesus since hedied at 33. Or that the Hebrew Bible is a code in which every seventhletter spells some special word like torah or Yeshuah. Theorieslike these are totally unfounded, but people accept them anywaysbecause it sounds good and conforms to their belief system. The Biblecode makes the Bible sound like a supernatural book, and so peoplewant to believe it, despite the fact that the claims are complete lies.Most simply do not check into these theories but blindly accept themas true thinking that that is faith. Unfortunately, the amount of privateinterpretation being promoted out there is so numerous that it wouldbe impossible to convey how large of a problem this is. What peopleneed to do is to understand the principles of truth so that they canbecome equipped with the tools needed to discern between fancifulideas and truth.

Still another type of unfounded interpretation is the sort that seeksto prove true teachings by using misapplications of scripture. Forexample, someone might try to prove that in addition to the DivineMother, there is also a Divine Daughter because the King James Bibleuses the terms Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost. While it is true thatthe translator's choice of those two terms has roots in the controversyover the procession of the Spirit, and that the controversy of theprocession of the Spirit has implications as to whether Christ's Spiritwas the same as the Father's or was a separate Spirit, the fact of thematter is that the terms Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are from thesame phrase in Greek and so to use them as proof of the Mother andDaughter is unfounded in reality.

Others may try and teach the truth that God has a body by citingpassages such as Proverbs 21:1 which says, The king's heart is in thehand of Yahweh, as the rivers of water... But is this really proof ofYahweh's physical hand? The passage is clearly speaking metaphor-ically, so why use it to teach the truth that Yahweh has physical hands,especially when there are other passages (Eze. 8:3) which teach thesame truth by straightforward description? If we use passages to saywhat they are not really saying (even if we are teaching a truth), it


creates an opportunity for those who wish to fnd hooks to hang theirdoubts upon to reject the truth due to seeing our misapplication.

Our last example is the rejection by some of the books 1-2 Enochand Jubilees on the basis that they teach that there are 364 days peryear (1En. 82:6; Jub. 6:32) whereas Genesis 7-8 is supposed to teachthat there are 360 days per year. Think on this for a moment - let ussay that Genesis really does teach a 360 day year and Enoch really doesteach a 364 day year? Should we then reject Enoch? Why should wereject the book that supposedly teaches contrary to reality over theone which teaches according to the way things actually are?30Moreover, if the book(s) of Enoch were really written by Enoch, theseventh from Adam as Jude says, then should we not test the writingsof Moses by Enoch's writings, not the other way around? This is anexample of how people will even reject claims which are in harmonywith material reality over against claims which are contrary tomaterial reality simply because their tradition causes them to believe itis true. This is how immaterialism affects the mind.

Not only does immaterialism cause us to accept views which arecontrary to reality and reject those which are reality, but it also causesus to view claims as something other than what they really are. Forexample, many assume that Genesis 7-8 demands a 360 day year. Isthis really true? Is this what Genesis demands? Or is that just an idea asto what Genesis is saying is that just someone's private interpretation?In reality, what Genesis tells us is that there was a period of 150 dayswhich spanned over 5 months (Gen. 7:11, 24; 8:3-4). This does let usknow that the months were 30 days on average, but it does not tell ushow many days each month actually had. Since months in Scriptureare determined by the moon,31 and since lunar months can rangeanywhere from 27(rarely)-31 days, it is entirely possible that thenumber of days for each of those fve months was something like 30-31-29-30-30 or some other similar confguration. Not only this, but

30 Some may here think, Wait a second, a year isn't 364 days long, it is 365.25 days long. This is true when calculating days according to sidereal time (the common modern method), which calculates a day by the rotation of the earth in relation to a distant fxed star. According to the Scriptures though, the day is measured by the earth's relation to the sun, not another star. A sidereal day is 4 minutes shorterthan a true solar day. Those 4 minutes added up over the space of a year make a full day. What this means is that it takes 365.25 sidereal days to cover the same amount of time as 364 solar days.

31 See Gen. 1:14; Ps. 104:19; Sir. 43:6; 1 En. 78:10, 12.


what Genesis is referring to is the number of days in connection withthe dates as set by the moon, not how many days are in a year, whichis set by the sun. This is all just to say that by immaterialism ruling inthe mind people fail to see what a passage is really saying and therebyenter into private interpretation. That private interpretation can thenbe set up in the person's mind as the meaning of the passage and thenif a claim comes along which contradicts their misinterpretation, evenif that claim is true according to reality, it will be rejected because ofthe false dichotomy between the two passages.

All of these examples highlight for us the importance of coming tounderstand reality as it truly is, not only with some things or someareas, but with all things and all areas. This can be accomplished onlyby a true education, which is a knowledge gained by thoughtfulexperimentation. Indeed,

Higher education is an experimental knowledge of the plan ofsalvation, and this knowledge is secured by earnest and diligentstudy of the Scriptures. Such an education will renew the mind andtransform the character, restoring the image of God in the soul. Itwill fortify the mind against the deceptive whisperings of theadversary, and enable us to understand the voice of God. It willteach the learner to become a co-worker with Jesus Christ, to dispelthe moral darkness about him, and bring light and knowledge tomen. It is the simplicity of true godliness-- our passport from thepreparatory school of earth to the higher school above.

There is no education to be gained higher than that given to theearly disciples, and which is revealed to us through the word ofGod. To gain the higher education means to follow this wordimplicitly; it means to walk in the footsteps of Christ, to practice Hisvirtues. It means to give up selfshn

the silver trumpet, vol. 1, no. 9

Documents