Full transcript
0:10Those of you online who are joining us,
0:12we're about to begin.
0:18Let's open with a word of prayer.
0:26Holy God, we do give you praise and
0:28thanks
0:32>> that you would
0:34be with each of us.
0:38>> You know our humanity better than we
0:41know it ourselves.
0:48We pray that
0:52even though we may be troubled and
0:54concerned,
1:00>> we would allow everyone to speak their
1:03mind,
1:08share their thoughts,
1:11actually their concerns
1:14in Jesus's name.
1:17Amen.
1:30I received a question.
1:34It's a long detailed question.
1:47And
1:48why it's interesting
1:53is because
1:55the person believes they're asking
1:59questions
2:05intertwined or mixed in their question.
2:12is
2:14a whole list of thoughts and ideas that
2:18they already hold on to.
2:26So they ask questions.
2:30Then they'll say things like, "I think
2:38>> I think it is. I think it has.
2:45And
2:48they end their thought by saying this
2:58>> whatever
3:00I I'll say I'm teaching
3:06it puts God
3:08in a negative and ugly position.
3:15person doesn't think I'm doing it
3:17deliberately,
3:23>> but what I'm doing
3:25is creating disharmony
3:32quite frankly.
3:37The person is the the word that they
3:40used was disquited and that means
3:43troubled
3:50because of what I'm saying
3:54their soul is disquited which means they
3:57are troubled in their mind.
4:05So you can see
4:08we didn't actually go through through
4:09the questions that they've asked
4:15that these are not just questions.
4:20They have a system of belief
4:24which
4:26they believe I am troubling or
4:29disturbing.
4:34That's disharmony that's being caused.
4:39>> They had their own thoughts and ideas
4:45and because of what is being taught
4:50is not in harmony with what they think.
4:57Mind is troubled.
5:03So that's a a little bit of the
5:05background
5:08the question
5:11or questions that they're asking
5:16relatively.
5:19I'm just going to say
5:21common
5:26>> might be phrased slightly differently,
5:28but they're the same questions that
5:29people are continuing to ask.
5:38>> So
5:41after they
5:43ask some questions, make these comments
5:45and end with this troubled mind.
5:55They have an afterthought. They think
5:58something and then they write a second
5:59message
6:07>> and
6:08it's not quite a question, but there is
6:11a question in there.
6:17the rhetorical question.
6:21What I mean by that,
6:24they phrase a statement as a question,
6:30they already know the answer to
6:35that they already have an opinion about.
6:42So, you tell me
6:45if you agree
6:48with the initial premise of what they're
6:50going to say.
6:56>> I'll raise a little bit
7:03>> from the working definition.
7:08provided
7:18in it says earlier studies I'm just
7:21going to put in previous studies
7:32>> dealing with
7:34institutions
7:37Remember
7:39I said yesterday your homework is to
7:41understand institution
7:52>> as a noun
7:55and a verb.
7:58So I'm going to read the statement as it
8:02was given to me.
8:08I do that.
8:11>> I presume the studies that she's
8:15referring to
8:22that he is saying that they're studies
8:25that I have done.
8:31The question was to me.
8:36So he said
8:38you've done some studies
8:42and based upon those studies
8:48there's a working definition
8:54what an institution is
8:59and then it's so that's my paraphrase
9:02I'll read what the person said,
9:11>> "The working definition provided in
9:13earlier studies
9:20>> regarding institution as a noun and a
9:24verb.
9:29Pretty okay with that so far.
9:35Does anybody have a problem with what's
9:38been said so far?
9:44>> Everyone's okay. No one's got a problem.
9:49>> No one's got a problem.
9:53Don't you don't have to tell me what the
9:54problem is. Put your hand up if you have
9:55a problem.
10:01>> So, Glory has a problem.
10:04as does Monica.
10:06So, don't tell me what the problem is
10:08yet.
10:10We haven't even got to the question bit.
10:16the person who asked the question.
10:20Two people
10:22have got an issue with what you've said.
10:29And then they put a colon cuz they're
10:32going to make a point
10:37regarding institution as a noun and a
10:39verb. Colon.
10:46And then it's going to be broken down
10:47into three parts.
10:54>> Structure,
10:56>> mission,
10:59>> purpose.
11:03And in case I don't understand what that
11:06means,
11:10>> structure, mission, purpose.
11:15Going to give an explanation.
11:19Structure means organization.
11:34Mission
11:36means principle
11:42law.
11:46>> The purpose,
11:48job function.
11:57And the job function
12:00is a statement
12:06and
12:08a
12:10and real life
12:15because they might not be the same.
12:23Everybody okay so far?
12:26Now the question
12:29question is
12:32I
12:35they said seem but I think that they
12:38believe it's true.
12:48Why do we, which means me,
12:54>> seem to ignore
12:59>> number three.
13:05That's the question.
13:09To serve.
13:13Cool.
13:17the people of course.
13:21So
13:25there's a working definition
13:31that I presume I have provided
13:37in the questioner's mind
13:42in previous studies
13:47of what an institution is
13:52both as a noun and a verb
13:56and to explain that
14:00it's in three parts
14:04structure mission purpose
14:08and the question seems to infer
14:13>> did the structure Okay,
14:18>> mission seems okay.
14:21>> We
14:23>> I
14:25>> I'm teaching you
14:27to ignore our purpose
14:33and I think that means
14:37the purpose of the institution
14:41and the purpose is Obviously the job
14:45function
14:47which is to serve
14:52the people.
14:55I don't want to manipulate it. This was
14:57a comma.
15:08So
15:09either serving and calling is two
15:12separate things or they're the same
15:14thing.
15:22Monica,
15:23you had your hand up earlier.
15:39I don't know how you going to do it. One
15:41second. We've got to work out how we do
15:43this.
16:04how I understood the situation.
16:08>> If this is backwards if you do it this
16:09way,
16:11I think then you're okay cuz you're
16:15doing the German and the English.
16:19If I'm wrong, I'm
16:26Okay,
16:34>> we um define the word institution
16:41>> as a not noun not as a verb.
16:48>> Finished.
16:50Maria,
16:55>> that was the same thing.
16:56>> So,
17:00this is the preamble. This is the setup
17:02for the question
17:07and
17:10whether we think it's an important point
17:12or not an important point.
17:19questioner says the word institution is
17:24both a noun and a verb.
17:32And at least three of us
17:37room
17:38have picked up.
17:43>> Understand
17:46that the word institution is never a
17:48verb
17:52only a noun.
17:59Does anybody want to comment now?
18:03with respect to the setup of the
18:06question
18:11because if you believed an institution
18:13can be a verb. So it can be a noun and a
18:16verb.
18:23It would
18:27could
18:29change your theology.
18:33But if it's not a verb
18:37and only a noun,
18:40that would constrain your theology.
18:46The comment
18:54When you did a presentation for a US
18:57group,
19:02>> you gave three characteristics of an
19:05institution.
19:09>> Wait a second.
19:10>> Do you have to date for that?
19:14>> What was that? You have to date.
19:17>> Oh,
19:18>> you don't. Don't worry.
19:22It was June 12, 2026.
19:29>> Uh, it was part one. The title was
19:32people I guess do not make an
19:34institution or Yeah, it was
19:36>> just give me the presentation number
19:38>> three.
19:41>> Three.
19:41>> Three. Yes.
19:42>> Okay. Carry on, please.
19:44>> Um, yeah. And the three characteristics
19:47you gave was durable
19:51or staying in power,
19:56number two was structure or rules.
20:02And the third one was purpose or
20:05function.
20:20So, can you see that the questioner has
20:25picked up a study?
20:32Maybe it's this one because it looks
20:34similar.
20:38And at least has used two of the
20:42words that Gloria used
20:48define institution.
20:52I guess the one that's different is when
20:54it says mission and I had said
20:57durability.
21:09So
21:11let's begin sort of I guess simply
21:15if we can
21:19tell me what you think an institution
21:22is.
21:39Okay, I'll ask you a question then.
21:43Does the word institution mean the same
21:46thing every time?
21:52>> Yes or no?
21:56No.
21:58So she says
22:00I said
22:03institution can have can mean well I'll
22:07say can mean different things
22:12different properties
22:16ability structure purpose
22:22>> has to have different elements at least
22:29So maybe we would say an institution is
22:32durability plus structure plus purpose.
22:42>> So Monica said yes.
22:46I'm going to agree with her.
22:50Hopefully we all agree.
22:54So let's give a simple overarching
22:58definition. Then
23:03>> let's fix this
23:05so we have a a definition that works.
23:12Let's have a go.
23:23Mina
23:27Monica. Monica.
23:41I think there are two different main
23:44things how you can um define an
23:47institution or explain what an
23:49institution is.
24:00Institution
24:05is an organization
24:09>> like a school,
24:12a university
24:14or a hospital
24:26or a framework
24:29of rules and laws for a society.
24:40I'm going to take the word society out
24:46and put school there.
24:51School,
24:53>> the university,
24:55>> the hospital.
24:59the society
25:01that's the organization
25:04and then you said a framework of rules
25:09of the school of the university of the
25:11hospital of the society.
25:20So
25:23Monica has said an institution has two
25:26properties to it.
25:31organization
25:34>> and then the rules or laws.
25:46Anyone else?
25:50So I'm going to give one
25:55and it's much simpler.
26:00So there's a person
26:04and
26:08what they do
26:11is they set up
26:17some rules.
26:21Person says or a belief,
26:25an idea.
26:28So they set up some rules
26:33or an idea.
26:38I don't even mind calling it a mission
26:46or a purpose.
26:51This person is going to do something.
26:56When this person does this thing,
27:01is that an institution?
27:14Someone said yes. Charity.
27:18Anyone else?
27:23person said
27:26we will have to wear blue shirts from
27:27now on. That's the new rule.
27:36>> Is that an institution?
27:42Everybody listens.
27:47Is that an institution?
27:52Everyone's doing it. It's still not an
27:54institution.
27:58Then
28:01the person
28:04dies,
28:07no longer there.
28:10And everybody
28:15stops wearing the blue shirts cuz the
28:17person isn't there.
28:22>> Is that ever an institution?
28:26No. When the person now dies
28:30and everybody still wears blue shirts,
28:36is that an institution?
28:43Yes,
28:45>> because it now has the property of
28:47durability.
28:54It
28:54>> has
28:58something that endures.
29:03It's
29:03>> one of the key properties to an
29:05institution.
29:11This is part of
29:13not just the intellectual growth but the
29:16actual development of this movement.
29:25You follow if you follow what we've just
29:27said and you agree
29:34when did we become an institution?
29:551989.
29:58So we're in 1989
30:03and what is happening in 1989.
30:10>> We do that.
30:13>> Number two, step two.
30:17person dies.
30:20Extreme.
30:24So the person
30:29leaves,
30:32moves away.
30:37Do one more.
30:40>> I'm not trying to lead you.
30:45changes their mind.
30:51>> Say now it's red shirts
30:56and everybody keeps on wearing blue
30:59shirts.
31:03He achieved institutional status.
31:09Yes.
31:10So he's number one
31:14institution.
31:19No,
31:20>> he's number two institution.
31:23Don't look at the words on the right.
31:28Remember the blue shirt continues.
31:35>> Is it an institution that won? No.
31:40at two.
31:42>> Yes.
31:43Okay. 1989.
31:48>> Are we Are we at one or at two?
31:56>> We at one.
31:59>> Is one an institution?
32:04According
32:09to that, no,
32:13we may like to pretend we're an
32:15institution. We may romanticize by it.
32:20We may romanticize the idea.
32:29We're not really an institution.
32:35Then
32:36>> the person leaves
32:40>> when
32:43>> when do we become an institution?
32:49>> Put your hands up if it's 2019.
32:54Hands up if it's not 2019.
32:58Thank you, Lily.
33:01This is not 2019
33:09because what happens in 2019?
33:15We're back at number
33:19one. someone else stands up
33:26>> and then when they leave
33:31now where are we?
33:38>> So we're not an institution at 89 and
33:41we're not one at 19.
33:52Just shout the number out. The date
34:00>> Sunday law
34:02>> 2024.
34:05How many people do we have?
34:12How many people do we have?
34:21How many people do we have?
34:26>> None.
34:28There are no people. No, not one.
34:34>> They've all left.
34:38And what do we now have?
34:43You have permanency,
34:47>> durability
34:50because there are no people there
34:55gone.
34:57>> What we have now is the rules or the
35:00laws that are left.
35:07You have a question.
35:13As the question's coming up,
35:17>> the person
35:19set up some rules.
35:23>> When they left,
35:26those rules became permanent.
35:31And that's the definition of an
35:32institution.
35:37durable,
35:40unchangeable
35:44that happened when they left.
35:48If we want to be technical about how
35:51we're discussing this
35:55>> question,
36:04it's not really a question.
36:08>> It's just to be sure I understand.
36:18So when you said the person left and the
36:21institution remains the rule and laws
36:31to whom do you um talk about
36:37>> talk about Jeff and
36:42>> just to be sure that I understand what
36:44you're saying
36:51>> one correction.
36:55>> You said when the person left the
36:58institution remained.
37:08>> I I did not say when the person left the
37:11institution remained.
37:17So when they left
37:20the institution
37:22began
37:28so
37:37>> institution if I understand well
37:43is the rule
37:46>> and the law
37:48not the individual who are inside the
37:51institution.
38:02for the purpose of this
38:05for the purpose of this discussion.
38:12I don't know if it's yes or no,
38:16not about the people.
38:19>> You can create a model of an institution
38:24which I've already done before.
38:28where the people and the institution are
38:30symbiotic.
38:36>> The way the question is being asked
38:40and the answer
38:42is in that framework.
38:46If we think
38:49of those two people as a singular
38:52person,
38:56an ambassador from heaven.
39:00>> They changed their mind.
39:05>> They said Sunday law.
39:09>> Don't like that.
39:11>> We'll change it to equality.
39:14That's not durability.
39:19the transitory or a temporary idea.
39:26They're no longer there.
39:29There is nobody to change.
39:36That's why it can it can take on the
39:39properties of institutional of an
39:41institution
39:46permanent.
39:50What I've not considered
39:53is a possibility that they lied.
39:59But even if it was a lie, it can still
40:00be an institution.
40:07Someone says something,
40:11they leave
40:14and people continue to hold on to that.
40:17idea
40:22now endures
40:25is the property of an institution.
40:30Two people were Jeff, Elder Jeff and
40:32Elder Tess
40:37left.
40:39>> There's no possibility that they can
40:41change anything.
40:46Everybody said
40:48you have to consider them as a single
40:50person.
40:54They said one thing on Monday and they
40:56said another thing on Tuesday
41:02and then they left.
41:06Can't say anything else anymore.
41:11And then we say we'll take their last
41:13word.
41:17If you continue to accept it, believe it
41:24has the property of an institution.
41:28>> Primary one
41:30which is durability.
41:36permanency.
41:39You can't take the person out.
41:44>> The thing cannot continue,
41:49not an institution.
41:53That's why
41:58bunch means group, but it's a rude way
42:02of saying it.
42:08That's why this bunch of people
42:13>> since the Sunday law
42:16refuse to have a theological leader.
42:25>> Why there's no singular angel.
42:32If we had one,
42:35>> we could never be an institution
42:41not meet the criteria of durability.
42:48>> So the death of the angels
42:52was necessary
42:55in order for us to become an
42:57institution.
43:01durability.
43:04The problem is
43:07the discussion that we're having
43:11is that we are changing things.
43:16And if we're changing things,
43:19what does that tell you?
43:23We cannot be an institution.
43:26You cannot have it both ways.
43:31In theory,
43:34we had one person,
43:39two humans, literal humans,
43:43who changed their minds.
43:47The last thing that person said
43:53was equality.
43:56They left.
43:59And the people who believed them at the
44:02time,
44:06what did they continue to believe after
44:07they left?
44:12>> Same thing.
44:14>> Equality.
44:16And they said,
44:18>> "We don't need the person anymore.
44:22Just hold on to the message or the rule
44:26or the law.
44:31That makes us an institution.
44:36>> Is 24.
44:39And now
44:43there are murmurss or rumors
44:48amongst the believers,
44:52those people that Shmaine mentioned.
44:57who are saying
45:00>> the rule, the law, the message
45:06is being changed.
45:10>> And if you believe that
45:14in theory, the theory of it,
45:19>> how long did our institution last?
45:24who years
45:26>> 24 to 26
45:31>> now we don't have an institution any
45:33longer
45:35>> it keeps on changing
45:39and those who said oh in 24 how many
45:43people there were five
45:49you misunderstand and
45:54the reality
45:57of the mismatch
46:01between theory and real life.
46:07There is no elite.
46:10It's it's
46:14a shame
46:16which means it's shameful.
46:20It's a lot of shame
46:22to say that that we have some elite.
46:28Everybody who believes we have an elite,
46:33can they please agree
46:37that there is no institution?
46:43You cannot have it both ways.
46:47Cuz
46:50that's called cognitive dissidence.
46:55Leaving a lie.
46:59It makes you feel good.
47:03Either we
47:05have an elite and we're not an
47:07institution.
47:11We have a law
47:14rule
47:16that's locked away in the box and no one
47:18can change it.
47:24Can't change it. Blessing can't change
47:26it. Elder Terry can't change it.
47:32If we have that,
47:35>> I can't change it. If you want to, I'll
47:36add myself in.
47:40If you have that,
47:42you have an institution.
47:45Now, if you're mistaking
47:50all the nonsense that we're talking now
47:56with some change,
47:59in the rules, in the law,
48:03>> in the message,
48:07Then we can deal with a
48:09misunderstanding.
48:14That's different
48:17to saying
48:19we are destroying something.
48:23Cuz the only thing that's being
48:25destroyed
48:28isn't the Bible.
48:30We're not trashing the Bible,
48:34trashing the institution.
48:39If the accusation is correct,
48:54as we are talking about institution,
49:00um could you clarify for me
49:06uh our rules and Blue
49:12>> and also
49:17what make us an institution in 2024.
49:25>> What you just said as example um that
49:29the leader are gone
49:34and there is no ill elite. [laughter]
49:38There is only people who speak a new
49:41message.
49:43>> So two question.
49:45What are our law laws and rules as an
49:50institution
49:54and why 2024 the starting point?
50:02Get the mic.
50:13Can you just I know you don't like it.
50:15Can you just say yes or no
50:25>> for me to answer your question?
50:29It's a conceptual question.
50:34Please put the Bible aside for a minute.
50:42>> Excellent.
50:46>> This person
50:49which was two human beings,
50:53do we agree? The first one,
50:58>> person A,
51:01the first incarnation,
51:05they said something,
51:09but you all believed.
51:13But they said,
51:16did it endure?
51:20Was it durable?
51:24Did the person
51:27the next day
51:29change?
51:31Did they stand up and say,
51:36"Forget what I taught you yesterday. I'm
51:38teaching you something different today."
51:44Is that a fact
51:48or did I just make that up?
51:54I guess that question is to Shema, but
51:56anybody can answer if she's busy.
52:03Have I manipulated anything?
52:07Person
52:09is the ambassador
52:12>> on the heavenly kingdom.
52:17When they incarnated as a
52:24>> they called themselves Jeff.
52:27>> When they reincarnated themselves
52:31the next day they came as Tess.
52:39>> Same person.
52:41Did they change their mind?
52:48Can we say yes or we don't know or what?
52:52Talking about your history.
52:56>> Did the ambassador
53:00change their mind?
53:03They said, "Oh,
53:06I made a mistake.
53:10It's not Sunday,
53:12it's equality.
53:16We agree.
53:18So
53:20then the last thing they ever told us,
53:24you can put your hand down
53:27is equality.
53:30>> So Shmaine said, "What is the thing
53:36is equality?
53:39believed it
53:42when it was A
53:45and B. They just took us to different
53:48places
53:51and they left.
53:53And what did we end up holding on to
53:56when they left?
54:00>> Equality.
54:03Have we ever moved away from that?
54:08He said,
54:09>> "There's a new mission, there's a new
54:11theory, there's a new law, there's a new
54:13anything."
54:20>> Shmaine said
54:23>> yes to that question
54:26and all of you has said no.
54:30She says you have changed
54:33and you said there's no change.
54:38loss.
54:42>> Oh, do we?
54:48>> So, we haven't changed anything.
54:53>> If we become an elite,
54:57we would have had that person
55:01in the third incarnation.
55:05and we didn't.
55:09>> That's why we're an institution.
55:12If that's all true
55:16and why it happened in 24
55:22somehow or another,
55:29I'll say it this way.
55:33All of you
55:35said, "We will no longer follow a
55:37person.
55:40Will not do that ever again.
55:45Just worship
55:47the law."
55:50And the last law that he had said, it
55:52was just one word, equality.
55:58And he got put in a box so no one can
56:00touch it.
56:04I'm saying
56:06that's where we're at.
56:10>> Many of you are saying
56:14you're trying to break into the box and
56:17change that law
56:23to something else.
56:27>> And I'm saying no, we're not.
56:31Whatever you are seeing,
56:34we're not making any changes.
56:39And you're saying
56:41it looks like a big change.
56:46So big
56:48it looks different.
56:52>> I'm saying
56:54fair point.
56:58If you're correct,
57:00we don't have an institution.
57:05So you have to decide
57:09the elite
57:11who are teaching something brand new
57:16institution.
57:18I'm saying that's your choice.
57:22That's why this is so important.
57:31Who's who's doing who's sorting you out?
57:35You got to look. Come.
57:44Hello.
57:46Maybe
57:48if we have this thought that it's a
57:51brand new message.
57:55Please
57:56>> as a
57:58the teacher are not uh explaining thing
58:03in a simple language that we can
58:06understand what they're saying
58:12or ever
58:16um I don't understand we don't
58:18understand
58:21>> we are city maybe
58:25So which one?
58:44>> I was given two options.
58:49>> We're bad teachers.
58:53You're not very good students.
58:59One or both may be true.
59:04>> Is that what Shmaine said? The two
59:06options. Bad teachers, not very good
59:09students.
59:14>> That's what I heard.
59:16I want to
59:20I want to offer.
59:31>> I want to offer option three.
59:39We're not bad teachers
59:42and you're not ignorant students
59:48that the subject is more complicated.
59:56So
59:58I set up a very simplistic premise.
1:00:04>> Person
1:00:07institution
1:00:10>> a B
1:00:13>> Jeff
1:00:14>> test
1:00:17agree with that
1:00:19>> and then I'll just put Cit
1:00:23>> institution
1:00:26now what I said was
1:00:33what Jeff and Tess were teaching This
1:00:35person
1:00:40rad was radically different.
1:00:44You can say that.
1:00:46Didn't use the word radical.
1:00:51You may have inferred
1:00:55I said radical
1:00:58cuz I said they're very different.
1:01:02Sunday
1:01:04equality
1:01:07and there's no connection between the
1:01:09two
1:01:12unless you want to manipulate it.
1:01:17So
1:01:19what does radical mean?
1:01:25Root.
1:01:27So if we have to ask ourselves
1:01:33is equality
1:01:36>> radically different from Sunday law.
1:01:43Put your hands up if it's yes.
1:01:47>> Radically different
1:01:51shouldn't be.
1:02:03Is equality
1:02:08developmental change of Sunday law?
1:02:15>> Two options.
1:02:18>> Is it radically different?
1:02:22>> That means if you go right down to the
1:02:24roots
1:02:27These are two completely separate
1:02:30independent things
1:02:36>> or is it just a developmental change?
1:02:41>> Which one?
1:02:47So Glory initially said radical cuz it
1:02:50sounds radical.
1:02:54Now people are edging on to maybe it's
1:02:56developmental.
1:03:02If it's radical
1:03:05and he wasn't trying to trick you
1:03:09if I don't do it in steps,
1:03:13it's hard to learn.
1:03:17Person one and two
1:03:20was radically different.
1:03:24we would have had other problems.
1:03:29>> Not going to discuss them.
1:03:32I'll just do it a different way.
1:03:36Elder Terry has tal has spoken about
1:03:38what I'm about to say numerous times.
1:03:45>> Fourth commandment
1:03:48>> says what?
1:03:51About whom?
1:03:54>> Four things.
1:03:57>> Four beings.
1:04:00>> Maybe four. We'll see.
1:04:04You,
1:04:06your wife,
1:04:10>> your servants,
1:04:13>> your animals,
1:04:16four living things.
1:04:19And who's the boss?
1:04:22>> You. Who's the lazy one?
1:04:28>> You. Who does all the work?
1:04:31>> The other three.
1:04:34>> Six days a week.
1:04:37>> Cuz you don't work ever.
1:04:40Agree with that.
1:04:42>> You don't work 24/7.
1:04:46your wife, your slave, and your animals
1:04:49work
1:04:54>> seven days a week
1:04:58until
1:05:00there is a law implemented.
1:05:05And what's that law?
1:05:08>> What do we call the law?
1:05:10>> We call it a
1:05:12>> somethingic law.
1:05:18We're seventh day Adventist. We call it
1:05:22>> what law?
1:05:25>> A Sabbath law?
1:05:28>> And is that the correct title?
1:05:32No,
1:05:33>> because it's a what law?
1:05:39>> You will rest on Sabbath.
1:05:44>> You rest every day.
1:05:48>> The other three
1:05:50who work seven days a week,
1:05:55>> Monday
1:05:57in seven,
1:05:59>> they will be
1:06:04equal
1:06:06>> to you.
1:06:09It's not a Sabbath law. It's an equality
1:06:12law.
1:06:16Like
1:06:2014% of the time.
1:06:25How silly is that?
1:06:27will give you equality 14% of your life.
1:06:34>> Someone can check the 14%.
1:06:37This is not the 2/3 rule.
1:06:42This is now the 14% rule.
1:06:45Check the math before I go before it
1:06:47becomes solidified in movement psyche.
1:06:53What's the number?
1:06:55>> 14. Wow, look at that. So, this is now
1:06:59the 14% rule,
1:07:03>> equality.
1:07:05Then they said,
1:07:07>> let's do a de developmental change.
1:07:14>> And now it's what?
1:07:22>> No way.
1:07:24It's not 100%. Amen.
1:07:29>> What's the next rule? Law quality.
1:07:36>> How many people?
1:07:49Go back.
1:07:52>> You
1:07:55>> who are you?
1:07:58>> This one.
1:08:01>> How much equality do you get?
1:08:06>> All the time.
1:08:08>> The others don't get it.
1:08:13>> Number step two.
1:08:16It's
1:08:16>> not the 14% rule. It's now the
1:08:23>> How many had equality
1:08:25for 6,000 years?
1:08:37>> How many people were there at the
1:08:39beginning?
1:08:41How many had equality?
1:08:45The next day,
1:08:48one divided by two.
1:08:55It took us 6,000 years
1:09:00to get to 50% equality.
1:09:05Just the half already got it.
1:09:10That's the developmental change.
1:09:15If they can develop
1:09:17>> the same message,
1:09:20>> we can develop.
1:09:23And what are we now saying?
1:09:28Glorious
1:09:30100%.
1:09:34Cuz this was a
1:09:37I'll call it Sabbath.
1:09:40This was a Sabbath equality.
1:09:44We skipped some steps.
1:09:49>> This was a gender equality.
1:09:54This is a You can call it what you want.
1:09:59We call it a universal.
1:10:02I'm going to call it political.
1:10:11So if this is all true
1:10:16>> and we might like to romanticize
1:10:22that we're an institution
1:10:26at the time of the end.
1:10:29>> I don't mind romanticizing as well
1:10:34>> if you want to be serious.
1:10:38precise.
1:10:40>> The institution begins here.
1:10:45>> 24
1:10:48not here.
1:10:50>> 201819
1:10:53and not here
1:10:55>> 1989.
1:10:58You could make an argument
1:11:01>> that we've been in this in we have been
1:11:03an institution from that time.
1:11:10I wouldn't fight that.
1:11:14But I want to make the point
1:11:18that if we want to take institution at
1:11:21its purest
1:11:24um definition
1:11:292024
1:11:32and we said no more theological leaders
1:11:36ever again.
1:11:43If that's true,
1:11:46then we cannot be teaching anything new.
1:11:52It's just logically inconsistent.
1:11:57It looks like we are. It feels like we
1:12:00are, but we cannot be.
1:12:08Because if we are
1:12:10then blessing and courtesies have just
1:12:12stood up
1:12:16>> and they've taken the role of Jeff and
1:12:20Tess.
1:12:24>> They believe that.
1:12:27>> You'd be wrong to believe that.
1:12:33And if you did,
1:12:37everything that you ever believed has
1:12:39now just you just burnt and destroyed
1:12:46>> probation hasn't happened.
1:12:50I don't think we're even in the Sunday
1:12:52law
1:12:55and we've got a lot more work to do
1:13:01to the degree that I think we're doomed.
1:13:07>> You either have that scenario,
1:13:13>> you're willing to believe
1:13:17we're just not very good teachers.
1:13:22or you don't listen properly.
1:13:25>> We can manage that
1:13:31there's a disconnect.
1:13:36And if that's true,
1:13:38we shouldn't be saying
1:13:42things like we're destroying things or
1:13:45changing things.
1:13:49It can't be true.
1:14:01>> So I hear your argument
1:14:06but we can also you know um um interpret
1:14:11the uh situation differently but what we
1:14:15are seeing
1:14:20And that's why I told you um there is a
1:14:25we I I will talk to me. I I I I don't
1:14:28really understand.
1:14:32>> You said that there is not eliter.
1:14:36>> We don't have
1:14:38blessing or curtis who um who are
1:14:42teaching
1:14:48But what we are saying what see see what
1:14:51we are seeing
1:14:54>> is Blessin and Curtis who are uh
1:14:56teaching and you also
1:15:01the main teacher I mean
1:15:04so we can think who can been been led to
1:15:08think
1:15:12this these are the person who teach the
1:15:15message of the new covenant
1:15:18because it's a reality, you know,
1:15:23so I hear your argument.
1:15:28But when I take put it in our reality,
1:15:33I miss connection missing for me because
1:15:35I don't see it. Maybe because I don't
1:15:38understand it.
1:15:43Everything that you've said
1:15:48>> I agree with.
1:16:09Let me try it one more way.
1:16:17>> I've got Sunday equality then just No,
1:16:20I've got 14% 50% 100%.
1:16:29>> Just nod. Shermaine,
1:16:33you okay if I put Jeff
1:16:37Hess
1:16:39>> and us
1:16:45what Shmaine
1:16:48not malicious but what she subtly just
1:16:51did
1:16:55>> is the following.
1:16:59He said
1:17:01>> we
1:17:03are teachers.
1:17:07>> That she stated that
1:17:11what she inferred
1:17:14if she didn't say explicitly
1:17:19is that Tess was
1:17:22>> a teacher
1:17:24>> and Jeff was a teacher.
1:17:28And she says,
1:17:31"You're all the same."
1:17:36She said more than that, but I just want
1:17:38to stop it there.
1:17:42>> Now,
1:17:43I'm forced
1:17:47>> go to the Bible
1:17:50and use some poetic license.
1:17:55One of the things I want to clarify
1:18:01>> No, I won't clarify that.
1:18:05>> Hebrews chapter 7 and 8.
1:18:09>> We have someone
1:18:12>> who stands between God,
1:18:15>> the father
1:18:18>> and us.
1:18:20And they're called a mediator.
1:18:25and they have certain properties
1:18:29>> characteristics.
1:18:32So what I want to say is this
1:18:37>> and it's not new.
1:18:41Jeff
1:18:42was a mediator
1:18:48and Tess
1:18:50>> was a mediator.
1:18:54And I'm going to suggest
1:18:56that you all accepted that and believed
1:19:00it.
1:19:06>> And I don't know anybody
1:19:11with all respect
1:19:14that looks at Curtis
1:19:19and says he's a mediator.
1:19:23We trust him to mediate.
1:19:29>> I've never met anybody
1:19:32in the last two years that look at him
1:19:34like that.
1:19:40>> And if you have got itchy feet
1:19:45>> means you're excited
1:19:49>> to think
1:19:51that you might put blessing as a
1:19:53mediator.
1:19:58>> He looks nice
1:20:01and Curtis doesn't
1:20:05you would be a fool.
1:20:08And a third element,
1:20:13lest you all do something silly
1:20:18which you're inclined to do
1:20:22cuz you're like sheep without shepherds
1:20:27when the mediators left.
1:20:31>> Cuz you don't like worshiping laws that
1:20:34are in boxes.
1:20:42I say it this way because I'm going to
1:20:44blame you.
1:20:47>> You forced me
1:20:51to stop teaching
1:20:55become an administrator.
1:20:59If I kept on teaching,
1:21:03you would have begun to put me as a
1:21:05mediator.
1:21:10Stop that
1:21:13crying now.
1:21:16I was forced to stop teaching
1:21:21and hand it over to others.
1:21:27That's my version of the story.
1:21:32I think it's accurate to history.
1:21:39enter theology,
1:21:42enter prophecy,
1:21:45and
1:21:48all the bad teachers that we have now,
1:21:53not one of them cuz I'm an administrator
1:21:56now.
1:21:58So, those bad teachers are not doing a
1:22:00good job of explaining what I've just
1:22:02said.
1:22:08And as I've always said, don't blame
1:22:11yourself. Students,
1:22:15always bad teachers.
1:22:20So
1:22:24what I've tried to do, I didn't get
1:22:27through all of the questioner concerns,
1:22:33is to try to show
1:22:36this issue of institution
1:22:42complex.
1:22:44The more you look at it,
1:22:48we can pretend we've been an institution
1:22:50forever, but we haven't.
1:22:56And if you like me really believe we're
1:22:59an institution
1:23:01now,
1:23:04whether you like it or not,
1:23:08and blessing cannot be changing.
1:23:14has already been established
1:23:18>> because they don't have the key to the
1:23:21box
1:23:25the law or the rule is within
1:23:31what they can do
1:23:34is incremental development.
1:23:41We call it clarification.
1:23:45That's what Elder Test did.
1:23:51>> Last week,
1:23:54I'm going to call it presentation 13.
1:23:59>> 14.
1:24:03The class ended halfway through a
1:24:06thought.
1:24:11Curtis began laying out the Eden to Eden
1:24:14line
1:24:18>> cuz someone told him to do that.
1:24:23We began to see or discuss that
1:24:29off camera.
1:24:32>> I think it was off camera.
1:24:35We began to show
1:24:38as the reality set in
1:24:44that there is that there are big
1:24:47problems with the Eden to Eden line as
1:24:50it has been given to us.
1:24:56Problems
1:24:59require big explanations
1:25:05and what we have to not do
1:25:09is speak with inflammatory language
1:25:16which I tend to do. I apologize.
1:25:22So I won't call it big problems. The
1:25:25problems with the Eden to Eden line
1:25:32need to be understood and corrected.
1:25:38It does not destroy the concept.
1:25:44It's an incremental change.
1:25:49If you can see that,
1:25:52if Curtis or Blessing were to do that,
1:25:55finish that study publicly,
1:25:58I know
1:26:02we might all be able to see
1:26:07the essence of the issue.
1:26:12>> We're not destroying things. We're
1:26:13trying to build them.
1:26:19even though it doesn't look that way.
1:26:25This was my last class for this camp.
1:26:30A really good time.
1:26:32We've still got the whole of the week
1:26:34before us.
1:26:38And uh if you all can join me in prayer
1:26:45that Curtis and Blessing will continue
1:26:47to do the good work that they have been
1:26:49doing.
1:26:54Maybe we could even pray they do a
1:26:55better job
1:26:59of explaining these complicated things
1:27:04we're not fully grasping.
1:27:08And part of that prayer,
1:27:13in fact, this is my prayer, I guess,
1:27:16that you
1:27:20pray for yourselves
1:27:24and ask God to give you some
1:27:30some
1:27:32thoughts and ideas.
1:27:38You can cut these people some slack.
1:27:41And I explain what that means.
1:27:44That you can give them some grace.
1:27:50That it doesn't make sense what they're
1:27:52teaching.
1:27:55They actually do know that.
1:27:57They can see it. They hear it.
1:28:01Just give them a bit of time to explain.
1:28:08That does not mean don't challenge.
1:28:12If you don't challenge them
1:28:15strongly,
1:28:17the message won't develop.
1:28:22Let's do it in the right atmosphere and
1:28:24spirit
1:28:28and let's try avoid using
1:28:34things like
1:28:36atheist
1:28:38trash
1:28:42ignoring the Bible
1:28:46because we don't call you disobedient
1:28:48wicked people.
1:28:54Let's treat each other properly
1:28:59as prophecy demands us to.
1:29:04Let's pray. I'm sorry I went over time.
1:29:09Holy God, you've already heard my
1:29:12prayer,
1:29:15the teachers.
1:29:17And for those of us who are listening,
1:29:23we know that these things are
1:29:25complicated.
1:29:29Let us have faith
1:29:34in the belief
1:29:36that you have led this movement.
1:29:40You will continue to the end.
1:30:15that the truth will prevail
1:30:19in Jesus name. Amen.