Sister White says: "the event so long doubted and disbelieved is seen to be approaching, and the third message will produce an effect which it could not have had before."

If "the event" has been "so long doubted and disbelieved" by those in whom the "effect" is later "produced", can we not then infer that the Three Angels' Messages were delivered or planted as seed in the unbelieving soul, prior to the commencement of the Sunday Law?

Consider the words of Jesus:

"And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.
And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours." John 4:36-38

Is it not the purpose of prophesy to sound the warning before, not after, the fact?
How much more force will the Third Message carry if it is delivered prior to the Enforcement of Sunday Law? Imagine the "effect" produced in the heart of someone who had "doubted and disbelieved", when they read the headline: "National Sunday Law To Be Passed".

It may "not be too late for SDA to boldly proclaim the 3AM" after the Sunday Law passes; however, just think of how much more powerful that same message will be, if "boldly proclaimed" beforehand!

The "effect" of the Third Message, is to germinate the seed already planted.
Should we not be sowing the seed of the Three Angels' Messages now, looking forward in Faith to the soon to arrive Harvest?

"The work which the church has failed to do in a time of peace and prosperity, she will have to do in a terrible crisis, under most discouraging, forbidding, circumstances. The warnings that worldly conformity has silenced or withheld, must be given under the fiercest opposition from enemies of the faith." Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 463

Are we, as a church failing, now?
And if we fail NOW, what assurance do we have that we will rally then?

The next sentence in the quote reads:

"And at that time the superficial, conservative class, whose influence has steadily retarded the progress of the work, will renounce the faith, and take their stand with its avowed enemies, toward whom their sympathies have long been tending.
Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 463


Now, before the crises comes we should be presenting the prophecies and where Sunday legislation will lead -- that it is striking directly against religious liberty.

Right now the papacy is garnering in a lot of sympathy and support as it is presented more and more as the "key" to bring peace into the world. When the crises erupts and people are looking to the papacy for that peace -- what then will be the general response to a message that says the solution is worse than the problem?

""If you have run with the footmen and they have wearied you, then how can you hope to contend with horses? and if in the land of peace wherein you felt secure, you are too weary, then how will you do in the swelling of Jordan?" [Jeremiah 12:5].

The time of trouble is before us, and if there is lack of courage and ambition now, how will they pass the fearful scenes of that trying hour? {15MR 331.1}

Now is the time --
before the emotions of crises
to outline the fulfilling prophecies

Who are the "conservative class" today? Hm....

"Conservative" in EGW's day had the original meaning of the word, which was a little different from our present day labels of "conservative and liberal".

Conservative class were the "cautious ones" who didn't want to "upset the status quo" but remain with "traditional ways" and patterns, and ways of doing things.

That meaning as related to Sunday issues -- would point to the class resisting giving any warning or message relating to the subject of the pope and Sunday laws, as it would "upset" the public and upset things.

Here is a revealing headline from Julie Pace, Associated Press:


"For GOP candidates, better to be with pope than against him"


Some gems from the article:

"I think he's going to lift people's spirits up," (Jeb) Bush said about the pope's visit to the U.S. "We're in a time where there's a lot of vulgarity and a lot of insults and a lot of just coarseness in our discourse. I'm not talking about politics, either. I'm talking about everyday life."

"And here's a man who comes with a gentle soul and I think it might be really healthy for our country to hear someone speak the way he does."

(So, the Pope will set the world straight on true morality??)


"...the timing of the pope's visit — in the heart of fall primary campaigning — and his own schedule will make politics difficult to avoid.

Francis will hold an Oval Office meeting Sept. 23 with President Barack Obama, who has highlighted areas where his agenda overlaps with the pope's priorities, including income inequality. The pope will speak the following day on Capitol Hill, where at least some of the focus will be on the reaction to his remarks from the presidential candidates sitting in the audience."

("FRANCIS WILL HOLD AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING"! Can you hear the deference to the Pope in the tone of the press? Isn't it President Obama's Oval Office? How is it that "FRANCIS WILL HOLD AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING" in Obama's Office??)

("...at least some of the focus will be on the reaction to his remarks from the presidential candidates sitting in the audience."
Does this sound like a veiled threat? Listen to the Pope or no more votes from fans of Francis!)



Pope Francis knows if he holds the hearts of the voters, he controls the politicians, the nation, and the world.

A book "Rome Stoops to Conquer" was written in 1935 by a former Jesuit, Dr. Boyd Barrett.

On page 3-4 he writes:

"For him {Pius XI who was pope at the time} our country (America) is a battlefield on which is being waged the greatest struggle of the Church's history. The conquest of America is the supreme objective at which he aims....Pius is well aware that the Catholic church can never hope again to dominate the civilized world until America kneels, beaten and penitent, at her feet."

Then the last paragraphs on pages 266-267

"The fight must be fought to a finish-- opposition must be worn down if it cannot be swept away. Rome's immortal destiny hangs on the outcome. That destiny overshadows the land.

Were Rome to fail to dominate American thought and American lives, her civilization, her moral code, all her glorious incredible dogmas would perish from the earth. Should Rome triumph, she will ascend to a higher state than ever she has enjoyed heretofore. Therefore she must win-- if it be given her to win what, as she claims, God has promised. Then will the vast West be hers wherein to set up anew her earthly kingdom. And in the fight, as she has ever fought when battles were most desperate in the past, Rome will use steel, and gold, and silvery lies. Rome will stoop to conquer."

I would say things are definitely going Rome's way!

James Peterson wrote;

"I am an SDA. But SDA have a great many false doctrines. I only wish to correct those false ideas. One of those false beliefs is that God is VERY angry because some people are worshiping Him on Sundays instead of Saturdays. "The truth will set you free" indeed."

James, when you say SDA, do you mean Seventh-day Adventist?

MM wrote;

"I ask over and over again because you bring it up over and over again. However, you have never truly, clearly answered the question."

APL simply tries to change the topic of this thread. APL's posts are clearly off topic.

APL, ProdigalOne's posts are clear and don't require any further explanation. Please, get back on topic.