As the doctrinal apostasy in our denomination increases, the moral standards continue to be lowered.

It should be understood that these changes have frequently been prompted by an interest in keeping wealthy members in the church.

But there is also a very definite concern to protect adulterous-minded ministers, who want to have their transgressions overlooked. More liberal changes in church policies tend to protect church pastors and executives who are involved in extramarital relationships or who want to leave their spouses and remarry.

Several times this year, we have discussed official attempts to lower moral standards. The liberalizing occurred on July 4, 1995, at the General Conference Session in Utrecht.

Prior to this time, in fact, throughout our denominational history, separation has been accepted, but not divorce. There is only one reason to divorce a spouse and that is sexual infidelity. The Greek word used in Matthew 5:32 is porneia. This word referred to any form of sexual contact out of marriage and would include: (1) Adultery/fornication, (2) sexual perversions that are acted out, such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilla. and incest. (See page 3for further discussion.)

Veloso was requesting the elimination of the above-quoted key sentence in paragraph 6 of the Church Manual

This motion by Veloso was made without any advance notification to the rank and file church members throughout the world! Not even the Biblical Research Institute was informed about this, or asked whether it was Biblical.

Unfortunately, after some discussion, the motion was pushed through to approval by the delegates.

That sentence was added to alert the reader that exceptions were listed in the subsequent paragraphs.

Because delegates were not informed prior to the presentation of this requested change at Utrecht, and because the delegates did not have a copy of the Church Manual in hand, they voted in ignorance, all the while trusting that their leaders would not lead them astray.

At this point, let us restate the matter so you can see it more clearly:

Veloso asked that divorce henceforth be permissible in all cases, and not reproved by the church for any cause. He gave as the reason for this, the fact that legal requirements in certain parts of the world made divorce necessary.

But that loophole had already been covered in the 1951, 1986, and 1990 editions of the Church Manual, Veloso's request was a decoy.

There was obviously another reason, which Veloso did not wish to state. That reason, of course, would be to make it easy for any member, worker, or pastor to divorce his spouse!

Why would no-fault divorces be desired? Because local churches have become so liberalized that they frequently accept anyone who remarries.

By getting rid of disciplining for divorce, the way is prepared for members and ministers to more easily divorce and remarry.

It is as simple as that.

Now, let us return to the Veloso motion:

As soon as Veloso made this motion, Meremoth E. Weir stood up and asked this:

On page three, we will provide you with a more detailed study on this matter of grounds for divorce and remarriage, and Gods concern that His church defend its purity.

Let us now turn our attention to the second significant divorce and remaining item at the Utrecht Session:

The rapidity of the official changes in our standards on morals is breathtaking. We have reported on them several times.

Gerald R. Winslow, head of the Religion Department at Loma Linda University, made the following motion:

Gerald Winslow then made his motion, and it was accepted and voted (op cit., p. 27).

He may have meant well, but appointments to this commission have been left to the General Conference to fill. That leaves us with several concerns:

First, past history has revealed that the General Conference leaders are able and willing to bypass and override a commission appointed to do a certain work:

Someone might ask whether it would be possible for General Conference leaders to decide such matters in advance, especially when such a wide representation of workers would be involved.

From our earlier analysis of the "Governance Commission," we can know that most of the decisions will be made by leaders at the General Conference and not by the commission! The commission will be presented with agendas and position papers which it will be asked to rubberstamp. If it does not do so, as occurred with the Governance Commission, the papers will simply be presented to the Annual Council as having been approved by the Governance Commission when they had not approved them! That is fraudulent, but it is done anyway.

Second, as soon as this motion to enact a study commission on divorce and remarriage was placed before the delegates, another worker, close to the General Conference, arose to present it with its first assignment.

In order to help get the forthcoming commission on the right track, Richard C. Osborn, a Columbia Union Conference leadership recommended the key item of business which the commission should take up! No shyness here. In the hearing of all the delegates which doubtless included most of those who would later be appointed to the new commission Osborn said this:

"Perhaps for the next General Conference Session, we try to develop some different strategies, so that the committees could begin taking into account the feedback from the local fields. Then revisions could be made by the Annual Council. and it could come here perhaps in a more edited form." Ibid.

Osborn's recommendation was clear enough: He stated his hope that the forthcoming commission would channel its recommendations through the Annual Councils, which in turn would "edit" them before presenting them to the Toronto Session in 2000. In fact, he asked that his recommendation be placed as an important item on its agenda.

So there will be a continual tinkering with morality standards for years to come. It is hoped that this Divorce and Remarriage Commission can withstand the demands of General Conference leadership, better than the Governance Commission could.

Al the present time, there have been local divorce and remarriage commissions in Southern California. the Pacific Union, Australia, and Southern Africa. Will a single, unified one    representing the entire world field    be able to improve the morality standards of our denomination?

It is the prayer of many that God will bless this worldwide committee, and enable it to maintain and clarify Biblical standards as solidly as the world delegates, gathered at Utrecht, stood by Biblical principles regarding women's ordination.

Jesus declared that divorce was not to be for just "any reason," but only for porneia, that is, sexual infidelity. That which the Utrecht delegates were enticed to approve was the silencing of the voice of stern rebuke by the church. It has become a dumb dog which will not bark on this matter.

The removal of church censure for divorce is a covert form of wholesale approval. It is wrong and unbiblical.

The Sermon on the Mount contains a related passage:

We all agree that there are times when separation may be necessary. Separation is not the same as a divorce. It does not empower one to remarry.

Also, we certainly agree that separation is not best if it can be avoided. But our people should draw the line at permitting wholesale divorces for any reason.

"And unto the married I command, yet not I. but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband. But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife.

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

"And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

"For what knowest thou, 0 wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, 0 man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"   Corinthians 7:10-16.

God never created the "irreconcilable differences," used by Israel's heathen neighbors and by moderns today. Instead, He said that "uncleanness" must exist (Deuteronomy 24:1). The Scriptures specify the types of faults which are acceptable for divorce. By the time of Christ, the Jews had changed this into a no-fault divorce ("for any reason," Matthew 19:3-8). But Jesus declared that divorce was not to be for just "any reason," but only for pamela; that is, sexual infidelity

It was Gods plan that when the pair married, they were to become "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Throughout life, each was to care for the other. Yet, as noted above, the Bible plan was that no-fault divorces were not right and not approved by the God of heaven; nor should they be by the church on earth. Judgment, based on fault, with documents to attest the church's decisions (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 5:31) remains church duty for every divorce by members of the church.

Not only Jesus but Paul sees divorce and remarriage as separate entities. In 1 Corinthians 7:11, Paul expects a woman who separated from her husband to remain single or be reconciled. Thus Jesus, Paul, and our civil laws give three marital states which God has given to the church to administer:

The others have already been quoted; here are the latter two verses:

Here are some of the recommendations:

Divorce can occur for any reason. In a postscript at the back of the report, it was stated that it would be "relying in part on human wisdom" to have mentioned any reasons for divorce.

Neither party is to divulge to others the marital infidelity of  his or her mate. This item will protect adulterous ministers who leave their wives, remarry, and are later taken back into the ministry.

The plan is for each party, during and after divorce, to remain in the church and in active church work, without church censure. After a period of time, during which it is recommended that each may receive some "counseling" by "a professional," each party may remarry with the church's blessing.

Thus we find that continued progress is being made toward an ultimate goal: to make sin easy to come by in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.