Ancient Bible Religion Study

Another Comforter -- A study on the Holy Spirit -- by W. H. Grotheer -- The designation of the Spirit of truth as "Another Comforter" reveals as no other name could, His relationship with Deity, and His work and ministry in the Plan of Redemption. But much study must precede the significance of this name since this designation was not given the Holy Spirit till one of the last books of the New Testament was written.

In reviewing the Seminar studies presented on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit at the Adventist Laymen's Annual Fellowship, the reader needs to clearly understand the preparation behind the presentation. We adopted the approach of William Miller as he began his study of the Bible. Sylvester Bliss in his Memoirs of William Miller quotes Miller's own explanation of how he began his investigation of the Scriptures. Miller stated: - I determined to lay aside all my prepossessions [presuppositions], to thoroughly compare Scripture with Scripture, and to pursue its study in a regular and methodical manner. I commenced with Genesis, and read verse by verse, proceeding no faster than the meaning of the several passages should be so unfolded as to leave me free from embarrassment respecting any mysticisms or contradictions. Whenever I found anything obscure, my practice was to compare it with all collateral passages; and, by the help of Cruden, I examined all the texts of Scripture in which were found any of the prominent words contained in any obscure portion. Then, by letting every word have its proper bearing on the subject of the text, if my view of it harmonized with every collateral passage in the Bible, it ceased to be a difficulty. In this way I pursued the study of the Bible, in my first perusal of it, for about two years, and was fully satisfied that it is its own interpreter. (p. 69)

After having read every text in the New Testament where the word, "spirit" or "Holy Spirit" is found, we determined that "spirit" is applied to different beings and forces at work in the world,and within man. Angels are designated as "ministering spirits." (Heb. 1:14) Demons are noted as "unclean spirits." (Rev. 16:13-14) A deep human emotion is based in what is termed, "spirit." (Mark 8:12)

p 2 -- presence, though the person is not present, is noted as being present in "spirit." (I Cor. 5:4)

This study was approached with one vital presupposition: The "form of God" in which Jesus existed prior to Bethlehem was SPIRIT for God is Spirit. (John 4:24) This SPIRIT exceeds that of angels for they are only "ministering spirits." (Heb. 1:14) This SPIRIT is immortal, eternal, and indestructible.

In noting each reference in the New Testament which referred to the Holy Spirit, we arranged the books of the New Testament in the chronological order in which they were written. [This review will not necessarily follow that format] This was done for two reasons: 1) The revelation which God gives is progressive; and 2) God in giving revelation limits Himself and the fullness of that revelation to the perceptive capacity of the human instrument who is willing to be the medium of revelation.

We asked ourselves why so little is known of the "nature" of the Holy Spirit? Then we asked ourselves why so little was perceived as to whom Jesus was until after the coming of the Holy Spirit? The answer to the second question helped us to perceive the answer to the first. Jesus came not to do His own will, but the will of God. (John 6:38) He came to glorify the Father. (John 17:4) He did not even come in His own name. (John 5:43) His was a life of selfless projection of the Father's glory - grace and truth. (John 1:14) Likewise the ministry of the Holy Spirit - He would not speak of Himself. He would glorify Jesus and the work which Jesus accomplished. (John 16:13-14)

The very first New Testament reference written in regard to the Holy Spirit clearly declares the Holy Spirit as distinct from a "power," per se. It reads: - For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit. (I Thess. 1:5)

[We shall use the word "Spirit" in place of "Ghost" in all quotes from the Bible.]

Many references in the New Testament which mention the Holy Spirit speak of His work in making effective for the believer the salvation provided alone in Jesus Christ. Examples of this can be found in II Thess. 2:13; I Cor. 6:11 and Titus 3:5. Further the Holy Spirit is set forth as a Teacher who searches the deep things of God. (I Cor. 2:10, 13) He bestows "gifts" as "He wills." (I Cor. 12:4, 11) He is the builder of the Church. (Eph. 2:22) He speaks. (I Tim. 4:1) He can be grieved. (Eph. 4:30) He can be insulted. (Heb. 10:29) He can be lied to. (Act, 5:3) All of these statements in regard to the Holy Spirit indicate not a power, nor a mere influence, but rather a Person.

The fourth book written of the New Testament canon (Chronologically) closes with a three-fold benediction - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." (II Cor. 13:14) Language cannot be clearer that the Holy Spirit is as much a Person as are either God or the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet in this same letter, Paul emphatically declares - "The Lord is that Spirit." (II Cor. 3:17) In this third chapter, Paul is contrasting the ministration of the letter under Moses, and the ministration of the Spirit under Christ. While declaring that the Lord is that Spirit, Paul differentiates between Lords in verse 18. Note it carefully using the margin which gives the literal Greek rendering. It thus reads: But we all, with open face beholding as in a

p 3 -- glass the glory of the Lord [Jesus] , are changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the Lord the Spirit. (3:18)

The close identification between "the Lord Jesus Christ" and "the Lord the Spirit" is seen elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul declares that Isaac was born "after the Spirit." (Gal. 4:29) Yet in noting the Old Testament account, the "Lord" who appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre said - "I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son." (Gen. 18:10) It was repeated a second time by the same "Lord." (18:14) In Hebrews, it reads - "The Holy Spirit saith" (3:7) - "the Holy Spirit . . . said before." (10:15) - yet both quotes are from the Old Testament. Gabriel told Daniel that the only One who held with him in "the scripture of truth" was "Michael your prince." (10:21) This is further illuminated in the Epistles of Peter. There we are told that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (II Peter 1:21) But in his first letter, Peter indicates that these holy men - prophets - "searched dilligently ... what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify." (I Peter 1: 10-11) Thus the New Testament closely identifies the Holy Spirit - the Lord the Spirit - with Michael the "Lord" of the Old Testament. TOP

Paul tells us that God sent forth TWO into the world. "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." "God [also] hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son" that we might understand Him as "Father." (Gal. 4:4, 6) This same duality and relationship appears in the symbolism of the book of Revelation. When the door was opened in heaven, John beheld the Throne of God, and before the Throne were "seven lamps of fire" which are declared to be "the seven Spirits of God." (4:5) Yet when the Lamb "as it had been slain" is introduced from"the midst of the Throne" with "seven horns (fullness of power) and seven eyes (complete omnipresence)", - these are declared to be "the Seven Spirits sent forth into all the earth."(5:6)

In the book of Romans, the setting forth of the Holy Spirit is concentrated in Chapter 8. The message there has been largely ignored. We have contrasted this chapter with Romans 7, and ended the contrast with 8:16, as if an entirely different subject began. While the first part of Romans 8 speaks of "the sons of God" resultant from the leading of "the Spirit of God" (8:14), there is yet another "manifestation of the sons of God." (8: 19) In this the Spirit has an important part to play. Though we have "the first fruits of the Spirit" (8:23), we still have the fallen sinful nature. This, the Spirit helps - our "infirmities." This is the same word as found in Matthew 8:17, designating what Christ took in taking upon Himself our humanity. It is also the same word as found in Hebrews 4:15 which tells the why of the compassion of the great High Priest, Jesus Christ. It is the Spirit that is to make intercession for the saints according to the will of God. Until "the redemption of the body" at the second coming of Jesus Christ, the saints can know they will have an intercessor at the Throne of God - the Lord the Spirit. While the Man Christ Jesus steps aside (Compare I Tim. 2:5 & Rev. 15:8), the Holy Spirit continues His ministry until the living saints are translated. TOP

In the synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - the Holy Spirit is pictured in direct relationship to Jesus Christ in two experiences - His birth and baptism. The conception is spoken of as "out of the Spirit." (Matt. 1:18, 20b: "of" is the translation of the Greek preposition, ek, literally, "out of.") Luke records the announcement to Mary by Gabriel of God in "flesh appearing." Gabriel stated: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy [spirit] which shall be born of thee shall be called the God. (Luke 1:35)

The word, "thing" is supplied in the KJV because the adjective "holy" is in the neuter gender. But this adjective is the same as the adjective describing "Spirit" in the same verse, and thus the missing word to be modified could likewise be the word, "spirit. " This concept is well stated in the Writings: "He (Christ) united humanity with divinity: a divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh." (4BC:1147) That "divine spirit" dwelling in a temple of flesh was called "the Son of God."

In Mark, there is a key reference to the Holy Spirit in relationship to the final witness. In Jesus' prophetic discourse, He stated: When they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but

So fully will God's witnesses be infilled with the Holy Spirit at that hour, that when they speak, the voice which comes forth will be the Holy Spirit. It will be the"manifestation of the sons of God" as foretold in Romans 8:19. And Jesus gives the time when this shall occur - "the gospel must first be published among all nations." (Mark 13:10) He also tells us where this witness will be given - in councils, in churches, and before rulers and kings. (13:9) TOP

The book of Acts could well be called the Acts of the Holy Spirit. In this book, the Holy Spirit is presented as One in full command of the Church, and its spokesmen, and as One functioning as the Vicegerent of the Lord Jesus Christ. The very introduction sets forth the role of the Spirit as the Vicegerent. Afer Jesus was taken up into heaven, "He through the Spirit" continued to give "commandments unto the apostles." (Acts 1:2) These apostles and others as "spokesmen" were "full of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 7:55; 11:24; 13:9) TOP

The Book of Acts presents the Spirit as in full command of the Church and its spokesmen. He speaks to Philip - "Go near and join thyself to this chariot." (Acts 8:29) Philip obeys, and another witness is born into the kingdom of God, the Ethiopian eunuch. Then the Spirit transports Philip to another place. (8:39) To Peter, as he meditated on the unusual vision he had received, the Spirit said, "Behold three men seek thee . . . I have sent them." (10:19-20) To the leaders of the church in Antioch, the same Holy Spirit said - "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (13:2) And Paul on his second missionary tour desired to go to certain areas to preach the gospel, but was "forbidden of the Holy Spirit." (16:6-7) Thus, the Spirit is pictured as functioning in His own right, as a Person directing the Church of the Living God.

The Book of Acts also reveals an experience which sets forth the Holy Spirit as God. When two members sought to deceive the Apostles, Peter said they lied "to the Holy Spirit. " Then he explains the extent of that deception - "Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." (5:3-4) The Holy Spirit is
not of the order of the created - men nor angels - but of the Uncreated - God. {To Be Continued.}

As we continue our study of the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, we turn first to the prison epistles - Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. The primary references are found in the letter to the church at Ephesus. There Paul sets forth the Holy Spirit as the builder of the Church. (Eph. 2:22) Then he specifically warned the church - "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (4:30)

In Hebrews, the Holy Spirit is portrayed as One who speaks. "The Holy Spirit saith" (3:7); and "The Holy Spirit . . . had said before" (10:15). The first quote is from the 95th Psalm, while the second is taken from Jeremiah. (31:33) The early church recognized that the Holy Spirit spake "by the mouth of David." (Acts 1:16) However, Jeremiah clearly says that what he wrote was a "Thus saith the Lord." (31:31) There is a relationship between the "Lord" of the Old Testament, and the Holy Spirit of the New. As noted in Part I, Paul declared - "Now the Lord is that Spirit." (II Cor. 3:17) We also noted the same picture in the epistles of Peter. Peter wrote that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (II Peter 1:21) Yet these men - prophets - searched "what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify." (I Peter 1:10-11) Peter also adds that this "Spirit" was "sent down from heaven" as a co-laborer with the Apostles as they preached the gospel. (I Peter 1:12)

The final writings of the New Testament - those of the beloved John - give a full revelation of the Holy Spirit which completes the picture and solves for us the problems intimated in the rest of the New Testament, occasioned by the Incarnation. In fact, the test by which we can know we are confronted by the true Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit is indeed guiding a professed messenger of the gospel involves the doctrine of the Incarnation. John wrote - "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God." And how do we know? "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come

There is in the first Epistle of John an interpolation which John did not write, but which those who hold to papal trinitarianism grasp as evidence of the Trinity. In I John 5:7-8, the words beginning with "in heaven" in verse 7, and ending with "in earth" in verse 8 appear in no Greek manuscript of the New Testament prior to the 11th Century. These words were first found in a Latin treatise of the 4th Century, and inserted into the Sacred Scriptures during the noonday of the Papacy. The verses should read: "For there are three that bare record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The book of Revelation while using symbolic language adds much to our understanding of the Holy Spirit. When the door was opened in heaven, and John was asked to enter, he saw a throne on which sat the Eternal One - He "which is, and which was, and which is to come." Before the throne were seven lamps of fire which are stated to be "the seven Spirits of God." (4:5) Then John beheld "a Lamb as it had been slain" with seven horns and seven eyes. These horns and eyes are declared to be the same "seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." (5:6) With the fulness of omnipotence, and the completeness of omnipresence, the Holy Spirit is sent forth into "all the earth." But the symbolism indicates that when the "Lamb" as the sacrifice appeared, the Spirit of God was so closely identified with the "Lamb" so as to be even as the horns and eyes are to an animal. TOP

This Spirit speaks to the seven churches. (Rev. 2:7, 17) Yet the messages are declared to be coming from Christ to the same seven churches. (Rev. 2:1, 8, etc.) There is one voice. The voice of the Spirit is also heard speaking of those who have heeded the Three Angels' Messages. (Rev. 14:13) First John hears "a voice from heaven" pronouncing a blessing; then comes the voice of the Spirit which was sent forth into all the earth - the same area to be covered by the angel messages. (Rev. 14:6) The same Person who directed the Church in its beginning as revealed in the Book of Acts also directs the giving of the final messages of God to earth's inhabitants. In fact, the New Testament presents the Holy Spirit as the new commander of the "ministering spirits" in the warfare between good and evil till earth's last hour, when Jesus himself shall return as Lord of lords and King of kings.

There is one final picture in the book of Revelation: - "The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." (Rev. 22:17) Even as Revelation pictures Jesus and the Spirit speaking as one voice so also does the bride of Christ and the Spirit speak ultimately as one voice. A question: Is this symbolism suggesting that even as the Holy Spirit consumated the Incarnation so that He might be one flesh with us, so also the same Spirit effects the "bride" of Christ so that she might be one spirit with Him?

We turn now to the final revelation in the New Testament concerning the Holy Spirit - the Gospel of John. Here Jesus is recorded as promising to give "another Comforter" to His followers on earth. (John 14:16) In speaking of this "Comforter" in relationship to Himself, He chose the word, allos, rather than heteros. Both words mean, another, in the Greek, but with a difference in the comparison. Thayer in his Greek Lexicon remarks "Every heteros is an allos, but every allos is not a heteros." (p. 29T To see this difference, we have only to note how these words are used in other New Testament references: Romans 7:23 - "But I see another (heteros) law in my members, warring against the law of my mind."

Acts 7:18 - "Till another (heteros) king arose, whi& knew not Joseph." TOP

Galatians 1:6-7 - "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another (heteros) gospel: which is not another (allos); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."

From these illustrations, it can be seen that allos distinguishes between two of the same kind, and which are on an equal level, while heteros denotes two of a different kind not on the same level. In other words, Jesus was saying that the Holy Spirit was of the same kind as He, but a distinct Being from Him. This is further illustrated in the fact that Jesus called the Holy Spirit, the "Comforter" (paracletos). In his first Epistle, John speaks of Jesus as "an Advocate" (paracletos) I John 2:1.

As Jesus continued the conversation in the upper room, He comforted the disciples with the assurance that He would not leave them orphans, but stated - "I will come to you." (John 14:18, margin) Though He had stated that the Holy Spirit was a distinct Person from Himself, He indicated that in the coming of the Spirit, He would be coming to them. The only way that I have found to express this relationship is to use the term - Alter-Ego. Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as a result of the Incarnation are in an Alter-Ego

John as he f urther reports that upper room conversation notes Jesus as referring to the Holy Spirit as "He" - "That One" (ekeinos). The text reads - "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He (ekeinos) shall teach ,you all things." (John 14:26) This same designation is used again by Jesus in John 16:7-8, 13-14. The Gospel of John clearly presents the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of truth, the paracletos - a distinct Being, the Allos of Jesus Christ even to the coming "in (His) name."

There is a final revelation we dare not overlook. It was the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary. The result: - Jesus - a new distinct Being - the God-man. In the final hour, there will be earth-people who, when demanded to testify for their faith, will open their mouths to speak. But they will not speak themselves, for being so fully possessed of the Spirit, it will be the Holy Spirit which will speak. (Mark 13:11) Then when all things are made new, the Revelation indicates that "the Tabernacle of God", even Jesus, (John 1:14, Gr.) will dwell with man, and "God Himself shall be with them, and be their God." (Rev. 22:3) Again Two as revealed in the Old Testament. But the same revelation in the same context declares the Holy Spirit speaking as one voice with "the bride." (Rev. 22:17) Is not this the same experience as recorded in Mark 13:11, which describes earth's final witnesses? Then could it not be suggested that "the bride" of Christ becomes in consort with the Lamb, the "third" in the picture as a result of the Incarnation, and the wonder of the Plan of Redemption? Even as the "how" of the Incarnation remains a mystery to angels as well as to man, so also "how" this ultimate plan of God will be accomplished remains mysterious. We only read, and wonder, and in faith say as did Abraham - "Amen." (Gen 15:6)

The word translated, "believed" in Gen. 15:6 is the Hebrew word, amin. In the Greek it is amen (verily in John 3:3). In English, we say - Amen (So be it).

Some idea of "the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" but is made manifest in the revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be perceived when one recognizes that "human beings were a new and distinct order." (R&H, Feb. 11, 1902) Man made "in the image of God" was "designed to be a counterpart of God." (R&H, June 18, 1895)

The significance of what this "counterpart" design of God is to be can be perceived in part by a comparison of Scripture. When Christ returns the second time, there will be two groups of the redeemed: 1) The "corruptible" - those who have died. These put on " incorruption." 2 ) The "mortal" - those who are alive on the earth - put on " immortality." Here is a significant word use in the Greek. The word translated, "immortality", here in I Cor. 15:53-54 is athanasia, and is used in only one other place in the New Testament also in Paul's writings. This other use in I Timothy 6:16 is in reference to God - "Who only hath immortality."

Truly Christ became one flesh with us that we might become one spirit with Him. In a special sense in the revelation which God gave to Him to show to His servants (Rev. 1:1), this applies to the group which that revelation designates as "the remnant of her seed," "the bride" of Christ - the 144,000.

This experience can only be ours in this final generation as we permit the mind of Jesus to be our mind. That mind calls for a complete emptying of self, the ekenosen of Philippians 2:7, which in the KJV reads He "made Himself of no reputation." The Greek reads - "But Himself, He emptied." End. TOP

1976 - A Letter and a Reply: -- Since the first Thought Paper was published in January, 1968, we have endeavored to keep each issue as free as possible of "personalities". What we have written which involved individuals was not regarding their personal idiosyncrasies, but only those acts for which all of us in responsible positions must stand accountable. We have at no time written behind one's back, but said what had to be said plainly and openly in a way which we believe that Christ would have said it. We do not profess to have achieved this objective perfectly, but we have tried to keep this goal ever before us.

When accusations and innuendos continue to be made behind one's back so that honest people might be deceived, it becomes necessary to speak forth so that the facts may be known, and that those persons who want to know, can know and make intelligent decisions in regard to the matter. The copy of the letter below is one exhibit of such behind-one's-back activity, and our reply follows.

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
6840 Eastern Ave. NW, Washington D. C.

I understand that (WWN) has been sending you some of his material from time to time. I happen to be on his mailing list, too. I understand from one or two of you men that you have been under the impression that this man is a Seventh-day Adventist minister in good and regular standing. I feel that it is the best thing for me to tell you that he is not a Seventh-day Adventist church member. He used to be a worker. He has been disconnected from the church for several years on what grounds I do not know, but his subsequent activities lead me to believe that the brethren must have had good grounds for separating him from the organized work.

p 2 -- He has set up his own organization, and he has done it in such a way that he can ordain his own ministers, grant them credentials, and do all of the other things that usually a church does. I think that the kind of material that he sends out is self-evident. If he were interested in the unity of the church and the preparation of a people for the coming of the Lord, he would not write in the caustic, critical manner in which he does.

I wish that you would warn the folk in your division and if he is sending his material out your way, you will know what to do with it. What a wonderful thing it would be if some of the people with mimeographs would direct their efforts into a finished work instead of pulling down.

Elder Robert H. Pierson, President
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Takoma Park, Washington D. C., 20012

Your letter dated February 26, 1976 which was sent to all Division Presidents and Division Ministerial Secretaries has come to my desk. It is sad that it came in a round about way, and that you did not manifest enough Christian courtesy to send me a carbon copy when you sent it to each of these men. Before publishing any issue that I might have with you directly, I have, as I am doing now, written to you prior to such publication. Further, what I have had to say in regard to your official actions in monthly thought papers, I have placed you on the regular mailing list so that you might know just what had been written and why it was written. I have documented the same so that it could be verified. This is not the case with your letter which contains gross misrepresentations.

In your letter you state "that the brethren must have had good grounds for separating
him from the organized work." The facts are that I took a voluntary leave of absence from the organized work. In a statement dated November 29, 1966, on official stationary, Elder H. H. Schmidt, President of the Southern Union Conference stated: - "This is to establish the fact that (this Editor) left the employ of Old Madison College and the Southern Union Conference strictly on his own, June 1, 1965. He was in good and regular standing as a denominational worker when he took this voluntary leave of absence." Not only has this statement been written, but my credentials were maintained until 1967 by the Southern Union Conference, when at the Session in that

p 3 -- year, they were allowed to "lapse". At no time have my credentials ever been taken from me, nor requested from me.

You also state in your letter that "he has set up his own organization, and he has done it in such away that he can ordain his own ministers, grant them credentials." Nowhere in our charter granted by the State of Mississippi, which is a public document by the way, nor in our By-Laws have we been granted the authority to ordain men to the ministry, neither have we attempted to do so! Our charter reads that we support that which is in harmony with "the tenets upon which the Seventh-day Adventist church is based, viz: the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White." We do have power to grant credentials to "any minister ordained according to the rites of the Seventh-day Adventist church." This was written into the charter so that any minister who seeks to speak forth against the evils prevailing in the church, and who can no longer receive support from the church because he chooses to so speak, may still continue to exercise his rights legally as an ordained minister of the Gospel.

My brother, if you cannot write honestly concerning your fellow men whom you can see, how can you write truthfully about Jesus Christ and the Father whom you have not seen?

In your letter you state that you do not know "what grounds" were given to disfellowship me from the church several years back. Has one of your division presidents been so derelict in his responsibilities that he did not inform you of the committee he appointed to hear the case, and did he not give you a copy of the report issued by the committee? Let me refresh your memory by outlining for you the facts involved. TOP

When the charter of the Adventists Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi was granted, action was forthcoming to remove me from the church roll on the grounds of insubordination as I was not recognizing properly constituted church authority. It was first attempted by board action alone, and then under pressure of the fact that such was not in keeping with the Church Manual, a business meeting was called for the purpose. At this business meeting, attended by the local conference president, action to disfellowship me was taken without me being able to speak in my own defense as is guaranteed in the Church Manual. Interestingly, also, is the fact that not another single board member of the Foundation at that time, and none since, have been called in question as to their membership. If I were in "sin" because I was a member of the board, then were not all members of the same board also in "sin"?

So I appealed the unScriptural and unconstitutional action taken. A committee of administrators, pastors, and laymen was set up, who came to Mississippi to hear the case. They issued a report entitled -"(WWN) Hearing Committee". Among the recommendations made was that the Foundation be dissolved and that"any assets of the Foundation be paid over to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and an accounting be given of prior receipts and expenditures." In 1972, I was totally unaware that you and other church leaders were playing in the legal "crap game" the world uses with the money the laity entrusted to you. (I use the term, "crap game" because that is how a Seventh-day Adventist layman in good and regular standing, and who is himself a stock broker, described the transactions of the stock market.) Now let me assure you that at no time has the Foundation had enough money to cover the paper and/or real losses sustained by your administration in the stock market. Further, at no time have we had enough money to invest in such a game, and even if we did, we would not play the stock market. We believe that the funds placed with the Foundation are a sacred trust to be used in harmony with the will of God for this time so that His

Now there are other aspects of this Committee report that you may not know. In a letter from one of the members of the committee after the hearing, I was told that if I met the conditions noted in the above paragraph, and others such as personally recognizing myself as no longer a minister of the Gospel, then I could be restored to church membership "on a basis different than would be in the case in most circumstances." This was explained verbally to me by the individual to mean that I would not need to be rebaptized, nor make a profession of faith. Now let the implications of this fact sink into your thinking. Further, I received a letter from still another member of the same hearing committee which stated -"On several occasions he [Elder L. L. Bock, the chairman] made it emphatically clear that whatever the problem was, it was certainly not in the area of theology."

Now let us do a little reasoning together. You know that I was once a minister in the organization -some twenty-five years holding regular credentials, the prime years of my life. From your viewpoint, I am now a lost sheep of the house of Israel. Have you as the first minister of the church as you style yourself, adopted a shepherd's role, and made any attempt to find the "lost sheep"? If I am in a lost condition, should you not seek to rescue me as you encourage your ministers to seek the lost in the world? Did not Christ die for me, as well as for them? Is my soul of no value to you? Or are you afraid if we sat down together, you could not defend the heresy and error you have placed your imprimatur upon?

Elder Pierson it is time that you come clean with truth, and not continue to hide behind assumed ignorance and misrepresentations in dealing with your fellowmen for whom Christ died as well as you.

May the Lord help you to be intellectually honest and forthright, and what I request for you of the Lord, I ask likewise for myself.

P 5 -- COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS -- It is written - "We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God." (Counsels to Writers, p. 28) Note the list of the early pioneers who searched for truth as for hidden treasure: "My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of time in 1844, searched for truth as for hidden treasure." (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, p. 56)

Now take special note: - "In all the land saith the Lord; TWO PARTS therein shall be cut off, and die; but the THIRD PART shall be left therein. God says He will bring the THIRD PART through the fire, and refine them. They shall call upon Him, and He will hear them. He will say IT IS MY PEOPLE; and they shall say the LORD IS MY GOD." {Sic. - see Zech. 13:8-9.] First part, Sardis, the nominal church or Babylon. Second part, Laodicea, the nominal Adventist. Third part, Philadelphia, the only true church of God on earth, for they ask to be translated to the city of God. Rev. iii.12; Heb. xii.22-24. In the name of Jesus, I exhort you to flee from the Laodiceans, as from Sodom and Gomorrah. Their teachings are false and delusive; and lead to utter destruction. Death! Death! eternal DEATH!!! is on their track. Remember Lot's wife. Joseph Bates, Fairhaven, Mass., Nov. 10, 1850. (This is from the Review & Herald, November 1850, p. 8, published in Paris,Me.)

Some have written regarding a question which was asked in the thought paper for May, 1974 (VII -5). It read: "Could it be that the beast of Revelation 17 is the prophetic symbolism of the first beast of Revelation 13 in its 'healed' state?"

This should have read -"Could it be that the woman riding the beast which comes from the 'bottomless pit' is the prophetic symbolism of how and in what combination the first beast of Revelation 13 will appear in its 'healed' state?" Babylon the great -the Harlot of Revelation 17 -is composed of three sectors (Rev. 16: 19) rather than just the Papacy as is represented by the first beast of Revelation 13. The beast of Revelation 17 is "the eighth, and is of the seven", not "seventh." This beast underlies all seven. See Testimonies to Ministers, p. 62 for the identification . Inasmuch as we are studying the book of Revelation in the Sabbath School, it should be noted that the lesson on this subject for the third quarter will give another interpretation to this prophetic symbolism. The lesson states: "From another vantage point this beast of chapter 17 is seen as the image to the beast in Revelation 13." (See Lesson 7. p. 56) - TOP

Further Background Information on Zaire -- "At the time of our little visit today I should like to tell you something about a rather unusual development in the Trans-Africa Division. That portion of Africa formerly known as the Congo is now the country of Zaire. Early in the year 1972 the General Conference officers received a letter from Elder M. L. Mills, president of the Trans-Africa Division, which gave information concerning recent developments in the Zaire Republic as it related to our denominational work. Apparently President Mobuto had become dissatisfied with the proliferation of religious sects in the country, and the government adopted a procedure to reduce the number drastically. The new law required that all religious groups be registered , with the government with the exception of three; namely Roman Catholics, Kimbangists (a purely Zaire oriented church) and the Church of Christ [CCZ]. The new law laid down certain regulations for any other church organization which might wish to function in the country. One of the requirements in connection with the application for recognition was a deposit of 100, 000 Zaires (the unit of local currency) in a bank in the country of Zaire. This amount represents approximately six months of the Seventh-day Adventist church's operating budget in the entire country of Zaire. The General Conference officers advised the Trans-Africa Division to make the deposit, and in due course, recognition was given to the Seventh-day Adventist church in this country." -- From a letter dated, September 25,1972, signed by J. C. Kozel, Assistant Treasurer of the General Conference.

This information raises some very important questions that are left unanswered in this letter, or in the Review and Herald article on the subject dated, October 19, 1972.

1. Was the deposit returnable? Under what conditions? Has the money been returned since new regulations of the government placed our church as a "community" in the united Protestant Church of Christ of Zaire (CCZ)?

2. Or was this deposit like a performance bond? If our "community" as one of the groups in CCZ refuses to take part in the organic union called for by the president of CCZ, will the deposit be forfeited?

3. Has the deposit been placed into the operating budget of CCZ, since we agreed to become a part of the united Protestant Church of Zaire (CCZ)?

Unless the questions concerning the events in Zaire are clearly answered and documented, one wonders if the price of a "sell-out" has risen somewhat in the past 1900 years from thirty pieces of silver to 100,000 Zaires!

See January, 1973 thought paper special entitled "A Cover-up?" for a review of the report from the Review & Herald as compared with a report in Christianity Today. --- END --- TOP

From a WWN Letter To a Reader -- RE: Lakes of Fire -- Now to your question in regard to "the Lakes of Fire." There are two lakes of fire in prophetic symbolism. The term -"the lake of fire" -while a literal experience at the close of the 1,000 years, is also the terminology for the final, eternal, and irrevocable judgment of God against all elements and factors that had their source in sin - even death and hell (grave). See Rev. 20:14. It is declared to be the second death. Now in the light of this, note Rev. 19:20 - only the beast, and false prophet were cast in prior to the 1,000 years. These prophetic symbols are representations of systems not individuals. Thus at the second coming of Christ, these systems end, never more to be resurrected - they are consigned to "the lake of fire." Only the dragon of the triumvirate -because he is not only a system, but an individual spirit or angel acting behind the system remains for the Lake of Fire after the 1,000, and then he is consigned where the beast and false prophet "were" assigned. The "are" of the KJV is supplied. See Rev. 20:10.

After the 1,000 years, the wicked are no more either Catholic, or Protestant - these are gone forever, and to the minds of the unsaved are totally discredited. They had turned on the Woman. See Rev. 17:16-17. But the dragon marshals in person the nations - Gog and Magog. To him, to whom through the beast and false prophet all had been caused to worship in one great deception, they now lend their allegiance as the only possible way out of their dilemma. Then the end comes as they come to take the city.

I believe that this fits the picture completely as given in the Word, and the Great Controversy. If you have further questions, or objections, I shall be most happy to give due consideration to them. --- END --- TOP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 98-2940-CIV-KING

GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS and GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH- DAY ADVENTISTS, an Unincorporated Association,

Plaintiffs,
vs.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
RAPHAEL (RAFAEL) PEREZ, d/b/a
ETERNAL GOSPEL SDA CHURCH, ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF LAYMEN SEVENTH DAY AMENTISTS, IGLESIA ADVENTISTA DEL SEPTIMO DIA DEL EVANGELIO ETERNO, ETERNAL GOSPEL INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, and RAPHAEL PEREZ, JULIO OCHOA, ANDRES ROMAN, WILFREDO PINELA, ANTONIO PRADO, directors of unincorporated association

p 2 -- currently known as the ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, and MINTSTERIO ADVENTISTA DEL SEPTIMO DIA DEL EVANGELIO ETERNO, INC, (ETERNAL GOSPEL Of THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST MINISTRY, INC,), a dissolved Florida corporation, and ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF LAYMEN SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, a Washington state Corporation Sole,
Defendants,
~~~

1. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1121 and 1128 and pursuant to 38 U.S.C.§§ 1331, 1337, 1338, 2201 and 2202.

2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 13 91 (b) .

3. Plaintiff, GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS is a corporation of the District of Columbia, having its principal place of business at 12501 Old
Columbia Pike, Silver Sprinq, Maryland. The Plaintiff GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS is an unincorporated association and is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Plaintiff GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPOPATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS is the corporate eiitity established by the Seventh-day Adventist Church to hold title to the spiritual church's assets and to serve the spiritual church in carrying out its purposes. The Plaintiffs will be referred hereafter as "Plaintiff."

4. The Defendant Raphael Perez is the managing agent and minister of THE ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS (hereafter "Defendant's church"), an

p 3 -- Line Missing -- TOP

Defendant MINISTERIO ADVENTISTA DEL SEPTIMO DIA DEL EVANGELIO ETERNO [1] , and the sole shareholder of ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF LAYMEN SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, a Washington "sole" corporation. The other Defendants named in the amended complaint have not been served and Plaintiff is proceeding without their being served. The Defendants will be hereafter referred to as "Defendant."

5. The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. provides that no person shall, without consent of the registrant, use in commerce any trademark if "such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive." Id. at § 1114(l)(a).

6. Terms which may be registered as trademarks fall into four categories of strength (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; or (4) arbitrary. American Television v. American Communications, 810 F.2d 1546, 1548(11th Cir. 1987); University of Georgia Athletic Ass'n v. Laite, 756 F.2d 1535, 1540 (11th Cir. 1985) "'Generic" terms are those which name "'the genus or class of which an individual article or service is but a member." "Descriptive" terms "identify a characteristic or quality of an article of service." "Suggestive" terms suggest characteristics of the goods and services and "require an effort of the imagination by the consumer in order to be understood as descriptive."' "Fanciful" or "'arbitrary," terms are words or phrases that bear no direct relationship to the product, Generic terms represent the weaker end of the spectrum and arbitrary terms reprezent the stronger. Vision Ctr. v. Optiks, 596 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1016, 100 S.Ct. 668, 2 L.Ed.2d 646 (1980).

7. Generic terms may never be registered as trademarks under the Lanham Act. 15 U.S..C. § 1052(e). Descriptive terms may not be registered as trademarks under the Lanham Act, unless the holder shows that the mark has acquired "secondary meaning." 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), (f); Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc Group Inc., 724 F.2d 1540, 1549 (11th Cir. 1984); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 10 (2d Cir. 1976). Proof of secondary meaning in a trademark requires a showing that the mark has become distinctive of the trademark holder's product or services.

8. Five years after registering a mark, the holder may file the affidavit required by § 1065 and have its marked declared "incontestable." 15 US.C. § 1065(3). Once a mark has become "incontestable," its validity is presumed, subject to certain enumerated defenses set out in 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (b). [2] Park 'n Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985). Dieter v, B&H Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc., 880 F.2d 322, 327(11th Cir. 1989).

p 4 -- 9. The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1) provides the Plaintiff in a trademark infringement action has made a prima facie case if the Plaintiff shows first that its mark is valid and second that the Defendant's use of Plaintiff's mark is likely to cause Confusion. Determination of likelihood of confusion requires analysis of seven factors (1) type of mark, (2) similarity of marks, (3) similarity of the products and/or services the marks represent, (4) similarity of the parties' retail outlets and customers, (5) the similarity of advertising media used, (6) Defendant's intent and (7) actual confusion. Dieter v. B & H Indus. of South West Florida, Inc., 880 F.2d 322, 326 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950, 111 S.Ct. 369, 112 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990). TOP

10. In order to establish a likelihood of confusion all factors do not have to be resolved in favor of the Pliaintiff. Safeway Stores, Inc. Safeway Discount Drugs Inc,, 675 F2d 1160, 1167 (11th Cir. 1982). Applying the seven factors to the evidence in this case, the Court finds Plaintiff's and Defendant's marks are (1) trademarks utilized on identical religious "products" and service marks used in conjunction with identical religious "services," (2) the marks are patently similar due to the Defendant's utilization of Plaintiff's entire SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark, (3) the Church related products, Church services and Church titles are vastly similar, (4) the church attending people ("customers") of both parties are believers in Seventh-day Adventism, (5) the advertising is similar through publications, church signs and radio broadcasts, (6) Defendant's intent is apparent from Defendant's prior knowledge of Plaintiff's SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST name, and (7) actual confusion, though unnecessary to prove, is evidenced by newspaper articles reflecting confusion in the minds of those attending church services of both entities ("customers").

11. The underlying purpose in considering similarity of marks (factor [2] ) as an indicator of
likelihood of confusion is that the closer the marks are, the more likely reasonable consumers will mistake the source of the product (or service) that each mark represents. The probability of this potential confusion is the touchstone. Freehling Erterprises, Inc. v. International Select Group Inc., 192 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1999). In the instant case, the words Eternal Gospel Church suggest they represent but a single church of Plaintiff's many Seventh-day Adventist Churches and designate Plaintiff as the source of products and services. The inclusion of Eternal Gospel Church in the title Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh Day Adventists does not reduce the danger of potential confusion in light of the overwhelming similarity of the marks.

12. To establish secondary meaning, the owner of

p 5 -- First line is missing -- TOP

primary significance of a term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, n.11.

13. The issue of whether a term has acquired secondary meaning is a question of fact. In determining whether a term has acquired secondary meaning entitling it to trademark protection, the following factors must be considered: (1) length and manner of its use; (2) nature and extent of advertising and promotion; (3) efforts made by the Plaintiff to promote conscious connections in the public's mind between the name and the Plaintiff's product or business; and (4) extent to which the public actually identifies the name with the Plaintiff's product or venture. Conagra, Inc. v. Singleton, 743 F.2d 1508, 1513 (11th Cir. 1984).

14. The mark "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" was registered (Reg. No. 1,177,185) as a trademark and a service mark by the Plaintiff with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 7, 1980 and Plaintiff has filed an affidavit of use of the mark as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1058 (a) and said registration is now valid. The validity of the registered mark and of the registration, and the Plaintiff's ownership and exclusive right to use said mark in commerce are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 and 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (b) as Plaintiff has filed the required affidavit with the Commission of Patents and Trademarks. Dieter v. B&H Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc., 880 F2d 322, 327 (11th Cir. 1989). The Plaintiff's registration covers religious books, magazines, pamphlets, newsletters, brochures, encyclopedias, dictionaries, commentaries, fliers, bulletins, yearbooks, booklets and bibles; for establishment and administration of employee health care and benefit programs and medical insurance programs; for educational instruction services in academics at grade school, high school and college level; for film production and distribution services; for health care services, namely hospital, pharmaceutical, nursing home and medical laboratory services; and for conducting religious observances and missionary services, church services, namely rendering ministerial and religious counseling services.

15. on July 2, 1998, the Plaintiff registered (T98000000764) the mark "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" in Florida under Chapter 495, F.S. § 495.181, F.S. requires that ". . . in construing (the Florida statute) due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal courts relating to comparable provisions of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq)." TOP

16. Defendant Raphael Perez was a member of a Seventh-day Adventist Church of Plaintiff in West Palm Beach,

p 6 -- Florida. He, along with approximately 40 to 50 other mernbers left Plaintiff's Seventh-day Adventist Church in West Palm Beach, Florida in 1991 to form his own church (Defendant's
Church.) During 1991, and 1992 Perez attempted to gain admission for Defendant's Church into Plaintiff's Southeastern Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church ("SEC"). During 1991 and 1992 when Defendant's Church was attempting to join the SEC, the Defendant Perez operated the Defendant Church using tho Plaintiff's name "'SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" and Plaintiff"s acronym "SDA" in connection with radio broadcasts in Florida. In 1992 officials of the SEC told Perez that he would not be able to gain admission into the SEC unless he ceased his radio broadcasts criticizing the Catholic church. Perez refused to agree to this condition of admission and was denied admission to Plaintiff's SEC.

17. Perez then attempted to join the Florida Conference (another Conference of the Plaintiff General Conference). He and his church were again denied admission due to his refusal to stop the anti-Catholic radio broadcasts.

18. The Defendant's Church never gained admission into the Southeastern Conference or any other Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Defendant Perez did not gain employment, ordination or licensing as a minister of the Southeastern Conference or any other conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

19. Prior to the time Defendant began using "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" and Plaintiff's acronym "SDA" he knew of Plaintiff's use of "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" and Plaintifffs
acronym "SDA."

20. Since 1992 Perez has continued to operate the Defendant's Church in West Palm Beach, Florida. His church sign currently says "'ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF SEVENTH DAY
ADVENTISTS." Defendant's Church sign is confusingly similar to the signs of Plaintiff Seventh-day Adventist churches, Perez has continued his radio broadcasts identifying his
Church as a Seventh-day Adventist church. Beginning in 1994 Perez has run newspaper advertisements throughout the United States under various names incorporating the name "'SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" and Plaintiffts acronym "'SDA" to wit: ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, ETERNAL GOSPEL SDA CHURCH, ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF LAYMEN SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST, IGLESIA ADVENTISTA DEL SEPTIMO DIA DEL EVANGELIO ETERNO and ETERNAL GOSPEL INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS. The Defendant has used Plaintiff's mark in connection with churches, church services, religious services and observances, church signs, newspaper advertisements, newspapers, fliers, billboards, and audio tape recordings and on radio broadcasts. The Defendant's Church is listed in the section of "Seventh-day Adventist Churches" in the West Palm Beach telephone directory. TOP

p 7 -- 21. Defendant's uses of Plantiff's mark are likely to and have resulted in confusion and damage to the Plaintifffs reputation.

22. In the present case Plaintiff's trade name, trademark and service mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST is at least suggestive and at a minitnum is descriptive (not generic). The words "seventh-day" alone define Saturday as the seventh day of the week, but alone do not suggest keeping the seventh day holy within the total doctrines and tenants of Plaintiff herein. Similarly, the word "Adventist" alone defines the Coming of Christ but alone does not suggest the specificity
of Christ's coming within the total doctrines and tenants of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Finally, in combination the words "Seventh-day" and "'Adventist" suggest the two concepts (Sabbatarism and Adventism) noted herein, but though suggesting these two concepts, none describe other requisite statements of belief which distinguish the Seventh-day Adventist Church, through the use of the suggestive name SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST, from other "Sabbatarians" and "Adventists." The mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA are clearly suggestive (but at a minimum are eminently descriptive (not generic)). Persons who are members of the relevant public recognize the mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's legally eqiaivalent acronym SDA as an indication of source or origin, namely, a name identifying the services and products of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the marks should be protected without proof of secondary meaning.

23. However, even if the Plaintiff's registered mark is "merely descriptive" since it is "incontestable" under 15 U.S.C. § 1065(3) and has gained secondary meaning it is valid and enforceable.

24. Plairitiff's trade name, trademark and service mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA have acquired secondary meaning through the continuous usage thereof from 1860 forward (well prior to Defendant's first use in 1992) and, as such, the names SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA must be protected fully as if the names were strong at inception. Evidence of the distinctiveness of Plaintiff's marks begins with the adoption of SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA over 139 years ago, and the continuous and uninterrupted use of SEVENTY-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA to date as
the name of Plaintiff and its products and services. The mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST is used in Plaintiff's denominational, corporate and trade name (Seventh-day Adventist Church) and in all of its Union Conference names, its local conferences, and virtually all of its Seventh-day
Adventist Churches throughout the United States. Plaintiff's mark has become distinctive as a result of the large number of people who have been ministered and served through it's churches and publications, its schools, colleges and

p 8 -- Line Missing -- TOP

the mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA. Through members, workers, ministers and pastors and associated health and education programs, media centers, publishing houses and the publications thereof, the mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA have become famous and synonymous with the good will and quality of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Plaintiff has expended considerable effort and expense over the last 139 years in promoting its mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA and the products and services associated therewith, and consequently the mark is entitled to broad protection.

25. In evaluating a claim of secondary meaningo consumer surveys are recognized as the most direct and persuasive evidence of secondary meaning. Investacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Investment Banking Corporation, 722 F. Supp. 719 (S.D. Fla. 1989) ; Schmidt v. Honeysweet Hams, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 92 (N.D. GA 1996) .

26. The Roper Survey conducted by Plaintiff's expert witness Harry O'Neill in the summer of 1999,
established Plaintiff's use of its mark has resulted in the general public in the United States identifying the words "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" with the Plaintiff Church. Further, the Roper Survey showed that the Plaintiff's mark has achieved secondary meaning in the minds of the general public throughout the United States as identifying the Plaintiff Church. Two prior surveys conducted by the Gallup Organization in 1970 and 1986 also support strong identification in the minds of the public between tho mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and the Plaintiff Charch.

27. The Plaintiff's acronym "SDA" has obtained secondary meaning with the Plaintiff and the use thereof by the Defendant will cause confusion. Accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to enforce its common law rights to the acronym "SDA." Automated Productions Inc. v. FMB Maschinenbaugesellschaft mbH & Co., 34 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1505 (N.D. Ill. 1994). TOP

28. The Defendant also use the Spanish name "MINISTERIO ADVENTISTA DEL SEPTIMO DIA DEL EVANGELIO ETERNO" which contains an exact translation of the English trademark "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST." Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, the marks are confusingly similar. Popular Bank of Florida v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 1998).

29. Florida's "anti-dilution" statute [3], provides for injunctive relief if it appears that there exists a
likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods and services. Safeway Stores, Inc. v.

p 9 -- Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160, 1168 (11th Cir. 1982); Freedom Savings and Loan Association v. Way, 757 F.2d 1176, 1186 (11 Cir. 1985); Abner's Beef House Corp. v. Abner's Int'l Corp. Inc., 227 So.2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1969).

30. Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's mark has created both a likelihood of cosfusion and actual confusion and injury to Plaintiff's business reputation and dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiff's SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST name.

31. The Defendant has raised the defenses that (a) Plaintiff is estopped on a theory of "issue preclusion'' by virtue of the prior judgment in General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship International, Incorporated, U.S.D.C. CD Calif., Case No. 87-8113 (hereafter referred to as the "Kinship case"); (b) Plaintiff is estopped by virtue of actions taken by the Southeastern Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist church which permitted Defendant to use the mark; (c) the Plaintiff's mark is "generic" and not entitled to trademark protection; (d) Defendant' use of the Plaintiff's mark is a "fair use" of the mark; (e) that the use of the mark by the Defendant' is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

32. In the Kinship case, the Plaintiff sued to enjoin Seventh-day Adventist Kinship Internatinal,
Incorporated (hereafter "SDA Kinship") from using the name "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.'' SDA Kinship was a group that provided support for gays and lesbians. The Court in Kinship denied the Plaintiff's claim for trademark protection based upon a finding that Defendant SDA Kinship did not use the name "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" as the name of a church. TOP

33. The Kinship opinion finding, that the term "Seventh-day Adventist" is generic when used by a gay support group, is distinguishable from the case at bar where Defendants use "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" in their church name, church publications, radio broadcasts and newspaper advertising. The Kinship couut opinion supports an analysis that "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" is not generic when used as a church name and in connection with religious services and religious publications.

34. Had the Court in Kinship found "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" to be generic for the classes of goods (publications) and services (religious observances, i.e. churches) protected by Plaintiff's registration, the Court necessarily would have canceled Plaintiff's Reg. No. 1,177,185 under 15 U.S.C. § 1119 which reads:

"In any action involving a registered mark, the court may order the cancellation of registrations, in whole or in part

p 10 -- and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the registrations of any party to the action. Decrees and orders shall be certified by the Court to the Commissioner, who shall make appropriate entry upon the records of the Patent and Trademark Office, and shall be controlled thereby."

35. The Kinship Court did not order the cancellation of Plaintiff's Reg. No. 1,177,185, as is
evidenced by the certified copy of record (Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit No. 154), which duly notes on the face thereof that the registration is valid. The Kinship decision and the absence of an order of cancellation by the Kinship court do not support Defendant's allegation of genericness.

36. The contemporary historical evidence does not show that the term "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" was generic, i.e. established as the name of either the religious faith or its
followers prior to 1860. The Review and Herald documents and other historical records of the period show the persons and congregations that formed the "Seventh-day Adventist Church" in 1860 were not known before 1860 by the name "Seventh-day Adveritist." Prior to 1860 no church was named "Seventh-day Adventist." Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Reid and Defendant's expert, Dr. Colin Standish, both testified that the persons who shared a belief in the second coming of Christ (the
Advent) and that the Biblical Sabbath should be observed (the seventh-day) had no common name but were referred to by many names. The term "Seventh-day Adventist" is only found in three documents prior to 1860. These de minimis references do not prove that prior to 1860 either the faith or followers were commonly called or known as Seventh-day Adventists. TOP

37. The Court finds that "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" has not become generic. The Plaintiff's surveys, as well as its use of the name, convince the Court that most of the public identifies "'SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" as the name of the Plaintiff Church and not a religion. Whether "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTTST" is generic when used to refer to a religion, does not answer the question of whether it is generic when used as a church name by the Defendant Church. See Christian Science Bd. v. Evans, 520 A. 2d at 1360 (Garibaldi, J. dissenting). The Court finds that when used as a church name "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" is not generic.

38. The Defendant began use of the Plaintiff's name while the Defendant was attempting to become admitted as a member church of the Plaintiff. The defenses of laches and acquiescence should not arise from the use while Defendant was seeking admission to the Plaintiff's Southeastern Conference. See National Board of Young Women's Christian Association v. Young Women's Christian Association of Charleston South Carolina , 335 F. Supp. 615 (D.So. Carolina 1971) and cases cited therein, where the Court found that a religious organization is entitled to protection agains the use of its name by those who secede from the organization. The YWCA court found that use of the name while the Defendant was affiliated with Plaintiff accrued no rights to use the

p 11 -- name -- The Rest of the Line is Missing --

39. The laches defense requires proof of three elements: (1) a delay in asserting a right or claim; (2) that the delay was not excusable; (3) that the delay caused the Defendant undue prejudice. A Court must also consider the public's interest in the trademark. Thus, even though a Defendant might suffer some prejudice, the public interest in avoiding confusion might out weigh that prejudice. Conagra Inc. v. Singleton, 743 F.2d 1508, 1517 (11 Cir. 1984).

40. The mere passage of time does not constitute laches unless the passage of time is shown to have lulled Defendant into actions in reliance thereon. Friend v. H. A. Friend and Co., 416 F.2d 526,533 (9th Cir. 1969); John Walker & Sons, Ltd. v. Bethea, 305 F. Supp. 1302, 1311 (DC SC 1969).

41. Plaintiff allowed Defendant to use its mark conditionally and on a limited basis in 1991-1992 when Defendant was attempting to gain admission to Plaintiff's SEC. Defendant's used Plaintiff's mark on the radio in Florida in 1991-1992. Plaintiff advised Defendant it could no longer use Plaintiff's mark in 1992 when it denied Defendant's application to join the SEC. Defendant began its newspaper ads in 1994. This case was filed in 1998. The Court finds no inexcusable delay by Plaintiff or undue prejudice to the Defendant. TOP

42 . Acquiescence is an equitable defense that denotes active consent by a senior user to another's use of the mark. The difference between acquiescence and laches is that laches denotes passive consent and acquiescence denotes active consent. Coach House Restaurant v. Coach and Six
Restaurants, Inc., 934 F. 2d 1551 (11th Cir, 1991). The defense requires proof of three elements: (1) the senior user actively represented that it would not assert a right or a claim; (2) the delay between the active representation and assertion of the right or claim was not excusable; and (3) the delay caused the Defendant undue prejudice. Sun America Corporation v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 77 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 1996). The absence of one element of the acquiescence defense is sufficient to deny the equitable relief requested by the Defendant. Coach House Restaurant v. Coach and Six Restaurants, Inc., 934 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1991).

43. The Plaintiff's Southeastern Conference permitted Defendant's use of Plaintiff's mark on the radio in 1991 and 1992 while the Defendant was attempting to gain admission to a Plaintiff's Southeastern Conference. When Plaintiff denied the Defendant's admission into the conference the Defendant knew he no longer had Plaintiff's permission to use Plaintiff's name. The record does not

p 12 -- support Defendant --- The Rest of the Line is Missing --

44. However even if proved, the defense of acquiescence is not absolute. Upon a showing that
"inevitable confusion" arises from the continued dual use of the marks, a senior user's claim may be revived from estoppel. The purpose of such a revival is to vindicate the public interest in avoiding inevitable confusion in the marketplace. The public interest in preventing confusion around the marketplace is paramount to any inequity caused the junior user. SunAmerica, 77 F.3d 1325, 1333.

45. The Court finds from the evidence that Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's mark has and will cause inevitable confusion which can only be effectively avoided by the Court enjoining the Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's mark.

46. Section 1115(b)(4) of the Lanham Act authorizes non-trademark use of a descriptive term only where the term is "used fairly and in good faith." The holder of a protectable descriptive valid mark has no legal claim to an exclusive right in the primary, descriptive meaning of the term; consequently, any one is free to use the term in its primary, descriptive sense "so long as such use does not lead to customer confusion as to the source of the goods or services." Zatarians, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir. 1983). It is the Defendant's burden to prove that its use is (1) not as a trademark (2) done fairly and in good faith and (3) only to describe to users its goods. Burger King Corporation v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, 705 F. Supp. 1522 (S.D. Fla. 1988). TOP

47. The fact that the Defendant's use of Plaintiff's mark has lead to actual confusion precludes
Defendant from establishing a "fair use" defense.

48. Defendant's use of SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA in its church name(s) and radio and newspaper advertisements is a service and trademark use, because they are each an identifier of source or origin.

49. The very intent in Defendant's adoption of the name SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST is to tell the public who the Defendant is, namely, an identifier of source. Furthermore, Defendant's good faith is at issue: its choice of these phrases when other phrases were readily available indicate a clear intent to trade on the good will and product identifier of Plaintiff. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984)

50. Defendant intentionally used "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" and Plaintiff's acronym "SDA" as an origin-indicating mark and, accordingly, Defendant's fair use defense fails.

p 13 --
51. Defendant cannot claim that it will suffer hardship from an injunction against the use of the mark SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and Plaintiff's acronym SDA as a trademark and service mark where it adopted and expanded the use of these terms with full knowledge of Plaintiff's longstanding use and prior rights. TOP

52. It is well established that religious institutions are entitled to the protection of the trademark
and unfair competition laws to the same extent as commercial enterprises and enforcement of the trademark statute does not abridge the religious freedom rights of a religious group that is infringing on a church's trademark or service mark. Purcell v. Summers, 145 F.2d 979 (4 Cir. 1944); National Board of YWCA v. YWCA of Charleston, S.C., 335 F. Supp. 615, 617, 624 (D.S.C. l971); Interbank Card Ass'n v. Simms, 431 F. Supp. 131, 133 (M.D.N.C. 1977); Jandron v. Zuendel, 139 F. Supp. 887, 889 (N.D. Ohio 1955). As the Court in National Board YWCA stated:

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a religious organization from owning property - and a trademark is a property right - or prohibits the government from protecting that property from unlawful appropriation of others. By granting to a religious organization the exclusive use of a name, the Patent Office only deprives other religious groups of the use of that particular name, and such grant does not deny such other religious organizations the opportunity to establish competing groups having the same purpose but with different names. YWCA at p. 624-25.

The Court finds that enforcement of Plaintiff's trademark rights will not violate any constitutional rights of the Defendants. Employment Division v. Smithe, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED the Defendants and all of their owners, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, their heirs, successors and assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them shall be enjoined from using, the designation "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST," the Spanish equivalent "ADVENTISTA DEL SEPTIMO DIA," and Plaintiff 's acronym "SDA" or any other word or words confusingly similar to Plaintiff's mark or infringing Plaintiff's mark or competing unfairly with Plaintiff through the use of any word, symbol or device confusingly similar to Plaintiff's mark or any copy or colorable imitation thereof.

DONE and ORDERED in chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United States District Courthouse, Miami, Florida, this 27th day of April, 2000. TOP

Signed: James Lawrence King, United States District Judge

p 14 -- cc: Robert E. Pershes, Esq.
Jeffey Tew, Esq.
--------

[1] The Spanish equivalent of ETERNAL GOSPEL CHURCH OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS.

[2] The defenses to an incontestable mark are: (1) obtained fundamentally; (2) abandoned; (3) allow others to use the mark so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services; (4) non-trademark use, used fairly, used in good faith, only to describe the goods or services of such party; (5) lack of knowledge of regrestrant's prior use; (6) prior use of non-registered user's marks; (7) used to violate antitrust laws of U.S.; (8) mark is functional; and (9) equitable principals, including latches, estoppel and acquiescence are applicable.

[3] F.S.§ 495,151

Every person, association, or union of workers adopting and using a mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement may proceed by suit, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant injunctions, to enjoin subsequent use by another of the same or any similar mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement if it appears to the court that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement of the prior user, notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of the confusion as to the source of goods or services. --- END --- 2002 TOP