The Wall That Made America Great and The Prophecy That Ends It

September 3, 2026 Gary Blanchard



Were Daniel and his three friends disobeying God when they refused to bow to the golden image, and when Daniel refused to stop praying to anyone but the king for thirty days?

Years earlier, the prophet Jeremiah had spoken to the children of Israel. He told them the Babylonians were coming and that, rather than resisting, they should “put their necks under his yoke.” In other words, they were to submit to Babylonian rule. This was not merely Jeremiah’s opinion. As a true prophet, he delivered a directive that came from God Himself:

“If, however, any nation or kingdom will not serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon or bow its neck under his yoke, I will punish that nation with the sword, famine and plague, declares the Lord, until I destroy it by his hand. … But if any nation will bow its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will let that nation remain in its own land to till it and to live there, declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:8, 11, NIV)

Jeremiah repeated the same message to King Zedekiah: “Bow your neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon; serve him and his people, and you will live” (Jeremiah 27:12).

So why, then, did Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) refuse the king’s command in Daniel 3, and why did Daniel himself refuse the king’s decree in Daniel 6? On the surface they appear insubordinate to the very authority God had told His people to accept. They would not bow to the golden image when commanded, and Daniel would not stop praying to God when ordered to petition only the king for thirty days.

Their response in the furnace episode is clear:

“King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Daniel 3:16-18, NIV)

Daniel, knowing the decree had been signed, continued his lifelong practice of praying three times a day with his windows open toward Jerusalem (Daniel 6:10).

SabbathRest: Final Line of Liberty | Promotional Video (Tim Rumsey)

Pathway to Paradise Ministries

Jul 28, 2026  

The Final Line of Liberty is a timely Bible prophecy weekend event designed to help people understand the connection between the Sabbath, Sunday legislation, religious liberty and the freedom of conscience, so they won’t be deceived in the final moments of earth’s history. The Final Line of Liberty is a turn-key weekend event your church can host with confidence. With ready-to-use seminar tools, promotional resources and a clear presentation format, sharing this timely message becomes simple and accessible. Premieres October 8, 2026.

Learn more and register as a host site at https://www.finallineofliberty.com

The Footprints of the Jesuits by R. W. Thompson.

The civil institutions of the United States could not have been formed without the separation of Church and State, and could not continue to exist if they were again united. Christianity could not maintain its primitive purity if politics and religious faith were mingled together; nor could the State preserve its capacity to provide for the general welfare if subjected to the dominion of ecclesiastical authority. Our success as a nation is mainly attributable to the fact that these sentiments are deeply imbedded in the American mind.

A party pledged to restore to the pope the temporal power which the Italian people have taken away, must necessarily be politico-religious in character, because it proposes to interfere with the temporal affairs of one of the European nations. And if the attempt to do this is justified upon the ground that such restoration involves religious duty, any one can see that the obligation is the same in the United States as in Italy, for the laws of God do not shift to suit the exigencies of human affairs.

In the times before the Reformation the temporal affairs of Governments were required to conform to the commands of the ecclesiastical authority—that is, the pope—and it was held to be a necessary and essential part of religion that this union should be continued, no matter what might be the degree of popular ignorance and humiliation. The founders of our Government started out upon a different theory, believing it to be[Pg 4] their duty to separate "the things of God" from "the things of Cæsar," so that each could reach perfection in its own distinct sphere. Therefore, it is clear that a politico-religious party in this country, pledged to unite Church and State in Italy, against the expressed will of the Italian people, not only must oppose one of the fundamental principles of our Government, but disturb the public peace.

To my mind it is also clear that a nation acts politically, and not religiously, when it decides upon the structure of its temporal Government—that is, whether its affairs shall be managed by an absolute or elective monarch, or by machinery provided by a written constitution. I have, therefore, refrained from the discussion or criticism of religious belief—as it is understood in the American sense—any further than it is made the pretext for the reversal of this opinion, so generally prevalent in this country. It would be an evil day for the people of the United States if they should be persuaded to permit any power whatsoever, whether temporal or spiritual, at home or abroad, to share with them any portion of their political authority, or to dictate, in any degree, the measures of their civil polity.

Liberty of Conscience Threatened | The Great Controversy | Chapter 35 | Lineage

SDA Showdown: Is Self-Defense Biblical? Randy Skeete's Peacemaking vs. C...

Finding True Courage: Truth & Liberty in Today's Church w/ Conrad Vine

Liberty of Conscience Threatened

Chapter 35: Liberty of Conscience Threatened

Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!

The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments. [564]

Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the "church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err" (John L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century II, part 2, chapter 2, section 9, note 17), how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages?

The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.

A well-known writer speaks thus of the attitude of the papal hierarchy as regards freedom of conscience, and of the perils which especially threaten the United States from the success of her policy:

"There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church.

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.' The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious [565] worship,' also 'all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.'

"The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.'. . . The archbishop of St. Louis once said: 'Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.'. . .

"Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: 'Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'"—Josiah Strong, Our Country, ch. 5, pars. 2-4. [SEE APPENDIX FOR CORRECTED REFERENCES.]

Roger Williams founded Providence R.I. in 1636 as a refuge for those seeking religious freedom

AI Overview

Roger Williams founded the settlement of Providence, in what is now Rhode Island, in 1636 as a refuge for those seeking religious freedom and fair dealings with Native Americans, establishing a colony based on the principles of separation of church and state and individual liberty of conscience. Though banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his views, Williams purchased land from the Narragansett Indians and created a haven for diverse religious groups. He is celebrated today through the Roger Williams National Memorial and the city of Providence.

Founding Providence

Religious and Political Banishment:
Roger Williams, a Puritan minister, was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 for his ideas that the state should not dictate religious beliefs and that land should be purchased from Native Americans rather than confiscated.

Establishment of Providence:
With a few followers, he founded Providence at the headwaters of Narragansett Bay, purchasing land from the Narragansett Indians and naming the settlement after "God's merciful Providence".

Liberty of Conscience:
The settlers formally agreed to hold "Liberty of Conscience," making laws only in civil matters, which allowed Providence to become a haven for various religious groups, including Baptists, Quakers, and Jews.

Roger Williams's Legacy

Champion of Religious Freedom:
Williams was a staunch advocate for religious liberty, separation of church and state, and fair treatment of indigenous peoples.

Inspiration for Future Generations:
His ideas about freedom of conscience and separation of church and state greatly influenced the founders of the United States, laying the groundwork for the First Amendment.

Memorial and Recognition:
The Roger Williams National Memorial is located in Providence, commemorating his life and the founding principles of the city and colony.

AI Mode

The Decadence Party: Idiocracy, Dopamine & Mental Death

Conscience & Justice Council Speaker Promotes Social Justice for LGBTQ

August 10, 2025 NewsHound


The Conscience & Justice Council formed around 7 years ago. It is a collection of SDA individuals, (mostly PARL directors) who share an interest in progressive social and cultural issues. Under the guise of promoting religious liberty they often promote social justice causes. Based on the provided reference, the organization was active in 2018, as evidenced by their convention held from September 13-16, 2018, in Houston, Texas.

This presentation on LGBTQ+ by Olive Hemmings is from the 2023 Conscience and Justice convention which took place on September 28-30 at the North American Division.

Hemmings says, near the end of her presentation:

(1:14:42) “They face challenges in the world because their gender does not match their orientation. Put yourself in somebody else's shoe just for a little minute. That's what we're asking (Matthew 7:12). We're not asking you to agree with anybody's lifestyle. Don't bother with the texts, they already read all those Bible texts. They have already read that. That does not solve the problem that they really have. Because the problem is a problem of their being. It's not a Biblical problem they have.”

Au contraire. Moral failure is defined by the Word of God, and when we violate God’s moral standards and creational distinctions, we invite many consequences into our life. LGBTQ+ is most definitely a “biblical problem.” And fortunately, the Bible has the solution to moral failure and axiological rebellion against His creational distinctions. There is hope, through repentance and cleansing.

As we have written before, 95-99% of PARL directors in Adventism are polilibs (even ones from Australia). Funny how that happens. Surely some sort of neutrality is preferable? You would think that the PARL environ might mirror the American culture and be a blend (conservatism and leftism). But, no, not in the last three or four decades. It’s all left. And they are the biblical authority, according to themselves.

Questions

Are these PARL individuals hired because they are left-leaning, or does the position move them left? Does the Adventist ethos just plain tilt politically left? Did our founders anticipate and promote this tilt? Since most cultural left issues run counter to the Bible, it doesn’t follow that our founders would have that tilt (abortion, LGBTQ+, DEI, CRT etc..). How does it happen?

Discuss!

****

Source

Will You Lord Over Our Conscience? Conrad Vine & Joanna de Bruyn

Erton Kohler: Bought and Sold - Pastor Bill Hughes

"The Three Paths" | Dr Conrad Vine | State Line SDA Church Camp Meeting

"The Three Paths" | Dr Conrad Vine | State Line SDA Church Camp Meeting

Dr. Conrad Vine

Mar 30, 2025

In this urgent message, we confront the critical times we live in—between Daniel 11:40's "time of the end" and Christ's soon return. As the speaker I step down from leadership to focus on preaching with greater freedom—preparing the church spiritually and structurally for the final crisis. This sermon examines three paths: the Recent path (the church's 2015 vaccination statement and its consequences), the Wrong path (compromising biblical principles for secular authority), and the Right path (standing firm on liberty of conscience and divine truth). Watch now and be equipped for the coming storm.

TED WILSON IS NOT CHRIST: PRAY UNTO GOD#sabbathkeeper #seventhdayadventis...

No King, no Pope

AI Overview

The phrase "no king, no pope" expresses a desire to be free from both royal and papal authority. It's a slogan that reflects a desire for autonomy and self-governance, rejecting the hierarchical structures of monarchy and the Catholic Church. This sentiment can be found in various historical and political contexts where people have sought to break away from established powers.

Source: Google search

Silencing Liberty of Conscience - Pastor Al Fletcher

A Message to the Seventh-day Adventist Church from the President

Pastor Ted N.C. Wilson Speaks About the Upcoming Spring Meeting and More

Apr 04, 2019 | Silver Spring, Maryland, United States | Ted N.C. Wilson, President, Seventh-Day Adventist World Church

Greetings to our more than 21 million members around the world who make up the wonderful Seventh-day Adventist church family in more than 200 countries! I thank God for each one of you and want to encourage you, no matter where you are, to be an active member in your local church, and to reach out to your surrounding community, making friends as you gently yet purposefully guide people to Jesus and His love and truth. Always remember that you are the church—that God is eagerly looking to you to reach others for Him. He has called you, and He will equip you as you spend time with Him in prayer and the study of His word.

As you may know, at least two times a year, members of the world church’s General Conference Executive Committee gather together to discuss important spiritual and business items guiding the work of our worldwide church. The Executive Committee is made up of church leaders, teachers, pastors, and lay members from the thirteen world divisions, the Middle East and North Africa Union (MENA) and attached fields of the General Conference.

The full Executive Committee meets during what is called Annual Council, held in October of each year. A somewhat smaller group of the committee meets in April for the shorter Spring Meeting, where the focus is mainly on the finances of the church, along with related items. In addition, we also take some time to focus on important spiritual aspects, especially during the morning worship times together.

In just a few days from now, April 9 and 10, the Spring Meeting will take place here at the world headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Silver Spring, Maryland. You are welcome to join us during these meetings, via the livestream on the Executive Committee website at executivecommittee.adventist.org. The meetings begin with morning worship at 8 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

Liberty of Conscience Threatened

 

Could the civil and religions freedom that

America stands for be quickly eroding away?

Illustration © Pacific Press Publ. Assoc.



Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years. In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed!

The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments. [564]

Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the "church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err" (John L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century II, part 2, chapter 2, section 9, note 17), how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages?

The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.

A well-known writer speaks thus of the attitude of the papal hierarchy as regards freedom of conscience, and of the perils which especially threaten the United States from the success of her policy:

"There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church.

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error—a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.' The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious [565] worship,' also 'all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.' 

HACKSAW RIDGE - THE CONCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR (REAL MOVIE)

Desmond Doss - Award-Winning Documentary: The Conscientious Objector

Tony R

Published on Sep 14, 2014

Drafted in April 1942, Desmond Doss refused to kill, or carry a weapon into combat, because of his personal beliefs as a Christian (Seventh-day Adventist). He consequently became a medic, and by serving in the Pacific theatre of World War II helped his country by saving the lives of his comrades, while also adhering to his religious convictions. Doss was injured twice during the war and shortly before leaving the Army he was diagnosed with tuberculosis which cost him a lung. He left the Army in 1946. He spent five years undergoing medical treatment for his injuries and illness.

His Medal of Honor was given in recognition of the risks he took to save the lives of so many comrades.

He is the subject of The Conscientious Objector, an award-winning documentary, and an upcoming feature film by the same name.

He was a company aid man when the 1st Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet (120 m) high. As our troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar and machinegun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75 casualties and driving the others back. Pfc. Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying all 75 casualties one-by-one to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands. On May 2, he exposed himself to heavy rifle and mortar fire in rescuing a wounded man 200 yards (180 m) forward of the lines on the same escarpment; and 2 days later he treated 4 men who had been cut down while assaulting a strongly defended cave, advancing through a shower of grenades to within 8 yards (7.3 m) of enemy forces in a cave's mouth, where he dressed his comrades' wounds before making 4 separate trips under fire to evacuate them to safety. On May 5, he unhesitatingly braved enemy shelling and small arms fire to assist an artillery officer. He applied bandages, moved his patient to a spot that offered protection from small arms fire and, while artillery and mortar shells fell close by, painstakingly administered plasma. Later that day, when an American was severely wounded by fire from a cave, Pfc. Doss crawled to him where he had fallen 25 feet (7.6 m) from the enemy position, rendered aid, and carried him 100 yards (91 m) to safety while continually exposed to enemy fire. On May 21, in a night attack on high ground near Shuri, he remained in exposed territory while the rest of his company took cover, fearlessly risking the chance that he would be mistaken for an infiltrating Japanese and giving aid to the injured until he was himself seriously wounded in the legs by the explosion of a grenade. Rather than call another aid man from cover, he cared for his own injuries and waited 5 hours before litter bearers reached him and started carrying him to cover. The trio was caught in an enemy tank attack and Pfc. Doss, seeing a more critically wounded man nearby, crawled off the litter; and directed the bearers to give their first attention to the other man. Awaiting the litter bearers' return, he was again struck, by a sniper bullet while being carried off the field by a comrade, this time suffering a compound fracture of 1 arm. With magnificent fortitude he bound a rifle stock to his shattered arm as a splint and then crawled 300 yards (270 m) over rough terrain to the aid station. Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Pfc. Doss saved the lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty.