YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

1. What to do in 2028 - Parminder Biant (5 June 2026) IPR USA — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

1. What to do in 2028 - Parminder Biant (5 June 2026) IPR USA

Institute for Prophetic Research · 5,667 words · 28 min read · EN-ORIG

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of 1. What to do in 2028 - Parminder Biant (5 June 2026) IPR USA by Institute for Prophetic Research on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

Okay, I'm ready to begin. >> You can start. >> Want to welcome everybody um to the first of uh a series of presentations.

So, this camp's a little bit different to others. There will be six international meetings and there will be six um I'm just going to call them local or private meetings.

I know we have many um non-English speakers.

I want to apologize to you now. Those six local presentations will only be in English, but they will be recorded. and we do have the technology to relatively easily translate them after the event.

Okay. Uh with that introduction, I want to open with a word of prayer. Let's pray. Holy God, we thank you that we can be here today in this important time in Earth's history. Pray that you would guide and direct us and that you would bring us together. of one mind and one heart

in Jesus's name. Amen. As you go through the classes, I expect to get some more questions.

I'm primarily going to uh take questions from IPR members.

Um I have one question at the moment. I'm just going to paraphrase the the question. The midterm ele the midterm elections in the USA are going to happen this year in November

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimitedor

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

and in two years there's going to be another general election. question that's being asked. Should we be participating in the 2028 election? So, I don't want to give a direct answer to that question, but I want to suggest why the question is being asked.

As you all know according to the the grand study I mean grand in large I don't mean in in superiority

The grand study of Acts 27 by Elder Tess.

That study or that line if we can call it that has in many ways been the framework uh upon which we have understood

specific aspects of the Sunday

So we have Acts 27 and we have the Sunday law. So without going into details of the study, we know that there is a ship. We know that there are people on that ship and we know that through circumstances that ship is headed to the island of Malta.

Malta. Um I just want to add here that if anybody has any questions um that they want to ask during the study there are two issues. One is I can't see if if you want to ask a question. So the host or the coordinator would have to tell me. And secondly, I only want to take

questions from IPR members because it's their camp meeting. >> Okay, no problem. I'll let you know. >> So any and all IPR members, please stop me at any time to ask any questions.

Okay. So, in Acts 27, we have a ship and we have people and we have an island. So I think we understand that at that um level of complexity.

So, Elder Tess proposed some ideas and she said that this ship is uh the word that she used is an institution.

We haven't changed the definition of institution that she used. But we definitely have broadened its definition and that broadening of the definition um follows strict um dictionary rules. We haven't invented new meanings of institutions.

So these people that are on the boat, Elder Tess spoke about them being priests and Levites.

and she explains her reasons for making that application.

She gives her reasons for making that application. If you remember, she discusses the numbers, the numbers of the people in the boat. She turns that number into a symbol, then goes to a book in the Old Testament, sees that number and then makes an application of what these people symbolize. and she says priests and Levites.

So when she did that, I think she left it at that level. She may have discussed it further,

but I suspect in the minds of many of us I think we saw that we have a ship which is a symbol of institutions

and we had people which was symbolized by priests and Levites But many of us conceptualized the following conceptualized that the in the following way.

Those literal people become symbols of priests and Levites who are literal people. So it seems to me that many of us viewed priests and Levites as individual people

and this has been an ongoing issue within our movement. I'm going to call it a concept, not a model. It's a concept that we have inherited.

We inherited it. I'm just going to say from Adventism who inherited it from um the people that came before them. And if you trace the line uh all the way back through history, you can trace it right back to the Bible.

When we looked at priests, we understood that priests were us.

I call it this movement. or the 144,000. And because we know who we are, that we're real people, this idea of individualism, I think, has stuck in the minds of many.

But what I want to suggest is that the priests and we could make the same application about the Levites but I don't want to really discuss them

that the priests are not individual but they're also an institution.

which would mean that the 144,000 are also an institution. So I just want to point that out. That's not something new that I've introduced today. But it's a theme that's going to continue um through our studies right through to the end. And we all need to be really clear about this. The reason why I called it a grand study

is because elder test clarified something that we should have already known that many of us had been blind to

that our message which means the lines that we have created will always from the very beginning lines of institutions

not lines of individuals. So I just want to make an observation about that which is not related to the question.

You'll remember that in 2016 the movement began to discuss Matthew chapter 13. The par of the wheat and the tears. Now, as always h as always happens particularly in the past when the study is shared it's not well understood.

So when we began to discuss the parable of the wheat and tears and the field that's associated with them, we read and studied the chapter, the Bible. We went to the spirit of prophecy for support as we did in those days.

And we began to try to un unravel the mystery of the parable. If you were in the movement at that time, you will remember that that study only flourished, I'll use that word, uh, for a few months and then faded away.

It blossomed, flourished, and then died. And the reason it died a sudden death

from my perspective is that people misused that study. I'm not trying to point fingers at any individual. So I'm just going to say in a general sense we the movement and we misuse that parable because of the issue that I've been discussing that we looked at that parable through a lens of individualism

rather than understanding that those two plants were institutions

and that becomes significant. There were people in the movement who were teaching. So that would mean a few people, a few people who are guilty, but everybody believed them because everybody had become ins snared by this individualism model or perspective of the gospel.

So, I'll rephrase that um in case we didn't catch the point. Whether you're teaching or listening, we're all thinking in the same way that we have an individualistic model of salvation. And so therefore, or before I say therefore, Alan White had had exactly the same perspective. And that's why turning to her writings

at that time didn't help us, it hindered us.

Jesus says the field is the world. Didn't explain what that meant. But Ellen White said, "Let's call it the church." And she really didn't explain what that meant either. So, we think we understand what Ellen White's saying. We think we understand what Jesus is saying

because we're Christians in the church. We thought we were following through with her counsel. And we remember her saying in another place, there is only one church.

And we know in 2016 that the mountain of Adventism is now dead like a zombie. It's moving around but it's dead. or as the Bible says, the latest condition. But we're the stone. We've begun to be organized and we believe that we are new are the new leaders of the church. This is not new. This is replacement

theology.

And we've gone to Daniel 2 to um conceptualize or visualize that.

So it's very easy with preconceived ideas with simple explanations to say that the field is this movement. And as soon as you do that and people did that, we can see now the problem. It was seen back then, which is why the study was killed. Because what people began to do, people in the movement

is to identify who in the field, in the church, in the movement, who are the wheat and who are the tears? And any sensible, logical person like us, if we took our measuring stick out, the only thing we can measure is people's beliefs and their behavior.

So we began to have people in the movement who either taught or believed.

So we have two groups in the church in the movement in this stone. And we thought we had further evidence of this Normally in an in-person class, I would ask where,

but I'll save this in this dynamic. Turn to Daniel 11:41. the verse that you all know and you know where I'm going in the verse. It's it begins by saying he the king of the north shall enter also into the glorious land

and from the very beginning. That means the first angel beginning in the verse we understood. Let me say we believed that because it uses the word land, glorious land.

The translators were forced to add a word in that verse and the word is countries. And in the English, in the King James, it's italicized to show that it wasn't there originally.

So what we did is we supplied our own word there. So the verse says when the glorious land is entered into many shall be overthrown many what that's the question that we that the first angel addressed.

The angel taught us that it definitely was not countries.

Therefore, what was it? And we use a very intricate logic based on the word overthrown which means destroyed. So if you're destroyed at that moment, the inference is that you were not destroyed before that. And then it also uses the word escape. Couple of uh words down. But these shall escape out of his hand.

And the two words escape and hand infer captivity. So there's a group that are going to be overthrown and there's going to be a group that escape.

So we believed that the word overthrown means made captive.

So this was the logic that we had. We have two groups of people that are free

beforehand. They're free before the glorious land is entered into.

So, first they're free and then they're captive. And there's another group. It says escape from the hand. which means free and then that group must have been captive before. So based upon that there was a group that was free. I'll I'll say that verse 41 is the Sunday law. Before the Sunday law, there was a group

that was free. Free from the king of the north. And then at the Sunday law, many of not all of them, many of the free people become captive. And there's another group who were captive, and they shall be made free.

There's that model and there's a model taken from early writings where Ellen White sees two armies fighting, the good and the bad. God's kingdom, Satan's kingdom. She says some of the soldiers in God's kingdom, in God's army that are holding war banners.

They let go of those banners. They drop the poles and run away

and you never see them again. Those fallen banners, those flags, those war flags, new people pick them up and carry on the fight.

So we have these different models that seem to agree with the model of Matthew 13, wheat and tears.

that in this movement we have wheat. May maybe we'll call them good priests. We have tears. Maybe we'll call them bad priests. And what people began to do in 2016 was to judge one another. Who was a wheat and who was a tear? Who could be trusted and who could not?

The result of that as you can imagine if you at the if you're there at the time you know

was destructive. So it was decided I decided if you'd like that this study was not to be taught or discussed any longer. We managed to close Pandora's box on that one until now where we're beginning to open the box and have a look inside

because if you stop looking at priests as individuals but as an institution as one thing. Let's put it that way simply one thing. If the priests are the wise are the good are the 144,000.

You'll see I said the priests plural which if you're following along with this study you know is wrong. I have to say priest singular because the priest is an institution singular one. This is a movement of success which means it's good. Therefore a priest or the priest is good. because it's an institution,

not a collection of people. If that's the case, you know that if you were to relook at the parable of the wheat and tears, the priest singular, this good movement would then be the week. Meaning that there are no tears in this movement using that individualistic model.

So someone will argue, what about verse 41? My response would be maybe we got a little bit wrong. We're only human. And then someone will say, "What about Ellen White?" She's not only human, is she? She's a prophet that stand in a very different position than you and I. Or does she? I was about to say that's a question for

you to answer. But that of course would be unfair because it's a question for us to answer

us the teachers. But it's not for me to answer. It's for other teachers to answer which they will soon enough. So I want to summarize this little side piece of this conversation. We have to be very careful because we have understood the ship pretty clearly I think and I'll go back to the question in a

moment but we haven't understood the people. Now, I don't know about the priests and the Levites and what all of that means, but what I do know is that if there are priests and Levites on that boat, and I have no reason to believe that there are not, because the methodology that was used to

define those symbols seems sound to me.

My point is that the priests are not plural, it's priest singular.

not one person but one institution. And I've already explained how easy it is to come to wrong conclusions.

If you use I'll call it an outdated I won't call it wrong

an outdated method of interpretation of understanding the work of the gospel. If you do that at an individual level, you come up with nasty conclusions.

Maybe instead of using the word nasty, I will say dangerous. Now, I want to point that out. Not so much because of Matthew 13. Not so much because of Acts 27, but you're seeing the steps. It's because of Daniel 11:41. There are people in our movement. Maybe all of us in the movement,

we all do this. So, I don't want to say it's wrong. I'm saying we should all be honest enough to realize that it's that there are dangers

Are we certain that Matthew 13 is speaking about this movement having wheat and tears and you can See the wheat and the tears, the good and bad priests when they begin to bear fruit at the Sunday law, ready to be bundled and destroyed at the close of probation.

Do we really believe that? Because there's been no indication as far as I can see that that model explains the experience of this movement. In fact, the experience of this movement is opposite. It's taken us some time, but based both upon I'm just going to say reasonleness and also equality.

If you don't like reasonleness, I'm going to call it the golden rule. People are not punished for the views that they hold, even if they're shown to be wrong.

I don't know on what basis people priests people are defined as good or bad.

The next place you'd have to go to would be lifestyle issues which is a very thorny subject.

All that to say the following. Daniel 11:41. Those people who have the following view have to be really sure that they're correct. because they believe the verse reads this way. When the glorious land is entered into at the Sunday law by the king of the north, many people in this movement will be

overthrown. And the only reason that you would be overthrown at that point, let me stop there for a moment. I don't know a single person in the movement. Maybe there's ones that haven't spoken to me. Whatever date you choose, I think everybody believes that the Sunday law way mark is passed.

Whether you believe July or November 24

or January 25, the event has passed. And if you go back to that 12 month period, show me any evidence where there were members in this movement when the glorious land was being entered into. Let's say it's a 12-month period, which it isn't, but during that 12 month, we'll go January 24 to January 25.

Show me where members of this movement suddenly became immoral.

We know we can check because it's it's we can go back into our history in real life.

Therefore, you know that the many who would fall away don't fall over a moral issue.

They're not all behaving immorally. Whatever you think immoral behavior is, it's not happening. At least not many. Therefore, this is not guess. This is a fact. The only thing that you could fall away over is your theology.

Your belief system is wrong. So we know factually that that in that history two years ago there were many different views on the Sunday law and the majority held to July. Okay. So if many people I I I'll use this framework. If many priests in the movement

fall away either at the Sunday law or during the Sunday law history. Maybe it takes some time.

The only evidence that we could identify falling away to be

has to be a falling away of doctrine or theology or prophecy.

not morality.

And if you believe that, then you're forced to come to the conclusion that at an individual level. You will be lost or saved. You will survive or be overthrown based upon your understanding of the events of the Sunday law. Because not a single one of us is being judged because of what they eat

or what they wear. I mean when I use the word legally, I mean by the leadership of this movement.

And no one in this movement has been taken to court in the way that Ellen White suggested that would happen.

So we haven't gone to court and capitulated on equality.

The only I'll use the word test. The only test that has been brought upon us

is which date we believe January, November. Sorry, July. July, November or January? And if you're going to be overthrown based upon that, you'll see that's a very different proposition than the one that Ellen White gives

because the leadership of this movement is on public record stating the following. As long as you remain in the movement, you cannot and will not be judged on what date you believe the Sunday law to have occurred on.

When I use the word judged, I don't mean in the way that I think you're crazy to believe a certain date.

I mean, judged in its proper strictest usage or context.

that you will be judged in the proper sense of that word. So to put it simply from 2024 to the present day, my understanding is whatever you believe, whatever date you hold to whether you think the Sunday law was passed or is still future. Whether you think it was July, November or January

or any other date, you will not be judged by this movement. I'll say even stronger. It will not affect your salvation as long as you remain in the movement. If that's the case, if you believe that, then you know that that does not agree with Elder Jeff's understanding definition of the many who are overthrown in Daniel

11:41.

That means if I take the word many literally as in the majority, the many people in this movement including myself who hold to the Sunday law occurring on July 18th, 2024.

We are not overthrown. And a couple of people who believe that the Sunday law was on November of that same year

despite the fact that I believe they are wrong. as long as they remain in the movement and don't leave, which is a very difficult proposition if you think about the logic of that. But if they can manage to do that to the end, which is soon, then they will not lose their salvation.

Even though they have a wrong model of the Sunday law. I mentioned November specifically because I'll say I I'll say the word everybody but not literally. I'll say it metaphorically. Everyone who believes that July was the Sunday law understands why January is not because July and January are connected events. They're connected by

the verses that are given in Matthew chapter 5,

which is the model of adultery. And that model I believe explains the connection between July and January. So that's why January is not an issue. issue is whether you accept July or November.

What we've discussed so far is not whether or not one is true or not. And if one of them is correct, which one? The discussion has been based upon early writings, Matthew 13, and Daniel 11 verse 41. that this movement is not composed of wheat and tears. Because if you take that concept and

bring it to the Sunday law verse,

the only challenge that came to us was which date you will choose July or November.

and many chose July. And if you hold to this model, that means those people have been overthrown.

This is exactly the same argument that was used by um FFA

in 2019 when they chose to separate where they thought they was they they were some remnant which again is another model that's given to us by Ellen White which is used incorrectly

again taken from believe it's Revelation 11 the remnant of the woman's seed

Coming back to the question, this ship is an institution, but al test tells us that it's a symbol of two institutions that run parallel with one another.

I'll bring this uh ship down here. And she says it's twin institutions, the church and the glorious land. She says this is the SDA church and the USA. Now, for whatever reason, Elder Test isn't going to details about what this USA meant.

I'm not saying she didn't understand. What I am saying is that from then till now, I believe we have developed models that help us to pinpoint accurately what this USA institution is here in this in this story.

What she does say quite explicitly is that the USA comes to its end at the Sunday law. And if you are not sure, you will see if you look carefully that this is exactly the same information that's given in Daniel 11:41.

that in verse 41 it says the glorious land is entered into

and in Acts 27 it says the USA comes to its

I'm saying those two are parallel events. 2024 was a long time ago. And we all know we might argue, I guess, that the USA is as pro prosperous today um perhaps even more prosperous than it was two years ago.

What I mean to say is that the USA certainly has not come to its end and there were no foreign powers who entered into the glorious land to take it.

So either we or generically we don't know what we're talking about

or we need to understand what those terms actually mean. the USA and the glorious land. So that's nothing new. And I suggest that the answer that I'm about to give, a very simple answer is neither new.

in Revelation 13. By the way, earlier I said Revelation 11. I meant Revelation 12, the remnant of the seed. That's Revelation 12.

I apologize for that. Matthew, no, Revelation 13. If I can pull up the verse for us

in verse 13, it speaks about a beast. And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth. The verse says, "And he It says and he twice in the verse. If you read in in at least in the English it says that.

So, we're in Revelation 13 11 and it says the beast. I'm just going to call it a beast. Then it says

and he. And then again it says and he. So just want to check with um my translator if they've got their Bible open. Does it say something like that in uh your language?

I understand it doesn't say the the the gender, but does it mention the same thing twice? Okay. So, if it says that in Portuguese, I'm assuming it says that in all the other languages. So, all I'm going to say here is there's a beast And then it says he has horns like a lamb.

So it mentions horns and then says speaks like a dragon.

So all I want to point out is not the horns or the speaking or the lamb and the dragon. It's in English the word he. The reason why I want to point that out is that in the English that tells me that whether it's the horn or the speaking, the lamb or the dragon,

whatever those four symbols mean. And on the board, I've just called them A, B, C, D. I want us to see just one thing that all of it is a symbol of the beast. the beast. This one thing in English it says he, but I'm just going to change it to it. The beast.

It is a lamb. The beast it is a dragon. So I just want us to see that this singular entity and I want to call this beast an institution. Now

this institution

salam at the beginning and then at the end it's a dragon and I'm not trying to define what those things mean. Well, I want us to see that the the singular beast can be represented as two different things

and I'm in complete agreement. that they happen sequentially. That means one after the other. So I'm going to put the institution. It is first a lamb. It is then a dragon. And I understand it says speaks like a dragon, not is a dragon, but I'm not making that point.

What I want us to see is that there's a sequence. And in the movement we've understood for a long time the difference between sequential and parallel.

So I'm saying that there is a singular thing called a beast that comes in two parts. So we'll call it an institution in two parts. Part A and part B. But that was my call to finish which I will do in a moment. What I want to suggest which shouldn't come as a surprise to any of us

that this institution is the USA. So the USA is in part A and part B. So when Elder Tess says acts 37 the USA comes to its end of the Sunday law. What we want to understand is what comes to its end. Is it USA A or USA B? At the Sunday law,

what USA comes to its end? That's the question. And the answer is A, not B. So A comes to its end and B doesn't. So we could say A dies and B is born, the lamb dies, and the dragon comes alive. So if that's correct then in Acts 27 Elbert Tess says at the Sunday law

the lamb of Revelation 13 dies and that lamb is USA part A. Now we could go to other models to explain that but we'll say in very simple terms got the USA A and B lamb and dragon. And let's be very casual about this and call this the left and the right, the Democrats and the Republicans.

So if that's correct and at a very simple basic level it is because politically speaking we have a two party system. We have a culture. We have many different views but politically there are only two things Democrats and Republicans left and right. So the question that's being asked is if the left is already dead.

Just want to clarify. It's not fully dead yet. It really really dies at the close of probation. But if we just put that little that little anomaly aside in the 2028 elections, your choice is to vote for the dragon who's alive and well. I'll rephrase that. Is alive even though it's not very well.

or a dead lamb. So that's your choices. A sick dragon or a dead lamb. We would never vote for a sick dragon. The question is, should we be voting for a dead lamb? And I think that's the question that's being asked. Even though we knew prophetically that the 2024 election was a lost hope.

The lamb was the lamb was destined to die then. In fact, it had died three years before. But that's a different story. So, we knew the Democrats were not going to win that election and yet we voted, which I think was the right thing to do to vote for them knowing that they're

going to lose. But when it comes to the next election, our choices are not that straightforward, but I'll be honest to the questioner. I'm not sure what we should do yet, but I understand the futility. Some might call it the stupidity. I would never call anybody stupid. if they wanted to vote in the 2028

elections. But I do understand the futility of it because once the lamb dies, there is no record of it ever resurrecting again.

I'll I'll quickly slip in here that the lamb is the sixth kingdom and the dragon is the seventh.

And we know that it only happens once a kingdom dies that it resurrects. And that one time it happens, it never happens to the sick. The sick having come to its end will not come back. So in 28 if we're here, the decision will be between a sick dragon and a dead lamb.

And maybe we would argue better to vote for a dead lamb than a sick dragon. Or maybe we wouldn't or maybe we don't have to. I don't know the answers to those questions, but I do hope that this discussion has helped us to see the issues and how to understand what those issues are.

I want to thank you for joining me. So, I just want to remind everybody I'm meeting with um the members of IPR tomorrow. That will be study number two. Um the movement generally is not uh invited to that study. It's a closed study.

But it will be recorded and it will be uploaded

next week. Friday will be the private meeting and Sabbath will be the public meeting.

I hope that's clear for everybody. Well, thank you for joining me. Let's pray. Holy God, I want to thank you. First of all, I want to thank you for the work and the sacrifice that Elder Jeff and Elder Tess made. Without their sacrifice, we would not be here today. Want to thank you that the movement

today is not what it was yesterday.

The message of reform and equality has done its work. But today we are a very different organization. I want to pray that you enlighten our hearts and our minds collectively.

However difficult it is. And each of us knows that it is difficult. We acknowledge that honestly to you right now. I pray for myself and for others that we can learn to move away from an individual to a corporate model of salvation.

so that we can state to you. We don't ask what you can do for us. We ask what we can do for your kingdom. You told us, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, both in heaven and here on earth. May we glorify your kingdom above our own desires and needs. in Jesus's name. Amen.

I hand it over to um my host. Thank you very much, Elder Harmander. You've given us a lot of things to think about and it's such a blessing to be together.