Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Q: where the estimates are coming from?

Q: are "pr0-life" deliberately written using a zero as a trick to avoid vandalism? just wondering...

Q: I am just wondering whether it is fair to say 'literal' with regard to a six day creation. Whilst it is certainly the consensus view of the church, the word literal does not appear in the fundamentals. Furhter, as evidenced by the recent discussion in the Adventist Review following Clifford Goldstein's article, there are many committed Adventists who don't hold this position.

A: Referring to #6 of the Adventists beliefs (click here) 'literal' seems a fair use of expression. The article mentioned can be found here. It is safe to say that most Adventist still believe in a 6-day creation (see this recent article).--Stefanbs 19:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The Acronym SDA is depreciated"

Where and since when has the acronym SDA been denounced or frowned upon officially? This statement seems rather odd and unnecessary, especially considering it's placement in the first sentence. State sources please. --216.239.74.135 2 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

A: See communication at the bottom of http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1545/news.html.

1. The English-language initials aren't appropriate for a world church. In Spanish the acronym is IASD, the initials for Inglesia Adventista del Septimo Dia. In Polish it's KADS for Kosciol Adwentystow Dnia Siodmego.

2. Other organizations have similar SDA initials: Singapore Dental Association, Soap and Detergent Association, Speed Demos Archive, and others. Therefore, using the initials will lead to confusion.

3. The SDA abbreviation also does not convey any message of beliefs. In the Adventist Church's full name-Seventh-day Adventist- the words "Seventh-day" indicate the church's belief that Sabbath is the seventh day of the week (Saturday), and that God should be especially honored and worshipped on that day. "Adventist" indicates the church's belief that Jesus is coming again soon

I concur and have removed SDA from the intro. -Fermion 01:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"hell does not exist"

Moved from article:

* Maintain that, as a consequence of the state-of-the dead belief, hell does not exist; instead the wicked are consumed in fire (a finite occurrence) after the millennium.

This needs to be reworked. It implies that SDAs do not believe the wicked will burn eternally in hell (or something very like it). This is not the case. The belief is that Hell does not currently exist and is not currently "in use" as it were, but Revelation is very clear that Satan, the Beast, and others will be thrown into "the lake of fire", and burn eternally (some will burn a finite amount of time, some eternally). -- nknight 22:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-- Re-inserted hell does not exist --

I reinserted the "Hell does not exist" entry, updated to reflect the two perspectives. I believe that the hell belief distinguishes SDA's enough from other denominations that it warrants a mention in the short-list of doctrine differences. -- onebit

-- Hell update after further research --

After further research on this topic I removed the suggestion that the burning of the wicked may be eternal. This is clearly not supported by church doctorine. However, I did leave in a statement about varying beliefs on the length of the burning, given that there seems to be a variety of views on this point, ranging from the evil will burn longer then the less evil to all will instantly burn up. Some adventists believe that very evil creatures, such as Satan, will burn so long that it "may as well be eternal". This is why I left in the suggestion that the length of time is not concretely defined. -- onebit

-- Orthodox SDA position? --

The orthodox SDA position is that hellfire is "eternal" in effect, though not in duration. It is noted that the "eternal" fires were visited upon Sodom and Gomorrah, and these "eternal" fires are no longer actually burning. Satan may indeed burn longer than anyone else, but in order for evil to be eradicated, finally that fire must go out. At least that is what this 4th generation SDA was taught in church and school in Takoma Park, Maryland... Onebit is correct that this "hellfire" doctrine is considered by SDAs to be one of their distinctive doctrines, biblically based rather than medieval tradition... God's eradication of evil and evil-doers through the cleansing hellfires is eternal in effect, "no more shall evil arise", and this destructive behavior on God's part is at times referred to as "God's strange act."Emyth 19:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eternal hell?

In studying Biblical Hebrew at college, one interesting discovery was about the hebrew meaning for 'eternal'. As understood from discussion with the lecturer, when 'eternity' is mentioned it means "forever until it is finished". Somewhat different to our english understanding of the word.

sacred text, sites, symbols.

Q: So far I have found sacred texts, sites, or symbols. Are their any???

A: Aside from the Bible we have no other sacred writings. While many of us hold the writings of Ellen G. White to be true, this is not the case for all Adventists. For those who do believe them, they are still not sacred writings. We have no sacred sites, and the only sacred symbol I can think of would be the Sabbath itself. --Miknight 06:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • A2: Perhaps the word "sacred" is getting in the way here: There are religious symbols, sites and texts, but "sacred" is too loaded of a term to apply to them. What Miknight says is true, but if "sacred" is not taken to mean "Sacred" but rather "religious", then you can find things that fit the bill... For example, the Three Angels...representing the three angels and their messages from Revelation 14:6-11; the two stone tablets with the 10 Commandments on them; some churches have crosses worked into their architecture, but not quite like other Christian churches, the SDAs are a bit aniconic in that way; SDA colleges have sometimes sent students on "New England Study Tours" to visit the sites where early Adventists lived and worked... Perhaps this helps... Emyth 21:29, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of opposing links?

Why have all but one of the site listed opposing Adventism been removed? I am a Seventh-day Adventist, but I also think that both sides of issues should be shown so people can decide for themselves. If anyone thinks that some of those site were notable, I would encourage you to put them back.

--Comments on links--

I too was disappointed to see a number of the links removed - including www.ellenwhite.org supposedly owing to its duplication. I think it is important to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisment for Adventism, we need to be balanced in approach.

The distinction between divergent views and opposing views seems to be somewhat arbitrary. For example, it could be argued that www.ellenwhite.org is a divergent view, as it only criticises the prophetic role of Ellen White, a position held by many Adventists. The website, however, does not criticise Seventh-day Adventism, only its position on Ellen White.

Another issue is the editorial comment on a number of the links, for example GNU. I modified it slightly, but am concerned that a debate could easily erupt about just that comment. Perhaps it is time for a new article outlining a number of issues (from a historical documentary perspective) in Adventisim, such as the Justification by Faith debate, role of Ellen White (Ronald Numbers, Walter Rea etc.), sanctuary debates (Des Ford, etc.), women in ministry, perspectives on Adventism as a cult, etc. --Fermion 22:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the removed links you put back should be in 'site opposed to' instead of 'sites opposed to site opposed to'
I too am concerned as well, by the removal of links put in the "Divergent SDA views" section... The SDA Kinship link was obliterated. I have put it back. The user who erased it was a single, one-time contributor... Let's see if they come back and mess with the article again. Emyth 19:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I definitely agree that opposing or divergent links should be retained (though the term "divergent" could be confusing, since it seems similar to the description of the difference between Adventist beliefs and the mainstream), as long as they are labeled appropriately (and in a way that the site-owners would agree with). The whole POINT of Wikipedia is to present an NPOV and accurate view of things. It is only trolls (in the Wikipedian sense) and people who haven't thought it through who delete links they don't like just because they don't like them. Cromwellt | Talk 09:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clarification... "Opposing" and "Divergent" are appropriately distinguished sections: Divergent - means an diverging from within the SDA movement itself; Opposing - means active disagreement from outside of the SDA movement. Those who are "divergent" tend to think of themselves as SDAs, opposition defines itself as not-SDA... Emyth 18:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
"Those who are 'divergent' tend to think of themselves as SDAs, opposition defines itself as not-SDA." I agree with this statement. --Perspicacious 18:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links

March 12 Neutrality enacted some drastic edits to cut down on what he felt was a "bloated" section. The result was an indiscriminate, inarticulate mixing of links to official and unofficial websites with a loss of significant links that had added to the richness of the article. Multiple points of view were eliminated (including a recently embattled link to an official site for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered SDAs... Homophobic POV, Neutrality?) The end result , while perhaps more elegant, was poorer than it had been.

After taking a quick tutorial on External Links and related pages, as well as reviewing the External Links sections of the Judaism and Roman Catholicism sites, I have restored and then renovated an articulated SDA External Links section. I have tried to reduce "bloat" (taking that point from Neutrality's edit) and have begun to check the links to see how significant they are. I am loathe to remove information that others have contributed and hope that we can discuss further renovations here. Emyth 01:02, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps one solution would be to begin to write separate articles on a number of Seventh-day Adventist related topics. One such article could be on controversies within Adventism, such as the debate about the Sanctuary. To that end all of the links related to that topic (such as GNU) would belong on that page, leaving the front page as a general overview of Seventh-day Adventism. --Fermion 22:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It seems that all kinds of former SDAs have added a link to their website (declaration of bias: I am SDA). Perhaps some of these links are appropriate, but I think some belong on other articles, perhaps aricles about these "independent ministries" that have not been written yet. I don't think the links section reflect the ideal of NPOV, I mean "The Seventh Day Adventist faith restored to doctrinal purity." is certainly not an NPOV description of the creation SDAs, whoever they are. I don't feel quilified to rework the link section, because I don't know much about all these "ministries". It might be argued that some of them are not SDAs at all, at least not according to the beleifs that Adventist have claimed for some years now. --Terrible Tim 13:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that they are out of place on the main page, along with a number of things to be fair (such as media ministries, since it too is a (supportive) independent ministry). However, I think until someone breaks the article up and writes an article on independent ministries, and divergent views, we need to keep the links on the main page.--Fermion 05:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The external links here are problematic, as already indicated. The Smyrna group and Creation SDA group are separate groups/denominations, where few, if any, of the members hold membership as Seventh-day Adventists. Other groups, like ASI Ministries and the external link to GreatControversy.org are parachurch groups with true overlap, as all participants in those groups also do hold membership in the formal SDA church structure. By the way, the denomination does NOT ordain women as ministers, and by the denomination's own definition of what ordaination means, "local" "ordinations" do not count. However, the denomination does employ women as pastors and does give them credentials but not as ordained workers. (Declaration: I am an SDA and an ordained minister in the denomination). --COL69 2005-11-29 06:21Z

The issue of external links is on us again. Recently a link to a page on www.everythingimportant.org appeared. This link has been through various forms in the past couple of weeks. After tolerating it for a few weeks I have deleted it, again. The explanation for removing it, is firstly the changes to the link always came from an anonymous user. Second, the link is to somewhere that I would not consider to be a recognised or reputable source. I think that given the volume of links already present, a very tight filter needs to be applied that only allows links to pages directly related to the contents of the article. Anybody can do a google search to find this type of material. The third reason for deleting it is the most recent link listed individuals of a particular church board whom the website deemed to be instruments of satan. Given the recent efforts by wikipedia management to minimise the defamation risk to wikipedia, I consider this link to be out of place in an encyclopedia. -Fermion 07:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In defense of the link, Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God, please consider all the supporting documentation listed in the references.
The report on the hypocritical duplicity of Seventh-day Adventists is fully supported with copies of filed court papers and "Spirit of Prophecy" testimonies. Both points of view are fully presented. There are testimonies of what church leaders told the court and their congregation. And there is the testimony of the injured party who did nothing wrong. See the complete Seventh-day Adventists in Court index page.
The alleged defamation is a watered-down paraphrase of a mere theological opinion of Ellen G. White. See this reference.
The link you admit deleting is an accurate, very informative and true dissenting Adventist perspective on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It has every right to be included. --Perspicacious 14:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I, however, disagree. www.everythingimportant.org is a forum and as such should not be referenced on an encyclopedia. I understand that you have already encountered this objection regarding what constitutes acceptable material for a peer review at Talk:Time_dilation/Archive_1#New_Link. -Fermion 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Could I request somebody else to comment on this issue. At present I am going to leave the link there as a 3RR issue might arise. Thank you, -Fermion 00:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God is not a forum. It's a factual and thoroughly documented report on the hypocritical duplicity of Seventh-day Adventists.
http://www.everythingimportant.org is a talk opportunity for articles exactly like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seventh-day_Adventist_Church. --Perspicacious 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you are correct. The stated link is not a forum. It is, however, a lengthy report from one of the parties being discussed, and as such may not be as factual and documented as perhaps it ought to be.-Fermion 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
No: The claims of the Plaintiffs are also cited. It is therefore self-evident that Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God and the complete Seventh-day Adventist in Court index page reveal a very informative and true dissenting Adventist perspective on the Seventh-day Adventist church. --Perspicacious 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The collection of court documents mentioned does provide a very insightful and informative read regarding the churches actions in a number of instances. I would even consider a balanced account if it weren't for two issues. (i) The obvious editorial comment in link titles such as "The Plaintiffs' Bold Lies" when referring to the church and "The Defendant's Statement of Facts" when talking about oneself. It is is most probably me, but I really don't understand how that can be in any way construed to be objective. (ii) The absence of court documents tendered by the defendant. Surely in the interests of balance the documents as tendered by the defendant should also be available. Of course, it may be that these documents don't exist as I am not an American and don't understand the intricacies of the legal system there. These points bring me back to the original issue that I had with the links being added to this and a number of pages, it is not a balanced, objective source suitable for an encyclopedia. Perhaps if you were interested in writing an account and placing it on your personal talk page, a few people might help develop a document that mights constitute something which would be considered an article on the issue in its own right. I, however, would highly doubt that the general wikipedia community would consider a minor court case between one individual and a church 11 years ago worthy of an article.
I also fail to understand why links to the same website needs to be included on articles such as Apostasy, Bible Prophecy, Book of Revelation, etc. for exactly the same reason. It is not a reputable, balanced source.
I freely admit that perhaps I am not tolerating this link as well as it may deserve, and would appreciate comment from anybody observing this debate. Thank you in advance. -Fermion 04:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
A review of the links on the everythingimportant.org links to me shows that they are mostly criticisms, granted though there is the legal record from the churches point of view. The link names show a deep state of mistrust by a single individual in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This mistrust is not portrayed in an objective manner, It is merely one person voicing their single opinion. The fact that the site is being entered as links on such a range of sites implies that it is not directly related to this article.
It is now unknown for people to think they are reformers, preceding and following a rejection by a church or other organisation. That part is natural. The abusive attitude, evidenced in the titles and portrayals of the story shows that it is more than just a divergent thought, it is more of an attack on someone with a spiteful attitude. A much more rational and NPOV attitude would be classed as divergent in my thoughts. Ansell 05:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
How many times must you put the same link back in without further justifying its position here. The link has been disputed and your comments so far have not been strong enough to justify its postion on the page. I will not get myself in trouble with the 3RR rule, but suffice to say if someone else feels the same about the everythingimportant.org link, and they replace it, you putting it back will put you under deeper suspicion still of ignoring a consensus that the link should not be there. You have been warned. Ansell 10:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Caffeine

The article suggested that Adventism requires abstinence from Caffeine. That is certainly not true. You don't have to give up Dr. Pepper to join the church. It does however discourage it, particularly with coffee and tea.

I don't know about you, but these modern day, lacksidaisical SDAs who don't know about the Evils of Caffeine in all of its forms appall me... It's the Great Apostasy of which we were warned... Seriously, the "counsels of perfection" regarding the SDA "Health Message" ought to be mentioned in some way to help outsiders (and insiders apparently) understand some of the unique aspects of this religious movement. Emyth 11:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
"I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee." EGW, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 224 Endomion 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Outsider criticism of SDAsm

I have taken a particular interest in the nature and placement of comments regarding outsiders' negative opinions and criticisms of the SDA religious movement. There are those who seem to need to push these negative comments up to the top of the article and they find ways to make it seem a logical necessity. This is a display of animus and definately POV and not up to our wikipedian NPOV ideal. I have renamed the section as it is not merely a criticsm of doctrine, and moved it down to the end (modeled on the structure I gave to the External links section: SDA Official sites first; SDA divergent views, second; Third, Opposing views; SDA Counter-opposition, fourth; and last, a NPOV description. You may note that there isn't a corresponding NPOV section in the article...But that's because the entire article is to have that cumulative effect, no?)

Principles involved in my thinking are: 1. In a good dialectical argument, one aspiring towards truth, a Thesis is followed by the Antithesis after which we strive for a Synthesis. 2. You must let someone explain themselves clearly and completely first. 3. Build'em up before you tear'm down... (Not that I want to tear them down, but just for those still in the throws of animus against SDAsm.)

If you are going to mess with this structure: 1. Please take the time to understand why I've put it the way I have. 2. Examine your motives for POV and be explicit about them. And 3. Explain why you are doing it differently and with what greater benefits your alternative structuring imbues the article. Thanks, Emyth 11:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Returning to consider the Outsider criticism portion of the article, I am almost ready to slap a NPOV Dispute on it. Here are the major critiques of SDAsm as offered by previous editors along with my comments/objections:

  • Critics of SDA doctrine argue that the SDA church, in accepting Ellen G. White as a prophet and her writings as inspired, is putting forward another source of authority in addition to the Bible. This they view as contrary to the traditional Protestant sola scriptura view of the Bible as the sole inspired source of authority, and the rejection of any claims to latter-day prophets.
SDAs have never, ever officially elevated EGW as an authority over the Bible. Many other orthodox, mainline Christian churches have different understandings of religious authority: Methodists have a long tradion of a " four-fold authority of Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason" but no one is accusing them of being a cult...
  • They also criticise the Christology taught by Ellen G. White as inaccurate and heterodox. For example, White taught that "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature ... Christ took human nature and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He took our nature and its deteriorating condition" (Questions on Doctrine, pp. 654-656). By contrast, the traditional teaching of Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) is that Christ's human nature was sinless.
This seems like a mischeivious twisting of an EGW quote and the conclusion far outweighs the evidence put forward. Admittedly, early Adventists were Arian in their Christology and Soteriology. But as years went by, the Church and EGW moved towards and eventually adopted a classical Christology and what it implies.
  • Critics also view the SDA belief in annihilationism as unbiblical. They point to various biblical passages which contradict annihilationism, for example Luke 16:19-31, which they argue clearly indicates that the dead are presently conscious in Heaven or Hell, not in some kind of soul sleep.
SDAs will point out that the Lukan passage cited is a parable, is fiction, and not a source of doctrine.
  • (Some suggest that) Ellen G. White taught that belief in the doctrine of "investigative judgement" was necessary for salvation. For example, she writes in her book The Great Controversy (p. 488):
The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgement should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs for them to fill.
(They go on and insist that) this is contrary to the traditional Christian view (Protestant, no?) that faith in Christ is what is necessary to achieve salvation, not faith in some new doctrine that was unheard of until the 19th century.
The parenthetical additions are my own. I have to ask, "What sort of POV is going on here?" Seems like a hostile over-interpretation of the evidence. Please make a better argument. Emyth 20:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


I agree with Emyth's structure of the main article, I also agree with his critique of many of the issues. However I am of the opinion that in consonance with the dialectical approach we need more space to discuss some of the issues, as I have previously argued. Just one example, the issue of sola scriptura could be examined further. A recent article in the Andrews University Seminary Studies accuses Alister McGrath of prima scriptura as opposed to the traditional (and Adventist?) position of sola scriptura. However, I think Adventists are actually closer to prima scriptura.--Fermion 23:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Fermion. And/But/However, I am quite in agreement with you regarding the need for additional discussion of the issues: I don't want them to go away; I just want them to be articulated better with full awareness of what SDAs might respond (that's why I said "Please make a better argument" and did it here on Talk:SDA rather than just editing SDA.) Your example adding the arguments around subtlety of "sola scriptura" vs "prima scriptura" is great. Is there more on the other issues of critique? Can we take this further? Emyth 13:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


Some might find statements of E.G.White(_about_scripture) on the topic interesting, since the controversy often surrounds her role in SDA church. As a sidenote the SDA church (as far as I know) neither believes in the inerrancy of scripture nor in verbal inspiration (but in the overall truth of scripture and thought inspiration)SDA inspiration. After that it is probably just the question: to what degree do SDA traditions influence scripture interpretation? Some probably just found the SDA with interpretations that matches their personal one. Others have been exposed to ideas that conditions them to interpret scripture in a certain way. In the end traditions about some common interpretation of scripture is part of what makes a church. if that is missing one just gets a group of people with the only beleive in common that there is a higher being and some scripture on which they can not agree at all what it means. I think "pure and sterile" "sola scriptura" does not exist in practice since as soon as somebody starts to talk to sombody else they influence each others understanding. That said the SDA church has been willing to change its stance in the past when there was good biblical evidence in favor of a different believe (the trinity comes to mind).

Christianity Infobox

I have added the Christianity infobox in accordance with the standard throughout wikipedia. If anyone has any objections feel free to state them. The biggest problem i can see is that the church logo is moved to an awkward position. MyNameIsNotBob 10:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

That and the fact that it doesn't actually contribute anything to this article. Beyond that, is this article of sufficient standard to match the other articles in this series? --Fermion 06:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Have removed infobox, for the reasons discussed above. Do we need to add this article to the Christianity and anabaptist categories? MyNameIsNotBob 07:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC) Christianity category - yes.

Anabaptist... sorry, that's beyond me.--'Net 04:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Seventh-day Adventist Church definitely has strong links to the Anabaptist line, and should be identified in the lineage. The primary root of Adventism in protestant thought is to the Radical Reformation, hence, Anabaptist. COL69 2006-01-03 04:08Z

Media Ministries

I would like to suggest that the section on media ministries needs to be moved to another page dedicated to media ministries. The reason is that it is not an official ministry. The main page should be devoted to a description of the activities of the main church (i.e. departments / ministries) a description of doctrine, a history, and a (brief) discussion about doctrine. A separate article on supporting ministries, inlcuding maranatha, Asian Aid, etc. would be appropriate. -Fermion 07:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, there would certianly be plenty of material to cover there, go for it! --Terrible Tim 23:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Any suggestions for a name, I am struggling to apply the naming conventions. I am thinking Independent ministries of the Seventh-day Adventist Church or Seventh-day Adventist Church (Independent ministries). Both are reasonably unambiguous. The only problem is that in Australia independent ministries don't have a good name so the use of that name may have negative conatations for Australia. --Fermion 05:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have chosen to go with Independent ministries of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Please come and help make it a better article -Fermion 30 June 2005 09:47 (UTC)

NPOV

It seems to me that a proper NPOV for an article on a church should focus on that church's official teachings, and anything that is different from the official teachings should be clearly marked as such. Unless I'm misunderstanding the goals of this project, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to evaluate it per se.

I'm particularly concerned at this juncture about the external links in the NPOV section. The Catholic.com article is quite polemic (and inaccurate to some degree) and is definitely not a neutral POV. The religioustolerance.org article I believe is somewhat unbalanced in perspective (e.g., it gives the impression that Victor Houteff and the Shepherd's Rod were as important historically as Ellen White, which is simply not true), though I admit that my assessment is debatable.

I have to wonder what kinds of links would accurately fit into an NPOV section in an article of this type, given that virtually everyone who writes anything about the Adventist church has an agenda of some type.

I'm posting here instead of editing the article directly because, as a newbie to Wikipedia, I don't think its good to make wholesale changes without being familiar with the conventions/expectations ofthe community.--MSSEVER 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and concern over the article. I have a number of concerns over the article (see above message for just one). I have observed over the last couple of months how people have tried to remove the external links, and myself and others have been replacing them. The rationale is basically this: people are going to find that information any way so it is important to be honest, secondly the article itself is still quite underdeveloped and needs work, so a list of links is appropriate.
With regard to the catholic.com article, I agree it was hardly a neutral article (but then nothing is truly neutral), but I would also argue that it is not an article opposed to seventh-day adventism in the sense of some of the others. There is a difference between anti-adventism and scholarly critique. The catholic.com article falls into the second category - scholarly critique, through the lens of catholicism.
One of my concerns about the article is the large section criticising adventism. I think it is time to start developing articles aimed at documenting critiques and attacks on Adventism. For example, there is a wealth of material on Ellen White and her adherents and detractors (and some who are left somewhere in between). An encylopedia article on the Ellen White issue in Adventism would be appropriate. Likewise for the sanctuary crisis. --Fermion 03:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag has not been discussed here by the person who placed it. Apart from the fact that the person removed the word they suspected to be POV and put the tag on at the same time, which doesn't make sense given the lack of other evidence for why the tag is there. Ansell 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Adventists are an evangelical denomination

Are Adventists evangelical Christians? Someone removed the word evangelical from the opening sentence so I just wanted to clarify that I was correct in reverting it. Any inputs anyone? --MyNameIsNotBob 12:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in reverting it. Some people misunderstand the meaning of the term "evangelical," both members and nonmembers. Those who understand our theology (i.e., not out opponents, since they almost always misrepresent our beliefs) sometimes feel that admitting any similarities with other churches is tantamount to abandoning our destinctive doctrines. This, of course, is illogical. We have many more similarities than differences with evangelical Christianity (and "evangelical" is a broad term, anyway). In fact, we hold to all the doctrines which most evangelicals consider to be essential; e.g., salvation by grace alone, the virgin birth, etc.--mssever (Blog) 18:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
It is actually an intersting question. On advice I have received, the term evangelical can mean different things in different places. For example, in the United States it can mean Fundamentalist Christianity, but in England the word is used in a similar way to mentioned above. -Fermion 10:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The terms fundamentalist and evangelical have also changed in meaning over the years. According to Christianity through the Centuries by Earle Cairns (ISBN 0-310-20812-2), at least in the US, the two terms at one time meant essentially the same thing. However, later on, fundamentalists grew increasingly conservative, and several vocal factions adopted anti-intellectual positions. This is why the term fundamentalist has become a pejorative. Evangelicals tried to adopt a more moderate position between anti-intellectualism on the one hand and liberal theology on the other. Nowadays, fundamentalism is best illustrated by people like Jerry Falwell. There is also a large number of fundamentalists who only accept the King James version of the Bible (what's so sacred about a corrupt text?). The term evangelical now seems to be applied by common usage to Protestants who don't want to be called fundamentalist and who are not liberal or mainline. Specifically, evangelicals still tend to hold to inerrancy of the Bible (or something similar--technically Adventist theology doesn't support inerrancy, although our position is very similar in effect), the virgin birth, the need for salvation (by grace), etc. I don't know if this discription is one that all evangelicals would agree with, but I think that it reflects common usage here in the US.--mssever (Blog) 21:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Although the terms evangelical and fundamentalist aren't interchangeable, as noted in the previous posts, I have removed evangelical from the opening paragraph because the page on evangelicalism is basically a description of fundamentalism, something which is not an accurate description of the Adventist church as a whole. -Fermion 04:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm.. I'd say we consider ourseelves to be evangelical. From Evangelicalism:
1. emphasis on the conversion experience, also called being saved, new birth or born again after John 3:3. Thus evangelicals, at times, refer to themselves as born again Christians. Check
2. the Bible is the primary source of religious authority, as God's revelation to humankind. Bible prophecy is often affirmed. We will happily point out that all our beleifs are founded in the scriptures, and we are certianly students of prophecy.
3. encouragement of evangelism (the act of sharing one's beliefs) -- in organized missionary work or by personal evangelism. Check
4. a central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross as the means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins. We talk abou this, and also Chist's current work of intercession in the sanctuary
And another list:
1. Biblical inerrancy We don't beleive that the Spirit caused every word to be written a particular way, becuase each authors style show though (seeBiblical inspiration) However we certianly do beleive that the writer were inspired.
2. Salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good works Absolutly emphasized
3. Individuals (above an age of accountability) must personally trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. No other name
4. All Christians are commissioned to evangelize Yes
Perhaps you view us as failing on some of these points. I should like to know why you do not consider us evangelical. --Terrible Tim 11:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Tim, I don't have a problem with any theological statement made under the name evangelical, my concern is with social phenomena that is labelled evangelical. I am am concerned that the media often use the term incorrectly, however, it is being used in a way that is too closely aligned with fundamentalism. Having re-read the article on evangelicalism I agree that we fit, and will put the term back in. I was just reacting to what I perceived to be a slow creep in the definition. Sorry. -Fermion 07:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not just use proselytism instead of evangelicalism? I think that should resolve all of the issues. Peyna 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that I don't think the supposed negative connotation referred to on that article is accurate. Peyna 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Females in leadership

The religious practices section of main page says that women cannot be ordained as ministers. This, from personal experience, is false—a close friend of mine is a female pastor. Changing article accordingly. Questions/comments/concerns?--'Net 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right that there are many females working as ministers and ordained to be ministers. However, they are not ordained as pastors of the world-wide Adventist church. They may have be ordained within a local conference or union, but as I understand it women are unable to be ordained as pastors for the global field. My concerns with the section as it stands that it may give the false impression that females can be ordained to pastors and be recognised by the General Conference. -Fermion 11:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Now that you mention it, I do remember being told that there was some kind of thing like that - ordained by the union or division but not GC. I suggest further revision of article to explain this, if possible, however I leave the task and the choice to others, unless I have more free time in the next couple of days than expected. Thank you Fermion.--'Net 14:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

External Links - categories

Over the past week or so there has been an anonymous user trying to move the website relating to evangelism into independent ministries. I fail to see why this should be the case. Would the person doing it kindly explain for my benefit. I removed the net98 link because it didn't work when I tried it. -Fermion 08:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hello, I just added a very disgraceful part of American history to this page, about Biological tests performed on Seventh Day Adventists in the 1950's. There is no real history section here, so I just added it where I thought it was appropriate.

The reason I am writing this is, the three original footnotes have no connection to the article itself, the information was probably deleted at sometime in the history of the article, and the footnotes remained. Someone who is actually Seventh Day Adventist may want to clean this up. Travb 14:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Are these comments actually relevant to this article? Woudl they be better off being included in a separate article on the History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church or something of the likes? Someone who has more experience on these matters please clear this up. THanks --MyNameIsNotBob 11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I agree, but lets have the Seventh Day figure this out. If you are Seventh-day Adventist, go for it, make the page. But lets make sure there is:
  • a link here to the history,
  • there is more on the history page than just this, and
  • most important, that your intention isn't to discourage an honest accounting of Seventh Day, and by extention American history.*
*I am not accusing you of this, just laying my cards on the table--unfortunatly there are a lot of American jingoists here on wikipedia, thankfully you don't sound like one of them. But I have unfortunatly had so many negative run ins with jingoists, I am always weary and territoral of the items I post.
AGAIN, if you are Seventh-day Adventist (SDA), go for it, make the history page--hell even if you are not SDA, make the page....I personally have no interest in religion, beyond the American government using any group of people as guinea pigs (click for a proud patriotic history), so it would be like work for me to make it.
Added the History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to WikiProject_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Some_more_ideas project page. Travb 20:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Travb, no i am definitely not an Amercan jingoist. And I have made starts on a History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church page, but being an SDA myself, I struggle to avoid breaching NPOV. Since I have not made progress for some time i think i better upload what i have done. Thanks for your contribution. If you want ot help with the SDA project feel free. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 04:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Citations/References

The entire section on criticisms (and some other sections) is completely void of any kind of citation or references; would it possible to provide some outside sources for these claims? I don't doubt them; since probably every religion everywhere has been called bad things by another religion, but it would be nice to have some verification. Peyna 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying here. I would almost go as far to say that the whole section needs rewriting. This section has been strongly criticised by the peer review, which I would ask that you would help me correct suggestions from. One of the reasons I have found this difficult to do is the lack of sources in there. BTW, thanks for fixing that problem with the TOC - it was annoying me too, just I didn't know how to fix it. MyNameIsNotBob 22:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
p.s. Would you be interested in joining the Wikiproject Seventh-day Adventist Church?
Yeah, any section heading (i.e. == Section == can be done <h2> Section <h2> and then it will not show up in the TOC. just use <h#> Title </h#> where # corresponds to the number of ='s you'd have in a normal header. Peyna 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventist Church Archived FAC

This is the archive of a bid for Featured Article status. If you can help address some of the issues that are raised in this discussion PLEASE do. Thank you. MyNameIsNotBob 08:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Am posting this article as a Featured Article Candidate after a Wikipedia:Peer review. I have made all of the changes suggested by the Peer Review, and by my analysis, this article is Featured Article quality. Should this article become a Featured Article, it will be the first religious denomination to do so. Feel free to make critical comments as I would rather it to become a better article that is not featured than for it to be a poor quality Featured Article. MyNameIsNotBob 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Too many small subsections in the 'Practices and customs' section. The bullet list in 'Doctrine' section is not needed. Could do with inline citations (see Wikipedia:Footnote), logo image needs a fair use rationale since it uses a fair use tag. — Wackymacs 08:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I have expanded the 'Doctrine' section so as the bullet list could be removed. Does this need subheadings? Will work on other comments shortly. MyNameIsNotBob 11:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There's no need for more subheadings - there are already too many subheadings. — Wackymacs 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Do I need to rid the article of any subheadings? I can possibly merge some of those paragraphs if necessary - or will it be ok once those paragraphs have been expanded? MyNameIsNotBob 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Although sub-headings were generally frowned-upon, it seems they're becoming more acceptable so long as they head significant sections. So yes, if you exand them quite somewhat, they may be fine.--cj | talk 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have done some major expansions and restructuring of the article according to Wackymacs and cj's suggestions. I have not yet been able to properly reference the article. Are the changes I have made sufficient in the relevant areas and are there any other issues that need to be addressed (apart from the footnotes, external links and fair use rationale)? Thanks MyNameIsNotBob 07:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
ps, just looking at Wikipedia:logos, what do you mean by a fair use rationale? MyNameIsNotBob 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with fair use, but perhaps this: [1] helps? The Catfish 23:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Largely agree with Wackymacs. Too many one or two-sentence paragraphs, and too many short sub-sections. "Media ministries" doesn't flow well; it should be expanded and rewritten. Overall, the article needs expanding. A few inline cites (ie, footnotes) would be nice, and all external links should be in the "External links" section only. --cj | talk 09:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - which baptises around 2000 members a day sounds like an advert, make it an annual number of memberships. Also, the part on the Davidians should discuss that there were a couple of forms, as well as a bit more detail about the doctrinal differences. The first paragraph on the Sabbath also reads a bit like an advert, should tone down/reword a bit, and finally I find it really odd that there's not a single mention of Catholicism, given the...'contentious' view both denominations seem to hold of each other. Anyways, don't mean to be snippy, just trying to offer some criticisms to make it a better article :) (Possibly there could be an entire Relationship of the SDA and Catholic churches article, there would certainly seem to be enough material) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, I'll see what I can do sometime. MyNameIsNotBob 08:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment noted. However, until it is official policy, the source can remain. MyNameIsNotBob 00:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Article TODO List based on FAC (see above)

  1. The current primary weakness with this article is the lack of sources. I have added a tag at the top of the main page just to remind editors of this. If anyone can help with sourcing the article, that help would be much aprreciated. I also ask that anyone who adds information finds sources for their comments. This is critical for this article to become Featured.
  2. Can someone verify the fair use on the logo. It is in need of a Fair Use Rationale apparently. If someone is familiar with this policy could you please help out.
  3. This article is moving past the 30k size. Can people please keep a check on what is necessary for this article and the possibility of sub-articles.

Thanks for your help. MyNameIsNotBob 00:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seventh-day_Adventist_Church/Archive_1&oldid=828027543"