Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 4

message: I am concerned that a number of sections on this page lack encyclopedic content. They are more concerned with the arguments surrounding the claims rather than who made the claims. Possibly the best examples are "Christology" and "Remnant Church Status". To steer away from being original research and not using weasel terms the article should, for example, read:
* Carrow, in his 1982 thesis Fundamentals of Christian Eschatology in the Post-Modern world, wrote that Seventh-day Adventists were veering away from the ability to use numerology to find meaning.
NOT:
* The Seventh-day Adventist church, in its 1981 statement , claimed that church theologians should no longer use numerology to find biblical meaning.
I hope this is clear enough in itself, if you have any questions please ask. MyNameIsNotBob 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are some of these sections encyclopedic? 

message: Negligent management at Glendale Adventist Medical Center played a major role in the serial killer scandal that hit that hospital in the late 1990's. Efren Saldivar was a respiratory therapist who confessed to police that he had killed over 100 patients by injecting the paralytic pancuronium which paralyzed the patients leading to respiratory and cardiac arrest. Several bodies were exumed and body fluids tested positive for this paralytic agent. Efren Saldivar is currently in jail.
Glendale News-Press: 
In press release #03-159 Florida (Adventist) Hospital was forced to pay $1.4 million dollars to settle health-care fraud allegations.
--Perspicacious 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand, but the claims above are supported, however, they are not in the class of arguments that this page is made up for. They are worthy of inclusion on Glendale Adventist Medical Center, and last time I looked, they were there. Ansell 13:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsupported claims

message: I am baffled as to the inclusion of the two paragraphs about the Shut door theology in this article. There is no explanation in the paragraph that justifies it as Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Further, an extended explanation of the origins of the teaching really belongs on History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Unless someone can justify this paragraph in the next couple of days in a way such as I have suggested earlier on this page, I will remove it. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 05:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a criticism that is used against the church, the references explain that. It is used to say that the church stopped believing that anyone else could be saved after a certain time. Which way am I supposed to justify it anymore in? It already fulfills the verifiability criteria, and it is within the scope of reasonably widely known criticism's of the church. Ansell Review my progress! 05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I am well aware of the early belief in the shut door theology. However, I am still not aware that anyone has criticised the church for holding to that theory for the first few decades of its development. MyNameIsNotBob 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used commonly as a part of a claim that Ellen White was a false prophet because she claimed she had a vision which showed the shut door concept, and then later she revoked the claim. That is how it relates as a common criticism. Ansell Review my progress! 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok, I get your drift. Just the articles wording doesn't imply it. MyNameIsNotBob 07:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please justify the ''Shut door'' section?