Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 2

message: I would like to see something here about Ellen G. White's teaching that blacks and Indians were a product of animal and human interspecies mating. She called it amalgamation. I think something like that deserves a mention in the article or the one on her biography.
:My initial answer is no.  Ellen White didn't teach the above.  It is true that there is a comment to that effect in the first edition of one of her books.  It, however, was removed in subsequent editions.  The only merit in including such a discussion would be to illustrate the difficulties in treating everything Ellen White wrote as prophetic.  It doesn't, thought, belong on the main church page, but on a subpage of Ellen White. -Fermion 07:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I would reiterate, it only appeared in the first edition of a book, which she subsequently removed.  It is true that I personally cringe whenever it is mention, however, I am willing to give a discussion as I understand it on the appropriate page.  In the future, please provide the actual quotes and references. -Fermion 07:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good.  Now tell me which edition of Spiritual Gifts and also how you make the link from "certain races of men" to blacks and Indians? -Fermion 05:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Emyth, I appreciate the link.  I had forgotten there was something on the Estate's webpage.  I was just running from memory of a talk I once heard on the topic. -Fermion 07:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Instead of grappling with the issue Adventists simply deny it. Do you realize that this is part of the reason Adventism is not taken seriously? You will never develop an explanation until you confront the problem. That problem of course is your foundress White. The issue will not just go away no matter how you try to delete it. cestusdei
I beg your pardon cestusdei, but you should not presume that I am an Adventist and then make personal attacks based upon your prejudice.  In fact, I am a Unitarian Universalist minister who's done doctoral studies in theology at a Boston University, Boston College and Harvard Div School.  Let me point your way to the Criticisms of Seventh-day Adventist Church article, where your Roman Catholic perspective could be useful/helpful if you take a less pugillistic approach/stance. Emyth 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amalgamation 

message: I apologize for not getting to this discussion earlier, when Fermion requested my comments because I'm listed on WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church.  It is hard to tell if this disagreement has been cleared up finally (I doubt it), whether Perspicacious has decided to just leave the page alone, whether he/she is looking for the references that others like MyNameIsNotBob asked for, or he/she is just taking a breather before dashing back into the fray.  Either way, I'm thinking I'll summarize the issue and add a few comments.
The basic issues (as I see them) are:
#Whether Maxwell's divergent view is schismatic.
#Whether it has many followers.
#Whether SDA church leaders officially consider it a threat/schism.
#Whether any of this is notable for a Wikipedia article on the SDA church.
In each case, the burden of proof is on Perspicacious that the answer to all of these is "yes."  If the answer to any of 1-3 is "no," #4 is an automatic "no," and we should leave it out until that changes, if it ever does.  By my current estimate, #1 is "maybe, #2 is supported by Weber's comments (which were Perspicacious' strongest support, but are both inconclusive and only supportive of one of the four necessary elements to make it onto the page), and #3 is still "no."  This means that #4 is "no" and that it stays off the page, I'd say.
Perspicacious, the other editors here are not trying to shut you up to make the SDA church look good or to try to use this page as a recruiting tool.  That is both incorrect and a form of personal attack (not your first on this page) which does not help your case.  If they were trying to make the SDA church look good, why wouldn't there be an edit war over both the "Offshoots and schismatics" and "Outsider criticism" sections in their entirety?  Why would they only be fighting your unverified point alone?  You have brought up a variety of "reasons" why the "Maxwell Schism" should be on this page, but every time that the others seem to answer you conclusively on one point, you ignore it and bring up another, rather than saying, "You're right" or giving an inch, even when they have a very good point.  This does not reflect good faith, and neither does the fact that you held up progress completely (when the page was protected) just because you wanted to have your say no matter what.  If two "supporters" of Maxwell are not consensus (as you said), one opponent of Maxwell certainly isn't!  If the Graham Maxwell page was speedied as non-notable, what makes you think that his teachings are in any way more notable?  If you are such a strong opponent of Maxwell, why do you insist on publishing his ideas (any publicity is good publicity, they say) instead of waiting for a Maxwell supporter to do so and then rebutting him/her?
Ansell, no need to jump on sdainfo for his/her edit.  That user said he/she was sorry up front and disavowed support of Perspicacious in the explanation.  Just because one person who edits this page seems to be unreasonable doesn't mean that everyone who edits this page is.  Let's all keep cool heads about this, even if we get frustrated.
Ultimately, if we can't reach an agreement or compromise and Perspicacious refuses to listen to reason (as he/she has already refused to listen to Hipocrite), I say our next move should be to take this to ArbCom, even though I don't like doing that, as it goes against Paul's teachings on how Christians should settle disputes.  If/when this discussion is over, it should be archived in an appropriately named subpage here (rather than "Archive2," it should be something like "Maxwell Discussion Archive" or maybe "Archive2-Maxwell Discussion") so that it isn't taking up the majority of this very long page (91k, counting my comments here).  --Cromwellt|Talk 03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Cromwellt.  I have archived the discussion, except your recent comment, as the page was getting too big.  It is not an indication that I consider the topic to be closed.  Thanks again -Fermion 07:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another voice

message: When I unprotected, there was a paragraph saying:
: Adventism also has a long and unfortunate history of anti-Catholicism. Ellen White's works are unrelenting in their attacks on the Catholic Church. This reflects the common misconceptions and bigotry then current. Many Adventists still hold these positions. Some of their outreach organizations, such as Amazing Facts, continue to propagate anti-Catholic falsehoods. 
I don't know whether that is true or not, but it isn't adequately sourced.
Someone then edited it to say:
: Adventism is often viewed by other Protestant denominations as being anti-Catholic. It is true that the Adventist church still warns against the soul destroying teachings of the Roman Catholic church while the vast majority of the Protestant world keeps silent. However the Seventh-Day Adventist church also recognizes that there are multitudes of God's true followers within the Catholic church who only recently have been allowed to read the Bible for themselves. 
Well this may or may not be true, but now "the soul destroying teachings of the Roman Catholic church" are being accepted for a fact, which is hardly a neutral presentation.
Well today it was updated to read:
: Adventism is often viewed by other Protestant denominations as being anti-Catholic, as is evidenced by the previous entry on this page that "the Adventist church still warns against the soul destroying teachings of the Roman Catholic church while the vast majority of the Protestant world keeps silent." However, the adventists contradict this by claiming that they seek to convert all christian denominations to adventism, including Catholics. Thus it may be concluded that they are not anti-catholic but simply anti-christian. 
Oh dear, this is even worse!  We have blatant Anti-Adventist bias here, and a self-reference!
I've removed the paragraph for now.  Perhaps we should go back to first principles.  Does the Seventh-day Adventist church strongly criticise other churches, and if so, does it single out the Catholic church in particular?  If we can find a reference for that, perhaps we can discuss how to insert the fact, if it's especially significant, into the article. --Tony Sidaway 07:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this can be documented but I grew up being taught that the original true Christian church was corrupted to become the Roman church and 666 is  the Latin name for the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church was the most likely organisation that would persecute the righteous at the end of the world and is the most corrupted of all Christian sects. I'm sure White does have a lot to say about this in The Great Controversy. I don't think there is much doubt that there has been strong anti Catholic sentiment in the USA. The first para could be edited to remove the POV Brettr 09:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adventism also has a long history of anti-Catholicism. Ellen White's works are unrelenting[?] in their attacks on the Catholic Church reflecting common views of that locale and era. Many Adventists still hold these positions especially some of the outreach organizations, such as Amazing Facts.
A relevant page on the issue may be http://www.catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp I may have a go at summarising it later. MyNameIsNotBob 11:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The paragraphs above (quoted from the article), while reflecting a truth, distort it by the presentation, particularly the paragraph with the self-reference.  How wanting to convert all Christian denominations to Adventism is anti-Christian is beyond me (I think that every Christian denomination would like to convert others, and Adventists as a church focus more on converting non-Christians (see, for example, the Adventist Frontier Missions website) than many other denominations do), but that is beside the point.  Adventists do not generally criticize other churches, with the exception of the Catholic Church.  Adventists as a denomination and their antecedents have closely studied the book of Revelation (along with Daniel) ever since William Miller (some time before the church actually existed).  There, they found texts which seem to them to specifically describe the Catholic Church as a world power at the end of time which will persecute the faithful remnant.  It is important to note that this is always and specifically referring to the Catholic Church as an organization, not to its members.  These ideas are supported in the writings of Ellen White, notably in her book The Great Controversy.  It may be that the average member outside of the United States does not know about this.  Amazing Facts puts forward these ideas (perhaps in stronger words) based on those same texts.  While Ellen White's words on the topic have influenced Amazing Facts, their presentation does not use her as a source, but goes directly from what the Bible says, since she would not be considered authoritative by a non-Adventist (their target audience).  I don't know if this is especially significant, but if it is, I think we should put it on a separate page (referenced in the article) regarding interactions between the SDA church and other churches, or possibly on Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with an appropriate explanation.  --Cromwellt|Talk 03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This statement was recorded on April 15, 1997, by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Administrative Committee (ADCOM) and released by the Office of the President, Robert S. Folkenberg.
Now I'm sure this won't satisfy many people who are strongly critical of the past anti-Catholic teachings of Adventists (and we should surely include or at least acknowledge such past teachings) I think the above demonstrates that, while the Adventists have a reasoned criticism of other religions, they seek to do so in a way that is compatible with the tenets of Christianity.
The document I cited also says that Adventists believe that in the coming end times, "world religions--including the major Christian bodies as key players--will align themselves with the forces in opposition to God and to the Sabbath" and "once again the union of church and state will result in widespread religious oppression."  This alone does justify some of the claims about Adventism's opposition to other religions.  However I don't think this makes Adventism particularly special.  Even its millennarian views and tendency to see present-day activities as signs of the fulfilment of end times prophecy do not make it so unusual within protestant congregations. --Tony Sidaway 06:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a way that I like to view the issue, which may help shape a paragraph.  Traditionally and historically Adventist theology has been anti-Catholic.  This reflects the very anti-Catholic sentiments in Protestant America in the 1840s.  Presently, as indicated by the quotes found by Tony Sidaway, Adventist theology officially recognises that Christians may be found in all denominations, and seeks to find mutual ground between all Christians.  However, I understand Adventist theology to still consider Roman Catholicism, as an institution, to be representative of a biblical picture of Babylon.  I will elaborate further on this distinciton if required.  At a sociological level, and this is where most of the criticism is directed, rank and file Adventists are often very anti-Catholic (some are even anti-non-Adventists). -Fermion 07:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Catholic paragraph

message: 3ABN may not be affiliated with the church or funded by the Church, however, this is what the category is for. It is definitely an organisation which is "Independent", it contains Seventh-day Adventist influenced/based programming, including not the least of which is a regular Sabbath School Study program among other things. It has Seventh-day Adventist perpectives in all of its programming. I would think that it does infact fit in the category as is. Ansell 07:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we include 3ABN here, we must point out that it is not officially affiliated with the church in any way.  As I understand it, this was either partly a decision of 3ABN leadership (the Sheltons) and partly a decision by the GC, or totally a decision by the GC.  I think the main issue (I don't know for sure) is that 3ABN reflects the ideas of only a few people, and not necessarily the official doctrines of the church.  I heard some explanation of this by someone who understood the situation better, but it's been a while.  --Cromwellt|Talk 07:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not read an official church statement on the issue, or an official 3ABN statement on exactly how far from mainstream Adventism they lie. I was kind of trying to respond to the deletion with a deconstruction of my understanding of the category. I still think they are an Independent organisation with a definite Seventh-day Adventist mission, however, the fact that this mission may not accurately depict the consensus/mainstream/common (assuming such a position exists) point of view may keep them out of a category like this. Their contribution to the Seventh-day Adventist mission should not be easily underestimated given their broadcast range and programming variety. Ansell 10:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3ABN

message: I particularily disliked the last part of the material on abortion: "severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. While the general tone toward abortion is negative, the individual Adventist may take any position on the political spectrum; as such, abortions are performed in Adventist hospitals.."
- do they (or, actually, we:) condone the killing of a dysfunctional fetus? Or indeed killing of a fetus that comes from rape?
- is it taking a political position when one has an abortion because of "significant threats to the pregnant womans life"?
I say no. Please reference, rewrite or delete. --Andreas Müller 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cited the relevant reference. If you believe the wording is too harsh or is POV please change it accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. MyNameIsNotBob 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you MyNameIsNotBob... By quoting official SDA Church source, you have put the matter to rest as far as the Wikipedia goes.  Andreas, if you say still say "No"... you'll have to take it up with your co-religionists.  Once they change their minds and change Church policy, then we can change the Wikipedia.  Emyth 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion