Talk:Investigative judgment

message: A lecturer at Avondale College told me that during his 1979 Pacific Union College address, Ford said that the 1844 date could not be derived from Hebrews. Apparently, a year later at Glacier View, the church had moved on to accept this earlier position of Ford; although by this time Ford himself had moved substantially further. Is this correct? If so (and a citation would be better), it would make a good addition IMO. (I haven't read/listened to the 1979 address or Glacier View yet.) Regards, Colin MacLaurin 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the original Glacier View documents from one of the attendees and find nothing there (Or in the Daniel and Revelation committee books that followed) suggesting that the church ever concluded that 1844 was not the right year for the start of the Most Holy Place ministry of Christ (the Investigative Judgment). BobRyan777 (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PUC lecture 

message: I just found a comment that "Leaving the Adventist Ministry" by Peter Ballis, professor of sociology at Monash University in Australia, is one of the best sources regarding the fallout from the Glacier View controversy; in a blog post which I assume is by the editor of Spectrum. It would be good to incorporate this work sometime. Colin MacLaurin 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to the source - do you have it? Tonicthebrown 07:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in my personal collection, but presumably it would be in the College library. Sorry for suggesting a source that is probably hard to come by :) This comment was left here partly for my own future reference, if I get around to looking up the book, but I thought others might appreciate it too. I just checked, and Arthur Patrick references him multiple times in the 25 Years Since Glacier View article. It would be good to quote the original source. I will do this sometime. Colin MacLaurin 13:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I found these comments by User:CheerfulPaul on Talk:Great Disappointment as of now
"The date October 22 is not mentioned in the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. In fact Ellen White (co-founder) only mentions the season of fall, and some Adventists believe(d) that the investigative judgment began in the spring of 1844 ( see , #70) I found out that Seventh-day Adventist scholars seem to favor the Millerite date of October 22, but that doesn't seem worth mentioning in this article. Maybe it could say "Many Seventh-day Adventists maintain..."? It seemed easier just to remove the date as it requires too much explanation to connect it to a specific source."
Good content to verify and then (presumably) add. Colin MacLaurin 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems deficient in that it describes the internecine history of the doctrine in great detail but never clearly explains what it is, which should be done in the first paragraph or two.  Investigative judgment meaning that God is investigating our character and our sins to determine what our judgment will be?
I do not understand even the basics of what investigative judgment is from reading the first two sentences, and I do not want to read the entire article. The second sentence already begins to speak of the history of IJ, when it should probably explain a bit more about what IJ is (without requiring us to move to a separate linked page) before moving on. 
Sincerely, 
One humble end user's opinion
Jinjit82 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new content 

message: Further to what I said above, here is a claim by Des Ford from his interview with Atoday 
: "I know men who are key figures in the leadership of our Adventist world church who have told me privately that they also disagree with the traditional interpretation of the Investigative Judgment. Although these men are the thought leaders of the Church, they are afraid to express themselves publicly on this matter. They cannot be honest on this subject, for if they were, they fear that they would all be sacked, and our universities, colleges, and editorial offices would be denuded. "
I did not try to edit the main page because I am sure the edit would have been reversed. However, I did want to make the following point about the Sanctuary and the judgment. 
On the John Ankerberg Show in the early 80s, Walter Martin debated Dr. William Johnsson, an Australian adventist professor who had known Desmond Ford very well.
During the Martin/Johnsson debate, Martin recalled a 1957 meeting with Ted Heppenstall, William Murdoch, and George Canon. Canon was then a graduate student in NT Greek brought in by the Barnhouse team. Canon read a passage out of the Greek NT from Hebrews 9 and got Murdoch and Heppenstall to agree that Christ completed the atonement at the Ascension. 1844 was not in the Greek text of Hebrews. Johnsson, who had written a dissertation in NT Studies on Hebrews 9 and 10, gave a rather weak reply concerning the Greek word "agia" and how it can be translated as "sanctuary. " Conservative adventists have spent 54 years arguing over this passage of Greek, but a reading of Hebrews 9&10 in plain English seems to favor Martin's view.
In my view the distinctive doctrines of the SDA church were developed by laymen with no specialized knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, ANE history, archeology, or Egyptology.
Of course, any Adventist is free to ASSUME the truth of her church's doctrines.
My point is this- if such great Adventist professors as Heppenstall and Murdoch were willing to admit that the Greek text of the NT has nought to do with the doctrines of Ellen White, then why would Adventists expect nonadventists to take the claims surrounding 1844 seriously at all?
Need I remind us that Crozier, a young man who helped write out the Sanctuary doctrine, became an anti-adventist crusader later on. Miller himself disavowed his past views and explicitly rejected Ellen White and her claims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.209.199 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "When I query Adventist pastors, they say they agree with the traditional teaching regarding Daniel 8:14. But these same preachers report they never preach on the topic.... [1844] is a doctrine that is best believed and ignored." 
Tonicthebrown 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice citation hunting, Tonic. I think I read the McLarty article, if it is a recent one. I have also read critics from ellenwhite.org (I think) say that they know many Adventist leaders who disbelieve this or that. I hope that these citations can be added to the article. Colin MacLaurin 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pastors secretly disagree

message: I propose that a lot of content be added to the "Glacier View controversy" section, and that when large enough it be branched out to a new article with a "summary style" left behind, per the policies. Numerous articles link to this precise topic, such as Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, possibly History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Seventh-day Adventist theology, and probably many others including potentials. There has been a lot of material written about those events both for and against, which I believe merits such focus. Also, it has been considered one of the most (possibly the most) damaging/controversial events in the history of the Adventist church. Colin MacLaurin 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this would be a very good idea in the long term. Currently I don't have much more material to add. Some more good quality research needs to be done, and more sources gathered. Tonicthebrown 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who make such claims are totally clueless about Ellen.  Take the time to read the 6 volume biography of Ellen White.  All this nonsense is discussed openly and fully.  The problem is that most critics don't want to know the truth and certainly won't bother to take the time to learn something....   RVscholar (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New subpage suggestion: Glacier View controversy 

message: I'm adding material from Raymond Cottrell as I slowly work through his article. This is a work-in-progress: I look forward to a greater variety of sources being used. I encourage other editors to "be bold" also! Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative bias 

message: Hi there, the source #6 seems to be dead (http://sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines/inves-judgment.htm). Can someone find an alternative source or delete this part out of the article? --Thekryz (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rooyen's book review is now posted, so I have cited it directly and removed mention of Patrick's article (the presently dead link above). As a note for the future, there were two sources cited, and one dead link would not be grounds to remove content. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source dead. 

message: I can find no definition of "investigative judgment". Probably because the formulations trying to define "investigative judgment" assumes too much knowledge of the reader, f.ex. this from the intro:
:unique Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, which asserts that a judgment of professed Christian believers has been in progress since 1844.
What? Who are judging whome? Are "professed Christian believers" ― whatever that means in the 7dA-context ― judging anything, or are they judged, or both? If they aren't judging themselves, who is/are judging? What qualities of /unknown-object/ are evaluated in this judging context? When the judgement is done, what happens next? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the query. The article makes it quite clear what the investigative judgment is, I think. I've made a small clarification in the lead. "Professed Christian believers" means exactly that -- people who profess to be Christian believers. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tonic's mini-adjustment helps, but I agree Rursus that it is a little obscure. That is simply the nature of the belief, one might say. Yet if anyone can clarify it, please go ahead. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: All - I am not sure how to use this discussion section - so please advise.  I tried to clarify the point that "investigative judgment" is actually a label Adventists have given to the Daniel 7:9-10 heavenly court room scene where "the court sits and the books are opened". Thus a judgment based on evidence contained "in books". As for who is judged  it is all mankind either directly or indirectly - because those who are not included in this judgment are not covered by the blood of Christ. At the end of the judgment "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" Dan 7:22, and then Christ's second coming brings an end to the persecution of the saints.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobRyan777 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition missing (actually)

message: There have been several POV edits with no sources to back them up.  Also, There is too much reliance on a single source--Cottrel--need more sources to back up his POV.  Allenroyboy (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantive editing 

message: I changed the "Counter Arguments" section title to "Adventist Response to Critics" since it is confusing as to whether "counter arguments" is a reference to the subject - or to the Critics. 
If one assumes that the primary focus of the article is "the critics" then "counter arguments" is clearly addressed to the critics. But IF the primary purpose is the actual subject of the article (in this case the "Investigative Judgment" doctrine) then "Counter Arguments" would be "counter" to the I.J -- not counter to some critic. I have changed the section title to point out that this is supposed to be Adventist response to critics. BobRyan777 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventist Response to Critics 

message: Hi, all. I noticed that this article has numerous external links (links to off-wiki sites) in the body of the article. That's not permitted by our  external links policy, which says, among other things, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." One of the reasons for this policy, as I understand it, and the reason all our articles have a separate section just for external links, is that we want our readers to know when clicking on a link will take them offsite. If regulars on this article want to keep the information present in the in-the-body-of-the-article links, they'll need to convert those links to references using, for example, the "cite book" template for Bible verses. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant cleanup needed re external links 

message: Hi Simbagraphix, thank you for your constructive revisions, which improve the quality of the article rather than taking an axe to it. I think that this is the best way to move forward. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I found this article while looking for LDS Investigative Judgement belief information. The article is very technical and concentrates mainly on the controversial aspects and personalities who have contributed to the Investigative Judgement controversy and the doctrine. At the moment every single paragraph seems to be about controversy. I appreciate this is an excellent source of information for church members but it is unsuited to a beginner.
A beginner - like me - needs to know what the current position is and then the beliefs and practical implications which derive from that. The article is very short on practical implications.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.34.224 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple introduction needed 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:TheWayItWas.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: a decent explanation is provided here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_sanctuary#Official_position
why on earth, with all the words in this article, can you say something simple like
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4200:1E42:4D03:E775:34BD:19AD (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: crappy article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Investigative judgment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212000000/http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/AssetOrLiability.html to http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/AssetOrLiability.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011110908/http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents.htm to http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070531225517/http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp to http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070531225517/http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp to http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305012831/http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2002/11/progressive-and-traditional-adventists-examined to http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2002/11/progressive-and-traditional-adventists-examined
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Investigative judgment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817052909/http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/ to http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/
*Added  tag to http://atoday.com/series/1844-lesson-commentaries/part-12/sanctuary-doctrine-asset-or-liability-part-12
*Added  tag to http://atoday.com/series/1844-lesson-commentaries/part-13/sanctuary-doctrine-asset-or-liability-part-13
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625231246/http://www.atoday.com/6.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=49&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1&cHash=0b214c4947 to http://www.atoday.com/6.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=49&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1&cHash=0b214c4947
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012233622/http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/news/WEAAdventistDialogue20070809d.pdf to http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/news/WEAAdventistDialogue20070809d.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose to merge Pre-advent_judgment into this article Investigative_judgment. 
The Pre-advent Judgment article is only a stub, and the topic isn’t understandable or notable outside the context of Investigative Judgment. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn’t need to be a separate entry for every concept. . Bluepenciltime (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal