Talk:Last Generation Theology

message: Having read this article from start to finish, I can't help but feel that it was written by someone who strongly advocates LGT. The bias comes through quite clearly. Hence I am concerned about NPOV. I also do not feel that the article has been written in a formal encyclopedic style. The quality of wording and expression could be improved considerably. Tonicthebrown 08:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments

message: I agree with Tonicthebrown's comments here.  Additionally, this article seems to be of little or no interest at all to the Adventist Church.  LGT seems to be a random opinion rather than a full blown challenge to any theology of the Adventist church.  For it to be called a movement, it needs believers; otherwise, it's just another opinion of what should be in a church denomination's doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.106.70 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 September 2006
: I probably would not go so far as to call LGT a "random opinion" which is "of little or no interest" to the Adventist church. Yes, LGT is a minority opinion that is opposed by the leadership of the church. But nevertheless they are quite vocal and active, they operate numerous independent ministries, and seem to attract a fair number of supporters. Some friends once brought me to their seminars in Melbourne (Australia), and these appeared quite popular. The "concerned brethren" appear to hold LGT sentiments, and they are certainly a sizeable group. The stand which M.L. Andreason took against the leadership of the church in 1957 continues to be applauded by many Adventists. In summary, it seems to me that LGT is very much a force to be reckoned with—it's inaccurate to write it off as a "random opinion" Tonicthebrown 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreed

message: I put quotation marks around the word "historic." The term "historic Adventistism" should be 1) avoided or 2) used with quotation marks or 3) use a tag clarifying that this is a label. It is difficult to distinguish whether this refers to a specific movement, or with what the authors believe are true historical beliefs of earlier believers. By failing to make a proper distinction, it mis-leads the readers and the authors show a clear bias assuming that this movement is truly faithful to historic doctrines, which is disputable. The point is that either we avoid calling it historic Adventistm, or we use quotation marks around "historic."--Tomluttrell (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tom, to request a citation, use the  template. The issue is what the most reliable, independent sources call the movement. From my reading, they call it "historic Adventism". There may be a reference to what you seek in that article. Either way, feel free to improve either article yourself with neutral, verifiable material. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Another point - you mention that "Historic Adventists" are not necessarily believing "historically"-held Adventist beliefs. In the Historic Adventism#Criticism section Tonic or I added a criticism of this from Woodrow Whidden. If you know of other reliable sources who have said the same, please add them to either article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Glad you're willing to contribute to the article. You're absolutely correct about the burden of proof; rather, it comes down to what reliable sources say (see the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability). If a statement is not supported by reliable third-party sources, it should be removed. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-use of "Historic" 

message: For the sake of clarity, I believe that a statement that Last Generation Theology (LGT) is not generally endorsed by the leadership and scholarship of the Adventist church, is required in the first paragraph. There is a statement saying it is a "significant" viewpoint, so for balance I believe it needs to be said that it is not mainstream or officially supported. 
Perhaps something like this quote from near the end of the article would suffice, "Although exceptions exist, most official Seventh-day Adventist Church resources published since the late 1970s have opposed the concepts identified as LGT."
Colin MacLaurin 05:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Paragraph 

message: I just reread the comments above (which I must have done at least four times now)! I highly recommend that the quotes from George R. Knight be placed into the article. Knight has done a great service to supporters of LGT and other very conservative Adventists, because the fact that he is not a LGT-supporter gives a lot of credibility to his statements above about the significance (particularly historically) of LGT. Ideally it would be good to find other references as well, but I am confident you will not find better ones that his annotated Questions on Doctrine. Colin MacLaurin 12:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George R. Knight quotes 

message: By the way I still cannot see how the doctrine about sin in the 28 Fundamentals supports LGT. Although I have not studied the details of hamartiology, the doctrine of sin, I do not see how the fundamental belief contracts with other Christian concepts such as original sin. Please explain, as this may assist the development of the article. I think that at Avondale College the lecturers have taught that sin is both: it is being born into sin without choice, and it is also our personal decision. Colin MacLaurin 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sin and the 28 Fundamentals 

message: Some of the biographical details of LGT proponents are unnecessary and fall outside the context of the article - particularly the church employment details of Andreasen, Pierson and Douglass. The intention seems to be to build the credibility of these figures. I suggest much more concise statements, with details reserved for separate Wikipedia articles on each of these figures. The other alternative would be to also give full biographical details for Froom, Gulley, Knight, Johnsson and the other opponents of LGT. Yet I maintain that this would be out of the context of the article, and reduce the clarity.
Colin MacLaurin 05:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been seven months since my original post. I again offer the main contributors to this article the chance to remove extraneous biographical detail, possibly to new articles; before I take out the "red pen" myself. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 12:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much Biographical Detail 

message: I have revised this article for accuracy. I have removed the points of contention Colin and TonictheBrown have raised as they hold no merit. They are subjective and biased opinions lacking relevance.
While I am unfamiliar with the term "LGT", The beliefs that are listed are in line with Adventist biblical understanding and the Pen of Inspiration. Furthermore I will make the timely observation these ideas are in fact the subject of a debate is creating a shaking in many Adventist churches as there are many who are promoting the opposing viewpoint(contra LGT) .
If Colin or TonictheBrown wish to add biographical data for the individuals who are contra to this belief, that is his perrogative.
To state that the article is unbalanced because of the bios or that it is "Narrative" in its nature is not accurate.   
OSIRIS X
3:28, 27 February 2007
:Please assume good faith that I and TonictheBrown are attempting to be objective, unbiased and relevant. Actually, the comments about the biographies are completely separate to the other comments about the neutrality of the article. Looking at the article, the neutrality has improved markedly since its inception. I will however replace the "not verified" tag. I stand by my position on the bios. I suggest a single sentence saying, "Douglass has held a number of significant teaching and administrative positions within the church", or similar. Please give a reason if you disagree. Colin MacLaurin 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy is Crucial

message: The article claims that many well-known individuals, including Ted Wilson, the current General Conference President, support LGT. Also, there is a laundry list of Adventist ministries. Such claims need to be verified and validated with proper citations. Just because an individual makes statements that agree with some of the tenants LGT does not mean they support LGT. References and citations should indicate that the named individual is clearly supporting / promoting LGT as a whole. Databases (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of that was there or at other wikipedia articles, we can work on that for improvement....Simbagraphix (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is General Conference President Ted Wilson on the end time believers or remnant and the source, "The first step in the revival that will prepare God’s people for the latter rain is our recognition of personal sin and weaknesses. With this recognition, the remnant will seek a closer relationship with Jesus through genuine repentance and a turning away from sinful behavior. The Great Controversy, page 623, says, “It is in this life that we are to separate sin from us, through faith in the atoning blood of Christ. Our precious Savior invites us to join ourselves to Him, to unite our weakness to His strength, our ignorance to His wisdom, our unworthiness to His merits.” ..http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/%E2%80%98god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-movement,-message,-and-mission-and-their-attempted-neutralization-by-the-devil%E2%80%99...Simbagraphix (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence here, linking Ted Wilson to the LGT camp. Even if his statements clearly espoused LGT beliefs, this constitutes original research unless you can cite an authority outside of WP that makes the claim that Ted Wilson is in the LGT camp. I rest my case. Databases (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't think you understand that overcoming sin as given in the Great Controversy at "the latter rain" which he uses and LGT are the same, there are those that take it beyond what the church holds, and that is what needs to be identified....Simbagraphix (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claiming Supporters of LGT? 

message: I have taken some liberty to re-factor this article. I've combined some sections under "Doctrine" that were largely redundant, moved the section on "Cleanse and Close" to the history section, resurrected deleted content on Andreasen's theology to add to the history section, and also added a section for criticism per WP policy. I have tried to leave all the actual content the same as before, but I did make a few edits to make things flow a little better. Please, let's discuss these changes, and if someone has problems don't just revert my edits, as I'm trying to improve this article and make it more readable. We've got  a long ways to go on the actual page contents but do the section headings fairly represent what needs to be in the article now? Databases (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Original Sin has a totally different meaning than 'nature' of sin, , and Victory Over Sin also has deep meaning and context for Adventist so I reverted that, please propose changes first and we can move forward accordingly..Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology..Simbagraphix (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I can see that "nature of sin" gives a different meaning. I was mainly looking at the consistency of the table of contents. As an editorial / stylistic issue, all the other teachings are stated in the positive, so it appears that LGT teaches "Original Sin" (from the TOC) even though the article states the opposite. That's why I changed to "nature of sin." Perhaps we could say "Opposition to Original Sin" or something for the section title, for people who don't read the whole article? Databases (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Please discuss before changes to Ellen White quotes as her counsel and testimony  helped illuminate the truths in scripture which are the Pillars of Adventism and her writings lends weight as a "continuing and authoritative source of truth" as seen in Fundamental Belief #18 "The Gift of Prophecy- One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested."...Simbagraphix (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Simbagraphix, please read Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I don't believe that these quotes help the article. This is not the place to debate EGW but neither is WP the place to prove your viewpoint. Databases (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on the quotes to pare down to what is needed, but please do not delete them as it is central to the issue at hand...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-factor Article 

message: The lead section needs to be re-worded to accurately summarize the article, and remove weasel words. I have made several attempts at re-wording but they are always reverted by @Simbrgraphix. Specifically, the lead section is mostly a re-hash of similarities between LGT and Seventh-day Adventist teaching. It should describe the differences or unique points of LGT as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Databases (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make a presentation of the changes for the lead and the body before you delete what is there, then we can work to a consensus, rather than have what is crucial to understanding the issue taken out of the article...Simbagraphix (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: The article includes many, many quotations from the Bible and Ellen G. White, in defence of the teachings of LGT. Not only is this not NPOV, this kind of study constitutes Original Research, IMO, and is also an over-use of "primary sources." Wikipedia policy encourages the use of secondary sources over primary sources. See Wikipedia:No original research. I have taken some liberties to remove or shorten excessive quotations. This article could really use more secondary sources, especially from publications like the Adventist Review. (Also Larry Kirkpatrick and M. L. Andreasen would be considered primary sources in this article).Databases (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on reducing, I don't think that should much of a issue....Simbagraphix (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Quotations / Over-use of Primary Sources 

message: As this article is about Last Generation Theology, I don't think this is the place for long discussions about this history of SDA beliefs. The article should point out the similarities / differences between SDA beliefs and LGT, but the discussion at the top of the "Doctrine" section, and long discussions under many of these sub-headings, could be condensed significantly. 
Saying "The Last Generation Theology understanding is best seen in light of the doctrinal development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" and then proceeding to re-hash the history of the 28 fundamental beliefs is off-topic at best. There is already an article for the 28 Fundamental Beliefs (Adventist), and if this discussion needs to be anywhere, that is the place for it. This article should simply reference the existing 28 Fundamental Beliefs (Adventist) article and then point out similarities / differences and differences of emphasis, supported by reputible secondary (20th or 21st century) sources. 
Also, there is no need for lengthy quotations from scripture, "proving" that it's possible to have victory over sin, or that Christ had a fallen nature, etc. This is an encyclopedia article, not a Bible study or persuasive speech. This article should simply summarize the debate and cite relevant secondary sources. Databases (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as the differences of the groups is what is causing the debate as M. L. Andreasen views are supported as Adventist doctrine, only the hastening and cleansing sin of the saints on earth by Christ during His atoning ministry is not held directly as doctrine so should that should be laid out in the article. I will work on those issues......Simbagraphix (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-hashing SDA beliefs and quoting Bible studies unnecessary 

message: :::I edited the criticism section to temper it a little bit and show that it is largely a rehashing of George Knight's views. This is irresponsible scholarship and I don't believe Knight himself would approve that his views would reflect as the final authority on the subject. Yet the criticism section uses statements like "the fact is", etc. I have reworded some areas to show this is a perspective of Knight. It still needs much cleaning up to do. Let us work together, both adherents and critics to present a fair article for all to see.67.43.190.226 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome and thank you for your input I hope you like Wikipedia, and decide to register as a editor and maybe even help us with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church....Simbagraphix (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Knight is not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry.  He is a recognized authority on SDA history being a professor of history at Andrews University.  He has published many SDA biographies and history books.  Everything I used from Knight is documented in his book from many, many sources.  I could not reference all the sources in this short article.  I focused on his sections about Andreasen and Questions on Doctrine in the book, but to get a full understanding of LGT and SDA theology you need to read the entire book. The sections on the early development of SDA theology after the great disappointment is very illuminating.  Knight points out that most of the pioneer SDAs would not agree with many of the 28 beliefs SDAs now hold.  And, that Historic Adventist beliefs had their origins in the early 20th century NOT with the 19th century pioneers. The problem is that most Adventists that have become SDA's since the 1950s are quite ignorant of church history and so are easy prey for off shoots like Historic Adventists.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand Knight is not just "anyone", but neither was the late Dr. Herbert Edgar Douglass and even Millian L. Andreasen. Andreasen had a respectable position as head of what was to become our seminary. To suggest that Knight's expertise surpasses that of a Douglass, Andreasen or a Dr. Paul Evans (who connected LGT to the teachings of the Pioneers in his doctoral dissertation) is being biased and unfair. Knight is not the only scholar of the SDA Church, and there are many SDAs who do not support his conclusions. Ron Duffield's book, The Return of the Latter Rain exposes many of Knight's faulty assumptions when dealing with the history of 1888 and it is well researched and documented. Please be responsible when appealing to authority. George Knight would agree.67.43.190.226 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The heresy of Andreasen has held many in the SDA church in bondage for decades.  He was kicked out of the church for good reason.  Knight's dealing with Andreasen is spot on.  I've read Andreasen's "letters" and other writings.  The poor man was so wrong, it is so sad.  And his pride exceeded his exceedingly poor theology.  Questions on Doctrine was the best thing to have ever happened to the church.  LGT is dragging down the SDA church and it needs to be expunged!  And those promoting it excommunicated (it the church did such things).   --RoyBurtonson (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That LGT is heresy is not established. Wikipedia should not just reflect YOUR views, or even the views of one side of the debate. Andreasen may not have dealt with the issue in the best way, but his theology is an inheritance from many of the Pioneers, including Ellen G. White, whose support for the teaching is found in many places throughout the Testimonies. QoD did irreparable damage to the theology of the Church in that it now resembles a traditional Evangelical church and not the Remnant envisioned by Mrs. White that will complete the Gospel Commission and spread the Three Angels' Messages. It is true Andreasen was relieved of his credentials but they were restored posthumously, meaning the Church acknowledged it made a mistake to revoke them in the first place.166.137.118.56 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much George Knight

message: Account was a sock of Allenroyboy, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy. Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RoyBurtonson blocked for sockpuppetry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Last Generation Theology. 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/20080821140245/http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/10-4rice.pdf to http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/10-4rice.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301060414/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301060307/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1931.php to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1931.php/
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) 01:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Last Generation Theology. 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/20070212071656/http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/01/08/interlogue-4-larry-kirkpatrick/ to http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/01/08/interlogue-4-larry-kirkpatrick/
*Added  tag to http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/ser/kirl-halfadam.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717021130/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/papers/kir-sorl.html to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/papers/kir-sorl.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301060414/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301060307/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1931.php/ to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1931.php/
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) 19:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article suffers from attempts to use it to establish the claims of LGT and to prove that LGT is true Adventist doctrine—instead of fitting Wikipedia parameters for a neutral point of view. Bluepenciltime (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: We all need to keep learning about and trying to write within Wikipedia standards, to make this article meet specifications. For example, Neutral Point of View, References, Encyclopedic standards, etc., 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines Bluepenciltime (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policies and guidelines 

message: See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines Bluepenciltime (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing needed to meet Wikipedia standards