Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 5

message: This disputed statement has been edited since Perspicacious (talk • contribs) reverted my good faith edits to the page. In doing so he clearly demonstrated that his version is in dispute, and as such it should be developed here.
The Laodicean Church
"Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585). Christ's message the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of the Christian Church at the endtime and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." . According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186)."
My objections:
*Taking Ellen Whites statement out of context as it does NOT refer to the SDA church as the focus of her statement
*If it is so widely understood that the rebuke for end times was directly focusing on the Adventist church, and not on the entire Christian church, then there would be evidence to support it
*The claim of self-righteousness is not accurate. The church does not see righteousness in its own self. This word is not encyclopedically verifiable, and the claim of one critic's site
Ansell 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed statement

message: ===The Laodicean Church===
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585).  Christ's message to the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of that Church and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." . According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186). --Perspicacious 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the apostate church where Satan dwells. It isn't a church; it's a counterfeit. Revelation 3:15-16 says, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So, then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth." This is the church that sickens God. It is on its way to hell. It is a liberal church run by a cult that denies the true gospel. It is accursed and damned.
As for the third sentence citing Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186, do I have to call you up and read the page to you? --Perspicacious 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You could try using citation templates such as, Template:Cite_book, which you can include the quote in. Apart from that, I would like to hear what your opinion of the purpose of a page entitled Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in an encyclopedia is. MyNameIsNotBob 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Most Current Version

message: Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585).  Christ's message to the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of that Church and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." . According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186). --Perspicacious 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the apostate church where Satan dwells. It isn't a church; it's a counterfeit. Revelation 3:15-16 says, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So, then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth." This is the church that sickens God. It is on its way to hell. It is a liberal church run by a cult that denies the true gospel. It is accursed and damned.
As for the third sentence citing Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186, do I have to call you up and read the page to you? --Perspicacious 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You could try using citation templates such as, Template:Cite_book, which you can include the quote in. Apart from that, I would like to hear what your opinion of the purpose of a page entitled Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in an encyclopedia is. MyNameIsNotBob 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Laodicean Church

message: Source: 
Part 8:  On the Road to Righteousness
Soon after the emergence of Sabbathkeeping Adventists, certain disturbing characteristics of spiritual Babylon began to develop among them. They began to reflect more and more the spirit of the Laodicean church of Revelation 3. Love and zeal for the Lord gave way to self-exaltation and self-righteousness.
Not Yet Ready
This state of affairs provided sure evidence that the remnant people as a whole were not yet ready for the final seal of divine approval needed to protect them against the punitive judgment of the last plagues.
    
In 1851 Ellen G. White stated frankly that most of the Sabbatarian Adventists were not ready for the final events. They dwelled too long on "little trials," "picking at straws," she said, and were motivated too much by self-justification. She heard this heavenly rebuke of God's people: "Sabbathkeepers will have to die to self, die to pride and love of approbation. . . . Those who profess His name are not ready."[86]
    
James White, adding his voice to that of his wife, warned that many who professed the truth were not real Bible Christians. Evidencing a significant turn in the self-understanding of the emerging movement, he identified Sabbathkeeping Adventists with the Laodicean church of Revelation 3. He urged that the remnant church be "stripped from self-righteous views and feelings,"[87] that it recognize its own need for thorough repentance. Like Daniel of old, James White confessed: "We, as a people, have evidently rested down upon the theory of truth, and have neglected to seek Bible humility, Bible patience, Bible self-denial, and Bible watchfulness, and sacrifice, Bible holiness, and the power and gifts of the Holy Ghost. . . . Hence it is said, 'And knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked' [Rev. 3:17]. What a condition!"[88]
    
Ellen White even announced the shocking fact, new in Adventist eschatology, that the modern Sabbathkeeping people were basically repeating the history of Israel in the wilderness: "Modern Israel are in greater danger of forgetting God and being led into idolatry than were His ancient people. Many idols are worshiped, even by professed Sabbathkeepers."[89]
    
The purified remnant would become visible only in the final "shaking" of the church by means of the straight preaching of Christ's message in Revelation 3 to the Laodicean church. All depends on this "straight testimony" of the risen Christ to the end-time church: "I saw that the testimony of the True Witness has not been half heeded. The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded. This testimony must work deep repentance; all who truly receive it will obey it and be purified."[90] --Perspicacious 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An Official Comment on the Seventh-day Adventist Understanding of the Laodicean Church

message: The ole plagerism arguement. I've searched but have been unable to find the source. Back in the 1980'a a prominant attorney was given the task to find plagerism in the EGW writings. After his examination, he stated that she had written in accordance with the rules of the day and that no plagerism had taken place. Interesting how she's constantly accused of this, yet no one can prove it.  01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically I think she is criticised based on current definitions of what plagiarism is, which is unfair, but that is the way the popular media works I guess. Ansell 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagerism

message: E.Shubee keeps adding the following links to the site:
  * Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God
  * The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
I totally label them as Link Spam because 1) These have not proven to be reputable sources and 2) They act more like a blog of this Walter McGill. There are no verification of facts to his charges and no reputable news sources are cited. I deleted them because anyone on the internet can throw up a blog, but that does not make them a reputable source or even a source for that matter. -- 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Maniwar.  Thank you for placing this note.  You have acted more than appropriately.  Long-time contributors to the Seventh-day Adventist Church wikiproject will recall everythingimportant.org being added in a similar manner to church pages earlier this year. The user at the time was warned and received several blocks as a result. -Fermion 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: E.Shurbee, you've been issued personal attack warnings here . -- 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: E.Shubee link spam 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

message: I type in seventh day adventis on wikipedia, and this comes up. Instead of someone creating an informational article about the seventh day adventis church, there is an article criticzing it. Nice Job. PrincessOfHearts 20:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at the Seventh-day Adventist Church page? And I am not sure why this page comes up first, but the main page should be on the list also. Ansell 00:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow

message: I came to this article from a direct link elsewhere in Wikipedia, so I won't add to the above complaints about how badly the Search mechanism is broken if this is the top article.  It must be.  But the first thing I would expect to see at the top – that is, above the article – of an article like this one is wording like See Seventh-day Adventist Church for an article about the church itself.  Yes, the first sentence of this anti-article does have a link to the real article, but that is not enough.  --CliffC 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Can you remember what the direct link was that resulted in you ending up here? -Fermion 08:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good question. I'm pretty sure I came here from the page User talk:E.Shubee, apparently a  proponent of one of the factions here; I'm not sure how I found his page, though, maybe from a reference to some not-well-received efforts in an Einstein article.  The article's title sounded interesting.  I'm not involved in any way in this church (or movement if you will) and I'm not one to get involved in religious discussions, but I do get irked when something here at wiki seems badly out of balance.  --CliffC 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But the church article itself is linked in the first line of the article - isn't the See also line redundant? -- Chuq 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but doesn't it reflect disambiguation lines in other articles? -Fermion 08:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambiguation lines are for multiple topics with the same name.  This article deals with a subset of information from the main article, and the article title makes it pretty clear which part that is. -- Chuq 08:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The way it is dealt with in that article is by linking and bolding the name in the first paragraph of the article.  The "see also" header up the top is nothing to do with this - it is because "The Da Vinci Code" has several other meanings other than the book (the film, the game, the soundtrack).  There are not multiple organisations or things called "Seventh-day Adventist Church" so this page doesn't have that problem, therefore the line up the top isn't needed.  I have changed the first paragraph of this article to match the style of the first paragraph of Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code. -- Chuq 09:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I fail to see the logic of treating an article about, or against, a church the same as one about a work of fiction.  Something similar to the following might work.  Again, a clear statement that this is a child of a parent subject belongs above the article... This article examines controversial issues involving Scientology and its affiliated organizations.  For a more complete examination of Scientology, see the main article. --CliffC 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the very nature of this article, a criticisms page, is enough mandate to require an  tag in there. I don't think linking the title of the article is appropriate. MyNameIsNotBob 07:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, indeed 

message: The substantial changes by User:E.Shubee have been reverted.  A number of reasons can be cited, however the most compelling I see is the use of weasel descriptions like "idiotic" to describe the current state of certain links.  It does not auger well for a series of changes to be accepted when description of that nature are given.  My suggestion to people wishing to make such large scale changes is suggest the changes on this talk page first.  In that way, referencing can be preserved and correctly done, changes can be improved on, and it will be easier to track what has happened rather than a series of minor edits which can be very difficult to follow. -Fermion 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please represent the issue accurately. At 05:51 on October 28 2006 E.Shubee removed two valueless links and the awkward, non-encyclopedic notation 1844-10-22 from the Early Shut door theology section of Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and replaced it with the date October 22, 1844. The computer logs for the history revision page shows that E.Shubee footnoted the improvement as, "I removed the idiotic and meaningless link." At 23:26 on October 28 2006, User:Fermion reverted that change and all subsequent improvements contributed by E.Shubee. Shall we all vote on the merit of E.Shubee's initial improvement or what? --E.Shubee 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also please notice the copycat style in my ratiocinative argument. All my valueless links show the undesirability of valueless links. --E.Shubee 10:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion to Ansell