Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 1

message: Q: where the estimates are coming from?
Q: are "pr0-life" deliberately written using a zero as a trick to avoid vandalism? just wondering...
Q: I am just wondering whether it is fair to say 'literal' with regard to a six day creation.  Whilst it is certainly the consensus view of the church, the word literal does not appear in the fundamentals.  Furhter, as evidenced by the recent discussion in the Adventist Review following Clifford Goldstein's article, there are many committed Adventists who don't hold this position.
A: Referring to #6 of the Adventists beliefs (click here) 'literal' seems a fair use of expression. The article mentioned can be found here. It is safe to say that most Adventist still believe in a 6-day creation (see this recent article).--Stefanbs 19:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: Where and since when has the acronym SDA been denounced or frowned upon officially? This statement seems rather odd and unnecessary, especially considering it's placement in the first sentence. State sources please. --216.239.74.135 2 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
A: See communication at the bottom of http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1545/news.html.
1. The English-language initials aren't appropriate for a world church. In Spanish the acronym is IASD, the initials for Inglesia Adventista del Septimo Dia. In Polish it's KADS for Kosciol Adwentystow Dnia Siodmego. 
2. Other organizations have similar SDA initials: Singapore Dental Association, Soap and Detergent Association, Speed Demos Archive, and others. Therefore, using the initials will lead to confusion.
3. The SDA abbreviation also does not convey any message of beliefs. In the Adventist Church's full name-Seventh-day Adventist- the words "Seventh-day" indicate the church's belief that Sabbath is the seventh day of the week (Saturday), and that God should be especially honored and worshipped on that day. "Adventist" indicates the church's belief that Jesus is coming again soon
: I concur and have removed SDA from the intro. -Fermion 01:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Acronym SDA is depreciated" 

message: Moved from article:
:* Maintain that, as a consequence of the state-of-the dead belief, hell does not exist; instead the wicked are consumed in fire (a finite occurrence) after the millennium.
This needs to be reworked. It implies that SDAs do not believe the wicked will burn eternally in hell (or something very like it). This is not the case. The belief is that Hell does not currently exist and is not currently "in use" as it were, but Revelation is very clear that Satan, the Beast, and others will be thrown into "the lake of fire", and burn eternally (some will burn a finite amount of time, some eternally). -- nknight 22:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "hell does not exist" 

message: Q: So far I have found sacred texts, sites, or symbols. Are their any???
A: Aside from the Bible we have no other sacred writings. While many of us hold the writings of Ellen G. White to be true, this is not the case for all Adventists. For those who do believe them, they are still not sacred writings. We have no sacred sites, and the only sacred symbol I can think of would be the Sabbath itself. --Miknight 06:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  sacred text, sites, symbols. 

message: The article suggested that Adventism requires abstinence from Caffeine.  That is certainly not true.  You don't have to give up Dr. Pepper to join the church.  It does however discourage it, particularly with coffee and tea.
: I don't know about you, but these modern day, lacksidaisical SDAs who don't know about the Evils of Caffeine in all of its forms appall me...  It's the Great Apostasy of which we were warned...  Seriously, the "counsels of perfection" regarding the SDA "Health Message" ought to be mentioned in some way to help outsiders (and insiders apparently) understand some of the unique aspects of this religious movement.  Emyth 11:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
::"I saw that the stewards of the Lord have no duty to help those persons who persist in using tobacco, tea, and coffee." EGW, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 224  Endomion 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine 

message: I have added the Christianity infobox in accordance with the standard throughout wikipedia. If anyone has any objections feel free to state them. The biggest problem i can see is that the church logo is moved to an awkward position. MyNameIsNotBob 10:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
:That and the fact that it doesn't actually contribute anything to this article.  Beyond that, is this article of sufficient standard to match the other articles in this series? --Fermion 06:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity Infobox 

message: The religious practices section of main page says that women cannot be ordained as ministers.  This, from personal experience, is false—a close friend of mine is a female pastor.  Changing article accordingly.  Questions/comments/concerns?--'Net 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that there are many females working as ministers and ordained to be ministers.  However, they are not ordained as pastors of the world-wide Adventist church.  They may have be ordained within a local conference or union, but as I understand it women are unable to be ordained as pastors for the global field.  My concerns with the section as it stands that it may give the false impression that females can be ordained to pastors and be recognised by the General Conference.  -Fermion 11:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Now that you mention it, I do remember being told that there was some kind of thing like that - ordained by the union or division but not GC. I suggest further revision of article to explain this, if possible, however I leave the task and the choice to others, unless I have more free time in the next couple of days than expected.  Thank you Fermion.--'Net 14:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Females in leadership 

message: Over the past week or so there has been an anonymous user trying to move the website relating to evangelism into independent ministries.  I fail to see why this should be the case.  Would the person doing it kindly explain for my benefit.  I removed the net98 link because it didn't work when I tried it.  -Fermion 08:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links - categories 

message: This is the archive of a bid for Featured Article status. If you can help address some of the issues that are raised in this discussion PLEASE do. Thank you. MyNameIsNotBob 08:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the 'Doctrine' section so as the bullet list could be removed. Does this need subheadings? Will work on other comments shortly. MyNameIsNotBob 11:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for more subheadings - there are already too many subheadings. — Wackymacs 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I need to rid the article of any subheadings? I can possibly merge some of those paragraphs if necessary - or will it be ok once those paragraphs have been expanded? MyNameIsNotBob 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although sub-headings were generally frowned-upon, it seems they're becoming more acceptable so long as they head significant sections. So yes, if you exand them quite somewhat, they may be fine.--cj | talk 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I have done some major expansions and restructuring of the article according to Wackymacs and cj's suggestions. I have not yet been able to properly reference the article. Are the changes I have made sufficient in the relevant areas and are there any other issues that need to be addressed (apart from the footnotes, external links and fair use rationale)? Thanks MyNameIsNotBob 07:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ps, just looking at Wikipedia:logos, what do you mean by a fair use rationale? MyNameIsNotBob 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too familiar with fair use, but perhaps this:  helps? The Catfish 23:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comment, I'll see what I can do sometime. MyNameIsNotBob 08:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]] Archived FAC 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment noted. However, until it is official policy, the source can remain. MyNameIsNotBob 00:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: # The current primary weakness with this article is the lack of sources. I have added a tag at the top of the main page just to remind editors of this. If anyone can help with sourcing the article, that help would be much aprreciated. I also ask that anyone who adds information finds sources for their comments. This is critical for this article to become Featured.
# Can someone verify the fair use on the logo. It is in need of a Fair Use Rationale apparently. If someone is familiar with this policy could you please help out.
# This article is moving past the 30k size. Can people please keep a check on what is necessary for this article and the possibility of sub-articles.
Thanks for your help. MyNameIsNotBob 00:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article TODO List based on FAC (see above)