Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Graham Maxwell

message: Why is the following addition listed as spamming? "The most recent schism in Adventism is very active right now. A rather influential faction in the church rejects the historic Christian belief that Christ died vicariously for our sins and accepts, instead, the controversial theology of A. Graham Maxwell." --Perspicacious 20:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence has been removed for two main reasons. First, there must be a group of people recognising the point as an issue, not counting twelve and fourteen year old articles. Saying it is the and most recent together is not needed unless it is actually a big issue. It is an isolated issue, the Des Ford issue is an example of a large issue. To get to that level, this issue must be referenced much more regularly than it is now. Do not simply revert the sentence without justifying its position here. That is not the specified purpose of wikipedia. Second, it is still a POV issue, "rather influential" is a POV statement, and is not a consensus view. Ansell 11:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't know anything about Adventism and refuse to learn from informed Adventists, why do you present yourself here and talk so much, as if you really know something? --Perspicacious 16:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Accusation of Spamming

message: Eugene Schubert and Perspicacious are infact the same person. There is no other reason why Perspicacious could say on Talk:Graham Maxwell that "I am the author of http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm and waive all allusions and rights to the appearance of having infringed on my own work. --Perspicacious 11:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so now we have established that Perspicacious is Eugene Schubert and that the articles on www.everythingimportant.org are of his doing, we can determine that the schism that is mentioned is insignificant and not necessary for this article. The question we need answered is whether Perspicacious is willing to agree to have the paragraph removed or abbreviated. Perspicacious answer and cooperation is requested at this point. MyNameIsNotBob 04:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: Perpicacious changed the above paragraph here so that he removed a reference to the other users being "brainwashed". Ansell 06:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless the brainwashing included removing all references to Graham Maxwell, how can you say that we are brainwashed by him. This is akin to a very very impolite personal statement. Please refrain from personal statements, in particular respect the views of all wikipedia members. Ansell 05:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugene Shubert is Perspicacious 

message: The section which caused the page to be deleted was the Offshoots and schismatics section which reads as the following as per the fifth revert in 24hours by Perspicacious
quote:
Presently, an influential faction in the church rejects the historic Christian belief that Christ died vicariously for our sins and accepts, instead, the controversial theology of A. Graham Maxwell.   This departure from essential Christianity has resulted in a schism comparable to the defection of John Harvey Kellogg and his followers in the early 1900s. In reference to Christ's atonement and the Division of Religion at Loma Linda University, David P. McMahon wrote, "In this department are those who repudiate the historic Christian doctrine of the substitutionary atonement in order to embrace 'the moral influence theory.' In fact, the moral influence theory has widely permeated West-Coast American Adventism. It has such a stranglehold on the church's principal financial base that the leaders of the church appear paralyzed and frightened to touch it."  Contrariwise, it is also believed in the SDA Church that the Seventh-day Adventists who think that Jesus literally died for their sins, and have a strong apprehension against what Graham Maxwell and his followers teach, are themselves the true schismatics. 
The previous, least disputed version of the paragraph had the following
quote:
A faction in the church rejects the historic Christian belief that Christ died vicariously for our sins and accepts, instead, the controversial theology of A. Graham Maxwell.  
Even with these two versions there are still others who believe that the entire paragraph should not be included as it does not in many eyes constitute a major schism in adventism.
: Note: this is intimately related to happenings on the Graham Maxwell page, and to the A. Graham Maxwell page which was subject to speedy deletion recently for the same reason that the current page is on the AfD page. If sufficient discussion is made on the Talk:Graham Maxwell page then and only then may it reveal itself to be necessary on this page.
Also, the acronym SDA is deprecated. This definitely needs to be removed from the statement that currently appears on the page. Ansell 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the page had to be protected

message: If you say that everyone who writes a book and has it published by an adventist related publishing company has their works accepted as teaching in the church then you will have the accumulated teaching of every stage of adventism that ever survived. The link to the book does not back up your statement of it being accepted teaching. Find a reliable source for this. Ansell 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is his theology really accepted teaching

message: Perspicacious I would think that if he was the "most beloved" teacher, then why is he such a low figure in the church. Finding random references does not and will not prove your point that he is a major figure in the church. Stick to the facts of his published works, in an NPOV manner. Deleting POV reference in first sentence would be highly recommended if you desire to avoid the deletion of this page. It would show a change in your committment to wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and not as one of your unreviewed forums, ie. everythingimportant.org, which is not a valid reference for wikipedia and never will be. Ansell 23:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of Maxwell as a teacher of atonement

message: Perspicacious, Is it possible that this court case of Eugene Schubert's that you are quoting as the churches response to Maxwell was simply that the church at large does not see the issue as spreading. There are many different theologies in the church. The church will respond if it thinks it is a large issue. One person's theology does not make them non-adventist. At large the church has a history of accepting people without making them believe in an exact manner. Uriah Smith's belief on the trinity would be an excellent example of this. You keep on referring to this as a schism, that would imply that the church has a major issue to deal with, and it must have recognised the issue. The "strangely non-existent" statements would be statements affirming your POV of course wouldn't they? Lets face is, the schism is not even newsworthy enough to be talked about regularly, get a few church publications that discuss the issue over a number of years, and the theology has been about for a few decades now so that shouldn't be a problem, and then reference them, not a court case by some person who had a clash with a single congregation because of his failure to appreciate the proper ways to discuss issues in a church. Ansell 23:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strangely nonexistent church statements

message: Perspicacious, there is no need to spend an entire paragraph explaining a reference from the paragraph above. Doing it in the most verbose manner possible does not help. The entire second paragraph is not needed and should simply be in the references, or external links section if it is worthwile. Ansell 23:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining statement references on wikipedia pages

message: This looks like a squabble between two editors.  I'm unprotecting and will watch the article.  --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting