Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 4

Teachings by Ellen G. White that Seventh-day Adventists hate
Seventh-day Adventism is frequently defined by what the present Seventh-day Adventist Church claims for itself and by what independent, outside observers and researchers have published. Another equally valid meaning would be the original vision and understanding of what the founders of Seventh-day Adventism had in mind when the movement began. Therefore, I propose that we jointly organize and write a much better article on Seventh-day Adventism so that the contrast between these three points of view is clear and distinct.

For some reason, the majority of editors for the Wikipedia page Seventh-day Adventist Church insist on minimizing the divergent views in Seventh-day Adventism as far as possible. I believe that an accurate picture requires presenting all valid perspectives. For instance, the Seventh-day Adventist church presently teaches as their "13th fundamental belief" that their organization is the Remnant Church "called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." However, Ellen G. White is believed to be the undisputed prophetic voice within Adventism (see belief #18) and her published opinion was that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was more disobedient to God and a greater failure than the Jewish Church:


 * "But very few of those who have received the light are doing the work entrusted to their hands. There are a few men of unswerving fidelity who do not study ease, convenience, or life itself, who push their way wherever they can find an opening to press the light of truth and vindicate the holy law of God. But the sins that control the world have come into the churches, and into the hearts of those who claim to be God’s peculiar people. Many who have received the light exert an influence to quiet the fears of worldlings and formal professors. There are lovers of the world even among those who profess to be waiting for the Lord. There is ambition for riches and honor. Christ describes this class when He declares that the day of God is to come as a snare upon all that dwell upon the earth. This world is their home. They make it their business to secure earthly treasures. They erect costly dwellings and furnish them with every good thing; they find pleasure in dress and the indulgence of appetite. The things of the world are their idols. These interpose between the soul and Christ, and the solemn and awful realities that are crowding upon us are but dimly seen and faintly realized. The same disobedience and failure which were seen in the Jewish church have characterized in a greater degree the people who have had this great light from heaven in the last messages of warning. Shall we, like them, squander our opportunities and privileges until God shall permit oppression and persecution to come upon us? Will the work which might be performed in peace and comparative prosperity be left undone until it must be performed in days of darkness, under the pressure of trial and persecution?"

Ellen White wrote in 1900 that not one in twenty Seventh-day Adventists were saved:


 * "It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner. They are professedly serving God, but they are more earnestly serving mammon."

Furthermore, referring to the then present and future leadership of the Seventh-day Adventists, Ellen White wrote:


 * "The religion of Jesus is endangered. It is being mingled with worldliness. Worldly policy is taking the place of the true piety and wisdom that comes from above, and God will remove His prospering hand from the conference. Shall the ark of the covenant be removed from this people? Shall idols be smuggled in? Shall false principles and false precepts be brought into the sanctuary? Shall antichrist be respected? Shall the true doctrines and principles given us by God, which have made us what we are, be ignored? Shall God's instrumentality, the publishing house, become a mere political, worldly institution? This is directly where the enemy, through blinded, unconsecrated men, is leading us."

That's an entirely different picture isn't it?

In regard to Seventh-day Adventists respecting antichrist, I think it is already a requirement in some Seventh-day Adventist churches. The fulfillment of Ellen White's prediction shouldn't be surprising. An article in the Adventist Review states that Seventh-day Adventist church leaders in Germany and Austria have recently apologized on behalf of all German and Austrian Seventh-day Adventist churches for once idolizing Adolf Hitler:


 * "We deeply regret that the character of National Socialist dictatorship had not been realized in time and distinctly enough, and the ungodly nature of [Nazi] ideology had not clearly been identified," the statement, as translated from German, reads. The church says it also regrets "that in some of our publications . . . there were found articles glorifying Adolf Hitler and agreeing with the ideology of anti-Semitism in a way that is unbelievable from today's [perspective]."


 * A paramount regret, the statement indicated, was that German and Austrian Adventist congregations "excluded, separated and left [church members who were] . . . of Jewish origin to themselves so that they were delivered to imprisonment, exile or death."

I believe that true Seventh-day Adventism can only be seen by displaying the many conflicting factions in the church. I agree with this published statement in the article The Recent Truth About Seventh-day Adventists in Christianity Today February 5, 1990. There Kenneth R. Samples wrote "A problem in past evangelical evaluations of Adventism has been the failure to recognize its theological diversity. Adventism is anything but monolithic."

Seventh-day Adventism is often confused with a faction that the well-known cult expert Walter Martin called the "lunatic fringe." I call them legalists. They call themselves historic Seventh-day Adventists. Adventist extremists existed in Ellen White's day and still exist today. They legitimately represent one face in the seven faces of Seventh-day Adventism.

Evangelism for many Adventist extremists means to invest tens of thousands of dollars in special literature and billboard and newspaper advertising around the country declaring that the pope is the antichrist. Adventist leadership retaliates by acting papal. In recent years, the General Conference of the denomination has trademarked the name Seventh-day Adventist Church and quickly goes to court to stop non-conformist and dissident Adventist congregations from using the name such-and-such Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Most Seventh-day Adventists approve of controlling and punishing non-conforming Adventists through the civil power. The Seventh-day Adventist church has exercised extraordinary skill in destroying anyone who sincerely disagrees with her. I don't think it's fair to label their approval of evil as being evangelical. --Perspicacious 18:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Resources

 * 1) http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
 * 2) Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, pp. 456-457.
 * 3) The General Conference Bulletin, July 1, 1900, paragraph 7.
 * 4) Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 95-96.
 * 5) http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/dupery.htm
 * 6) http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/NaziAdventists.htm
 * 7) http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=92
 * 8) Christianity Today, February 5, 1990, Kenneth R. Samples, The Recent Truth About Seventh-day Adventists, p. 18-21.
 * 9) http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0998401834/index.html.en
 * 10) Adventist Currents, Vol. 1, No. 1, July, 1983. http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_Martin/
 * 11) http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1143
 * 12) http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1993/sepoct1993/news/Denver.shtml
 * 13) http://steps2life.com/php/view_article.php?article_id=280
 * 14) http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/92001d.asp
 * 15) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23918
 * 16) http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1521/news.html
 * 17) http://www.sdadefend.com/Reports/lawsuit.htm
 * 18) http://www.steps2life.org/php/view_article.php?article_id=218
 * 19) http://www.lightministries.com/SDA/id616.htm
 * 20) http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=964
 * 21) http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/TeriStrickland1.htm

Adventist Accusations of Church Corruption
 * The Merikay McLeod Silver Case – The Seventh-day Adventist Church has retaliated against believers who sincerely disagreed with unrighteous policy.
 * Adventist Leadership in Nazi Germany – All German and Austrian Seventh-day Adventist churches were once guilty of glorifying Adolf Hitler.
 * The War against Scripture – Does the Adventist Church support any liberals who are ready to cast the Bible aside as obsolete?
 * Organizational Practices – Does the enemy, through blinded, unconsecrated men and corrupt, worldly, Adventist institutions, ever oppress Seventh-day Adventists?
 * Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God – Submitting to antichrist practices and theology is required in some Seventh-day Adventist churches.
 * Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church - When coercion and threats fail, do the leaders of denominational Adventism resort to force to accomplish their aims?

Response to Perspicacious "prospectus"
Can you please explain how this is encyclopedic in any way shape or form. This is not how wikipedia operates. Especially considering a large number of your quotations, particularly the one by Eugene Schubert are by you, Perspicacious. One of the underlying policies of wikipedia is that there is NO Original Research. Please explain how an editor referencing something written by themself is not original research. I do not consider this proposal encyclopedic or logical. Oppose. MyNameIsNotBob 00:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur based on my review on Talk:Seventh-day Adventism Oppose Ansell 00:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have stated a proposal, nothing more. The details are to be achieved by consensus. The proposal is to include what Ellen G. White thought of the meaning of Seventh-day Adventism. --Perspicacious 00:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To do that you would have to get much more than a few statements vaguely saying that the actual members of the church, which is not the meaning of Seventh-day Adventism, in her time, were not in her view adequately prepared for the second coming. Ansell 01:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Repetition is easy to verify. Ellen White wrote often on the deplorable failure of Seventh-day Adventists. See http://www.lightministries.com/SDA/id1217.htm I'm not saying how it should be packaged. I'm saying that Ellen White's opinion on the church should be summarized and included. If the opinion of Ellen G. White can be tolerated, then a section called Adventist Accusations of Church Corruption should be permitted. I propose that we begin by allowing a section by that name under external links.


 * Regarding the original refusal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology refers to many opinions of L. Ron Hubbard from his published writings and lectures to illuminate the cultic nature of Scientology. So there is something very wrong with ignoring Ellen White's opinion on the deplorable state of Seventh-day Adventists. --Perspicacious 03:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The accusations on the page about apostacy are interesting. Of the early quotes it seems that almost all of them are warnings to keep the church from falling into the situations that she mentions. A few of them would be directed at certain people, not at the church being fundamentally an institution of Satan. The latest quotes from the last 30 years or so do not seem to be grounded in the church as a whole. They are more popularising the use of some supposed symbolism in some pictures that the church promotes. Interesting, but not really related to the church suddenly going to satan. Kind of more like the fictional attempt by dan brown to put the entirety of chritianity down to symbolism. The evidence that you have produced on that page doesn't convince me that Ellen White thought the church was a deplorable failure. If she was actually thinking that then she would have given up. Its not like she was given up on the church and yet worked for its success and grounded it for years to come thinking there was no hope for it.


 * Scientology is in an entirely different class. For one we aren't a popularised Los Angeles, Tom Cruise led, (possibly pseudo) religion, and hence its relevance is lost on me. Ansell 12:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you create a draft proposal for what you believe should go on the article page? Otherwise we could be discussing completely different things for what the rest of us are concerned. MyNameIsNotBob 06:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding EGW's internal statements regarding failings of SDAs. I suggest that Perspicacious is mixing apples and oranges here.  When in an internal mode, addressing internal issues, EGW most certainly takes a strong, at times negative stance towards Adventism.  It is critical and urgent, in an exhortative mode...  But she is NOT giving an objective, descriptive account of SDAsm.  Rather, she exagerates and exhorts members to ever more righteous behavior.  Those sort of statements are NOT to be confused with dispassionant, discriptive theology.  It would be like taking Savonarola's wild exhortations against the people of Florence and turning it into a dictionary definition of Roman Catholicism.  SDAs are people just like Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox Jews, Muslims of various sorts, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains...etc.  Unless you want to go and put similar sections in all of these various articles...I don't think that it's appropriate here. This is not what we are doing in the Wikipedia, IMHO. Emyth 19:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote that Ellen White's opinion on the church should be summarized and included. In a sense, Seventh-day Adventism is the Spirit of Prophecy manifested through Ellen White's writings. It's somewhat amusing that Wikipedia editors consider the testimony of Jesus on the Seventh-day Adventist church to be so unacceptable that they prefer repeating lies instead. They want the Seventh-day Adventist Church represented by the very ones that Christ condemns. http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1143 --Perspicacious 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That was almost trivial, you seem to be saying that Ellen Whites testimony should be taken as on the same level as Jesus, when she repeatedly says not to do that! What was the point of that rebuttal? Ansell 23:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Perspiacious, can you tell us the specific changes that should be made to the article? Otherwise, I believe, we could be discussing completely different things and are just toying with ideas.MyNameIsNotBob 08:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think a disclaimer should be included which says in effect that all the resident squatters, I mean Wikipedia editors, aren't qualified to summarize and include Ellen G. White's published opinion on the Seventh-day Adventist church nor will they allow any progress to be made or an informed Adventist to participate if being ACCURATE, BALANCED, AND COMPLETE means speaking against the holy order. Also, to illustrate the arbitrary standards of Wikipedia mob rule, please say that Wikipedia treats Shubert's accusations against the Seventh-day Adventist Church as anathema.


 * To make your repudiation of what you don't know as strong as possible, you might want to clarify your superior qualifications to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Please don't pretend that you're applying Wikipedia policy. God has endorsed Shubert's theology in an inspired dream by Steve Starman. The issue is that you prefer anti-Adventist theology above God's testimony. --Perspicacious 11:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The "holy order" is a vanity publication by you, and since as no one is endorsing it as a valid wikipedia resource, it cannot be used. Interestingly, Shubert (aka. Perspicacious) is also vanity, as is your use of a person commenting on your personal website forum to validate it. Please dont make this into a joke. We do want to make the article better, unfortunately it seems like we spend more time here commenting on discussions then on working out ways to make it into the Perfect Article. Ansell 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the holy order is Ellen G. White's representation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (described in an inspired dream, see Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 578) and refers to the present era when the majority of Seventh-day Adventists are willingly transforming themselves into medieval-minded Roman Catholics.


 * I don't speak the wikipedian language. What do wikipedians mean by "vanity?" --Perspicacious 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It means promoting yourself. Ansell 01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully confess to the belief that whenever the truth is being exalted, then so am I. That doesn't explain why Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God was deleted from the External Links. No author identity disclosure form has to be submitted to add an external link. You would delete it regardless of the IP address of the person adding the link. It seems undeniably clear to me that the agenda of the editors here is to favor the misrepresentations of anti-Ellen G. White critics above Adventists who fully believe in the ministry of Ellen G. White. --Perspicacious 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It also seems to me that genuine Seventh-day Adventist Christians should go out of their way to show greater respect for believers in the faith and not openly demonstrate greater favoritism for those who strongly oppose and grossly misrepresent Seventh-day Adventism. --Perspicacious 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you seem hostile to my many clearly truthful statements and Ellen G. White and all her colorful descriptions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, perhaps you would like to go on record and state exactly why you oppose the testimonies of God's Spirit? --Perspicacious 01:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe I have already stated, and am in agreement with the other editors who have commented when they say that Ellen Whites statements were not meant to condemn the church as a whole, rather to promote its growth. Therefore, you should not be using them to supposedly show that she consistently condemned the church as a whole and did not infact believe that it was what she portrayed it to be in other parts of her writing. Ansell


 * By all means, let's all deliberate on and formulate an excellent summary of Ellen White's view of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and place it on the now empty page Seventh-day Adventism. --Perspicacious 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seventh-day Adventism should remain a redirect to this article. It is pointless creating different articles for the sake of arguing POV ideas. I am still awaiting your suggestion on "an excellent summary". Lets get too and work out an edit we can all agree upon. MyNameIsNotBob 02:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perspicacious, you realise you make it particularly difficult for other editors when you insist on adding comments to threads in non-chronological order. To make the discussion easier, why not add your new comments after the last comment made. I have expressed my frustration with this in the past. MyNameIsNotBob 02:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think threads here work quite like that. As long as indentations are chronologically correct and new statements are added to the bottom I am fine with it. Ansell 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

However, having said that I think that five or more indents are hard to follow in edit mode more than anything else, So I will respond here to the latest remarks by Perspicacious.

In regards to everythingimportant.org, it is not just that this is a vanity link. It is also not a valid reference, as it is made up of forums, and articles which are not in any way peer-reviewed, or subject to any kind of review for that matter. It doesn't just matter that we all know you are the owner and chief contributor to the site. What does matter is that we have an overall profile of the editor based on the forums, and based on your edits on here. Put together, they do not add up to the profile of an author who is up to the wikipedia sourcing standards.

On your suggestion that we show favouritism to anyone with relation to wikipedia, or even in general. I expressly try not to show favouritism to anyone, as a Seventh-day Adventist I think that is expressly what we should not do. I do not quite see how you are linking that accusation into the thread though. Ansell 02:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The worst enemies of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Your vanity nonsense is merely a shameless excuse to justify silencing a valid testimony that confirms Ellen White's prophecies against papal Seventh-day Adventists.

http://en.wikipedia.org is made up of articles and talk pages just like http://www.everythingimportant.org

Two of your external links have forums: http://www.formeradventist.com and Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. See Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Forum

http://www.everythingimportant.org is a ministry of Come To Christ, a private non-profit 501 C(3) religious foundation, just like Good News Unlimited. Who do you think peer-reviews the articles that appear at Desmond Ford's website?

Your disapproval of Eugene Shubert, based on his writings, is obviously based on his interpretation of Ellen G. White. It should be very clear to all informed Adventists that you disapprove of Shubert's view of popish Seventh-day Adventists precisely because it is exactly Ellen White's perspective. That's why all the resident editors here have no interest in summarizing Ellen White's view of the church.

Here are my countercharges, written by Ellen G. White, which clearly identifies the worst enemies of the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

"The worst enemies we have are those who are trying to destroy the influence of the watchmen upon the walls of Zion." 5T 294.

Your presumptuous insinuation that the site http://www.ellenwhite.org/ is respectable whereas http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/dupery.htm is not truly reveals your anti-EGW point of view.

Something to think about:

"When evidence is given that a man is a messenger of the Lord of hosts, that he speaks in God's stead, it is perilous to the soul to reject and despise the message. To turn away from heaven's light and refuse the light-bearer, is to take a course similar to that which Satan took in the courts of heaven when he created rebellion in the ranks of the angels. He misrepresented the character of God, and placed in a false light his gracious commandments. He evaded the truth, and subtly worked to make good appear as evil, and evil as good. He has lost none of his tact, and through his agents, manifests the same diplomacy and skill in evading truth, in creating false issues, in misrepresenting the message and the messenger. Not only do we see his working in the world among those who openly oppose the truth, but also in the church his art is manifested in the divisions and controversies among those who profess to be the children of God." Ellen G. White, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, October 18, 1892. --Perspicacious 05:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote
I like the quote Mr. P. Very fitting. I think you might have the wrong idea of what we are doing here though. We are trying to write an encyclopedia article. This is not a quest for some new 'truth' that Seventh-day Adventists currently need to hear, but rather an attempt to describe who we are, and what we believe. If there are controversies, we should talk about them, but this isn't the place to start them. --Terrible Tim 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Terrible Tim, I didn't say or imply anything about new 'truth'. Nor did I argue any point based on what Seventh-day Adventists currently need to hear. I was arguing the meaning of Seventh-day Adventism. The primary meaning of Seventh-day Adventism in my point of view is what the undisputed prophetic voice of the movement said it is. It's not just what the current Adventist church and unbelievers have to say.


 * I quoted the "quote" for its emphasis on "misrepresenting the message and the messenger." There are many essential messages in Ellen White's writings. Consider the following samples:


 * http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/ElijahMessage.htm
 * http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/exhort.htm


 * Also:
 * "I was confirmed in all I had stated in Minneapolis, that a reformation must go through the churches. Reforms must be made, for spiritual weakness and blindness were upon the people who had been blessed with great light and precious opportunities and privileges. As reformers they had come out of the denominational churches, but they now act a part similar to that which the churches acted. We hoped that there would not be the necessity for another coming out. While we will endeavor to keep the ‘unity of the Spirit’ in the bonds of peace, we will not with pen or voice cease to protest against bigotry." 1888 p. 356-357.


 * Now consider the opposing point of view:


 * Ellen White wrote:
 * "Some who occupy the position of watchmen to warn the people of danger have given up their watch and recline at ease. They are unfaithful sentinels. They remain inactive, while their wily foe enters the fort and works successfully by their side to tear down what God has commanded to be built up. They see that Satan is deceiving the inexperienced and unsuspecting; yet they take it all quietly, as though they had no special interest, as though these things did not concern them. They apprehend no special danger; they see no cause to raise an alarm. To them everything seems to be going well, and they see no necessity of raising the faithful, trumpet notes of warning which they hear borne by the plain testimonies, to show the people their transgressions and the house of Israel their sins. These reproofs and warnings disturb the quiet of these sleepy, ease-loving sentinels, and they are not pleased. They say in heart, if not in words; ‘This is all uncalled for. It is too severe, too harsh. These men are unnecessarily disturbed and excited, and seem unwilling to give us any rest or quietude. ‘Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them.’ They are not willing that we should have any comfort, peace, or happiness. It is active labor, toil, and unceasing vigilance alone which will satisfy these unreasonable, hard-to-be-suited watchmen. Why don’t they prophesy smooth things, and cry: Peace, peace? Then everything would move on smoothly.’


 * "These are the true feelings of many of our people. And Satan exults at his success in controlling the minds of so many who profess to be Christians. He has deceived them, benumbed their sensibilities, and planted his hellish banner right in their midst, and they are so completely deceived that they know not that it is he." —Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, p. 440.


 * I am saying, for starters, that a perfect example of Seventh-day Adventism is to place the following links under the heading Adventist Accusations of Church Corruption in the external links section of the Seventh-day Adventist Church page:


 * * The Merikay McLeod Silver Case – The Seventh-day Adventist Church has retaliated against believers who sincerely disagreed with unrighteous policy.
 * * Adventist Leadership in Nazi Germany – All German and Austrian Seventh-day Adventist churches were once guilty of glorifying Adolf Hitler.
 * * The War against Scripture – Does the Adventist Church support any liberals who are ready to cast the Bible aside as obsolete?
 * * Organizational Practices – Does the enemy, through blinded, unconsecrated men and corrupt, worldly, Adventist institutions, ever oppress Seventh-day Adventists?
 * * Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God – Submitting to antichrist practices and theology is required in some Seventh-day Adventist churches.
 * * Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church - When coercion and threats fail, do the leaders of denominational Adventism resort to force to accomplish their aims?


 * The complaint I have is that the squatting, anti-SDA squawking, resident Wikipedia editors that control the Seventh-day Adventist page presumptuously insinuate that the site http://www.ellenwhite.org is respectable whereas http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/dupery.htm is not.


 * Hopefully you now understand the two contrasting philosophies of Seventh-day Adventism mentioned above and where I stand and Ellen White's obvious opinion about it in her comment about Satan working through his agents in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. --Perspicacious 00:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perspicacious, you are using the classic methods of those who use the Bible to beat people over the head, only you are using EGW instead. But I shouldn't be surprised, since after taking a cursory glance at your website, EverythingImportant.org, I see that you have done that kind of thing over there on at least several occasions.  What I mean by classic methods is, you take little-known quotes (sometimes out of context) and apply them any way you choose, humbly calling yourself a "watchman on the walls of Zion" and claiming that anyone who opposes your ideas is a worker of Satan trying to stifle important truth.  If I were to call myself a "watchman on the walls of Zion" and call you a servant of Satan, I would be wrong, close-minded, biased, self-aggrandizing, and off-base, wouldn't you agree?  Better to leave out all labels, whether for yourself or for someone else, particularly since name-calling is both bad Wiki-policy and bad for your argument.  Truth does not need name-calling and accusations to back it up, and when you use those methods, it weakens the credibility of your arguments.  You have ignored arguments (such as that EGW was trying to help the church, and was not condemning it, meaning that those quotes are not an accurate representation of her general opinion of the church or its meaning) and instead have labeled yourself a fearless crusader for truth and tried to sling mud on anyone who disagrees with you.  Why don't you include any of the quotes where Ellen White says that the Adventist church is the remnant, acting in cooperation with Christ to finish the work of bringing the gospel to the world?  That would be a much better reflection of her opinion of the church as a whole than your examples of warnings against apostasy and exhortations to greater holiness.  Oh, and she is definitely NOT the undisputed prophetic voice in the church.  True, the church officially accepts her writings (secondary to the Bible, as she wished), but her writings and acceptance are far from undisputed, including in Adventist circles.  You, as an informed Adventist, should certainly know that.


 * Those other sites you mention may have forums, but that is not their principle function, nor are their forums referenced in the article. We may be including other sites which are not reputable, but that is a reason to remove those links, in accordance with consensus, not to add your own.  This is because your site is a) original research (particularly the pages you reference regarding your own conflicts with Adventist administration), b) vanity/soapboxing, and c) a forum site, meaning little or no peer review.  You have your own forum (literally and figuratively) where you can publicly voice all of your opinions as absolute truth and back them up with obscure EGW quotes and Scripture.  But Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor is this article owned by you or anyone else, so please keep that stuff out of here.


 * It may be valid to include a section on accusations of church corruption, and two of the links seem reasonable, but your EverthingImportant link does not, for reasons listed above. Similarly, mention of the opinion of church pioneers might be valuable, but not the quotes you mention nor the references to EverythingImportant.org.  Also, if we are to include EGW, why not James White, Joseph Bates, JN Loughborough, etc.?  While we don't want that section to grow out of control, at least two or three people would be much better than one.


 * I am mystified by the title to the first section on the talk page as it currently stands: "Teachings by Ellen G. White that Seventh-day Adventists hate." While it is true that her statements are pretty strong at times and sometimes difficult to understand, I think there are very few Adventists that hate any statement that EGW made.  I think that title is a misnomer, and should read "Statements by Ellen G. White that are hard on Adventists" or something like that.  As mentioned above, these are not condemnations of the church, but exhortations and warnings.  --Cromwellt|Talk 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Clear Bias Against True Seventh-day Adventism
According to the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ellen G. White manifested the gift of prophecy. She is called the "Lord's messenger." The 18th fundamental belief states that "her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction." http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

Because the Seventh-day Adventist Church officially acknowledges the writings of Ellen G. White as a "continuing and authoritative source of truth," which give "comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction" to the Church, I thought it would be fair that the current article be amended so as to include, in at least a small way, what Ellen G. White thought of the purpose and the meaning of Seventh-day Adventism. There are unreasonable editors here that vehemently reject that proposal. How can the widely accepted prophetic voice of a movement, who wrote much on the message of the movement, be rejected as having no relevant opinions on the purpose and meaning of the movement?

Bias is clearly indicated by angry editors who profess to be Christian and Adventist but who grossly misstate Wikipedia guidelines in an outrageously inconsistent fashion to justify their biased censorship.

One often repeated misrepresentation states that Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God is unacceptable as an external link because the page contains a link to a talk page/forum. The previously mentioned biased editors seem unable to recognize and deal with the fact that http://www.formeradventist.com is a forum and every article at that site links to their forum. Yet they approve of it as representing respectable opposition to Seventh-day Adventism.

Another blind accusation stated that Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God is unacceptable as an external link because it has little or no peer review. This is absurd. There are many websites which are accepted by Wikipedia as external links that have been obviously put on the internet without any peer review. Who peer reviewed http://www.ellenwhite.org?

Yet another misrepresentation is used to disallow Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God from being included as an external link in the category Adventist Accusations of Church Corruption. It has been asserted that Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God is a vanity site. This is ludicrous. Consider this Wikipedia statement on vanity: "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines

Importance is easy to prove. As I have already documented, Ellen White wrote of two opposing directives within the Adventist Church. Must I restate these two very important directives a second time?


 * “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” 2 Timothy 4:1-2.


 * “Satan has laid every measure possible that nothing shall come among us as a people to reprove and rebuke us, and exhort us to put away our errors.” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, p. 411.

There is no reason why important ideas that represent true Seventh-day Adventism must be suppressed simply because these ideas annoy "Adventist" editors.


 * Are there Seventh-day Adventists who truly hate the testimonies of God's Spirit?


 * "Who are standing in the counsel of God at this time? Is it those who virtually excuse wrongs among the professed people of God and who murmur in their hearts, if not openly, against those who would reprove sin? Is it those who take their stand against them and sympathize with those who commit wrong? No, indeed! Unless they repent, and leave the work of Satan in oppressing those who have the burden of the work and in holding up the hands of sinners in Zion, they will never receive the mark of God’s sealing approval." Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 267.


 * "They despise the straight testimony that reaches the heart, and would rejoice to see everyone silenced who gives reproof." Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 272.

I have documented multiple, reasonable instances where Adventists are accused by Adventists of accepting antichrist practices and doctrines. Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God is clearly hated for being relevant and opposed to the irrelevance that 5 out of 7 factions in the Seventh-day Adventist Church prefer. http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1143 --Perspicacious 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to reiterate: I agree that her opinions on the movement may be valid, but your selections of her opinions are not truly representative. Additionally, she is far from the only church founder, and therefore should not be the only person whose opinion we mention.


 * Again, perhaps removal of formeradventist.com is in order, but that does not mean you should add your site. The other sites on the list may be handed separately, but we are talking about your site.  I agree that the weakness you cite in the "not peer reviewed" argument exists.  Ideally, we would only cite authoritative sources which are fully peer reviewed, but as this is not the case, it is unfair to apply it only to your site.  I think you are correct on that point, though the validity of your article (and other sites we reference here) is still in question.


 * In response to your quote from the vanity guidelines page, I quote,
 * "These vanity guidelines are intended to assist Wikipedia users in determining exactly what is and what is not to be considered vanity information within Wikipedia, which is not suitable copy material for Wikipedia article pages. Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author" (emphasis mine).
 * Also,
 * "Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates. While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc." (emphasis mine). While these quotes do not mention links specifically, their applicability should be obvious.


 * Another point against your article link is that it is a link to what is unquestionably original research. When you are referring to something you yourself experience and you explain it from a first-person perspective, there can be little doubt that original research is taking place.  Basically, I should never make a link to a webpage I myself wrote, and the same goes for you.  If I chose to link to your page, it would be one thing, but this linking to your own page is wrong, directly against the spirit of NOR.  Plus, your link is also soapboxing, as I have mentioned before.  If you wish to soapbox there, by all means, do so, but do not soapbox here.  I also know that this applies to certain other sites on the list, but a) we are not concerned with those in this discussion, and b) it is possible that some soapbox cites are unavoidable as the only opposition sites available, and therefore balance wins over the "no soapboxing" rule.  Note that those do not generally go against NOR, which yours does, and that your site is not the only opposition site available.


 * Again, in your quotes you are choosing poor ones to reflect her general ideas on the church, and you are labeling yourself as the good guy and anyone else as the bad guy. You think you are rebuking and exhorting others.  They think they are rebuking and exhorting you.  Who is right?  How do you know?


 * Churches will all likely have internal strife until the very end. This does not prove anything except that people disagree and like to use strong words to show it.  I have read your article in its entirety.  I do not hate it.  Nor do I consider it necessarily deceptive in any way, though I do believe you have presented the facts to place you in the best light (we all do that, I think), and you may have inadvertently omitted other facts.  However, for other reasons as stated above, I do not believe it belongs in the link list of this article.


 * Interesting that you have called your opposition (which, according to your faction numbers, is the majority) "irrelevant" and your own statement "relevant." That is your opinion, and it is again labeling.  Don't, please.


 * I would love it if you would responded to all my arguments, not only the ones you prefer. I would also consider it gentlemanly of you if you admitted the instances when you are wrong, if some exist, as I have done.  --Cromwellt|Talk 00:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)