Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 8

Seventh day Adventists are not New religious movement
Therefore they cannot be mentioned as such, they are accepted as a protestant denomination with over 15 milion members. They have over 7000 schools with over 1 milion students. Andrews University and Loma Linda University are only some of them. In their noumerous hospitals over 86,553 doctors and nurses are employed. With their schools and hospitals they are second in the world, just after roman catholic church. ''' You can go on article Protestantism and you can see they are listed there as a protestant denomination. They are regarded as a protestant denomination in the whole world.  Articles here must represent neutral point of view, not a catholic church point of view'''

Some churches like the Jehovah's Witnesses and (particularly) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints hold views which diverge rather greatly from "mainstream" Protestantism, but adventists dont.

Also there are other churces that keep sabath (God's 4th commandment) too... like Seventh-Day Baptists, True Jesus Church, United Church of God, Living Church of God and some other churches. Regarding Saturday as a sabbath day (which it is, according to Bible) cannot give them NRM status. Its bizzare to do so.  Also there is a whole range of protestant denominations that reject doctrines of Catholic church, its not SDA teaching only.

'''Basicly all apostoles were adventists... another words... they expected Christ to come soon.'''

Its not come "new age" doctrine or a "NRM"

ipernar

Let's Make This a Featured Article!!
It's been a year since this article was considered for Featured Article status and failed. It has come a long way since then -- does everyone agree? I would like to gather support for a campaign to make it a featured article. I'm sure that's something we'd all very much like to see achieved. Tonicthebrown 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Participants
I think we'll have the best chance of success if we work as a team and someone acts as overall coordinator. Is anyone willing to do this? How about ?

Target dates
I think we should set some target dates. A Peer Review should occur soon; we could then aim for 01 March 2007 for nomination?

Discussion
I have done a lot of work on the article in the last week. The article has been restructured according to the suggestions made by (see below), which I thought were very good. I've also done a big cleanup of the Origins section to make it more encyclopaedic. There is still a lot to be done, however. The second half of the article needs a fair bit of work IMO Tonicthebrown 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article introduction has now been expanded to be more comprehensive. I tried to follow the guidelines in outlined in Lead section. Tonicthebrown 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead
What does everyone think about the new lead intro? I tried to make it more conforming to Wikipedia and more informative. Before it was not really a summary, and I think this does a better job at summarizing the article. Any thoughts? --Maniwar (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Links
Removed - doesn't look notable. Colin MacLaurin 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Critical links
There appears to be an ongoing edit war over the inclusion of critical links under External Links. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion and compromise. IMO there are currently too many critical links, it appears as if someone just wants to savagely attack the church. Suggestion: how about having just 2 or 3 critical links, to websites which are critical in a fair and constructive way. The rest can be placed on the Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. Tonicthebrown 06:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sabbath keeping
I think it's more accurate to say that Seventh-day Adventists follow the biblical teaching of a seventh day sabbath in the intro rather than saying Adventists are known for their seventh-day sabbath teaching. Adventists aren't teaching that concept. Adventists follow that concept which was taught by God to the Israelites.


 * Thank you for your contribution. However, claiming that SDAs are following the biblical teaching is not NPOV. This would be raised in a peer review and we'd have to correct it. If you would like to outline an argument for Sabbath keeping, the best place to do so is probably the Sabbath article. Tonicthebrown 06:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it non NPOV? The Bible must merely be opened to Exodus 20 to see the 4th commandment stating the 7th day is the sabbath day. Adventists aren't creating this belief, they are merely following it. God is the one who teaches it...Adventists are just one of the few groups that publicly follow it. --Kroma 14:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be NPOV to say that the Old Testament teaches that the Sabbath could be kept. I believe that noone would dispute that. However the majority of Christians believe that the Sabbath does not apply to today. Remember that Wikipedia is about presenting the different majority views, in due proportion. A more NPOV statement would be "Adventists believe that keeping the Sabbath is biblical". Regards, Colin MacLaurin 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying Adventists believe that keeping the Sabbath is biblical is a juvenile statement for an encyclopedia entry on Adventists. You don't need an encyclopedia to tell you that there is a Sabbath commandment in the Bible. Now your point about Adventists believing it still applies to day is a more relevant statement. Perhaps the statement should be "Seventh-day Adventists believe that the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment is still in effect today."--Kroma 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol
I was under the impression that SDA doctrine considered using alcohol to make merry to be a sin. This article seems to indicate that the official position is abstentionism (cf. Christian views of alcohol). Can someone clarify, preferably with sources? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstinence from alcohol is outlined in the 27 fundamentals as well as the SDA Church Manual. Tonicthebrown 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Would they call it sin? Would one be excluded from membership and/or leadership because one drank alcohol in moderation? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many Adventists would probably call alcohol "sin", yes. You'd almost certainly be excluded from leadership if you drank. As for membership -- to become a member you must agree to the Adventist baptismal vow, which includes a promise not to drink, sell or manufacture alcohol. However, in practice I doubt a church would disfellowship someone just because they had a few drinks... Cheers! Tonicthebrown 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bible makes it clear that it is drunkenness that is the sin.--Kroma 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Coffee & Tea?
Does the SDA church still forbid members from drinking coffee and tea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Perhaps you are thinking of the Latter Day Saints? V-Man737 01:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As part of the "health message" it is still encouraged generally not to drink coffee (and other caffeinated products I think). An interesting Adventist Review article with broader ramifications about the use of "drugs" in general can be found here. Ans e ll  04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't meaning the LDS. I'm aware of their Word of Wisdom.  Adventists I have known did not drink beverages containing caffeine and I didn't know if it was treated the same way as alcohol (totaly banned) or simply spoken against. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes, healthy principles are still taught. But I just checked the 28 Fundamentals and both the old and the new baptismal vows, and they don't mention coffee/caffeine but only alcohol, tobacco and narcotics. Yes, it is still taught. But contrary to some people I meet ("Oh, you're a Seventh-day Adventist? So you don't drink tea or coffee?") it is far from the most emphasized or important thing [Hello... "Jesus?"]. Actually here at Avondale College they installed a coffee machine in the Caf (cafeteria) this year. This is probably not typical, although Avondale is not one of the most liberal tertiary institutions the church operates. Hope this helps, Colin MacLaurin 09:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Based solely on Scripture"
I am raising a concern that I have with this sentence in the introductory paragraph to the article:


 * Seventh-day Adventist beliefs state they are based solely on scripture,[1] "Scripture is a road map. The Bible is God's voice, speaking His love personally to you today."[2]

In my opinion, this sentence is not accurate or verifiable. The fundamental beliefs of the SDA church, which is cited, do not anywhere state that the beliefs are based "solely" on Scripture. The relevant statements are as follows, with my comments:


 * "Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture."

This says that the Bible is "their only creed", which is not the same as saying that their beliefs are based "solely on the Bible". It is merely a rejection of other creeds (such as the Apostle's Creed and Nicene creed used by other churches), and a reiteration of the traditional Adventist avoidance of credalism. Furthermore, it goes on to say that the church "hold(s) certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of ... Scripture" and that the beliefs "constitute the church's understanding ... of the teaching of Scripture" (emphases mine). This is a clear acknowledgement that Adventist beliefs are based on an interpretation of Scripture; which contradicts the rather absolutist statement "SDA beliefs state they are based solely on Scripture".


 * "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."

(See also "However, we also believe... that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine.")

Belief #18, regarding Ellen White, calls her writings an "authoritative source of truth" which (implied) must be tested against the Bible. Thus the statement "based solely on Scripture" confuses the reader where the position is in fact more complex. It would be more accurate to say that the beliefs are "based ultimately on Scripture, as interpreted and understood by the church, with the assistance of Ellen White's inspired commentary etc...."

Hence, I propose the sentence is replaced with something less absolutist and more reflective of the actual Adventist position; for instance:


 * "Adventists have a high regard for Scripture..."
 * "Adventists are committed to the supreme authority of Scripture.."

I have deleted the sentence until a consensus can be reached. Tonicthebrown 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tonicthebrown, I will await your consensus and I will allow it to run it's course without reverting your edit. Once it has ended, I will propose that we insert this statement Seventh-day Adventist beliefs state they are based on scripture, "Scripture is a road map. The Bible is God's voice, speaking His love personally to you today." . And as for your charge that there is no support, the reference above clearly supports this (see reference above). The reference I inserted, is in accordance with Wikipedia and supports the statement. Additionally, as I've pointed out, "high regards" is not' the same as "based on". English is a very funny language and those two sentences carry totally different meanings. If we need to discuss this more, that's fine, but for now that is what I will propose. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Maniwar. Could I please ask you to explain exactly how you understand the "reference" to support the statement "Adventist beliefs state they are based solely on scripture". As I said, "the Bible is our only creed" is not in my opinion the same thing (see above). And I would be happy for a statement along the lines of: "Adventists regard scripture as supremely authoritative...". Could we agree on that as a compromise? Tonicthebrown 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a fair compromise. I am against "high regards" because that does not lend authority, it only says we'll consider it. I do believe however that the quote is fair and does lend support and is neutral. What say ye? --Maniwar (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maniwar. I agree with inserting the sentence: Seventh-day Adventists regard scripture as supremely authoritative in matters of life and doctrine: "Scripture is a road map. The Bible is God's voice, speaking His love personally to you today." '

This places Scripture as the primary authority for belief, while allowing other sub-authorities to exist - general revelation, contemporary prophecies etc. By my understanding, this is consistent with what the SDA church teaches. Cheers, Tonicthebrown 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tonic, I think this has run it's course. Go ahead and add the suggested changes. --Maniwar (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I roughly agree with Tonic's remarks. It is certainly worthy of mention that Adventists emphasize the authority of the Bible, but this must be expressed neutrally. Adventists are conservative Christians, and hence share a respect for the Bible's authority along with other theologically conservative Christians including evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals.
 * I also agree with Tonic that the "Scripture is a road map..." quote should be removed. Actually, I quoted it and more on the 28 Fundamentals page as it appears as a preface to those beliefs, if that is any consolation. I think the introduction could be clearer, although it lines up reasonably with the policy guideline. Colin MacLaurin 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Colin, I've been somewhat busy and am now back. The roadmap quote is quite POV. The official Website has that listed and it supports what Adventist’s teach in Revelation Seminars, Church, and other avenues that scripture is the basis. To list it, as the official website does, is not POV, but informative and supportive. That statement is not used in the 28 fundamentals context, but in their beliefs in general. I'm not wanting to start an edit war, but I do feel it warrants being mentioned. Tonic is adamant about adding negative views, and this one paragraph adds a foundation to refute these minor critics. If we are so quick to add the negatives, then we need to also add the positive and this is a foundation of the church (Sola Scriptura). I say we place it back in, and with your "roughly agree" comment, I gather that you may also agree. --User: (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Maniwar, just want to clarify my opinion about that quote. It's not that I think it is POV. I just don't think it fits well in the introduction to an encyclopedic article. It lacks a feeling of formality and objectiveness which is a requirement for encyclopedias, including Wikipedia. If you look further down, in the "theology" section, there is a clear statement that Adventists believe in the infallibility of Scripture. I think that is sufficient.


 * And please, can I please stress that I am not trying to be negative about the SDA church. That has never been my POV. I have had over 2 decades of experience in the Adventist church, and my family are active members there. My overall view of the church is positive; it is only certain historic elements that I am opposed to. I think I have worked hard on this overall article (and other Adventist articles as well) to give a strong positive impression of the church. But it is only fair that there is also balanced criticism of the church -- when you have spent as much time in the church as I have, you can also see its faults. All of the major criticisms (regarding theology, EGW, exclusivism) are widely attested. I do not think there is a defamatory or derogatory tone. Please notice my inclusion of counterpoints: Martin and Barnhouse, Veltman and the quote from QOD. Tonicthebrown 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote does reflect a very emphasized Adventist belief in the importance of Scripture, and this belief should be included, as it is. I agree strongly that if critics of the church have some incorrect accusations, then these points ought to be clarified in the article, which is why I wanted to have justification by faith alone included in there. However this article has so much content to be included that I think we should restrict the number of quotations used. I have the same criticism of Eschatology (Adventist) (no offence to the contributor) which shows this problem more markedly - nearly half the article is quotations from Ellen White, whereas a summary style would be better. Regarding Tonicthebrown, I have often seen edits from him in which he disagrees with or reverts edits which are overly critical with respect to Wikipedia's policies. Let me comment that I also appreciate Maniwar's contributions and respect for NPOV, discussing on talk pages etc. Colin MacLaurin 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear Word Bible
I noticed there was no mention of the Clear Word Bible translation (or paraphrased). Shouldn't there be some reference as it was published by the SDA church? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


 * There is a separate article here. It is linked on the Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church page. I don't believe The Clear Word is notable enough to be mentioned on the main SDA page. Tonicthebrown 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added it to the 'See Also' section. Perhaps that should suffice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Removed per Tonicthebrown's comments. The Clear Word is not insignificant, but I also agree that it is not notable enough within the church for inclusion on this page. Although it has received advertising in church newspapers, it is emphasized more by critics. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, it is the only translation of the Bible put out by the SDA church. Doesn't that warrant a single line in the 'See Also' section?  I'd agree putting something in the article itself doesn't make any sense, but a link seems like a decent middle position.  It seems incomplete not to have a link.


 * As far as I know, that may be true. However most Adventists use a NIV, KJV or other standard translation, not an Adventist-specific version. There are many important Adventist-related pages which could be linked, and I don't think this competes with them; per comments above. Colin MacLaurin 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
How about a nice infobox? Incorporate the church logo into it. I just searched all the current good articles and featured articles relating to religion and only found one religious movement with an infobox, the Orthodox Church in America. We're basically pioneering. What do you think? An infobox is a very useful super-quick reference. Colin MacLaurin 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I feel about this. The Adventist's don't have enough 'significant' people (or maybe they do) to do an infobox. Maybe if there was a generic "Religious Leader" infobox. Yet, I do like the concept. Hmmmm, just thinking out loud. Could we justify on the Wikipedia world that the Seventh-day Adventist's need their own infobox? Any other comments? I do like the setup of the Orthodox Church in America's infobox. --User: (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant a sort of denominational infobox, not one for individual Adventists. It would give details on church membership, GC president, starting date, starting location (US somewhere), parts of the world, influences (e.g. Millerites, Methodism), founders, administration (GC), etc. I didn't mean creating a new template, but using an existing generic one. I think it would make a great quick reference. Colin MacLaurin 11:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think it's a great idea. Which one would you have in mind? --User: (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a proposal here . Don't know if you want to comment. --User: (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Here aer some ideas for the infobox:
 * Seventh-day Adventist Church
 * [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->]]
 * Motto ??


 * Founders: Ellen White, James White, Joseph Bates
 * Membership: >14 million
 * Major presence: North America, ...


 * Founding date: 1863
 * Governing body: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
 * Headquarters:
 * President: Jan Paulsen
 * Website: adventist.org


 * Pastors:
 * Missionaries:
 * Teachers:
 * Schools, colleges, universities:
 * Budget:

Colin MacLaurin 15:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the example, but it seems to be more of an institution infobox, rather than an individual infobox. If you're shooting for institution, well done. However, if you're going for an individual how about something like this?


 * Seventh-day Adventist Church
 * [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->]]
 * Motto ??

--User: (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * subject_name:
 * date_of_birth:
 * place_of_birth:
 * date_of_death:
 * place_of_death:
 * Position:
 * Position began:
 * Position ended:
 * Predecessor:
 * Successor:
 * Budget:
 * Website:


 * There is already an infobox for religious leaders - see List of infoboxes/Society. Someone there has suggested a colour to be used for Seventh-day Adventist religious leaders. I am not opposed to the idea of an SDA religious leaders infobox, but cannot see a need for it. Also, sometime we should propose the Christian (or religious?) denominations infobox at List of infoboxes/Proposed. One could also contact WikiProject Religion and/or WikiProject Christianity. For now, I plan to implement the suggested box for this page using a generic template. Colin MacLaurin 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw this. OK, go for it. I support it. --User: (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Bates
Someone who knows what their doing, needs to find all the Joseph Bates entries and change them to Joseph Bates (Adventist) because the Joseph Bates page is now an ambig. page with a murder from North Carolina. I don't know how to search for all of the entries to change them. --User: (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go to the Joseph Bates page and click on "What links here" (else go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Joseph_Bates). It will show the pages which link to this page (they usually shouldn't since it is a disambiguation page). At the time of writing there is one such page, and it doesn't legitimitely point to either Joseph Bates (Adventist) or Joseph Earl Bates, so I'm leaving it for now. Colin MacLaurin 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured
has this article ever been featured? i think it should. PrincessOfHearts 13:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)