Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Graham Maxwell

The Accusation of Spamming
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)

The above comment and link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Maxwell is valuable content. Adding informative content to Wikipedia is the specified purpose of this encyclopedia. Why was it deleted? --Perspicacious 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Graham Maxwell Schism
As a result of what may be classed as a edit war soon, I would like to ask that we open up a discussion on the schism that the user Perspicacious is avidly trying to include in the "Off-shoots and schismatics" section. It is my earnest passion that we do not have edit wars happening on Seventh-day Adventist Church as it is not in the best interest of this article or for wikipedia in general. So here is my rationale regarding what Perspicacious is trying to include in the article.

The section that Perspicacious is trying to include the information is entitled "Off-shoots and schismatics" and currently discusses such divisions within Adventism such as the Branch Davidians (which made global news coverage), the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement (involved around 4000 people, a considerable portion of the church, and is still active today), SDA Kinship (an organisation that the church felt obliged to file legal action against) and Dr Desmond Ford's teachings (Ford was stripped of his ministerial credentials and many in the church left their churches and ministries - is known as the Glacier View doctrinal crisis). As far as I can determine, nothing as major or newsworthy as any of these events has happened as a result of Graham Maxwell's teaching. I am happy to be proved otherwise but as someone who has been in the church for over 15 years, I cannot say that the cited schism is particularly notable. There has, as far as I can tell, been no off-shoot group formed and seems rather marginalised.

There is very little information available on the web about this schism and I find it hard to believe that it is at all notable. Yes, I have seen the quote that Perspicacious has used. This quote is the personal opinion of a single Graham Maxwell dissident. It does not say anything about the effect on Adventism that this "schism" has had. In my honest opinion, the issue being discussed is a criticism of the church's teaching and the information belongs on the Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church page.

Further, I would like to point out that the article A. Graham Maxwell which is about the person who is most notable for his involvement in this "schism" was speedied and a mirror of that page, Graham Maxwell is up for deletion. Does this indicate that perhaps the schism is not even notable on wikipedia?

As such, I believe that the comments be removed and any discussion can take place on a subpage of Seventh-day Adventist Church. It does not belong here. I request that no changes be made to the questioned information until it is evident that an agreement has been reached here. MyNameIsNotBob 13:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POV – if you disagree with the POV, add an opposing or contrasting POV to the article in an encyclopedic manner. --Perspicacious 15:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I resolved your complaint with this sentence: "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." --Perspicacious 17:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For fun, we can exchange an "edit war" for a frantic search of websites that either teach or strongly repudiate the moral influence theory and the teachings of Maxwell et. al. and tally our results and then post the statistical data.


 * I'm happy to post the first salvo: Source: http://www.sdadefend.com/BattleOverTruth.htm:


 * GOD WILL NOT KILL THE WICKED—The present author’s research study, The Terrible Storm, is the most complete collection of Bible-Spirit of Prophecy material on this subject. Revelation 14:9-10 predicts a terrible storm of God’s wrath is soon to fall upon the incorrigibly wicked. But Satan wants the Third Angel’s Message repudiated in the minds of men. In place of it, he substitutes a different message: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you go to heaven anyway.”


 * In spite of a multitude of clear statements in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, for over two decades Mike Clute taught the false doctrine that God never has, and never will, execute capital punishment on the wicked. In recent years Mike went into universalism, the teaching that none of the wicked will ever die. That evil teaching is solidly denounced in Great Controversy, 537-539.


 * This error, which Paul Heubach used to teach in the 1950s and 1960s at La Sierra and Walla Walla (he was the one who taught it to Mike), is being taught by Graham Maxwell of Loma Linda University (Graham Maxwell, Servants or Friends? Another Look at God, 1992). Maxwell says he has a “matured” view of God, which helps him see that the “many references in the Bible to God’s destruction of the wicked” must be understood as God’s “just using a figure of speech.”


 * --Perspicacious 17:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perspicacious, if you make a change to that article again I have no choice but to call for an admin. You simply ignored a plain request that the content of the article be discussed off the page prior to any edits. I would like to request that you don't force me to consult an admin. You have not resolved any issues whatsoever and I struggle to believe you even read my comment above. This article does not wish to know the theology debated, but rather, the effect that the schism has had on the church. As far as I can tell there is no large scale effect taking place. In my part of the world there are churches that off-shoot as a result of differing worship styles and it is a hot topic in discussions etc, however, this is not a major schism and we don't need to include that information in the article. Neither is this argument about Maxwell's theology a large scale schism and necessary of inclusion in the article.


 * DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE SECTION!!! Lets develop a final statement here and then move it to the article. I will request an admin deal with you Perspicacious if you continue to edit in your increasingly immature way. MyNameIsNotBob 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I SUGGEST THAT YOU FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA POLICY. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POV – if you disagree with a POV on a controversial topic, add an opposing or contrasting POV to the article in an encyclopedic manner. You don't need my cooperation to do that. Just don't delete my reasonable contribution as it represents historic Seventh-day Adventist Christianity. --Perspicacious 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with MyNameIsNotBob, reverting straight back, as you have always done, is against wikipedia policy. Therefore, we have no choice but to call for an admin to intervene. I am reverting back to a consistent version due to your ignoring a plea by MyNameIsNotBob to avert an edit war. If you are not prepared to develop the section on here, as you are always reverting back to a previous copy, and not developing the current version, it shows that you seem to want this to be your POV on the page and not a consensus NPOV page.


 * Your repeated suggestions that we rebutt your POV with our own POV is just silly. We don't want both POV's on the page, we want an encyclopedic article. Ansell 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are another person who refuses to follow the advice given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POV for controversial topics. --Perspicacious 23:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Schisms fall under the purview of offshoots and schismatics. Please look up the word schism. cf. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=schism.


 * There is a simple criterion to prove that the "God does not kill" faction in the Seventh-day Adventist church and their opposers demonstrate a clear schism. Both sides say that the theology of the other camp originates with Satan. Will more examples of this persuade anybody here?


 * Please note that the article isn't identifying who belongs to whom. My point is that there's a clear distinction here between good and evil. You can't pretend that there isn't any difference. --Perspicacious 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are defining Schism as A formal breach of union within a Christian church as I would expect you are, then please find some sort of documentation from a church admin level that shows that the issue is of concern and that this is a formal schism. If you cannot find such evidence, I will continue to disagree that your edits are relevant to this section.
 * This article and particularly not the discussed section is not the place for a discussion of the views for and against the orthodox Seventh-day Adventist Church (not SDA Church - see above discussion!), that belongs in summative form under the heading "Outsider criticisms" or on the Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church page. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia and as such not the place for listing arguments about theology. Could you please note that the other related schisms do not go into the arguments for and against, they are simply descriptions of the historical events that took place. For example, I did not find it necessary to quote any Dr Ford in the related paragraph. That is why your quotes from what you claim are reliable sources are not needed on this page.
 * This is not an issue of WP:POV. Please note: there is a difference between NPOV, non-NPOV and POV - NPOV is not an antonym of POV! Do not keep citing WP:POV, we are familiar with what that is expressing, your edits are unrelated. The paragraph that Perspicacious is adding to the article is non-NPOV (or biased). It does not belong on this page. Perspicacious a lengthy paragraph may be worthwhile should you be able to generate a good encyclopedic subpage, ie Graham Maxwell. At the moment you are editing a page that is intended to be summative. See WP:PERFECT, and add a recommendation that should appear on the page here - one that follows WP:PERFECT's standards. MyNameIsNotBob 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The one measly paragraph I wrote is a good and an enlightening summation about the "God does not kill" schism. I made an exact comparison with the defection of John Harvey Kellogg. It's a perfect comparison. Try to find documentation from church administrators at the time declaring his break with Christian doctrine a formal schism. Ellen White was shocked that church leadership could NOT see the harm of his teaching. The entry I wrote is encyclopedic.


 * Like I said, and I included it in the Seventh-day Adventist Church page, the many Adventists who say that they see the harm of Maxwell's doctrine can be called a faction, a schism. --Perspicacious 23:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it this "God does not kill" schism is a current event. As such, in encyclopedic manner, this information is not really necessary here. In twenty years time it possibly won't have any bearing on the church or be noticed in church history. Doesn't really warrant encyclopedic mention at the moment. MyNameIsNotBob 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I already stated that the error was taught in the 1950s. Even John Harvey Kellogg alluded to it in Living Temple but didn't develop it. --Perspicacious 00:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia should contain major schisms. The quotation that you have given in reference to the church not talking about the issue does not therefore say it is major. When was the article published by the way. There is no hint on the website of when the article was published, nor do you hint as to when this was. You still have not given enough evidence to say this is major. Please present all of your evidence here. The article is not the place for this.


 * In terms of the WP:POV page, you are mistaking this for a controversy. As everyone else sees it, you are trying to make a controversy out of something that isn't yet a controversy. This is not the place to do it. As MyNameIsNotBob says, you should get a handle on the Graham Maxwell page, which is still in doubt of being kept, contrary to your continued voting on the voting page which is out of line with VfD policy. Each of the other schisms is well publicised in adventist circles. Using the conspiracy theory that the church has ignored the issue in fear of offending its financial base is not a valid argument. The church should not be presumed to be protecting its financial basis. As a worldwide church, not just the southwestern US, the church does not have the same issues with offending wealthy rich members. Please restrict your discussion to worldwide schisms that are at least known of by members of the church not wholly intimate with the particular doctrine in discussion. It seems more like just a secluded academic discussion within the "financial base" community you referenced. That is not a schism. Ansell 00:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that the page is protected and we have relief from lame edit wars, we can get on with the proposed discussion of what should be included in the article. My suggestions are:
 * The section is related to the effects on church structure and attendance that various schisms have had. If Perspicacious can prove that there is a notable effect on church attendance, doctrinal stance or church structure as a result of this 'schism', I believe that a paragraph such as:


 * During the 1950s, Paul Heusbach taught the non-orthodox and somewhat controversial teaching that the wicked are not destroyed. This was taught for over two decades by Mike Clute and is still being taught today by A. Graham Maxwell, who wrote a book on the topic entitled "Servants or friends? Another Look at God" in 1992.


 * If it is not seen as a notable schism it might be worth changing the first paragraph to something like:


 * Throughout the history of the denomination, there have been a number of groups who have left the church and formed their own movements. There have also been a number of subgroups within the church who have taught differing beliefs, such as the teaching by Paul Heusbach that the wicked are not destroyed.


 * Otherwise, if concensus rules it, the comments should be simply removed.


 * It is my utmost hope that I can continue to assume good faith in the edits of other users and that this dispute will be resolved without a RfA. MyNameIsNotBob 01:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects.

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POV --Perspicacious 01:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me how this relates to this discussion? Yes I can talk in broad terms as well about wikipedia policies, but it does not help until you can tell me what your POV is related to the article which is the Seventh-day Adventist Church, not Seventh-day Adventist Church end time theology or something like that. As such, the paragraph in question is not necessarily a POV about the article. Therefore, I would ask that you stop citing WP:POV and get on with trying to work out what is necessary for the article. I have made my suggestions above. MyNameIsNotBob 02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This page would be relevant if the topic being discussed was truly controversial. Instead, there is you and one vague reference that you found on the web from spectrum magazine that doesn't even have a date or any guarantee that it was published, let alone reviewed. The WP:POV page is also only a guideline. It is not official wikipedia policy. You still haven't convinced any of us that either the quote you seem intent on using, or the issue, is infact major, or diverse. The quote is one persons view on the issue, and since this has started you have only been able to dig up one quote that even mentions this as more than a very very localised issue. Ansell 02:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Many Seventh-day Adventists say that they see the harm of Maxwell's doctrine. How many Adventist quotes do I need to have a legitimate POV? I want their opinion to be represented.

Maxwell teaches that God will not punish the wicked or make them undergo any kind of suffering: It would be a monstrous evil for Him to do so. How many Adventists believe that? --Perspicacious 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for detailing what certain objections some members have to another certail members teachings. It is not an adventist policy to endorse every work of every member. Even employees are not said to be the voice of the church when it comes to their personal beliefs on doctrine. Much like wikipedia, the church believes in consensus. The point is not about POV though. The page is for detailing the church, not one specific issue that isn't a major church wide issue. The people you represent, or whom I can only name two, you and Eugene Schubert, who for all the internet knows, could be the same person. Stop making a mountain out of a grain of sand. Ansell 02:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To quote answers.com a schism is "The words schism and schismatic have found perhaps their heaviest usage in the history of Christianity, to denote splits within a church or religious body. In this context, schismatic as a noun denotes a person who creates or incites schism in a church or is a member of a splinter church, and schismatic as an adjective refers to ideas and things that are thought to lead towards or promote schism, often describing a church that has departed from whichever communion the user of the word considers to be the true Christian church. These words have been used to denote both the phenomenon of Christian group splintering in general, and certain significant historical splits in particular."
 * This issue is 1) not likely to cause a break in the church, as it is not a core doctrine, and 2) it is not a splinter group. You could hardly call the listeners of his Sabbath-School recordings a splinter group. They don't profess to be one. They don't act like one, or in the 30 odd years since he first stated it we would have noticed a splinter group. The only person who seems to have a problem is you and the (now infamous) Eugene Schubert. Ansell 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we get on with reaching a consensus on the changes to the article? I have made a couple of suggestions above. Personally, I believe that my first suggestion is a good midpoint however I would go for the third suggestion. MyNameIsNotBob 02:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that it should not be there, however, I would accept having one sentence, as is all that this issue seems to need. Ansell 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Two supporters of A. Graham Maxwell do not constitute a consensus. --Perspicacious 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Was that a question or a statement. For a second I thought you may have seen the light and figured this isn't a major issue. Ansell 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't even heard of A. Graham Maxwell before this dispute. How is saying that it is not a notable schism in Adventism supporting him? Can we just remove the paragraph and get on with editing the page to featured article status, like I hope everyone wishes it could be? MyNameIsNotBob 03:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What two people want, especially when one of them confesses to having no understanding of Maxwellian pantheism, is sheer lunacy. Let people who have an understanding of Adventism express their opinion. --Perspicacious 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is time that I weighed in on this debate again. Although I have studied at tertiary level Adventist history, and was certainly one of the more well versed in my class of over 50, I also have to confess to having very little understanding of the Graham Maxwell and his theology.  All I can presume to know about Graham Maxwell is that he was related to Arthur Maxwell, of Uncle Arthur fame (incidentally, an article on Uncle Arthur would make a lot more sense to me....).  Further, througout the discussion, I have been unable to ascertain, both through reading the ramblings on the supposedly unbiased everythingimportant.org and through reading the supposedly improved comments here on wikipedia.  Although I am by no measure a novice when it comes to Adventist theology, I suggest that Perspicacious provide the most simple, elegant, and unbiased text that he can, with supporting documentation to published journals, books, and magazine articles that he can muster.  As a warning to him (or her for that matter), I really don't want to see the same two or three sentences that he has previously written recycled again, nor do I wish for 30 pages of Ellen White quotes.  What I would like to see is this: a clear and concise summary of what Maxwell teaches (this doesn't mean 20 pages of his quotes, it means a summary and a label for his position, that any theologian regardless of theological stripe can understand), an indication of the supporters and detractors of his position and the key reasons for why people support or disagree with Maxwell, and a succinct and cogent account of the sociological and policitcal impact it has had on the Adventist church, both worldwide and locally (locally means union conference, that is, if it is confined to a localy conference it is of little relevance, not matter how passionate the parties involved).  I would like to see this piece of text as a matter of urgency, as the current discussion has slowed down, even stopped progress on the Adventist page. -Fermion 05:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Eugene Shubert is Perspicacious
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)". Given that the "Author Link" at the bottom of the everythingimportant.org link points to Eugene Schubert, I conclude that there are infact only two people in the world who have been identified so far who actually care about the issue at hand. Conclusively making it a non-schism. Ansell 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

I do not agree to have the paragraph removed or abbreviated. I can only discuss this with persons who are generous, not censorious. Let's wait for persons to vote who respect thinkers like Dr. Richard Fredericks, David P. McMahon, Martin Weber, William H. Shea, and the author of http://www.sdadefend.com/BattleOverTruth.htm. In other words, persons you refuse to acknowledge even exist. --Perspicacious 04:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Why the page had to be protected
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)

Blocked users and the current impasse
I am very sorry to say that two contributors to the Seventh-day Adventist Church page have been blocked. As far as I know this is the first occurance of users contributing to the page being blocked, and as such is sad as fellow contributors have been blocked from working together.

I would like to be able to move on from this impasse, but unfortuanetly can not see a way forward. User:Perspicacious insists that Graham Maxwell is an important figure in Adventism, in particular for his supposedly divergent theology. To date the only significant thing I can find about Graham Maxwell is that is the son of the late and much loved Uncle Arthur and that Graham Maxwell is a regular contributor to the Sabbath school quarterlies. I have not been able to ascertain what is supposedly evil about his theology, nor even to find a cogent summary of what he says. Indeed the only thing that I can find about his position, is this admission on everythingimportant.org, which Perspicacious is very fond of
 * True academia is governed by the motto, “publish or perish” but Maxwell hasn’t published a single document about his unique message. There is nothing that specifically spells out what he believes.

This quote suggests to me that there is very little to base the discussion on. Perspicacious is asking us to write an encyclopedia article on something that, as far as I can tell, does not even have a basis in print. No wonder we are confused.

I personally am finding it difficult to take the rebukes by Perspicacious that the three main people discussing it with him are ignororamus', indeed he has declared that he can't continue discussing with us because we clearly aren't educated enough and may even be Maxwell supporters. I am not a Maxwell supporter. As I said, I don't even know what Maxwell stands for. Despite repeated requests for it to be spelled out clearly, I still don't know. If someone could please suggest a way forward I would be really appreciative. -Fermion 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fermion, I think I did a marvelous job of removing the "sensuality" (EGW's evaluation of alpha/omega theology) out of Maxwell's gospel, leaving the true essence of what this man teaches. See the superb editing here: http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm#Maxwell


 * Anyone else would call that putting your POV on the situation, and hence it is not appropriate for wikipedia. Ansell 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maxwell communicates his message by cassette tape. I've heard Maxwell say several times in person that he is hesitant to present his message as a systematic theology, even though many are continually asking him to be systematic. His book Servants and Friends is on a third grade level and I remember one Maxwell supporter telling me how disgusted he is with the emptiness of it. You're not going to find anything there. What I've extracted from the Serpent Speaks manuscript, based on a tape of Maxwell's Andrew University Evangelistic series, is the best and clearest Maxwellian presentation available. You can find the exact same thoughts in "Can God Be Trusted?" (Maxwell 1977) but Maxwell's unique heresy is not as transparent there.


 * Rynne wrote:
 * "Comment: Could you please explain in more detail Maxwell's contributions to the moral influence theory (either theologically or in relation to its spread in the Adventist Church)? Or even better, add that explanation to the article? I can't tell how the two are related, since moral influence theory is not mentioned in the body of Graham Maxwell, nor is Maxwell mentioned in Atonement (Moral influence view). If moral influence theory is Maxwell's claim to notability, the connection between the two must be made much clearer. - Rynne 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)"


 * I am very happy to comply. Thank you Rynne for that wonderful request. It gave me an excellent idea. For the sub article on Graham Maxwell, I need to write a section called Graham Maxwell's Contribution to Theology. I now see what I have to write as being divided into three parts: A. Graham Maxwell's contribution to


 * 1. Second Century Gnosticism
 * 2. Medieval Moral Influence Theory
 * 3. The New Age Interpretation of the Cross

--Perspicacious 12:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A Graham Maxwell
A. Graham Maxwell is the best known and most beloved teacher on the meaning of Christ's atonement in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thousands of Seventh-day Adventists the world over listen to Dr. Maxwell's weekly Sabbath School lessons on tape in the context of his version of "The Great Controversy." Maxwell's theology is an accepted teaching in the church. Seventh-day Adventists do admit that his message is controversial or heretical but messages within the organized church structure suggesting strong dissent or in any way expressing the danger of it are of doubtful reliability  or strangely nonexistent.

Dr. Maxwell has summarized the essence of his message in a taped evangelistic series at Andrews University. A condensed summary of it is presented elsewhere. Dr. Maxwell's answer to the question, "Why did Jesus die?", in the previous reference, has been excerpted from a transcribed tape called The Serpent Speaks on file at the Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Is his theology really accepted teaching
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)

Role of Maxwell as a teacher of atonement
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)

Strangely nonexistent church statements
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)

Explaining statement references on wikipedia pages
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)

Thousands of listeners reference needed
Perspicacious, is this meant to mean that there is a schism, because thousands out of the 20 or more million adventists who attend adventist churches listen to this person and believe what he says. This is by no means in the levels of the church that the 1888 conferences, or the Ford issues. As almost a side point, where do you get your idea that there are even thousands who listen to this persons recordings. Are there any statistics taken for this reference. Ansell 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you refuse to face the comments on the Graham Maxwell talk page, I will place them down here. Seeing as you are just recycling the same content, from A. Graham Maxwell to Graham Maxwell, and now to the Seventh-day Adventist Church page.

I will also reiterate that your vague connections of gnosticism and Graham Maxwell, linking from then back in a weird two step process to someone who actually comments on gnosticism in the Seventh-day Adventist church, well, to say the best for them they are vague and unworthy of being a reference on an encyclopedia. The reference from everythingimportant.org is categorically unworthy of placement in wikipedia as it is both vanity (ie, your work) and original internet research (ie. Eugene Shubert can't get enough attention to get his stuff either published in a journal or even get the attention of adventists world wide). Note: Getting peoples attention to potential issues is not the point of this page, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Saying that we are uninformed adventists because we are not familiar with some out of the way issue in south western united states shows that you are getting to the bottom of the barrel with rebuttals. Also would you refrain from reposting content, or referring to content that has been specifically excluded from wikipedia, ie. rebutted/speedily deleted A. Graham Maxwell pages, or everythingimportant.org forum/original internet work/vanity (See connection between Perspicacious and Eugene Shubert above) Ansell 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with User:Ansell. To state it really clearly.  I still fail to see how Maxwell is guilty of Gnosticism (and if he is, it seems to me that the only source of this connection is everythingimportant.org, in which case the connection is original research).  Second, I still don't see how a schism has occurred.  If anybody can give me an example of a single church that has either left of been disfellowshipped from the official church, or some exact numbers of how many individuals have left the Church, or the disciplinary action that has been taken against Maxwell, then I may begin to consider that this issue rates a passing mention on the main page.  Until then, I have tried to get my head around the purported issue and can do no more. -Fermion 21:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thousands of readers referenced. Note the requirement to have a Wikipedia page describing one individual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO See this category: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." Graham Maxwell's book, "Can God Be Trusted?" was acclaimed as the denominational book of the year.  http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/10.html. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a big denomination.


 * What if your beliefs are being challenged in books and periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more? --Perspicacious 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For an official denunciation of Maxwell's theology, in the category of Gnosticism, I nominate this comment by Richard Fredericks, published by the denomination: (in the article I keep citing, Ministry magazine, the Seventh-day Adventist smart journal for ministers, p. 10): "A rejection of all legal categories pertaining to God, leaving sin as ignorance and salvation as a healing of the mind through accurate information about God and His purposes, was the core teaching of the Gnostic movement in the second to third centuries, and is the basis for most Eastern religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism." --Perspicacious 13:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, Graham Maxwell teaches by cassette tape as his primary communication device. http://www.pineknoll.org/ --Perspicacious 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the job of an editor to decide if Maxwell is guilty of Gnosticism. The fact is, Maxwell and all followers of moral influence theory have been accused of holding to a Gnostic belief in Ministry magazine, which is published by the Seventh-day Adventist church. Ministry magazine has a diverse readership. It is published for Adventist and non-Adventist ministers. --Perspicacious 02:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget about denunciations. Let's be positive. For the greatest Adventist achievement toward the advancement of Seventh-day Adventist theology, in the category of Gnosticism, I nominate the Gnostic heresy of A. Graham Maxwell.

“The name ‘Gnosticism’ is given to all those different theories of the universe which professed to be Christian, but amalgamated elements of Christian belief with Hellenistic ideas regarding an intermediate world of superhuman beings between the Supreme One and men, and regarding the human soul as a part of the Divine which had fallen into the dark and evil world of Matter. Each Gnostic sect claimed to have a special ‘knowledge’ (gnosis) to communicate, by which the Soul could get deliverance from matter and win its way back to the Upper World. Most of the Gnostics represented the God of the Old Testament as an inferior Being, often a Being hostile to the Supreme God, ruling in the lower world, from which ‘knowledge’ enabled the Soul to escape.” — The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, article 785: ‘Gnosticism.’

“The basic premises common to the many varieties of Gnostic belief were that since God is good and the material world is evil, he cannot have created it” (David Christie-Murray, A History Of Heresy, p. 21). The basic premise of Neo-Gnostic Adventism (and Maxwell) is that since God is good and those who kill are evil, then God has nothing to do with meting out punishment in a final judgment.

“These systems were philosophical in that the problem which concerned all Gnostics was the reconciliation of the existence of evil with God who is good; religious because they offered salvation”, salvation by gnosis. (Does that sound familiar)? --Perspicacious 13:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a vague reference, and as such is not worthy of being a reference for a schism (ie. notable split or issue in the church) Ansell 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Audience size and influence decide worthiness at Wikipedia. It is therefore reasonable to honor Dr. Graham Maxwell in a small way for his contributions to Gnosticism, pantheism, moral influence theory and New Age theology. --Perspicacious 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see a copy of the ministry article that has been cited. Is there any way, User:Perspicacious, that you could either provide an electronic copy or scan and post on some other website the article? -Fermion 06:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to honouring Graham Maxwell for his contributions to "gnosticism, panthemis, moral influence theory and New Age theology", I would take you seriously except for the obviously except for the edge of sarcasm and the clear polemical intent of your statement.-Fermion 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Gnosticism, pantheism, moral influence theory and New Age theology." The fact that these deceptive teachings are in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is indisputable. I am deadly serious. It's impossible for me to joke about this life and death issue. If you have a strong desire for salvation and hope and pray for it, please contact Ministry magazine for a reprint of their article. To understand the spiritualism and New Age theology of Maxwell et. al., see http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm
 * --Perspicacious 01:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, it is higly disputable that gnosticism, pantheism, moral influence theory and New Age theology are prevalent in the church. I do not a single official publication that would suggest such a thing.  Rather, they roundly condemn such positions. -Fermion 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Intent to Start a New Category between the Doctrines list and Practices and customs
This is a sincere offer to resolve the impasse. I believe it would be very revealing to list the most unusual and unofficial doctrines that are permitted, promulgated and published in and by the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Question 1. What does Wikipedia say about permitting or disallowing this alteration to the Seventh-day Adventist Church page? --Perspicacious 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that there is a place for the "unusual and unofficial doctrines" however, the main page is not the place. The main page serves to explore the official church and main stream tendencies. See WP:ENC "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION". I would support the creation of an encylopedic subpage that could be referenced in the main article however. The problem is in using such information in a way that abides by the NPOV. MyNameIsNotBob 03:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the information may be appropriate on a subpage. Ansell 06:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree that this information belongs on a subpage of wikipedia. We are trying to write an encyclopedia.  We are not trying to write an episode for Ripley's Believe It or Not.  The key question to have to ask is why? The next question is how do we propose to put up some filter mechanism to avoid it becoming a dirt file? -Fermion 06:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My pure stance agrees with this point. As per the WP:ENC statement quoted above, Fermion is correct. It is also very difficult to include information of the nature Perspicacious is suggesting without stepping out of the NPOV. So, in a change from the above comment, I'd strongly discourage the establishment of a subpage for such information. It would possible spend most of its life with and  at the top. There are far better tasks for wikipedia editors, like making Seventh-day Adventist Church a featured article by referencing the information. MyNameIsNotBob 06:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User:MyNameIsNotBob cites WP:ENC, with good reason I suggest. Before the charge is made that the statement that wikipedia is not a dumping ground for information is not policy or guideline, allow me to state the case clearly.  The editors of this page have the right to decide, collectively, whether they wish for the Seventh-day Adventist Church page to become an assortment of random facts, or a quality piece of prose (yes, I do have a clear bias).  As such, I want to firstly make it clear that I want to see the article as quality, properly referenced prose, secondly, I don't think that the information to Graham Maxwell has a place in a well-written and researced article on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. -Fermion 07:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote 1 quality piece of prose. I also wish to revert my statement that the "information may be appropriate on a subpage" in light of the WP:ENC page. I think that it is not even that relevant. For that matter, I see no reason why we have debated so much about this particular issue with its extremely limited affect in any adventist population anywhere. Ansell 07:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The question now is, can we safely unprotect the page and get on with editing? Is Perspicacious willing to agree to leave the Graham Maxwell issues off the page? If Perspicacious is unwilling to comply, do we need to consult ArbCom or will a Straw poll convince him? MyNameIsNotBob 08:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer is NO. We're not even close to a resolution. Wikipedia is wise to make us hash this out. I'm only asking for three things: ABC: an ACCURATE, BALANCED and COMPLETE entry describing the Seventh-day Adventist church. I see no reason why an article with these essential elements can't be encyclopedic and brief. --Perspicacious 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So how do you want to reach this resolution? At the moment, it is impossible to get any progress done because the page has been protected. I seriously doubt you would oblige if every other one of the million editors on wikipedia suggested against your suggestion. Would a vote persuade you? MyNameIsNotBob 05:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And by hashing this out you mean you teaching us what is wrong with the Seventh-day Adventist church?? From your ABC: Accurate, so far you haven't been able to accurately provide any direct links between Graham Maxwell and a set of major church publications that show that the church has been affected by it. Balanced, well, the WP:3o certainly didn't convince you that your ideas were not balanced. Complete, There has to be a scope for everything. In the case of wikipedia, it is called, encyclopedic significance. The prerequisites of accurate and balanced that you have so far held up the development of the entire Seventh-day Adventist Church page. This shows that you don't actually want a complete article. You want to stop progress by putting your bias onto the article, whatever it takes.


 * Your sum total of efforts of wikipedia, include trying to disclaim that Einstein discovered Relativity and denouncing Graham Maxwell. That is all, you have 199 edits, plus those of your sock puppet IP addresses, devoted entirely to two very very minor issues. I would say that you have held up Wikipedia perhaps too much to put any claims to wanting a perfect ABC for any page. Ansell 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Perspicacious, as a summary of your case, could you please list as dot points which bare minimum facts you wish to see in the article (in encyclopedic referenced sentences) and where you believe they belong. MyNameIsNotBob 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:3o
I evaluated the inclusion of the following block of text:


 * 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. weber1994 fredericks1992 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." McMahon 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.

and the alternative


 * 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. weber1994 fredericks1992

I find that both versions fail NPOV, and endorse fully the following revsion:


 * A segment of church does not believe that Christ literally died vicariously for the sins of humanity and believe, instead, the theology of A. Graham Maxwell. weber1994 fredericks1992

Because I am not an expert in this subject, so I cannot include a 1 sentence description of Maxwell's theology, but a brief one sentance description would be appropriate, also.

Thank you for using WP:3o. I will be monitoring this page for developments. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maxwell does accept a substitionary atonement, and as such the above statement would be inaccurate. See  p. 11. -Fermion 09:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please describe the difference in belief between the two in 20 words or less, using no words that are above the ability of a person of reasonable education and background but not of your religion to understand. Please focus on making sure the statement of difference goes out of it's way to be unobjectionable to the other side. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, your statement is absolutely correct. The assertion that your statement is false, stated by Fermion and supported by Ansell, shows their complete misunderstanding of the word vicarious. They are also demonstrating their total misunderstanding of the document they are using as proof of their errors. Maxwell never says that he believes in vicarious anything. Maxwell spends a lot of time mocking the idea of vicarious substitution elsewhere. Here, Maxwell only said that Jesus died a substitutionary death. And you have to notice the exact context to see what Maxwell meant:


 * Did Jesus die a “substitutionary death”?
 * "In a way, yes. Either he had to die, or we would die." Maxwell interview, p. 11.


 * That's not an admission of a vicarious substitution. Now take a look at this Maxwell quote from page 5:


 * "This idea of atonement as payment of penalty is a modern perversion of the original idea" (Maxwell interview, p. 5).


 * And look at page 6:


 * "So that is why seeing the sacrifice of Jesus as doing something to God is the big mistake?"
 * "Well, it implies several very serious theological mistakes on the part of those who take that view" (Maxwell interview, p. 6). --Perspicacious 02:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Its all very nice and good to try to teach us how to read, but the definition of vicarious I am working off, and presumably what others are, is "Acting or serving in place of someone or something else; substituted." He died so that we dont have to. How much more simple can it be? Ansell 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From reading the reference that Fermion gave above, I see Graham Maxwell as believing that Christ died vicariously for the sins of humanity. The reference interview has a clear statement of belief on this exact subject. Ansell 22:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ansell, that is exactly what I was going to say. The suggested statement cannot be accepted as it stands because it is not accurate.  I go further to say it is not necessary or even relevant. -Fermion 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can a support of Maxwell (please label yourself as such) describe his beliefs and how they differ from the beliefs of his detractors? Can a detractor of Maxwell (please label yourself as such) describe their beliefs, and describe how the differ from the beliefs of supports? Thanks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this is 4 years too late, however is good to let you know about Maxwell (I'm a supporter of his). I'm not going to describe his believes, however I'm going to say what I've learned of his books and tapes. It's true, Servants or Friends is a very simple book that even a child could understand it. This speaks volumes of him as an scholar and not boast about it. Graham Maxwell is very knowledgeable of the biblical languages and all his live he's being trying to make the good news about God simple. Maxwell desires that we don't use difficult words that we don't even know how to explain. His goal is to make the Gospel (good news) simple and explain all the dark speech in the Bible and the Christian community. (words like justification, santification, atonement, propitiation, substitute, washed in His blood). Maxwell's only mistake has been to try to make sense of our beliefs and stop believing because somebody told me so (like robots)... Many people hate him because his winsome gospel, speaks volumes of the God to whom he serves... I hope this helps Remle68 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Remle68


 * I don't know that you will find any supporters of Maxwell here. Ansell, Fermion and myself (who are the only parties apart from Perspicacious) have all admitted to not knowing what Maxwell teaches. Perspicacious simply has an agenda against Maxwell's teaching and is the only party in the church who seems to do so. The reference from Fermion above shows that the paragraph Perspicacious added is in fact incorrect and as such the issue is about one person who believes that Maxwell is wrong and believes that he has caused a major schism in the church. MyNameIsNotBob 05:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is imperitive that someone understand what Maxwell is saying before including any information about him in this article. Given this information, I oppose any mention of Maxwell, whatsoever, untill someone does the requisite research. Does anyone here profess to understand Maxwell's teachings? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 05:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that I'm the only one here who has done the requisite research. I have read Maxwell's books, debated Maxwell, written about Maxwell; I understand Maxwell. --Perspicacious 06:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, I am by no means an expert in theology. I have a keen interest though and a very strong interest in Adventist theology (I am an Adventist).  I have never heard of Maxwell.  I have consulted with a few friends I have (one of whom has a research degree in theology from an Adventist university, the other is a minister).  Both have heard of Graham Maxwell, but both admit that he his not a very significant figure in Adventist theology.  As such, my position is, and has always been, that the section on Graham Maxwell doesn't belong on this page.  It is sufficiently esoteric, that if we were including detail that fine it would be time to split the page into smaller pages anyway. -Fermion 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the recent vote for deletion of the Graham Maxwell page (see Talk:Graham Maxwell), what are the implactions for this page? My suggestion is that the consensus has ruled that the material, which is largely the same as has been presented here, is not suitable for an encyclopedia and as such the same applies here. -Fermion 04:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional Sources Referencing Graham Maxwell as a Noteworthy Schismatic in the Seventh-day Adventist Church
1. Desmond and Gillian Ford, (1982) The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity pp. 124, 141, 142.

[Chapter 9 in this reference is titled Enquiry's Progress. Here, Gillian Ford tells a story of an Adventist journey written in the style of the classic book Pilgrim's Progress. The story begins as follows]:

An earnest seeker for truth, Enquiry was his name, was wandering through a certain country, looking for sign-posts along the way. In the midst of a desert, he saw afar off a man seated on a rock with his head in his hands. "Maybe this man can direct me to some more fertile place," thought he to himself and hastened towards him.

"Good-day friend. My name's Enquiry, and I am seeking for the garment which will protect me in the coming earthquake. Can you help me?"

The man seated on the rock, Confused was his name, sighed deeply and wrung his hands.

"I wish I could, sir, but I need help myself. For I too have heard that there's an earthquake coming. They say that it's already rumbling, and folks round here are afraid that the whole town will be destroyed."

[Enquiry and Confused gather up their belongings and set off to travel along the highway. Here's the part I like. They arrive inevitably at Maxwell's house].

As they trudged south, they came to a place called Pretty Hill, and seeing a light, thought to ask for rest that night. They approached timidly, fearing that they might be turned away, but were warmly greeted from afar off by two figures on the porch who greeted them most cordially, and welcomed them like brothers.

Tender-heart: "Our names are Love-alone and Tender-heart. There are no words used in this house such as blood, or wrath, or penalty, or punish, or propitiate. We teach that the architect can be trusted."

Enquiry and Confused found the hosts most congenial, the stay most comfortable, the beds soft and the food easy to digest. And as they talked together, Confused especially felt at ease, for he had often been told that the architect was a stern judge, ready to throw a ton of bricks at all who displease him. Thus he had grown up afraid of him. But Enquiry grew very quiet and thoughtful, and caused Confused to ask if all was well.

Enquiry: "It seems to me that I could not really trust a God who took evil lightly and did not punish those who murdered, stole and dealt unjustly. The blueprint speaks with those words of which you do not approve."

Love-alone: "But those words are mere figures of speech. For though the blueprint speaks of judgment—such judgment men bring on themselves. They reap what they sow. The architect himself does not act out in judgment, because he is love and cannot act against himself. As for wrath—it is merely that the architect gives up on men, when after much patient coaxing, he cannot win them. And blood and penalty! Did the son of the architect have to die to 'pay for our sins'? We say not. It was to show that he loved us so much that he would die to prove it.

2. http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/Shea.htm

3. Weber, Martin. (1994) Who's Got the Truth, Making sense out of five different Adventist gospels, pp. 15-34.

Here are some pertinent quotes:

"Obviously, all of these spiritual leaders have much to contribute in terms of gospel truth, or they wouldn't have their large followings of thoughtful Seventh-day Adventists." p. 5.

"Reading Servants or Friends makes obvious why Graham Maxwell is so popular with thousands of thoughtful Adventists." p. 15.

"I wish I could accommodate Dr. Maxwell's desire to be left out of this book, but because his view are cherished by thousands of Adventists, I would be remiss not to consider them worthy of inclusion in this analysis. And so I have proceeded without Dr. Maxwell's participation."

"He feels so strongly that I should not include him in these pages that he contacted the denominational publishing house with which I was arranging to print this book. He asked that they not publish it if it includes my chapter about him. Out of respect for his wishes, the book editors there complied with his request. Consequently, I am publishing this book personally with the Home Study International Press."

"To summarize: The name Graham Maxwell is well-known and beloved by Adventists around the world; he is too significant a thought leader to ignore." p. 33.

4. David P. McMahon wrote in his book, Ellet Joseph Waggoner: The Myth and the Man, in reference to Christ's atonement and the Division of Religion at Loma Linda University, and I quote: "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." p. last.

5. http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm#Maxwell

6. http://www.sdadefend.com/BattleOverTruth.htm:

GOD WILL NOT KILL THE WICKED—The present author’s research study, The Terrible Storm, is the most complete collection of Bible-Spirit of Prophecy material on this subject. Revelation 14:9-10 predicts a terrible storm of God’s wrath is soon to fall upon the incorrigibly wicked. But Satan wants the Third Angel’s Message repudiated in the minds of men. In place of it, he substitutes a different message: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you go to heaven anyway.”

In spite of a multitude of clear statements in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, for over two decades Mike Clute taught the false doctrine that God never has, and never will, execute capital punishment on the wicked. In recent years Mike went into universalism, the teaching that none of the wicked will ever die. That evil teaching is solidly denounced in Great Controversy, 537-539.

This error, which Paul Heubach used to teach in the 1950s and 1960s at La Sierra and Walla Walla (he was the one who taught it to Mike), is being taught by Graham Maxwell of Loma Linda University (Graham Maxwell, Servants or Friends? Another Look at God, 1992). Maxwell says he has a “matured” view of God, which helps him see that the “many references in the Bible to God’s destruction of the wicked” must be understood as God’s “just using a figure of speech.” --Perspicacious 05:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I get a TLDR (too long didn't read) version of the above in 20 words or less that summarize the difference between Maxwell and you? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can describe the conclusion of Maxwell's belief in 34 words. If you don't know what the Gnostics believed, add another 28 words.


 * “The basic premises common to the many varieties of Gnostic belief were that since God is good and the material world is evil, he cannot have created it” (David Christie-Murray, A History Of Heresy, p. 21). The basic premise of Neo-Gnostic Adventism (and Maxwell) is that since God is good and those who kill are evil, then God has nothing to do with meting out punishment in a final judgment.
 * http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1155 --Perspicacious 06:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And for my benefit can you explain how Maxwell connects to the Gnostic view, and the relationship between the moral influence view and the Gnostic view. -Fermion 06:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't think you (Perspicacious) have demonstrated that it is noteworthy and certainly not that there is a schism. I think you have been able to show that there is some debate surrounding the incarnation (why Jesus came to the Earth) and that it is possible to hold several different positions.  To put things in perspective.  The Glacier View doctrinal crisis of the early 80s had a major impact on the church.  Where I am from, Australia, one state, South Australia, lost nearly half of its membership and had more ex-ministers than ministers during the early 80s.  There was also a worldwide Bible conference called to investigate the issue (i.e. Glacier View).  What I have been wanting all along is hard figures of how many people have left the church as a result of the teachings of Graham Maxwell or a major Bible conference as a result. -Fermion 06:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perspicacious, I agree with Fermion here. The theological issues surrounding the formation of the Reform Seventh-day Adventists could be listed for pages and pages with no real understanding of whether or not it differs from the actual church views or not. However, there is significant evidence of a resulting schism in the church, there is a separate organisation that has been formed and a significant number of people left the main church as a result. Maybe if Maxwell is called for a conference like Glacier View, then the issue might become a real schism in the church. Until their is evidence of a real effect on church membership and leadership actions, to a specific issue, I don't believe that the comment is needed in the article. MyNameIsNotBob 07:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For all your research into Graham Maxwell (and Relativity), you may have lost sight of what a real schism is, preferring to see your own issues as churchwide issues instead of putting things into perspective. This issue has never arisen as a breaking point for the church. People aren't "schismatics" unless they actually cause schisms, the word has no meaning on its own. I have lost track of how many times I have asked you for proof that this is a church wide breaking issue/schism. Basically we need to focus only on those issues for the sake of brevity and what belongs on a wikipedia article dedicated to the church as a whole. Ansell 11:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Great Schism of Adventism
The Seventh-day Adventist church paper Ministry has repudiated the moral influence theory of the atonement. In addition, the same strongly worded article by Fredericks states that moral influence theologians "have inspired followers with similar ideas in many denominations. Many of these followers, including some Adventist scholars, promote their views as a 'larger' picture and a 'healing' versus a 'forensic' model of redemption." p. 7.

Maxwell calls his view of the atonement "the trust, healing, Great Controversy model of the plan of salvation." Maxwell also labels the opposition as holding to a "forensic view."

According to Easton Bible Dictionary, a schism is "a separation, an alienation causing divisions among Christians, who ought to be united (1 Cor. 12:25)." A schismatic is one who promotes or engages in schism.

There is simply no way to reconcile what Maxwell and his followers teach about the atonement and what mainstream Adventists believe. This is a noteworthy schism and the respectable number who follow Maxwell and the many authoritative and scholarly references expressing disagreement with Maxwell's heresy by Seventh-day Adventists is sufficient proof that this noteworthy schism deserves to be mentioned with sufficient clarity in the article. All that remains is the question on how to do that effectively and encyclopedically, according to Wikipedia guidelines.

The Adventists around here who have been opposing my efforts to make the main article more ACCURATE, BALANCED and COMPLETE have an obvious agenda and must be thinking that Wikipedia is a recruitment tool for the Church. They have revealed their bias against honest reporting by making it clear that they only want Wikipedia to showcase and display the most positive advertisement for Adventism possible, which is decidedly against Wikipedia's true objective and the better ABC plan. --Perspicacious 10:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have documented throughout this page the significant notoriety of Maxwell and the extent of his influence. --Perspicacious 11:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And consensus has it that your "significant" does not map onto significant, as thought of by Wikipedia, or even Adventism in general. Ansell 11:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You saying that this issue has been brought up by a small number of adventist leaders does not make it a schism. This is not a division, it is one persons view against the rest of the church. There are issues on the page, which are there because they are rightfully large issues in the church. Wake up and see that your issue is not one of them. We are not here to recruit for anyone. We do not post links to our personally owned websites on encyclopedias and then reference them as if they are neutral and reflective of the situation. The issue has not caused a schism. You have the definition. Now you need to get a perspective on it. There will always be people who think differently to you. Saying bluntly that your interpretation of something is irreconcilable with rest of the church does not make it a schism. A schism is a group activity. Schismatics must be the leaders of groups that actually cause splits. Of course, what I just said can be found about 10 times on this page already, but it hasn't sunk in yet. So we have to say it again. Ansell 11:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:NPOV:
 * We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.


 * I have agreed with WP:NPOV from the very beginning. For example: "As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POV – if you disagree with the POV, add an opposing or contrasting POV to the article in an encyclopedic manner. --Perspicacious 15:28, 4 March 2006"


 * Please prove that this does not apply. You have made absolutely no quantifiable steps to do so far. MyNameIsNotBob 11:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also from WP:NPOV:
 * "From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.


 * In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."


 * In case you haven't worked out, Jimbo Wales is the benevolent dictator around here and as such, what he says goes. Case in point? MyNameIsNotBob 11:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What Perspicacious says is a schism is infact just a few held by an extremely small minority, and as such is not just a regular description of a POV, it is an unuseful description of one persons crusade against another person. Ansell 11:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have documented throughout this page the significant notoriety of Maxwell and the extent of his influence. --Perspicacious 11:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And consensus has it that your "significant" does not map onto significant, as thought of by Wikipedia, or even Adventism in general. Ansell 11:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia is also not controlled by squatters who aim to do everything in their power to make sure that their favorite religious organization gets the best press possible. --Perspicacious 12:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a schisms section detailing the MAJOR schisms. This is what that statement is trying to avoid, people ignoring the major splits. Get over the deal about us just making this into a publicity issue. This is an encyclopedia, and consensus said we aren't just doing it for publicity. Ansell 12:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perspicacious:
 * 1) If I were trying to get the best press possible for the Seventh-day Adventist Church could you please explain why I would be the person primarily responsible for the writing of the two sections that give the church a bad image (ie "Offshoots and Schismatics", and "Outsider Criticisms").
 * 2) As I said earlier in the article, WP:NPOV and WP:POV do not go entirely hand-in-hand. WP:NPOV is OFFICIAL POLICY on wikipedia, hence the reason it is protected from edits. WP:POV, is not even a guideline (did you notice there was no fancy tag at the top). As such, I suggest we follow the recommendations by the founder of this encyclopedia Jimbo Wales that are listed on WP:NPOV. So here are the questions relating to Jimbo's test:
 * 1. Is there evidence in current reference texts (he means encyclopedias) that relate to the issue?
 * 2. Can you name a number (at least 3) prominent adherents to the schism?
 * Please answer these questions with simple sentence answers (ie Yes. Joe Bloggs and Jane Doe both state in the notable journal, Noteworthius Journalius, that they support the stance of James Schismatic and ). If you cannot do so, then the paragraph is in breach of WP:NPOV and sorry, it is not wanted here on wikipedia. End of story. MyNameIsNotBob 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I edited the Seventh-day Adventist Church page without reviewing this page first. In no way did I mean to reinforce or support the POV of Perspicacious. In fact, I meant to change the Maxwell section slightly to show it as a progressive belief. Sdainfo 05:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What was it exactly that you changed from the full Perspicacious version. Why should we consider your readdition of the whole section a slight change. Ansell 05:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The revision history can be used to find the difference. In any case, please disregard my change Sdainfo 07:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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