Talk:Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement

[Untitled]
The original material which led to this article was " Submitted by Vasily Yunack www.biblestudy.ru - NOT affiliated with the SDA RM ... Just passing by..."

Errors
I have attended a Reform church for about 15 years and this paragraph is untrue: "Both these splinter groups have doctrines which include women being prohibited from cutting their hair, wearing trousers and wearing short sleeves. Other doctrines include prohibitions on eating chocolate, cheese and in the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement is was even considered whether to make eating beans and rice together at the same meal against church doctrine, and therefore an offence punishable by disfellowshipment."

Members (I'm sure there might always be exceptions) do cut their hair, wear trousers and wear short sleeves. Not eating chocolate or cheese is NOT a DOCTRINE (and many do), and I have never HEARD of any "beans and rice" discussion, and it is certainly not a matter for disfellowshipment. I can't imagine who wrote this. Heisable (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also been a member of this church for a number of years and I have to say that the hair cutting is not a doctrine of the church, however you may meet members that will try to tell you that it something they believe in, but it is not a teaching of the church. It is also untrue that eating beans and rice together is a teaching. Health guidelines are given and recommendations made, but the only one that I know of that is directly prohibited is the eating of meat. As for the short sleeves this is also not a church doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.69.212 (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

1951 split?
Can anyone improve the section about the 1951 split? There's very little information given, and the sentence "The cause of this split was personal pride, and a lust for power." is not NPOV. Tony Zbaraschuk 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There were a number of issues at stake concerning the split - these need to be stated from a NPOV. Time permitting, I will try to improve the section. --Engellion (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've spent quite a bit of time trying improve the section about the 1951 split. Have tried to make it NPOV and provided references where possible for historical statements. I recognise that a lot of work needs to be done to the page "International Missionary Society" in order to make that one NPOV and more coherant with my update here on the 1951 split. Any help on that page is welcome.Engellion (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting and updating
I have written up a document on the history on the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, if no one minds I would like to rewrite the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement.....Simbagraphix (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten both the Introduction, and the entire Sub-Section undr History on the 1951 Split. I am not happy entirely with the first sub-section under History outlining the split with the SDA Church in WW1. Unless you already have something we can look at, I plan to ammend this sub-section dealing with the WW1 SDA Church split.Engellion (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It was in very poor shape when I came across it, so any help is appreciated. Simbagraphix (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. Please check out my User Page here for progress on the History of the Split with the SDA Church in WWI. It is a work in progress but any comments appreciated.Engellion (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Reconcialiation Efforts
2005 Apology Regarding this sentence: "In 2005, the mainstream Seventh-day Adventist church tried to make amends and apologized for its failures during World War II, as the issue from the actions of L. R. Conradi continued during that war."

The referenced article "Church Leaders say "We're Sorry'" addresses the anti-semitic and pro-Nazi attitudes and actions of the German and Austrian SDA Church during World War II. There is no record of an apology by the SDA Church over its failures during World War I regarding the issues in question that led to the formation of the SDARM. If there are no objections I will delete the sentence. Engellion (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have the history of the actions by L. R. Conradi and will try to get better references. As even after retracting his mistakes and apologizing for them to the members in the 1920 meetings, he was allowed to continue as a leader and groom new leaders and it again had a negative affect as can be seen in the pro-Nazi attitudes and actions of German and Austrian SDA Church during World War II. Thus the apology was again trying to show it was not the policy of the main SDA church but of individual leaders who led it into error.

I must say, you have done some excellent work in the sections. Simbagraphix (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I understand where you are coming from, but I am still not sure that that the apology was intended as some kind of overture to the SDARM. Yes, the nationalistic attitudes of Conradi and other leaders may have been at the heart of the split. But the action to 'bear arms' is still a 'hot potato' in SDA circles today. No action is taken against those who do bear arms in the SDA Church. From my understanding, that is at the heart of the reasons for a continuing division today between the SDARM and SDA Church. If the reference to the 2005 apology is to remain, then at some point, I think it would be well to highlight that the failure of the SDA leadership to take action against those who did bear arms (and those SDA church members whoe still bear arms today) is a bone of contention with the SDARM. Engellion (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct, the issue was more comprehensive. Conradi and other leaders had not accepted Ellen White and her counsels in many areas and this many of the members of the SDARM felt was a serious issue, along with breaking the Sabbath even if in defense of the motherland, and what they felt was the setting aside of many of the other foundational beliefs of the Adventist movement. The SDARM was correct in the danger it was leading to as Conradi cause irreparible damage that is being felt to this day..Simbagraphix (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed
I dont see any outstanding issues, I think the neutrality of this article is no longer disputed. But will leave the tag till there has been time for full discussion on the issue.Simbagraphix (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is dormant. I will remove the tag. William Avery (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tag
"formed as the result of a schism within the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Europe during World War I over the position its leadership incorrectly took on proper Sabbath observance and in committing Seventh-day Adventist Church members to the bearing of arms in military service"

We ought to find a reliable source for the statement that includes the word "incorrectly" (I am aware this word is again used in the article's body), or else remove the word from the statement. The word isn't really needed to convey the intended meaning anyway.

We also need to rethink the use of the word "proper" in the same quotes. Again, why is this word needed there?

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I removed POV tag as the non-NPOV words raised in the objection of 9 May, 2012 have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engellion (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanitarian services
What if we work on services to needy peoples 196.189.182.72 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)