User:E.Shubee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Userboxes This user is interested in The gospel in Revelation, the writings of Ellen G. White and The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism.

Contents 1 My understanding of Wikipedia rules 1.1 External links 1.2 Copyright and trademark infringement 2 Declared beliefs that affect my editing 2.1 There is no evidence that the worldwide church of Walter McGill has more than four members 3 Current issues demonstrating my point of view 3.1 I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not as irrational as is currently represented 3.2 Cult status 3.3 Weasel words 3.4 Plagiarism 3.5 The revised plagiarism section 3.6 Not in citation given 3.7 A denial of the obvious still persists 3.8 Did Ellen White label progressive Adventists as superficial conservatives? 3.9 Accusations of church corruption 3.10 Opposition to Adventism 3.11 Addressing corruption and opposition claims 4 References

[edit] My understanding of Wikipedia rules

[edit] External links

When it comes to interpreting the meaning of Wikipedia:External links, I agree with 2005, a winner of The Barnstar of Diligence award. In a section titled Personal websites of non-notables, and anonymous websites at Wikipedia talk:External links, one questioner asked, "As these are almost literally a dime a dozen, and in no way verifiable as accurate, true, non-libelous, etc., and in no practical way different from blogs, is there any reason why we should link to them? Would any serious encyclopedia link to them?"

2005 replied:

• "Of course they would. Obviously they are different than blogs so why mention that non-sequitor? The prohibition against blogs relates to their changeability, not any sense that anything written on a blog has to be useless. This guideline lays out what is valuable to link to. Many non-corporate websites present very valuable content, even if most websites of every kind would never merit a link. Brainless, blanket prohibitions show contempt for users and that is not what an encyclopedia should do. We link on merit, accesibility and appropriateness." 2005 23:36, 26 November 2006.

• "The problem with blogs is their changeability. That has been established ad nauseum in discussion here which you seem to have not cared about. It's ludicrous to say no blog can ever have useful content on it, so your position is unfathomable. We link based on merit, accessibility and copyrights. That is what is all over this guideline. Personal websites from non-famous are often excellent things to link to, like someone's website with hundreds of historical photographs of Peoria. The fact that a person is not famous does not mean that a website can't have authority and value. Your wild generalizations make no sense at all, while the wording trying to be added makes even less sense. Filmsite.org is Tim Dirks personal website, and it is a great site to link to. Michael Grost's film essays have been online for a decade and are great resources to link to because they are meritable, accessible, stable, and everything else good, even if on an AOL homepage instead of some corporate site. The guideline speaks very strongly against lightweight, unhelpful links. That is what it should do. Great links that meet the criteria should be linked to, non-qualifying ones should not. Thoughtless generalities have no place here." 2005 06:35, 27 November 2006.

• "The content of Wikipedia articles have different policies governing them than external links. Most obviously external links very commonly have POV and are unencyclopedic. External links are not sources, so lets not pretend they are." 2005 23:24, 27 November 2006.

[edit] Copyright and trademark infringement

We should not link to an external web site if that site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)."^[1] Wikipedia:Copyrights doesn't say to wait for the outcome in a legal case. Consequently, I believe that it is Wikipedia policy to take a cautious and conservative stand for the owner of a copyright or trademark and against any Wiki editor accused of violating it. Therefore, all Wiki links to a web site that probably violates copyright or trademark law should be removed, in keeping with Wikipedia policy.

[edit] Declared beliefs that affect my editing

[edit] There is no evidence that the worldwide church of Walter McGill has more than four members

The church of Walter McGill a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a church of mirrors that fraudulently masquerades as an association of multiple churches.^[2] I believe that a careful study of the article Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax exposes the alleged worldwide church and Christian academy of Walter McGill as a shameful exaggeration and a hoax. By hoax, I mean, "something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage."^[3] --e.Shubee 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current issues demonstrating my point of view

[edit] I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not as irrational as is currently represented

The current section titled Cult status at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, where the Seventh-day Adventist church is accused of being a cult, is not written in the usual accusation/answer format and displays no rational response to the charge. The statement about "allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists" isn't referenced and the current response, which is also not referenced, that the schools of the cult "are open to all" doesn't refute the charge of being a cult.

The current section reads as follows:

Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.

In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like^[4] . For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching. Although he later reversed this opinion and belief and later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.

Others class Adventism as an unorthodox Christian denomination, including, for example, John Whitcomb, Jr.^[5] Allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists, and the importance placed on Adventist education for children are also major allegations of what is colloquially thought of as cult-like behavior. In their defense, Adventists respond^{[dubious — see talk page]} that their educational system is designed to instill character and faith in their children; indeed, Adventist schools are open to all.

In describing their opposition to ecumenical changes, some Adventists refer to Ellen White, who wrote that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."^[6]

I propose the following improvement:

[edit] Cult status

Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.

In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like.^[7][8] For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching.

Richard Kyle, an evangelical Christian writing from the perspective of a historian in his largely uncritical book, The Religious Fringe: A History Of Alternative Religions In America, seems to take a middle of the road approach and writes of Seventh-day Adventists as being somewhat cultic:

"Whether the Seventh-day Adventists are a sect, a cult or a denomination is a matter of intense controversy. Some evangelical scholars have insisted they that are cultic. Others have claimed that they are not. Some scholars have reviewed the institutional developments of the Seventh-day Adventists and asked whether this onetime sect has now become a denomination.

"This study will regard Seventh-day Adventism as a sect. To be sure, they possess some cultic characteristics."^[9]

In defense of the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists it should be pointed out that Ellen G. White, the recognized prophetic voice of Adventism ^{[10][11][12][13]}, has responded to the charge of cult-like behavior of the church in a humble apology:

"The remnant church is called to go through an experience similar to that of the Jews; and the True Witness, who walks up and down in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, has a solemn message to bear to His people." Selected Messages Book 1, p. 387.

"My brethren and sisters, humble your hearts before the Lord. Seek him earnestly. I have an intense desire to see you walking in the light as Christ is in the light. I pray most earnestly for you. But I can not fail to see that the light which God has given me is not favorable to our ministers or our churches. You have left your first love. Self-righteousness is not the wedding-garment. A failure to follow the clear light of truth is our fearful danger. The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people." Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 15, 1904.

Many Seventh-day Adventists are quiet about Ellen White's prophetic assessment of the church. They are eager to join the Christian mainstream. In contrast, historically conservative Adventists confess being Laodicea^[14] and are thankful that they differ doctrinally from the majority on biblical orthodoxy. They see agreement with mainline Christendom on all points as an invitation to damnation. Seventh-day Adventists teach that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."^[15] --E.Shubee 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

The section titled "Cult status" at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church uses weasel words to suggest that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has repudiated previously trusted revelation or fundamental beliefs in order to change ecumenically. There is no evidence of this. The weasel phrase states, In describing their opposition to ecumenical changes, some Adventists refer to Ellen White, who wrote that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."^[16] --E.Shubee 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

A common criticism of Ellen White is that she took uncredited material from contemporary authors. ^[17][18][19]

In response to these accusations, the Biblical Research Institute^[20] and the Ellen White Estate^[21][22] claim to reveal many sources used by the Bible writers, that Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12, and that Ellen White's usage constituted fair use in her time.

[edit] The revised plagiarism section

Leading sentences in the plagiarism section say, "The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that White's use of sources was typical for a nineteenth-century writer and that her use of other authors was limited" and "Fred Veltman ... was asked to analyze the charges of plagiarism." However, the cited Ministry Magazine for December of 1990 says "The content of Ellen White's commentary on the life and ministry of Christ, The Desire of Ages, is for the most part derived rather than original." (p. 12). "Ellen White used a minimum of 23 sources of various types of literature, including fiction, in her writings on the life of Christ." (p. 13). The finding of the Desire of Ages Project was that 31 percent of the Desire of Ages was "in some degree clearly dependent upon material appearing in our 500-plus literary sources." (p. 6). The average dependency of the dependent sentences "rated just a little higher than the level of 'loose paraphrase'." (p. 6). Furthermore, Fred Veltman, the one commissioned to do this research project, denied that his research had anything to do with plagiarism. "As I pointed out in my report, the investigation did not treat the issue of plagiarism." (p. 14). --E.Shubee 03:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a perfectly fine, unemphasised version here (Djvu format).

There are two sentences that contradict each other. "In 1982, Fred Veltman, then chairman of the religion department of Pacific Union College, was asked to analyze the charges of plagiarism brought by Walter Rea and others against Ellen White." This leads us to believe that the Desire of Ages Project relates directly to our section topic, which is plagiarism. Yet in the referenced article, which was written by Fred Veltman, Dr. Veltman says, "As I pointed out in my report, the investigation did not treat the issue of plagiarism." (Ministry Magazine, December 1990 p. 14).

Also consider the weasel features of the plagiarism section. The Desire of Ages Project was highlighted but its conclusions were not summarized from the study itself. Instead, a book by Graeme Bradford is cited as if he represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That's ludicrous. We're not even given a page number to where his doubtful statement is cited or justified. Bradford's statement is doubtful because no one man represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perhaps it can be said that the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes in its 28 fundamental beliefs but even that is probably not exactly true. However, to say "The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that White's use of sources was typical for a nineteenth-century writer" is absolute nonsense. Such a claim doesn't appear anywhere on the Church's list of official statements: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/index.html --E.Shubee 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is another major contradiction. Fred Veltman wrote:

"Initially we researchers were assigned to study the entire text of The Desire of Ages—all of its 87 chapters and more than 800 pages. We soon found we had neither the time nor the staff to tackle a project of such scope. To reduce the textual base to manageable size, we asked statisticians to select 15 chapters that would serve as a random sample of the full text." (Ministry Magazine, December 1990 p. 5).

Now compare that to the vaporous non-quote from Bradford's book that has no page numbers, allegedly read by Ansell:

"The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that White's use of sources was typical for a nineteenth-century writer."

In other words, the Seventh-day Adventist Church only had time to analyze 15 out of 87 chapters from the Desire of Ages but somehow were able to profile all nineteenth-century writers for their comparison with Ellen G. White. Who completed that part of the larger study? --E.Shubee 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not in citation given

In Ministry Magazine, December 1990, Fred Veltman, of the Desire of Ages Project, denied that his research had anything to do with plagiarism. "As I pointed out in my report, the investigation did not treat the issue of plagiarism." (Ministry Magazine, December 1990 p. 14). Please don't cite a 2,561-page report to prove a contradictory claim without giving an exact page number. --E.Shubee 14:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A denial of the obvious still persists

It's wrong to pretend that the article Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church complies with Wikipedia rules when the facts say otherwise. It's clear that the following claim isn't supported by the citation given: Fred Veltman, was asked in 1982 to analyse the works with a scope of detecting whether both "literary borrowing" and/or plagiarism were a concern given cultural views on plagiarism in the literary context she lived in ^[23]. --E.Shubee 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Ellen White label progressive Adventists as superficial conservatives?

From Talk:Progressive Adventists

Here's the Ellen White quotation sourced for the term "superficial conservatives" in the article. It does not link progressive Adventists, described in this article, to the term superficial conservatives. To assert this is highly POV. Also, the language is very loaded.

"The work which the church has failed to do in a time of peace and prosperity she will have to do in a terrible crisis under most discouraging, forbidding circumstances. The warnings that worldly conformity has silenced or withheld must be given under the fiercest opposition from enemies of the faith. And at that time the superficial, conservative class, whose influence has steadily retarded the progress of the work, will renounce the faith and take their stand with its avowed enemies, toward whom their sympathies have long been tending. These apostates will then manifest the most bitter enmity, doing all in their power to oppress and malign their former brethren and to excite indignation against them. This day is just before us. The members of the church will individually be tested and proved. They will be placed in circumstances where they will be forced to bear witness for the truth. Many will be called to speak before councils and in courts of justice, perhaps separately and alone. The experience which would have helped them in this emergency they have neglected to obtain, and their souls are burdened with remorse for wasted opportunities and neglected privileges." {5Testimonies 463.2}

Colin MacLaurin 07:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The amended paragraph read, "Progressive Adventists are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who consider themselves to be theologically progressive relative to the denomination. They have also been referred to as superficial conservatives^[24] because of their affinity to mainstream Christianity and are also labeled cultural Adventists^[25] since they feel an attachment towards the Adventist church for cultural reasons, instead of strict theological conformity."

"... Most progressive Adventists still identify more with conservative Christianity than liberal Christianity."

The article itself admits that progressive Adventists have an affinity to mainstream Christianity. Ellen White said that they have sympathies for mainstream Christianity. Progressive Adventists virtually confess to be apostates. Ellen White calls them apostates. True Seventh-day Adventists have many "avowed enemies" that belong to conservative Christianity, not liberal Christianity. Ellen White thought of conservative Christianity as a superficial, conservative class of Christians. --e.Shubee 14:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The label "progressive Adventists" is just as loaded as the phrase "superficial conservatives." The meaning ascribed to these terms merely weigh the assessment of mainstream Christianity from two opposing points of view. Progressive Adventists believe that progressing toward mainstream Christianity is a good thing. Other Adventists take the opposite point of view and say absolutely not and agree with Ellen G. White who wrote, "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."^[26] --e.Shubee 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

An obvious synonym for "cultural Adventists" is "nominal Adventists." Consider the following prophecy, which parallels Ellen White's expectations about the superficial, conservative class of Adventists:

"I saw the nominal church and nominal Adventists, like Judas, would betray us to the Catholics to obtain their influence to come against the truth. The saints then will be an obscure people, little known to the Catholics; but the churches and nominal Adventists who know of our faith and customs (for they hated us on account of the Sabbath, for they could not refute it) will betray the saints and report them to the Catholics as those who disregard the institutions of the people; that is, that they keep the Sabbath and disregard Sunday." Spalding and Magan Collection, p. 1.

It is clear from this passage that the "nominal church" can only be the superficially conservative but apostate protestant church and that "nominal Adventists" are prophesied to join together with other nominal, superficially conservative, cultural Christians to persecute true Adventists. Consequently, my edit was fair. It is true that Ellen White thought of conservative Christianity and nominal Adventists as a superficial, conservative class of Christians. --e.Shubee 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of church corruption

• The Merikay McLeod Silver Case
• Adventists in Nazi Germany
• The German Adventist compromise with the Nazi regime
• Can money buy Nazi medical ethics at Loma Linda University? report 1
• Can money buy Nazi medical ethics at Loma Linda University? report 2
• The War against Scripture
• Advice regarding GC lawsuits
• The Heresy of A. Graham Maxwell
• Does God Destroy?
• Organizational Practices
• Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God

[edit] Opposition to Adventism

• DIES DOMINI Catholic Apologetics to Adventists
• ExAdventist Outreach
• Seventh-Day Adventism, Christian or Cult?
• The Watchman Expositor on Seventh Day Adventism
• The Ellen White Research Project
• Truth or Fables
• Catholic.com article on Seventh-Day Adventism

[edit] Addressing corruption and opposition claims

• Adventist Leadership in Nazi Germany
• The Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.
• Biblical Research Institute
• Defending the Spirit of Prophecy
• A Response to the Charge of Plagiarism
• Ministry Magazine refutes The Moral Influence Theory (March, 1992 pp. 6-10.)
• The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
• Pickle Publishing

[edit] References