Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Archive
Archives
  1. February 18, 2006 – April 27 2006
  2. April 30, 2006 – May 2, 2006
  3. May 2, 2006 – May 4, 2006
  4. May 3, 3006 – May 27, 2006
  5. May 30, 3006 – November 3, 2006

Contents

[edit] Confirmed cult status

The current section titled Cult status, 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[1] . 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.[2] 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 – discuss] 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."[3]

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.[4][5] 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.[6]

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."[7]

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 [8][9][10][11], 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[12] 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."[13] --E.Shubee 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's not one accepted "cult" definition. I've met some adventists in my days, and they're not isolated from other people like f.ex. Jehova's Witnesses, they're not behaving bad (except of course one former girlfriend of mine that deserved ... never mind), so if they're "cultic", they're so weakly "cultic" that it's not worth mentioning till the day we have one unified definition of cult. And that won't happen till all cultic mind-controlling ideologies (including neo-liberalism and communism) have died and been buried forever. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

The section titled "Cult status" 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."[14] --E.Shubee 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

[edit] Plagiarism

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)

Thank you for your observations. You will not that one change has been addressed. I am unable to see the other complaint. Could you spell it out as clearly as you possibly can? -Fermion 03:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not use the statement about plagiarism out of context. Also, the article does not need to reference the editorialised "truthorfables" link. There is a perfectly fine, unemphasised version here (Djvu format). Ansell 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
Maybe the section should not be called plagiarism, as that is not the correct connotation for the historical context. The fact that the term plagiarism is used by critics of the church does not mean it is a valid criticism.
The statement by Graeme Bradford reflects the consensus of the church, unless you can find a statement to say otherwise. The entire book that is referenced deals with the issue, including the 1919 Bible Conference. Please deal with the statements without calling them "absolute nonsense." Ansell 05:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestions User:Ansell. I have changed the name of the section accordingly. I agree that Bradford represents a consensus of theologians, historians, and to some extent the laity. As I am sure you have read the book, you will be aware that Bradford's position is the much closer to Ellen White's contemporaries than some of the ideas that have been promulgated since. -Fermion 05:42, 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)

I am not quite sure what your allegation is pointing to. There is no contradiction there. A belief can be founded on a statistical subset. Also please do not make personal attacks on myself as an editor and calling a statement as "vaporous non-quote... allegedly read by" is not assuming good faith. Ansell 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Quote: Veltman, page 861, (above the original quote that was referenced without its original context above):
"We did not make a thorough study of the full content of these earlier writings, but we did include in our analysis those materials written on the same topics as the DA chapters researched"
That shows that Veltman did research outside of the scope of the DA writings, and hence is able to comment on the matter. A Bradford quote will take a little more time to find as that is not an electronically available source. Ansell 06:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
In other words, your Veltman quote clearly proves that the Desire of Ages Project did not consider a typical nineteenth-century writer. --E.Shubee 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you User:Ansell, I was trying to find that quote myself. I put the page number on the main article. Fermion 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No, E.Shubee, the statement does not say that. It considers typical nineteenth-century writers in the same genre, any other statement cannot have a contextual meaning. Ansell 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Most critics would probably respond by saying that if all of Ellen White's religious contemporaries sole the work of others without giving credit then their combined guilt doesn't excuse the sin of Ellen G. White. --E.Shubee 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note the addition of an additional reference from the Ellen G. White Estate where it is spelled out that "Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used them, she made them uniquely her own"--adapting the selections into her own literary framework. (emphasis added). I too, see no contradiction. -Fermion 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not in citation given

In the Plagiarism section, this statement is made: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that White's use of sources was typical for a nineteenth-century writer[15][16]." In the reference to the White Estate, nothing is said about what was typical for a nineteenth-century writer. Furthermore, 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)

I would also ask you not to provide one-sentence "proofs" instead of putting some effort in to read the report. To quote Veltman, p 858--859:
"The project advisors have warned me that many will not read the full text of this report, particularly the research data and the analyses. Many, I am told, will not take the time to read the introduction to the research."
Please take the time to read the report, or stop putting "tags" on the main article claiming you have infact found through your research that the claim is unverified.
As to the Ministry article quote, you may be interested in the rest of the paragraph, which puts your sentence in context: (Veltman, Ministry, December 1990, page 14)
"As I pointed out in my report, the investigation did not treat the issue of plagiarism. While we cannot settle that issue here, my personal opinion is that she is not guilty of this practice. We did find verbatim quotes from authors who were not given credit. But the question of plagiarism is much more complicated than simply establishing that one writer used the work of another without giving credit. A writer can only be legitimately charged with plagiarism when that writers literary methods contravene the established practices of the general community of writers producing works of the same literary genre within a comparable cultural context."
As to what should be there is the bold section which you could not have missed, Ministry, December 1990, page 13, top right, "We found that Ellen Whites sources had used each other in the same way that she later used them" (A statement which removes an ethical definition of plagiarism from the picture).
If you insist on using, and retroactively applying, a modern definition of plagiarism, (ie, copying with referencing), it is not something that she could have foreseen with her work, and hence it is not a complaint against her that she could have defended herself. Unless you have new material, it may be more productive for you to focus on another topic. Ansell 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I never invoked a modern definition of plagiarism and don't care if Ellen White was a plagiarist or not. Deal with whatever definitions the critics use. I'm asking you to answer Ellen White's critics honestly. Part of that honesty requires including the opinions of the BRI and the White Estate that were removed from the article. --E.Shubee 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What are the critics saying that is not satisfied by the current definition. What are the opinions of the BRI and White Estate that you are referring to. Also, please stop referring to the statements as being contradictory. What is the part of the statement that is contradictory given the source. And please quote them verbatim. Ansell 00:35, 20 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 [17]. --E.Shubee 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make up new sections of discussion to back up your personal use of tags on the main page. A reply to the point above would be a good place to keep discussion going. Also see above for why there is no contradiction, and please discuss your use of large tags for "disputes" before you put the tags on. Unless there is a recognised dispute then the tag is irrelevant. Ansell 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Walter Martin (1985). The Kingdom of the Cults, Revised, Bethany House Publishers. 
  2. ^ Seventh-Day Adventism: Orthodox or cult?. Biblical Discernment Ministries (November 2001). Retrieved on 2006-06-06.
  3. ^ White, Ellen G. [1888] (1999). "The Final Warning", The Great Controversy: Between Christ and Satan. The Ellen G. White Estate, 607. ISBN 0-816-31923-5. Retrieved on 2006-06-06. 
  4. ^ Walter Martin Interview, Adventist Currents, Vol. 1, No. 1, July, 1983, conducted by Douglas Hackleman.
  5. ^ Walter Martin (1985). The Kingdom of the Cults, Revised, Bethany House Publishers. 
  6. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin
  7. ^ Kyle, Richard (1993). The Religious Fringe: A History Of Alternative Religions In America. InterVarsity Press, Ill, pp. 150-151. ISBN 0830817662. Retrieved on 2006-11-04. 
  8. ^ http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/spirit-of-prophecy.html
  9. ^ http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat24.html
  10. ^ http://www.whiteestate.org
  11. ^ http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Inspiration-Revelation.htm
  12. ^ Prophetic Basis of Adventism. Part 8: On the Road to Righteousness, Adventist Review, June 1-July 20, 1989. Retrieved on 2006-10-03.
  13. ^ White, Ellen G. [1888] (1999). "The Final Warning", The Great Controversy: Between Christ and Satan. The Ellen G. White Estate, 607. ISBN 0-816-31923-5. Retrieved on 2006-06-06. 
  14. ^ White, Ellen G. [1888] (1999). "The Final Warning", The Great Controversy: Between Christ and Satan. The Ellen G. White Estate, 607. ISBN 0-816-31923-5. Retrieved on 2006-06-06. 
  15. ^ Bradford, Graeme (2004). Prophets are Human. Signs Publishing Company, p. 44. ISBN 1-876010-69-X. 
  16. ^ Questions and Answers about Ellen G. White. Ellen G. White Estate. Retrieved on 2006-11-19.
  17. ^ Veltman, Fred (November, 1988). Full Report of the Life of Christ Research Project, p. 861. 

[edit] Hell

Weasel words are cropping up again.

"It is a common belief among most Christians" is general and sweeping, and begs the questions: Which Christians? What percentage of the Christian populations are we talking about? Where are these beliefs documented? In the same sentence: "While traditional Christianity teaches:" Who do you mean? RC? Eastern Orthodox? Jewish Christianity?

It's all in the detail.

Trishm 11:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I also do not understand where the criticism is in this section. It seems more like a grenade toss meant for shock effect. Without a cited, explicit criticism, this section is nothing more than original research. It needs to either be revised or deleted. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I just changed a few spelling mistakes. However, I also discovered that there are two spellings of fulfilment. I changed them all to the British, not realising double 'l' was acceptable. Feel free to change them back. Fermion 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I note that the large majority of the editors for this article claim to be Seventh Day Adventists. Is it fair to have the criticisms page regularly edited by Adventists? I believe that by and large they will be more interested in the defence of the criticisms as opposed to pointing out in a neutral tone which criticisms exist. I'd hate to see this article loose it's credibility as the Wikipedia articles on the Free Mason's have due to bias editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.28.150.120 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one am seeking NPOV and verifiability. Are you? Colin MacLaurin 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am. This seems to be more of a defense of the SDA church than a criticism.Scarymonstersandsupercreeps (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assurance of salvation

Can someone point out where the criticism in this section is? Is there a critic who denounces something regarding the "assurance of salvation"? If so, it needs to be cited. Otherwise this section may need to be deleted. As it stands I don't understand the section's purpose. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Shouldn't this article be named Criticism of Seventh-day Adventism? This isn't a criticism of a "church" its a criticism of the SDA religion. All the other articles such as Criticism of Atheism, Criticism of Islam, and Criticism of Christianity have titles as such. Any objections? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it. However, if there are criticisms specific to a church within the religion, they should probably remain in a separate article. We're dealing with the same issue at Criticism of Mormonism. That article needs to be split up into two articles, one movement-wide (Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement) and another denomination-specific (Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The Latter Day Saint movement has several churches / denominations, yet the article treats movement criticisms as being specific to one church (the LDS) only. That being said, shouldn't the article be renamed Criticism of Adventism? When I click on Seventh-day Adventism, it takes me to the SDA church. However, Adventism has its own article; it seems to be a more general term. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You bring up good points. I am not all that familiar with SDA so I'm really in no position to make any judgement calls on that. I just noticed a difference in all these pages and thought there was a lack of consistency. It makes it hard to find the other articles... I was looking at Criticism of Christianity and wanted to find Criticism of Catholicism but instead came up with a search screen telling me there was only Criticism of the Catholic Church which I thought was odd. I suppose the issue could be dealt with by splitting this article... if anyone wants to do that. But as for now it should be ok to rename the page to prevent any confusion while the other issues are being dealt with, right? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait a while to see if anyone else wants to chime in on this subject, but what do you think? Should it redirect to Criticism of Adventism or of Seventh-day Adventism? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)