Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Remnant Church
2 Quality, not quantity
3 Previous version
- 3.1 Ellen G. White
4 Amended version
- 4.1 Ellen G. White

Remnant Church

Below is a large amount of text I removed from the section on the remnant church. The fact that Ellen White at times seems critical of the church (although I don't think that is the overall impression from her writings) is not a critique of the doctrine of the remnant. -Fermion 06:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Seventh-day Adventist church presently teaches as their "13th fundamental belief" [1] that their organization is the Remnant Church "called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." However, Ellen G. White is believed to be the undisputed prophetic voice within Adventism (see belief #18) and her published opinion was that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was more disobedient to God and a greater failure than the Jewish Church:

"But very few of those who have received the light are doing the work entrusted to their hands. There are a few men of unswerving fidelity who do not study ease, convenience, or life itself, who push their way wherever they can find an opening to press the light of truth and vindicate the holy law of God. But the sins that control the world have come into the churches, and into the hearts of those who claim to be God’s peculiar people. Many who have received the light exert an influence to quiet the fears of worldlings and formal professors. There are lovers of the world even among those who profess to be waiting for the Lord. There is ambition for riches and honor. Christ describes this class when He declares that the day of God is to come as a snare upon all that dwell upon the earth. This world is their home. They make it their business to secure earthly treasures. They erect costly dwellings and furnish them with every good thing; they find pleasure in dress and the indulgence of appetite. The things of the world are their idols. These interpose between the soul and Christ, and the solemn and awful realities that are crowding upon us are but dimly seen and faintly realized. The same disobedience and failure which were seen in the Jewish church have characterized in a greater degree the people who have had this great light from heaven in the last messages of warning. Shall we, like them, squander our opportunities and privileges until God shall permit oppression and persecution to come upon us? Will the work which might be performed in peace and comparative prosperity be left undone until it must be performed in days of darkness, under the pressure of trial and persecution?" Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, pp. 456-457.

Ellen White wrote in 1900 that not one in twenty Seventh-day Adventists were saved:

"It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner. They are professedly serving God, but they are more earnestly serving mammon." The General Conference Bulletin, July 1, 1900, paragraph 7.

Furthermore, referring to the then present and future leadership of the Seventh-day Adventists, Ellen White wrote:

"The religion of Jesus is endangered. It is being mingled with worldliness. Worldly policy is taking the place of the true piety and wisdom that comes from above, and God will remove His prospering hand from the conference. Shall the ark of the covenant be removed from this people? Shall idols be smuggled in? Shall false principles and false precepts be brought into the sanctuary? Shall antichrist be respected? Shall the true doctrines and principles given us by God, which have made us what we are, be ignored? Shall God's instrumentality, the publishing house, become a mere political, worldly institution? This is directly where the enemy, through blinded, unconsecrated men, is leading us." Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 95-96.

Oftentimes, such statements quoted from White can be better explained by a survey of her writings. Unfortunately, her catalogues of books and republished collections are so vast that few individuals find the time to do any other research than to provide such limited quotes provided above. This helps to further confuse actual SDA belief regarding White, as well as her actual teachings.

Quality, not quantity

I did some deleting. Sentences like these, besides being probably original thought, are certainly biased:

But when does epilepsy create genius? Many are amazed by the power of Ellen White's writings and wish for the same "affliction" that she had.

...

There are critics who loathe Seventh-day Adventists for their delusions of superiority.[2] Adventists refuse to believe how offensive they truly are.

...

The link established between humanity and divinity through the atonement is undeniably certain

I've also taken out statements which are instructional or ask questions:

How do Adventists explain this statement?

...

It must then be asked whether the concept of God weighing the deeds of men pre-advent is indeed a cultic fantasy or perhaps something worth seriously considering

I trimmed down the Christiology section a lot. It was unsourced, except for a HUGE quote from an SDA magazine. Perhaps there is an appropriate wikipedia section on the topic of a faultless vs. human Jesus, and that should be linked to? Finally the section, Self-righteous superiority may be worthy of inclusion, but I couldn't find a single section that was NPOV, and the only cited source of a critism was a tripod page. To be encyclopedic, I think there should evidence of the critism from somewhere other than a single web page. Ken 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a NPOV on controversial topics without objectively stating both sides of the controversy. --Perspicacious 02:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The statements from each side should be worded in NPOV, controversy is no reason for going away from wikipedia policy. Ans e ll 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A debated proposed section should be developed on the talk page in my mind. I would suggest that the section currently being debated is unlikely to get far, as Ellen White started the church and was critical at times of certain decisions, but certainly not a critic of the whole church.

Previous version

Ellen G. White

Ellen G. White was a founding member of the Seventh-day Adventist church and many of her assertions have been incorporated in to church doctrine. A prolific writer, White's status as a prophet is one of the Adventists' 28 Fundamental Beliefs:

18. The Gift of Prophecy: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.) [3]

Some outside observers have conjectured that White's visions and behavior while in vision could be attributed to brain damage she might have sustained as a child. Partial complex seizures are often a result of head injury similar to what Ellen G. White suffered.^[1] Individuals with epilepsy have also been found to have delusions and hallucinations in relationship to God.^[2]^[3] Abnormalities in the hippocampus are associated with religiosity in refractory epileptic patients similar to Ellen G.White.^[4]^[5]^[6] But when does epilepsy create genius? Many are amazed by the power of Ellen White's writings and wish for the same "affliction" that she had. For instance, Desmond and Gillian Ford wrote: "We personally do not believe that the epilepsy theory of 'partial-complex seizures' is an adequate explanation for the phenomenon of Ellen G. White. Such seizures typically are common within a few months of the cause of the injury, not eight years after. If disease could provide the dedication, energy and wisdom that Ellen White revealed for over seventy years, some of us would pray 'Lord, give me that disease.'" (1982) The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity, p. 201.

In 1919, D.M. Canright wrote Life of Mrs. E.G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted which accused White of false prophecy, mental illness, and plagiarism. Walter T. Rea in his 1982 book, The White Lie, makes a similar claim that her behavior could be explained medically:

To many it might seem that the medical argument is the best way to account for the ethical question raised by her deception, although it would not justify those who, obviously knowing of her condition (and thus her weaknesses), continued to help her expand the white lie. Also it would generate some degree of sympathy for Ellen's actions-on the basis of diminished capacity alone. Likewise it would help to explain the many inconsistencies in her "visions" that the church has had to deal with or excuse or cover over through the years.

White warned of an upcoming tyranny of blue laws to come before the end times. She predicted that Adventists would be persecuted for worshipping on Saturday, not Sunday. In 1979, Jonathan M Butler reasoned that in the United States, blue laws peaked during White's lifetime, and her dire warnings of a Christian theocracy appear to have been unfounded.^[7] However, Ellen White also wrote that a delay could be caused by Satan taking control of the Seventh-day Adventist church, and the fulfillment of all Bible prophecy might be in our immediate future. "If the power of Satan can come into the very temple of God, and manipulate things as he pleases, the time of preparation will be prolonged" (Manuscript Releases Vol. 9. p. 212). TheocracyWatch.org is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. They are monitoring the rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party and the movement among popular evangelicals to transform this nation into a theocracy.

Amended version

Ellen G. White

Some observers have noted that White's visions and related behavior are consistent with head trauma and possible brain damage she sustained as a child. At a age nine, she was struck in the head by a rock, causing a three week coma and ongoing health problems she never fully recovered from. Partial complex seizures are often a result of head injury similar to what White (then Ellen Harmon) suffered.^[8] Individuals with epilepsy have also been found to have delusions and hallucinations in relationship to God.^[9]^[10] Abnormalities in the hippocampus are associated with religiosity in refractory epileptic patients similar to Ellen G.White.^[11]^[12]^[13]

Supporters of White counter that, a prolific writer, White was a genius and that her medical problems do not completely explain her behavior. In The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity, p. 201. (1982), Desmond and Gillian Ford writes:

We personally do not believe that the epilepsy theory of 'partial-complex seizures' is an adequate explanation for the phenomenon of Ellen G. White. Such seizures typically are common within a few months of the cause of the injury, not eight years after. If disease could provide the dedication, energy and wisdom that Ellen White revealed for over seventy years, some of us would pray 'Lord, give me that disease.'

White warned of an upcoming tyranny of blue laws to come before the end times. She predicted that Adventists would be persecuted for attending church on Saturday (Sabbath), not Sunday. In 1979, Jonathan M Butler reasoned that in the United States, blue laws peaked during White's lifetime, and her dire warnings of a Christian theocracy appear to have been unfounded.^[7] However, Ellen White also wrote that a delay of the end times could be caused by Satan taking control of the Temple of God: "If the power of Satan can come into the very temple of God, and manipulate things as he pleases, the time of preparation will be prolonged" (Manuscript Releases Vol. 9. p. 212). Some Adventists, believe that possible erosion of Separation of church and state in the United States is now underway, and that this is an renewed precursor to the end times.

In the section on Ellen G. White, I am complaining against two bold attacks against a balanced point of view. Am I the only one that can plainly see how the bias that was introduced in the amended version greatly weakened and completely neutralized one side of a two-sided controversy? --Perspicacious 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "N" in NPOV stands for neutral, that is exactly what the other editors saw in that version, "Neutral Point of View". Ans e ll 04:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Supporters of White counter that, a prolific writer, White was a genius" is a ridiculous lie fabricated to make the Adventist view look idiotic. Read the earlier version for a real Adventist response.

The statement, "TheocracyWatch.org is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. They are monitoring the rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party and the movement among popular evangelicals to transform this nation into a theocracy" is a relevant counter-statement that was obviously deleted because it reveals respectable, non-Adventist support which makes Adventist prophecy look plausible.

The Walter Rea quote containing the phrase "the ethical question raised by her deception" isn't neutral. It's biased. "Deception" is presupposed, not discussed and no evidence of deception is given. --Perspicacious 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point about "genius" and have fixed it. I don't think that TheocracyWatch.org is relevant. We are trying to report on different positions about the Adventist church. We are not trying to discuss whether those criticisms are valid or not. -Fermion 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Every accusation of doctrinal implausibility merits the rightful inclusion of a counter-statement of plausibility, if a defense exists.

The statement "her dire warnings of a Christian theocracy appear to have been unfounded" justifies a rebuttal.

What are you going to do about the biased, unsupported accusation of "deception"? --Perspicacious 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The changed version is definitely inferior writing in that it constantly refers to and repeats some nebulous accusation about Ellen White's allegedly defective behavior without stating exactly what that wrong behavior is. --Perspicacious 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It does have an undue emphasis on physiology. I will try and make some alterations that reflect what I consider to be the more common criticism, plagiarism. -Fermion 06:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It had a huge emphasis on physiology, which should be allowed to stay. My rebuttal was extremely tiny and very relevant but deleted anyway. It's clear that a balanced view isn't going to be tolerated. "But when does epilepsy create genius? Many are amazed by the power of Ellen White's writings and wish for the same 'affliction' that she had." --Perspicacious 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, let's all try to assume good faith. Let's remember a few things about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research or thought. ie; wikipedia is not a Soapbox. We're here not to debate anything, but to document what debate does exist, and what debates have existed in the past.

The statement "Supporters of White counter that, a prolific writer, White was a genius" is not a lie, but a more NPOV, and in my opinion, generous rewording of this: "But when does epilepsy create genius? Many are amazed by the power of Ellen White's writings and wish for the same 'affliction' that she had." The phrase, in particular, But when does seems designed to persuade.

I think the emphasis on White's mental health is somewhat important, because every source I've found that's critical of her mentions that her behavior is consistent with head trauma. Using the words "alleged brain damage" as opposed to "sustained brain damage" is very generous, considering that medically a coma is impossible without considerable brain damage. This seems to be a re-occuring point among many critics of White[5] [6] [7] [8]

The TheocracyWatch website, as far as I can tell, makes no mention of Seventh Day Adventism. A quick survey of sites linking to Theocracy Watch doesn't show the Adventist Church, or sites related to the Adventist Church. So, I considered that original research. There is a much larger issue of Separation of Church and State in the United States, and White's prediction of a tyranny of blue laws certainly appears to be related to that, and I do think there is evidence to show that many Adventists consider the decline in American secularism as a precusor to White's predicted end times. Ken 06:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Ken, that there are many critics who point to the brain trauma as a major issue. I think, though, that it is not the most significant. If you look at the history of the church in the last 50 years, the most damaging attacks on Ellen White have been her literary dependence on other authors. Hence, the alterations I have made. -Fermion 06:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In agreement with Ken (and now Fermion) I say that the physiological critique/explanation of the alleged supernatural aspects of EGW's ministry is a major issue. It is not difficult to understand any of what she has done if one is aware of other men and women who have behaved in similar manners, done like things, and had similar supernatural claims made about them. I think that the way that the paragraph ends is misleading and disingenuous though. While indeed the SDA rebuttal is as reported, it is miss-stating the critique and turning it into a "straw-man" to be blown away with a pious prayer for more people being likewisely afflicted. A connection to the work of Michael Persinger [9] on the connection between neurophysiology and God beliefs/etc. might be useful... Certainly a citation of an actual critique of EGW from such an explanatory perspective is called for for those who might wish to pursue the matter.Emyth 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading this entire tempest in a teapot, I have come to the conclusion that Perspicacious is working on a project more suitable for an SDA Apologetics site rather than the Wikipedia. Rather than working on the accuracy of the article s/he seems to pushing what s/he seems to think is the truth of the matter. This is not the purpose of our project, is it? I went and read Perspicacious's personal page and the talk associated with it. No openness to dialog... No responses to criticisms... Repeated infractions... Anonymous editing... Those of you who are engaging this person, trying to have a constructive dialog have my admiration. But realistically, what can be done? I worked for months to make the Ramakrishna article NPOV and inclusive/respectful of disagreeing positions, but today, my work is gone, and the Ramakrishna disciples have turned it into a missionary tract. Do we want this to happen here? I guess "eternal vigilance" is the price of all freedoms, but it is wearying at times. I think that the Neutrality Dispute sign shoud be removed because of the bad faith in which it has been placed on the article. Emyth 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the majority view here where the controlling cult of religious disciples refuses to accurately represent a true Seventh-day Adventist response. --Perspicacious 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Ans e ll 00:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this is a common challenge in Wikipedia. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much discussion of resolving disputes, with a huge and growing collection of meta articles on this. I think what makes this article, and it sounds like your Ramakrishna article, more challenging is that there are relatively few active editors. Huge articles like, say, George W. Bush have lots of controversy too, but the army of editors keeps everything mostly in check.

But look, this hasn't been going on for too long. I still have hope that if we all assume good faith, we can agree on some common ground. The Talk page is a better forum than the history log, and the article itself isn't a forum at all. If it gives you hope, I spent weeks (more?) negotiating the wording on a 3-paragraph section of Boulder, Colorado regarding student riots -- and the final version was pretty much to everyone's satisfaction. This can be resolved, and more importantly, the article is at least, IMHO, getting better. Ken 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Perspicacious