Talk:Investigative judgment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Investigative judgment 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:

Contents

[edit] Recent expansion

Hi - I've recently expanded this page substantially. If anyone has any comments, I'd love to hear them. It'd be great if someone who has researched the Glacier View controversy could expand that section further as well. Tonicthebrown 07:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the Glacier View controversy section. The sources are well balanced. One addition I suggest is to mention the other document as well. The consensus document, which Ford found he could agree with, was prepared by the designated group of scholars. According to my limited reading, there was another document prepared, unofficially, by a different group present at the meeting. This document specificially highlighted the differences. It was this document that Ford was trialled by. -Colin MacLaurin 12:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I found some online sources, which were referenced in the 25 Years After Glacier View article on the page. One is Ministry magazine (October 1980) in DjVu format. Another is Spectrum (November 1980) which is an independent magazine, but the format is HTML or PDF, which are standard formats. I went with Spectrum for convenience, but it is up to you. See the section Sanctuary Debate Documents which includes the following:
  • Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary (consensus statement on the sanctuary)
  • The Role of Ellen G. White Writings in Doctrinal Matters (consensus statement on Ellen White)
  • The Ten-Point Critique (Spectrum's title. Adventist Review calls it 'Statement on Desmond Ford'. It is the document prepared by a small group to highlight the differences.)
  • Papers Prepared for the Sanctuary Review Committee
  • Desmond Ford Correspondence
As I mentioned earlier, I am impressed with the article as it already stands. Good job! -Colin MacLaurin 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more updating - what do you think? Tonicthebrown 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PUC lecture

A lecturer at Avondale College told me that during his 1979 Pacific Union College address, Ford said that the 1844 date could not be derived from Hebrews. Apparently, a year later at Glacier View, the church had moved on to accept this earlier position of Ford; although by this time Ford himself had moved substantially further. Is this correct? If so (and a citation would be better), it would make a good addition IMO. (I haven't read/listened to the 1979 address or Glacier View yet.) Regards, Colin MacLaurin 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I just found a comment that "Leaving the Adventist Ministry" by Peter Ballis, professor of sociology at Monash University in Australia, is one of the best sources regarding the fallout from the Glacier View controversy; in a blog post which I assume is by the editor of Spectrum. It would be good to incorporate this work sometime. Colin MacLaurin 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source - do you have it? Tonicthebrown 07:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Not in my personal collection, but presumably it would be in the College library. Sorry for suggesting a source that is probably hard to come by :) This comment was left here partly for my own future reference, if I get around to looking up the book, but I thought others might appreciate it too. I just checked, and Arthur Patrick references him multiple times in the 25 Years Since Glacier View article[1]. It would be good to quote the original source. I will do this sometime. Colin MacLaurin 13:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible new content

I found these comments by User:CheerfulPaul on Talk:Great Disappointment as of now "The date October 22 is not mentioned in the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. In fact Ellen White (co-founder) only mentions the season of fall, and some Adventists believe(d) that the investigative judgment began in the spring of 1844 ( see [2], #70) I found out that Seventh-day Adventist scholars seem to favor the Millerite date of October 22, but that doesn't seem worth mentioning in this article. Maybe it could say "Many Seventh-day Adventists maintain..."? It seemed easier just to remove the date as it requires too much explanation to connect it to a specific source."

Good content to verify and then (presumably) add. Colin MacLaurin 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much trivial detail?

I'd just like to raise a few points about the new section ("other views")

  • In light of the absence of any reference to October 22 in official statements (as pointed out above), I wonder if there is any need to mention October 22 here at all ("Many Adventists believe the event started on the specific day of October 22, 1844;"). Similarly, I question whether it is necessary to include the detail about Prescott's interpretation (spring vs. autumn). It just seems like a piece of historical trivia, but not very notable.
  • If ASRS doesn't say anything about the IJ, do we need to mention it at all? I don't think it is necessary to include something about the ASRS simply to counter-balance the ATS view.
  • I question the necessity of the sentence: "Some other Adventist scholars support the doctrine, but only say the event occurred in approximately the year 1844." It lacks citation, and in any case doesn't really add anything of value. What is the difference between "1844" and "approximately 1844"?

I guess I feel that all the fine detail just complicates things and is unnecessary. It would be better to keep things simple: Adventists officially teach that the investigative judgment began in 1844 (precise season or date irrelevant), and this is supported by the ATS in their constitution as well as other scholars. Some Adventists however (the progressives) do not agree with the doctrine, full stop. What do you think? Tonicthebrown 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is too complicated. My edit, "Some other Adventist scholars..." could well be deleted - this is currently "original research"; in fact based on what one lecturer at Avondale said in class. I would assume that a substantial group of conservative scholars would support the precise day of October 22, 1844 - we should see what some BRI articles say, JATS articles etc. Colin MacLaurin 11:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

My changes today:

  • Removed trivia about spring vs. autumn 1844 (as discussed above)

W. W. Prescott suggested that the investigative judgment occurred in the spring, and not autumn, in one of his numerous suggested editorial revisions of the 1911 edition of the book. In point 70, he declared

"It seems to me abundantly evident from the Scripture and history that the 2300 days commenced in the spring of B.C. 457...",[1]

also arguing it was the original interpretation of Miller. This suggestion was rejected.

  • Renamed "modern Adventist views" back to "Official belief statements", because there are also historical statements here (. See also below...
  • Removed reference to October 22 (as discussed above)
  • Removed reference to ASRS, as they do not have a relevant belief statement
  • Removed this statement: "Many Adventists such as those who label themselves "progressive Adventists" have a different view of the doctrine or believe it is inaccurate." This is already stated in the article lead, and also in the criticism section. I don't think it needs to be repeated here -- it is better just to have a section for official statements IMO.

Tonicthebrown 12:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved Prescott details to the article about him. However, I assume it is true that most Adventists in the past believed the IJ was the day of October 22, 1844. Hence worth saying that Prescott and others disagreed, IMO, as he was an important early figure. Perhaps there was too much trivial detail in my edit though. Agreed with other points, but I do think the ASRS is worth mentioning. The fact that you can believe whatever you want about the IJ to join one of the main two Adventist theological organizations (it contains more scholars than the ATS) is highly significant. It represents a major POV, along with the official position which is a very major POV but still just one POV. Colin MacLaurin 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, perhaps it is worth mentioning the point about the precise starting date. I've worked it into "Derivation of 1844 date", where I think it fits better. It would be worth finding out if any theologians consider that the exact starting date is important.
I am still not convinced about mentioning ASRS. The previous version of the article said that the ASRS "poses no theological requirements for membership". This sounds to me like they don't say anything about any doctrine. Is that true? If so, then the fact that they say nothing about the IJ means very little -- they do not support it but they do not deny it either. I think we should be wary of trying to make an argument from silence. Does the ASRS say anything about Creationism? If not, does that imply they disagree with Creationism?
What would be more useful for this article is if someone can find a well supported claim along the lines of: "70% of Adventist pastors are unsure if the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, as taught by the church officially, is accurate". Or "70% of Adventist pastors do not preach on the Investigative Judgment because they have hesitations about the doctrine." I have heard quite a lot of people claim things like this, so I'm sure someone somewhere has done some real research! What about Atoday? Tonicthebrown 10:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pastors secretly disagree

Further to what I said above, here is a claim by Des Ford from his interview with Atoday [3]

"I know men who are key figures in the leadership of our Adventist world church who have told me privately that they also disagree with the traditional interpretation of the Investigative Judgment. Although these men are the thought leaders of the Church, they are afraid to express themselves publicly on this matter. They cannot be honest on this subject, for if they were, they fear that they would all be sacked, and our universities, colleges, and editorial offices would be denuded. "

And here is what John McLarty (editor of AToday) has to say in Adventist Today vol 14, issue 6.

"When I query Adventist pastors, they say they agree with the traditional teaching regarding Daniel 8:14. But these same preachers report they never preach on the topic.... [1844] is a doctrine that is best believed and ignored."

Tonicthebrown 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice citation hunting, Tonic. I think I read the McLarty article, if it is a recent one. I have also read critics from ellenwhite.org (I think) say that they know many Adventist leaders who disbelieve this or that. I hope that these citations can be added to the article. Colin MacLaurin 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New subpage suggestion: Glacier View controversy

I propose that a lot of content be added to the "Glacier View controversy" section, and that when large enough it be branched out to a new article with a "summary style" left behind, per the policies. Numerous articles link to this precise topic, such as Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, possibly History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Seventh-day Adventist theology, and probably many others including potentials. There has been a lot of material written about those events both for and against, which I believe merits such focus. Also, it has been considered one of the most (possibly the most) damaging/controversial events in the history of the Adventist church. Colin MacLaurin 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be a very good idea in the long term. Currently I don't have much more material to add. Some more good quality research needs to be done, and more sources gathered. Tonicthebrown 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

25 year anniversary Sydney Adventist Forum report Colin MacLaurin 10:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson opinion

I've removed this from the article. I feel it is WP:Opinion and therefore not really encyclopedic, at least not for the "history" section which should be hard facts only. Perhaps it can be fitted in elsewhere, maybe in critcism? (Is it a veiled criticism?) Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alden Thompson has commented,

"Increasingly, I'm inclined to think that many of our pioneers saw the sanctuary teaching less as a distinct doctrine and more as simply our Adventist way of pointing to 'the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.'"[2]