Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] To-do's for this article - "Can you help?"

Lets try to continue working towards a featured article, if possible. Currently the content is still rather weak and is also poorly referenced. Here are my suggestions on what need to be improved, feel free to add your own points: MyNam e IsNotBob 00:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs section. Currently this is a very brief summary, apart from the Sabbath section. One would almost be better off just reading the Fundamental Beliefs statements for themselves. The sections that are there currently need to be expanded and referenced from a number of sources. Currently the only two sources that are used in that section are the "Fundamental Beliefs" and "What we believe..." Adding some context and insight to each of these statements would be of great benefit. The section also lacks an explanation of the Adventist belief in "Investigative Judgment". Is there someone brave enough to write that?

Hi, I'm fairly new here, but I've made quite a few changes. I thought it would be a good idea to start a separate Seventh-day Adventist doctrine article which can go into more depth about a range of doctrinal issues (including the SDA distinctives). That way we can keep this article's doctrine section brief. I've also been "brave" enough to expand the investigative judgment article :-) Tonicthebrown 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section should be brief. The last time I touched that section my intention was to consider Adventists as adherring to mainstream evangelical theology, except diverging on three significant issues: state of the dead, sanctuary, and Sabbath. The only other thing worth clarifying is Adventists pre-millenial stance. -Fermion 07:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

SDAs also diverge from mainstream theology with the "great controversy" and "remnant" doctrines. I've expanded the "Second coming" section to include a clarification of the premillennial position. (Now moved to the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine article.) I've also created a new article - Eschatology (Adventist) which explains SDA end-times teaching in more detail, and what SDAs believe about the millennium.Tonicthebrown 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what deserves inclusion, is what I did to the Sabbath part too much? Its hard to tell, there is no standard to go by. It strikes me as odd though that nothing is said about our sanctuary doctrine. MyNam e IsNotBob 07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some material on the sanctuary, but perhaps it could be expanded further. May even deserve a separate article, if someone is inclined to do the work. Tonicthebrown 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Images. Currently the article is only text apart from the logo at the top. I am not sure the fair use tag on the image is properly justified either, I believe it can be and I have an email from the church verifying that. Is there someone familiar with fair use who can verify what needs to be done with that logo. Also another image or two might be nice to improve the asthetics of the aticle. Does someone have a camera with which they can go photograph a church building?

What about an image of White or Bates? Or a classic second coming illustration?

I have put the photo of the Whites in there. Would like a church building as well, and maybe one other. MyNam e IsNotBob 07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins section. This section is seriously lopsided, and not much help comes from the History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church page. Is there someone else interested in history research who can help me expand this? My main inhibition is lack of resources. Currently I am working off my brother's college textbooks and resources, which I have to steal to use :-).

You might try and find "Lightbearers", as it is a very effective Seventh-day Adventist history book. User:MilquetoastCJW

As in Schwarz and Greenleaf? Ans e ll 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think thats what Milque is refering to. Thats one of my brothers textbooks that I steal when i get the chance. I have used it on History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. MyNam e IsNotBob 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is, sorry, been away for awhile. GOOD JOB cleaning up this article. --24.107.9.33 (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC) aka MilquetoastCJW

"Spirit of Prophecy (fundamental belief 18) - The ministry of Ellen G. White is commonly referred to as the "Spirit of Prophecy" and her writings are considered "a continuing and authoritative source of truth",[8] though ultimately subject to the Bible. (See: Inspiration of Ellen White)" ...This, I believe, is in error from a non-neutral POV. Adventists do not refer to her works as the spirit of prophecy, though that -is- the title of one of her books; rather the Spirit of Prophecy, ACTUALLY according to SDAs is what enabled her to write as a prophet to begin with. As it currently stands, it requires a citation of a source that states that Adventists currently think this way; then again, perhaps the Spirit of Prophecy article needs help too.

That said, the fundamental Belief, which IS cited agrees more with what I've said than with what the article says. Thoughts?--24.107.9.33 (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC) aka MilquetoastCJW

[edit] Suggested major improvements

Origins section has too many details, which would be better placed in the main article. Also, the "to do" list has far too much history in my opinion, which doesn't all belong in this article.
Sabbath activities also could be shortened, maybe new article possible, but be careful of POV forking as there is already a Sabbath article (see my comments elsewhere)
Mission needs expanding
How about merging Mission, Outreach, Publishing and Membership into "Membership and Outreach" or similar? (Why do we publish? It's for members and outreach.)
Also, it doesn't have much of an international feel.

Main sections could be: Origins, Doctrine, Membership and outreach, Lifestyle and customs (subheadings: "Sabbath activities" and "Health, diet and sexuality"), Structure, polity and institutions, Movements and offshoots and Outsider criticisms. I think this would improve the structure of the page.

Having said that, the article is coming along well. Good job everyone! -Colin MacLaurin 20:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Make sure we haven't left off any major organizations.[1] -Colin MacLaurin 09:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - the "origins" section has too much detail and should be trimmed. Also we need recent history of the church. Perhaps would be clearer if we develop the History article first, and then summarise it. Colin MacLaurin 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree the History article needs major expansion, with more details on the period between 1900-2000. But I respectfully disagree that the "origins" section here needs significant trimming. I think all the details there are quite important, and in any case it is one of the shortest sections in the whole article. If anything, I think that the Mission section needs a bit of a trim. Tonicthebrown 09:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Colin, can you please explain further why you think that "origins" section is too long? Which parts do you think should be omitted? As I have said above, my opinion is that it isn't too lengthy, especially relative to the article as a whole. Tonicthebrown 10:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tonic, I take my comments back - I'm not so sure about its length - perhaps its fine. What is needed is more recent history though. It would be helpful if one of the history experts who edit here would start us off. By the way, I also noticed you trimmed the section a little. Colin MacLaurin 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

I think there are several parts of the article that aren't very relevant, interesting or encyclopedic, and should be deleted or at least condensed. (Bear in mind non-Adventist readership.) I'd like to know if others share or oppose my opinions. The sections are:

"This message was gradually accepted and formed the topic of the first edition of the church publication, The Present Truth (now the Adventist Review) which appeared in July 1849. While initially it was believed that the Sabbath started at 6pm, by 1855 it was generally accepted that the Sabbath begins at Friday sunset.[citation needed]" (Origins)
"In 1903, the denominational headquarters were moved from Battle Creek to temporary quarters in Washington D.C. and soon thereafter established in nearby Takoma Park, Maryland. (In 1989, the headquarters was moved again, this time to Silver Spring, Maryland.)" (Origins)
"Saturday morning is greeted with Bible study and a prayer of thanksgiving for physical and spiritual rest and repose. Adventists believe that "we are called to grow into the likeness of His character, communing with Him daily in prayer, feeding on His Word"." (Practices and Customs)
"The pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church had much to do with the common acceptance of breakfast cereals into the Western diet. John Harvey Kellogg was one of the early founders of the Seventh-day Adventist health work. His development of breakfast cereals as a health food led to the founding of Kellogg's by his brother William K. Kellogg.[citation needed]" (Practices and Customs)
"Masturbation has also been traditionally condemned as a sinful practice, contrary to God's design for the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit and for sex as a shared experience within marriage.[citation needed]" (Practices and customs)
"The church has two professional organizations for Adventist theologians that are affiliated with the denomination. The Adventist Society for Religious Studies (ASRS) was formed to foster community among Adventist theologians who attend the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the American Academy of Religion. In 2006 ASRS voted to continue their meetings in the future in conjunction with SBL. During the 1980s the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) was formed by Jack Blanco to provide a forum for more conservative theologians to meet and is held in conjunction with the Evangelical Theological Society. ATS publishes the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society." (Institutions)
"Historically, Adventists vehemently resisted changes in the broader American culture. Different elements in the church were impacted by Fundamentalism. Denominational leaders including progressives such as A. G. Daniells and W. W. Prescott as well as other traditionalists discussed these issues at the 1919 Bible Conference. This conference would contribute to the polarization of Seventh-day Adventist theology. Some of the issues such as the atonement would become significant during a series of conferences between Adventists and evangelicals that led up to the publication of Questions on Doctrine in 1957." (Movements and offshoots)

Tonicthebrown 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tonic, thanks for your suggestions of improvement. I haven't looked at this page for months, and I have decided that it's too much effort to wade through the hundreds of page changes so I read it anew. Agreed that some of those sentences could be reduced or removed. However please place good content on a relevant subarticle.

I would particularly like to keep the sentence about ATS and ASRS. It is a very important insight into the spectrum which exists in Adventist theology, but expressed in a very factual manner (not original research). Perhaps this section could be moved to the theology section. What do you think? Theology is repeated twice - in the introduction and in the theology section. I suggest that the description be limited to "Seventh-day" [Sabbath] and "Adventist" [imminent Second Coming] in the intro. Perhaps the "Theological Subcultures" section could also be moved into the theology section. Also, while the bullet points in that section are helpful, I understand that bulleted lists are generally not recommended in policies, although I may be wrong. Anyone, please share your thoughts. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 09:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I've actually gone ahead and done a lot of that trimming over the last few months. Some notable material was moved to sub-articles. I'm quite happy with ATS/ASRS and "Theological subcultures" as they are. I agree with you there is too much theological detail in the intro, but I encountered resistance from other editors previously when I tried to cut it down. (Personally I don't think the quote about the Bible is necessary either.) Tonicthebrown 09:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tonic, good job on the Sabbath section! I agree with you about the quote regarding the Bible being unnecessary, and about too much theology in the intro. (I will post my comment elsewhere). Your second line - do you mean you support the retention of the material, or are you additionallly saying that you disagree with my suggestion to merge the material? Colin MacLaurin 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the last quotation was a good one, and a major insight into the church. I suggest we reinstate it. Comments please! Colin MacLaurin 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Which quote are you talking about? --Maniwar (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The last bullet point above. Colin MacLaurin 05:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the one about 1919 Bible Conference? Personally, I don't think those details are notable enough for the main article (note that they now exist on the History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church article). I've hardly come across any Adventist literature which references that era of Adventist history. The relevant article states that "The conference was then nearly forgotten until 1975 when the Conference transcripts were discovered in the General Conference Archives." If we start including information about "nearly forgotten" episodes in the church's history, then we're really getting into minutiae don't you think? The 1888 Minneapolis General Conference surely is more notable -- but I think a great deal of care needs to be exercised because of the controversy surrounding it. Right now, I think it's best to keep history to a minimum here, and expand the History article (which, by the way, really needs more expanding!) instead.

Here's an interesting quote (from Dr. Arthur Patrick, retired Avondale College scholar regarding notable dates in Adventist history.

Adventists, perhaps more than most other Christian groups, find it is fruitful to understand themselves in terms of a number of dates: for instance, 1844, 1863, 1888, 1901, 1907, 1919, 1950, 1957 and 1980 are some of the years that may be cited as possessing special significance. Recently (2003) at La Sierra University I offered a month-long graduate seminar focused on four of the important Adventist dates: 1844, 1888, 1957 and 1980; the course outline offers bibliographical data.

– TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER GLACIER VIEW: USING THE LANTERN OF HISTORY, ANTICIPATING A BRIGHTER FUTURE (footnote), www.atoday.org

Perhaps we could use these dates as a framework for expanding the History article. Unfortunately, my own knowledge is pretty limited except for 1844, 1863, 1957 and 1980.Tonicthebrown 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Colin MacLaurin 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Brief explanation for my recent editing of the intro:

Moved historical detail back to first paragraph. Think it is better there, seeing as the article itself has the history come first
Don't think it is necessary to mention all 3 founders; they are listed in the main origins section
I think it's worth having a small amount of doctrine/theology in the intro. So I have included 2 aspects of common protestant belief (Trinity and scripture), and 2 aspects of distinctive belief (soul sleep, IJ) which I think are most noteworthy.
Don't think there is need to emphasise Ellen White twice.
"Separation of church and state." Don't think this is really that important, and it isn't mentioned further down in the body of the article. Replaced it with "promotion of religious liberty", which I think is more pertinent, and underlies the impulse to keep church and state separate. Religious liberty is mentioned several times in the article.
Got rid of "local churches", since they do not really "administer"!

As it stands, the intro now captures something from each of the main sections of the article: History, Theology, Practices/customs, Structure and polity, Mission, Membership, Criticisms; and is therefore appropriately balanced. I'd suggest that we please try not to upset this balance by making major changes without prior discussion on this talk page. Cheers, Tonicthebrown 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think those changes were good ones. The intro is much more concise now. I request that we can also mention annihilation or conditional immortality, perhaps piped as rejection of eternal hell to avoid technical jargon. Colin MacLaurin 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, but is conditional immortality really a distinctive Adventist belief anymore? In light of the ACUTE article, which suggests it is growing more popular in the wider church... Just wondering. cheers Tonicthebrown 08:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinctive doctrines

I have thought for a long time that the term Adventist "distinctives" is stretched (see my comments here). I think Cliff Goldstein said that the 1844 IJ is the only truly distinctive doctrine. Soul sleep is currently listed as a distinctive, but according to Avondale College lecturer Rob McIver, the holistic view of anthropology (the nature of mankind) is actually the majority scholarly view. How about a line, "Adventists are also known for [annihilationism/conditional immortality - which one?], [and any other major teaching I have forgotten]". Could we also mention "salvation by faith", given that one version of the highly influential Kingdom of the Cults I saw recently incorrectly described Adventists as teaching salvation by faith and works in parallel? Colin MacLaurin 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that QOD lists only (1) sanctuary, (2) the IJ, (3) SOP = EGW, (4) seal of God vs. Mark of the beast and (5) 3 angels message as "distinctive". I agree that holistic anthropology is the majority scholarly view, at least among protestant evangelicals. However, holistic anthropology doesn't necessarily impliy soul sleep. As far as I know, only SDAs and JWs officially teach soul sleep. Many evangelicals who believe in the unity of human nature (and even annihilationism) nevertheless teach that the spirit (or soul) is conscious in death (as per the Westminster Confession, and John Calvin). Tonicthebrown 04:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of the above conversation, I suggest that we separate doctrines into a kind of hierarchy by their prominence in conservative Christianity, from "standard" beliefs held in common with evangelical Christians, as already well described, to "somewhat distinctive"/"controversial"/"disputed" views including holistic nature of mankind, annihilation/conditional immortality, etc. and then "truly unique" teachings such as the IJ, Ellen White (actually I have met non-Adventists who believe she was inspired, but I confess that this is not notable enough to be worth mentioning), etc. I think the phrase "somewhat distinctive" captures well the tradition of Adventists calling these beliefs "distinctives", and yet is accurate as well. In particular, I would like to add "holism", and question the separation of "sanctuary" and "IJ". Please share your thoughts :) Colin MacLaurin 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that the SDA "distinctives" can be streamlined in this way. However I would hesitate to perform such a sophisticated analysis in a Wikipedia article, since the detail and subtlety would be lost on the majority of "average" readers. I think it is much easier simply to list the doctrines which are generally thought of as being distinctive to the SDA church, even if that means we mix together a group of doctrines which are "truly distinctive" and a group which is only "somewhat distinctive". I think the introductory statement: "In addition there are other distinctive teachings which are less common in the Christian world, some of them unique to Seventh-day Adventism:" makes it clear enough that these 2 categories might exist.

Regarding "holism", I think that "state of the dead" and "conditional immortality" already covers that. A direct link between these teachings and holism is articulated in the Seventh-day Adventist theology article. Regarding sanctuary and IJ: personally I think that it is helpful to treat them separately (even though they represent a single fundamental) because of the complexity of the topics. I have also noticed that Adventists often refer to the "doctrine of the sanctuary" and the "investigative judgment" as if they are distinct ideas Tonicthebrown 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps adopting a hierarchy would be too detailed an analysis. I think there are a couple of major teachings which deserve a mention somehow. In particular, creation is an important one. I see the purpose of the section as characterising the theology of the church, not just to say what is truly distinctive about it (although naturally there will be more emphasis on the distinctives, as currently in the article). Holism could be mentioned in about two extra words - I think this concept is a major one in Adventism, for example Adventist schools in Hong Kong and other Asian countries are named for "threefold" holistic education. Colin MacLaurin 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed in principle to saying something about creation. I'm just worried about how the topic is fraught with complexity. Does the SDA church teach Young Earth Creationism? I don't think it does, considering the statements made by the Geoscience Research Institute -- the church seems at least open to a form of Old Earth Creationism. So then, what if we just say "the church teaches Creationism?" That would probably be accurate enough; but then again there is the survey cited in Seventh-day Adventist theology which reveals only 43% of Adventist science educators agree with the statement "God created live organisms during 6 days less than 10,000 years ago." But I suppose they are simply disagreeing with the official position of the church...

Regarding holism, perhaps we could have merge it with the current statement about state of the dead. For example: Holistic human nature - Adventists believe that humans are an indivisible unity of body, mind and spirit. Consequently, they reject the concept of the immortal soul and believe that death is an unconscious sleep... Tonicthebrown 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

I'm not sure why membership and mission/outreach has been merged. Could you please explain the rationale for this? Thanks Tonicthebrown 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought there were too many headings, and still are. Sorry - I should have discussed it on the talk page first. I don't have an emotional attachment to it so modify it if you wish! Colin MacLaurin 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of headings I agree, but I think that is justified given the amount of material which this article attempts to cover. In my opinion, membership and mission/publishing don't really go together. "Membership" contains information of an institutional nature, whereas mission/publishing relates to the dynamic activity of the church. As such, if we were to merge sections, I think membership would probably fit in more under "Structure and polity". What do you think?

Thinking along these lines, perhaps we should reorganise things so that Section 4 is purely "institutional" and Section 5 is purely "Mission/activity"? Therefore, membership statistics should go under section 4. On the other hand, I would argue that education, ADRA, etc. are actually mission-oriented, and should thus go under section 5. If you look at the official webpage [2] ADRA, religious liberty, education, health and media are all in fact grouped under "Mission and Service".

So a proposed new outline could be as follows:

4. Organization and institutions: Structure and polity, Membership stats, Church officers, Ecumenism, independent organizations
5. Mission and outreach: Mission, Education, Humanitarian, Religious liberty, Media, Publishing.

Tonicthebrown 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor comment - "independent ministries" section is similar to "offshoots..." IMO, but these do not appear in proximity in the article. Swapping 4 and 5 above would fix this, but this is only a minor consideration... Colin MacLaurin 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

What about including more statistics into the article, like number of hospitals operated etc. See http://www.adventist.org/world_church/facts_and_figures/index.html.en. This page is from 2005, so maybe we could wait until the 2006 version comes out (I don't know when that would be). What do you think? These would need updating once a year, which I don't think is too big a task. Colin MacLaurin 12:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subcultures section

I can see the idea behind the new section however I am concerned about how encyclopedic it actually is. Our biggest problem on this article at this point in time is its severe lack of references. This needs to be addressed ASAP, and adding more unreferenced material just makes the problem worse. MyNam e IsNotBob 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the material is OR as is. Focusing on references is a definite first step. No time here right now, sorry bout that. Ansell 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Research Institute

Could we remove the statement about the BRI being moderate? This is a revision of an earlier edit by myself in which I commented it was conservative mainstream, and I propose a middle-ground compromise. If we just leave it as "The BRI is the official... of the church", then this is the least disputed way to characterise it. Implicit in that NPOV statement is that it is mainstream, at least in some senses of the word. Mainstream Adventism is highly nuanced, and I'm not sure that because it fits into this band that it could be called "moderate", although of course being official it is institutionally moderate. Colin MacLaurin 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I've changed the word to "neutral", but if you still don't think that's appropriate please feel free to modify. I probably should have discussed this change with you first. I appreciate your attempt to place the various organisations relative to each other on the spectrum; however, I think this could easily be accused of being based on personal opinion. I think that it could only be justified if you can cite official statements from ATS, ASRS etc. saying "we are on the conservative end of mainstream", etc. Tonicthebrown 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am increasingly feeling convicted that the various organizations should not be characterised in this fashion, in the main article. It is detail which is not relevant in an article already overloaded with information. Details regarding the diversity within the church can be covered in subarticles. Also, I think the editor (it wasn't me) who inserted the ASRS and ATS comments did an excellent job. By stating that the ATS meets with the ETS and the ASRS with the AAR and SBL characterises them quite strongly (forgive the abbreviations)! The AAR and SBL are more liberal than the ETS, which hints that the ASRS is more liberal than the ATS, even though this "fact" will be lost on most readers. But this important insight is stated in the most factual manner possible. The BRI is currently mentioned 3 times. I propose that we delete the first reference. I don't think the definition of "moderate" as those who aren't in the extremes is fair. There is huge diversity within this so-called "moderate" group. Within it, various entities are much closer to one end than the other. Colin MacLaurin 07:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo fair use

Does the recently approved guideline here have any bearance on wikipedia's use of the logo? MyNam e IsNotBob 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It really is very clear on the issue:

"Only official churches, organizations, and entities administered by organizations listed in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook are entitled to use the Seventh-day Adventist Church's corporate identity symbols (logo graphic and text) as described in the Church's corporate identity standards manual."

I suppose that means a direct end to "fair-use" on that front. :( Ansell 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I did email the relevant department prior to the publication of this guideline asking about the encyclopedia's use of the logo and they said it was okay, so I guess I might email again. MyNam e IsNotBob 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They should probably log an OTRS ticket by emailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org (someone correct me if that is wrong) relating to this so that there is official confirmation about it. Ansell 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the real issue here regards groups claiming to represent the church. For a group to use the official church logo, you would of course expect some pretty strict guidelines. However the Wikipedia article(s) do not claim to represent the church - rather, they are a "critical" (in the academic sense of analytical) commentary of it. As I recall, "fair use" is all about critical commentary. --Colin MacLaurin 15:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this assessment. My correspondence with the General Conference Public Relations Department points out that the guideline is specifically for the use by church organisations of the logo. MyNam e IsNotBob 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticms: Minor changes

1. Removed vandal abuse (ie: spreading membership by raping)

2. Removed the entry in criticisms about Adventists requiring only Adventists to marry. This is incorrect and is not found in any of the fundamental beliefs or church manual.

3. Removed the entry in criticisms about Adventists considering other Sunday churches as antichrist. The overall doctrines suggest they hold a similar view to Martin Luther, that the pope is the antichrist.

I'm also questioning some of the sources that are not neutral who in turn quote non-official church documents. For instance, while Adventists believe they are part of the remnant church, they do not believe they are the only ones going to be saved in the last days. We need to understand what the remnant means to an Adventist versus the traditional view of a cultish remnant (ie: they think they are the only ones going to heaven).

"Remnant and Its Mission: The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)" Source: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html (OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENT)

"This is the only statement from E. G. White where she uses the term "remnant" to designate believers outside the Adventist Church. She called them "a remnant who trusted in the Word of God," individuals who are holding communion with God. Interestingly, she uses the story of Elijah to illustrate what she means, namely, that God has His instruments everywhere else. Yes, only the Lord knows who they are, but at the end they will be visible as they become part of God's eschatological remnant.[52] " Source:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/remnantSDAchurch.htm (OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENT)

Conclusion -- the remnant that the SDA preaches is not all inclusive but rather a communion with God.

--Jbanning22 08:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jbanning. Thank you for your contributions. I would like to respond to some of your comments above.

Page 183 of the SDA church manual states that "...the Seventh-day Adventist Church strongly discourages marriage between a Seventh-day Adventist and a non-Seventh-day Adventist, and strongly urges Seventh-day Adventist ministers not to perform such weddings."
The purpose of the criticism section is to explain what other people have said against the church, not to present or defend official church teaching. The cited sources (Catholic Answers, Truth or Fables, etc.) do in fact accuse SDAs of referring to other Christian churches as "babylon". Similarly, critical sources do claim that the SDA church is a cult on the basis of its remnant teaching. This criticism may well be based on a misunderstanding of SDA teachings; nevertheless, the criticisms have been made, and so it is appropriate to disclose them in this section.
Again, the view of Martin Luther is not relevant here. SDAs may well agree with him; nevertheless, this is an explanation of criticisms that have been made in relation to the SDA church. Tonicthebrown 09:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, legitimate crticisms (those with basis) can reasonably be presented. Antyhing else requires a counterpoint and risks devolving into finger-pointing. --Belg4mit 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Belg4mit. We cannot simply include any type of criticism in this page or in any other Wiki page if it has no factual basis. If it is a 'valid' criticism, which we should define as having merit, then we should include it with two sides of the story. For instance, there are a number of misconceptions about this church that are 'popular' such as they are part of the Jehovah's Witness or Mormon-based. Both of which are false and have no factual bearing. Your statement "the purpose of the criticism section is to explain what other people have said against the church" -- I don't agree with that either because many things have been said against the Adventist Church and they are not all included here nor should they be. We need to remove ones without merit, like criticisms quoting unofficial Adventist ministries. The definition of a cult should also be defined. Are we using dictionary definitions such as "adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices"? Because that applies to all Christian churches. Every Christian church is then a cult. --Jbanning22 19:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your comments. As I see it, the criticism section (which is really quite small next to the article as a whole, which portrays the church in an overwhelmingly positive light) describes 3 legitimate strands of criticism. (By legitimate I mean that these are criticisms that have been regularly and publicly made against the official church.) These are (1) in relation to doctrine, (2) in relation to Ellen White and (3) in relation to exclusivism. All three of these areas have point and counterpoint included (I recently added counterpoint for the final area). Therefore, from my POV, the section is both fair and appropriate, and should remain in the article. I fully agree that there is no need to include absolutely everything negative that has ever been said about the SDA church -- this was never my intention! :-) Tonicthebrown 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are trying to focus too much on the criticism section. I realize it is needed, but not to the detriment of the article or the church. Every single minor critcism does not need to be mentioned. I'm curious to know if point#2 is more of an Australia issue, and not an international one. It is not a significant issue here in the US. --Maniwar (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Might something about demographics be relevant? I know there are caucasian adventists (many participated in germ warfare experiments as pacifists, both of these tidbits are incidentally missing from the article) but in my own experience every adventist I've known has been (the descendant of) a black immigrant from the Carribean. Is this as common as it seems? --Belg4mit 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Something about demographics would indeed be very interesting and worthy of including in the article. Your experience is not typical of the world church. Adventism started among predominantly White Americans. However over time the North American church has became the minority numerically, as the church expanded in other parts of the world. Recent statistics for the 13 world administrative divisions of the church show that most members are in Central and South America, and Africa. Perhaps you live in England. Jon Paulien said, if I recall correctly, that 90% of the church there are immigrants from such places as the West Indies, as you say, and not Anglo-English (forgive the tautology)! Colin MacLaurin 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm seventh day adventist and its a very diverse religion.

[edit] Teetotalism

I just thought I would encourage anyone who would like to contribute to the teetotalism article and the Christianity and alcohol article. The Adventist view would be appreciated.

[edit] Images

The article is coming along very well in my opinion, and is nearing completion. I believe the biggest current need is to obtain high quality images from talented photographers. It will take time, so let's start now! Featured articles I have seen often include copious numbers of beautiful images. It is a truly international church, so let's represent this. A different country for every pic would be ideal. Some of the main areas/cultures I can think of are Africa, South America, Asia, and North America/Australia/Western Europe. Ideas for the list:

church logo (already included). Some more white space padding would look better.
Ellen White (already included). Is there a pic of the James/Ellen/Joseph trio?
church building (we already have several, but we can do better IMO)
church worship service - this may feel "warmer" to the reader than an exterior church building pic, helping to "include" them in the article
Pathfinders is a major part of the church and would make a great pic
mission work - a pic of happy, smiling volunteers and kids or other locals would look great on the page
colour-coded world map of no. of Adventists by country, as suggested by me before and in the Feb 2007 peer review

Colin MacLaurin 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Colin, here are a couple more ideas which you pursue yourself if you have a digital camera:

* Picture of a footwashing ceremony -- quite unique to SDAs, and would go well at the Holy Communion section

* Picture of Avondale college, for Education section.

I've got a few other ideas which I'll look into in the next week or so. Tonicthebrown 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mission statement

Does the church have an official mission statement or similar? See [3]. I know that the South Pacific Division has its own, which I just added to that page. Colin MacLaurin 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Catholicism

The sda church has a long history of anti-Catholicism. This should be mentioned more explicitly in the article. There certainly isn't a problem finding evidence of it in sda history and theology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.180.117 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism? Hmm.... no. Anti-Papism perhaps. ;) --24.107.9.33 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC) AKA MilquetoastCJW

[edit] im interested

Ive recently learned about SDA since becoming a vegetarian and having long since been a christian id like to know how to become a member and if there is a structure near me. I have looked at your websight but cant find an email address or a location finder. Please help.

l84ad874@yahoo.com

Thank You, God Bless

Kimmy

68.249.108.64 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kimmy, thanks for your interest in the Adventist church! You can try this site: http://adventistdirectory.org/. Just select churches or congregations under the "type" field, enter your city and state, and click search. Churches do vary in terms of worship style etc., but try a few and hopefully you will find one you like. I am a baptised church member myself, and am more than happy to help or answer and questions you might have. I also recommend Wikipedia articles such as this one and Seventh-day Adventist theology, which have been edited by various people with varying points of view. Cheers and may God bless your search, Colin MacLaurin 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Emailed just now. Colin MacLaurin 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AYS

The AYS edit may have been warranted. Here at Avondale College, I associate it with those of Pacific Island heritage, who run a youth-focused program on Saturday afternoons. They pronounce it "A Y's". Perhaps a North American editor or other editor could give another international perspective. Colin MacLaurin 05:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infallibility of scripture?

Adventists believe Scripture is the "infallible revelation of God's will" or something. Actually, I have heard that this is not taken by all Adventists to mean the doctrine of biblical infallibility, as Fyslee seemed to be pointing out. Let's find out the way the fundamental is interpreted by good sources. It would be fair to say that Adventists have "a moderately conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture". I believe that a detailed explanation does not belong here, but a brief mention would be warranted in the theology article. Colin MacLaurin 14:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was most interested in avoiding confusion between "infallibility" and "inerrancy". Some SDAs believe in both as regards the Bible, but even EGW didn't believe in Biblical inerrancy, and the official position has changed over the years, from a position that was pretty much "word/verbal" inspiration to the present "thought" inspiration. -- Fyslee/talk 15:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that infallible and inerrant are not the same, and that the SDA church's position is closer to infallibility. The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, chapter 1, is helpful. It clearly upholds thought inspiration rather than word inspiration. On the other hand, it also clearly says that everything the Bible teaches is true, including the historical facts -- and it uses 6-day creation and Noah's Flood as examples. Therefore, some people might say that this verges on the inerrancy position.

The SDA position differs from that of most conservative evangelical writers—even those who would avoid labels such as "inerrant" and "fundamentalist"—such as J. I. Packer, who believe that the very words of Scripture (in the original Greek and Hebrew), not just the thoughts, are inspired. In my experience, this reflects a difference of opinion about God's sovereignty. As Arminians, SDAs have difficulty understanding how the biblical authors could express ideas in their own language, while at the same time the words they produced were God's exact words. Calvinistic evangelicals, OTOH, have less trouble with the concept of dual authorship—in other words, a human author can express thoughts in their own words (even without being conscious of the fact that they were writing under inspiration!), but the end product corresponds exactly with God's words as well. Tonicthebrown 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In theological studies at Avondale College, I have been taught "thought inspiration" as the preferred concept of inspiration. True, views have changed over the years as Fyslee said, however I think that such material belongs on other pages - history or theology, not the main one. I think thought inspiration is the most accurate one, but the only problem is that it is much less well known than inerrancy or infallibility. I suppose that taking the Creation account literally would typically imply an inerrancy view in the Christian world as Tonicthebrown said, however I don't think inerrancy would be the majority position of the church. It has been pointed out the Adventists often have quite a progressive/liberal view of inspiration given that the church is quite conservative in general. Colin MacLaurin 08:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, many systematic theologians do link views of God's sovereignty with concepts of inspiration. Ray Roennfeldt did his PhD on how Clark Pinnock's changing views of inspiration were linked to his changing views of God's sovereignty (I think). Colin MacLaurin 08:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the categories of "thought" vs. "word" inspiration are unique to Adventist parlance, and do not correspond exactly to more popular categories such as infallibility, inerrancy, and so on. So in some respects, the Adventist position is similar to "infallibility", while in some other respects it is similar to "inerrancy" (eg. with literal creationism), but is not exactly equivalent to either.

The systematic theologians I have read usually come up with 4 theories of inspiration: (1) Dictation, (2) Verbal inspiration (also called "supervision" or "superintending"), (3) Dynamic inspiration and (4) Accomodation (the position of liberal theologians). It seems that the Adventist concept of "thought inspiration" comes closest to the "dynamic inspiration" view. My impression is that the SDA insistence on thought inspiration is a reaction against the Dictation view, and that their Arminian theology makes it difficult for them to distinguish between Dictation and Verbal inspiration. The majority of conservative evangelical theologians hold to Verbal inspiration - including Millard J. Erickson, Bruce Milne and I've already mentioned Packer, but they vehemently deny Dictation theory.

I agree with Colin that this discussion belongs in another article. And in fact, I think that it is best left aside until someone can find a reputable source with a very good analysis of the subject. Tonicthebrown 09:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Might this help? biblical inspiration At the same time I realize this is probably not as succint as some would like it to be. --67.167.170.48 01:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found a 2001 interview of the editor of the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. It says some Evangelical Theological Society members "are nervous because they consider the ATS and Adventist position on biblical inspiration too liberal, as few if any ATS members believe in verbal inerrancy". He seems to use inerrancy and verbal inerrancy interchangeably. Keep in mind this is the conservative scholars. I also Googled "dynamic inspiration", and this described perfectly Ellen White's concept of "thought inspiration" which most Adventists probably believe. Colin MacLaurin 12:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would describe the church's position towards scripture as very unique - quite a conservative or so-called "faithful" attitude towards scripture, but a moderate (I wouldn't go so far as to say liberal) view of how inspiration actually works. Alden Thompson is one good source who believes this, even though I would place his POV as slightly left-of-center amongst Adventist academics. As an example, the Avondale College dean of theology describes his approach when he reads scripture as having an "inerrancy expectation" – he treats the text with much faith and respect, while in his mind not holding to inerrancy, verbal inspiration etc.

[edit] Former Adventist Websites

Moved from article (improper additions which need to be sorted before adding to article)

Former Adventist Websites:

-- Fyslee/talk 21:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a debate earlier about critical links. Anyone wanting to add a critical link - please read the debate first and then request on the talk page. This article has undergone many revisions and much discussion, and is rated highly ("Good article") by the Wikipedia community. Any editors wishing to make major changes should read up on Wikipedia policies to understand contributions, and then discuss them on the talk page here first. Colin MacLaurin 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just took a look at the archive of that debate. It was a sickening experience! Non-wikipedian criteria were used to justify improper POV forking. While a separate article is perfectly proper, using it as an excuse to move the criticism and links away from this article is improper. It certainly sounded like a coverup was being advocated. I'm not sure if the end result was satisfactory, but the arguments used by Maniwar were improper and not based in Wikipedia policies but on what Maniwar considered as lending "value" to the article, which is nonsense and certainly not in support of NPOV, which requires that this article present (not sell or advocate) all significant POV, including the negative ones. The article must present what Maniwar considers as contributing "value" and must also present what critics consider as contributing "value", which Maniwar would then probably delete because it doesn't contribute "value" according to Maniwar's criteria and POV, thus ensuring the article represents Maniwar's POV. A sorry state of affairs, but not surprising and as long as such viewpoints continue to exist in the church and at this article, it's no surprise that some SDAs would rather not be members. ~~Who would want to be in Heaven with such attitudes present?~~ -- Fyslee/talk 07:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, let's not go down this ugly road again. Tonicthebrown 06:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Such discussions are rather disheartening. I see WP:OWNERSHIP issues and cover-up issues. "The truth has nothing to fear from criticism" (EGW paraphrase), so why the fear? -- Fyslee/talk 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviations: SDA, Adventist.....

I see that my edit was removed with the edit summary:

"SDA is an incorrect abbreviation."

Maybe this matter has some history here, so I'd like to hear it.

Wikipedia is not about "correct"ness, but about any piece of notable information - pro, con, true, false - that can be documented from V & RS. While any official positions should indeed be mentioned and sourced, and worded in an NPOV manner (IOW not as the "truth", but as what the church says), all other POV should also be included if they are notable or otherwise documentable from V & RS. The article is not and must not be the "church's" article, but "about" the church, from "everyone's" POV, otherwise it violates NPOV and is not encyclopedic.

If the church has an official position (documented by direct reference) on what it considers to be the "proper" or "correct" abbreviation, then that certainly deserves to be in the article. Having said that, that does not prevent the inclusion of the factual statement that it is often abbreviated "Adventist" or "SDA". That is a historic, simple, and undeniable fact, regardless of what the church or some of its members prefer.

So what's the story on this matter? -- Fyslee/talk 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Colin, thanks for the Solomonic solution. The footnote reference serves the purpose fine. I have added the commonly used "SDA" to make the footnote complete. The actual reference says nothing against the common (relaxed and unofficial) usage of "SDA" at all, but makes it clear that "Adventist" is the official abbreviation, which is just fine. -- Fyslee/talk 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next step: Use of the abbreviation in the article

How about using "Adventist" consistently (but not exclusively) throughout most of the rest of the article? The full name is a clumsy tongue twister for non-Adventists (especially non-English speakers) and it would make reading the article easier if the more pleasing "Adventist" were used most of the time. Each replacement should be considered individually since there may be some special cases where the long version might still be preferable. The short version is already being used a number of places, but there are a number of places where the long version is unnecesarily used, IMHO. If there are any objections, please comment here, otherwise I will begin to aid others in making the substitutions after waiting for some comments. -- Fyslee/talk 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, and in all articles I write I use "Seventh-day Adventist" the first time and usually use "Adventist" after that. I think it could be confusing for the history section, in which "Adventist" has the more general meaning. Perhaps the term "Millerite Adventist" will disambiguate. By the way, if you know how the terms Adventist and Millerite should be used, please contribute to the (merger) discussion. Colin MacLaurin 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to follow through with the above and have also made a number of other copy edits, none of which should be earth shaking. If you find anything controversial we can discuss it here. Otherwise just revert any mistakes I've made. -- Fyslee/talk 06:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly true that "Seventh-day Adventist" is too clumsy if used repeatedly. However, the nit-picking purist within me is concerned that "Adventist" is also the term which refers to members of the Millerite movement in general, and other churches which came out of that which aren't "Seventh-day". Granted, these other churches are all very small, but they do exist.

Here's a suggestion: how about we use "Seventh-day Adventist" in full at the first occurrence of each major section, and "Adventist" after that? Tonicthebrown 09:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. -- Fyslee/talk 18:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church name

This project editors have been using the name "Seventh-day Adventist Church", with a capitalized "C" for church. The church doesn't seem to list extensive style guidelines on its website, or at least that I came across in a 10 sec glance, but capitalizing the "C" seems to be the norm.[4] It is important to have a consistent look and feel across Wikipedia articles. With the abbreviated version, "Adventist church", I personally think it does look more natural to have it as non-capitalized. Is there a preferred style? Colin MacLaurin 08:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the capital C in "Seventh-day Adventist Church" is correct, because it is the official name of the church. When we talk about the "Adventist church," we are not using the official name (and may be referring to a particular church building), and therefore the capitalization is at least unnecessary and perhaps inappropriate, but might be acceptable in some circumstances. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ellen White

The recent new edit, "After a ten year study of White's book "Desire of Ages," Adventist scholar Fred Veltman found that about 30 percent of the book was derived from other sources without citation." This is ambiguous and potentially misleading - e.g. one could read that statement and think that 30% was verbatim quotations. That is decidedly not true. Big verbatim quotations are rare (percentage wise), I understand. Most were subtle parallels, often with different meaning. Don't have time now to change it, but someone please improve. Colin MacLaurin 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiding contents

When the contents to this page are hidden, the second infobox comes up next to the first one and looks really ugly, forcing the text into a tiny column and leaving white space on the other side of the second box. Is there any way we can fix this, perhaps by moving the second box down a bit? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 1.0

Hi all, you may have noticed that I nominated this article for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. That approval has come through recently. A big congratulation to everybody and thank you for your involvement. Let's keep working to make it better! Fermion 06:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birobidzhan

Who know something about the Seventh-day Adventist Church community/Aдвентиcты Ceдмогоь Дня in БиробиДжан (Jewish Autonomous Region, Poccия)? The German article (Jüdisches Autonomes Gebiet or Birobidschan) deals with the Adventist prayers, but it is not very sure that the information is true!?--84.169.254.133 08:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Bold text'Italic text

My question is what are you'all beliefs I mean I am a batized christian and I asm dating a seventh-day adventist belief person and I am wondering can two different beliefs be invovled!

Shay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.115.2 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) yes and no. if you do get married one of you will have to convert, actually the man is more likely to convert. but i know of a some people who have been married for years, the woman is catholic and the man in an adventist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.12.65 (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SDA Kinship International

Is SDA Kinship International notable enough to be mentioned on the main page? According to its website, "Its current list of members and friends includes over a thousand people in 20 countries."[5] It surely deserves to be included somewhere (in addition to a page of its own, that is), perhaps History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Colin MacLaurin 04:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin, it has already been mentioned under the offshoots and schisms for some time. Tonicthebrown 09:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Icon

Why do the adventist categorized articles have william miller as its icon. It needs to have the church logo instead. How do you go about doing this? Please respond here or on my user talk page. Thank-you. Globalinfo 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Only free images may be used on templates, per one of the policies or guidelines. The logo is only "fair use". Of course there are many public domain images apart from ones of Miller. Colin MacLaurin 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

How about merging the section "Offshoots..." into "History"? This would reflect the structure of the sub-article History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Colin MacLaurin 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I support this. Offshoots like the Davidians, SDARM and SDA kinship have absolutely nothing to do with the church. They are tiny, virtually inconsequential minorities who are not recognised as legitimate by the SDA church, and I personally question their inclusion in this article at all. The "history" section should be reserved for events pertaining to the real SDA church. Tonicthebrown 10:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archival needed

(Also, this talk page needs to be archived as it is very long - would someone please carefully move expired discussions to an archive page. I'm not sure of the precise procedure, but should a summary of the conclusions of major arguments be left somewhere - at the very least, in the title of the archive?) Colin MacLaurin 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)