This page 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. |
I agree with most of the statements below. This article is too opininated to belong in an encyclopedia. I suggest you sick to the facts on a matter (for example this one) and let people draw their own conclusion based on the raw facts. I am disappointed with this article because it crosses the fine line between fact and the opinions of different people.
Can any of you Ellen G. White hating Seventh-day Adventists explain why the published and widely believed criticisms of by Ellen White are not encyclopedic whereas unpublished goofballs with websites are allowed to promote their opinions in the article? --
Perspicacious
00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Sister White was a sincere Christian and couched her rebukes in as loving a language as possible is a standard for many unchristian critics to emulate. And how dare you accuse our professingly Christian theological enemies of not being as kind or as sincerely concerned as Ellen G. White. Ellen White's sweetness and connection with God doesn't annul the fact that she published very strong and extremely pointed criticisms of Seventh-day Adventists. -- Perspicacious 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You obviously don't even grasp the fact that the paragraph has three sentences since your response indicates that you think it has only two.
The fact that Nazi medical ethics can be bought at a major Adventist institution without SDAs whimpering or protesting is a perfect example of the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the whole Laodicean Church. You say that this charge has no rational substance. It is rational to everyone who understands the story of Achan in the Bible (Joshua 7). "When Achan son of Zerah acted unfaithfully regarding the devoted things, did not wrath come upon the whole community of Israel? He was not the only one who died for his sin" (Joshua 22:20).
Do you really believe that your denial or ignorance of Joshua 7 means that everyone else is just as ignorant and just as clueless?
Do you really think that Christians who read of an Adventist institution poisoning people for profit don't see the obvious hypocrisy of the whole Seventh-day Adventist Church?
Ellen G. White and the Bible teaches that there is a corporate guilt on all Seventh-day Adventists for the Seventh-day Adventist Church's toleration of the open sins of just one of its members. In fact many Christians, not just Ellen White, teach corporate guilt based on Joshua 7. "This incident illustrates well the principle of corporate solidarity and corporate guilt. The sin of one man brought the Lord’s anger down upon the entire nation." [1] These are all clearly evident truths. They are only non-apparent to those who refuse to see them, the biblically ignorant and to those blinded by their own self-righteousness.
To all cowardly Adventists who are hiding behind Ellen White's skirt and pretending to be righteous, I say, stop reveling in your ignorance. Your conduct is shameful. Please stop misrepresenting Ellen G. White. She is not on your side. Her writings abound with criticisms of you and of most Seventh-day Adventists. -- Perspicacious 13:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This disputed statement has been edited since Perspicacious ( talk • contribs) reverted my good faith edits to the page. In doing so he clearly demonstrated that his version is in dispute, and as such it should be developed here.
The Laodicean Church
"Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585). Christ's message the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of the Christian Church at the endtime and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." [2]. According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186)."
My objections:
Ans e ll 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585). Christ's message to the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of that Church and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." [3]. According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186). -- Perspicacious 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In defense of the first sentence, look up the reference or better yet, look at the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on Revelation 2 and 3.
In reference to the second sentence, I've changed my mind and I now want to quote the popular evangelical John F. MacArthur instead. In reference to the Church at Laodicea, MacArthur says:
As for the third sentence citing Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186, do I have to call you up and read the page to you? -- Perspicacious 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Source: [5]
Part 8: On the Road to Righteousness
Soon after the emergence of Sabbathkeeping Adventists, certain disturbing characteristics of spiritual Babylon began to develop among them. They began to reflect more and more the spirit of the Laodicean church of Revelation 3. Love and zeal for the Lord gave way to self-exaltation and self-righteousness.
Not Yet Ready
This state of affairs provided sure evidence that the remnant people as a whole were not yet ready for the final seal of divine approval needed to protect them against the punitive judgment of the last plagues.
In 1851 Ellen G. White stated frankly that most of the Sabbatarian Adventists were not ready for the final events. They dwelled too long on "little trials," "picking at straws," she said, and were motivated too much by self-justification. She heard this heavenly rebuke of God's people: "Sabbathkeepers will have to die to self, die to pride and love of approbation. . . . Those who profess His name are not ready."[86]
James White, adding his voice to that of his wife, warned that many who professed the truth were not real Bible Christians. Evidencing a significant turn in the self-understanding of the emerging movement, he identified Sabbathkeeping Adventists with the Laodicean church of Revelation 3. He urged that the remnant church be "stripped from self-righteous views and feelings,"[87] that it recognize its own need for thorough repentance. Like Daniel of old, James White confessed: "We, as a people, have evidently rested down upon the theory of truth, and have neglected to seek Bible humility, Bible patience, Bible self-denial, and Bible watchfulness, and sacrifice, Bible holiness, and the power and gifts of the Holy Ghost. . . . Hence it is said, 'And knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked' [Rev. 3:17]. What a condition!"[88]
Ellen White even announced the shocking fact, new in Adventist eschatology, that the modern Sabbathkeeping people were basically repeating the history of Israel in the wilderness: "Modern Israel are in greater danger of forgetting God and being led into idolatry than were His ancient people. Many idols are worshiped, even by professed Sabbathkeepers."[89]
The purified remnant would become visible only in the final "shaking" of the church by means of the straight preaching of Christ's message in Revelation 3 to the Laodicean church. All depends on this "straight testimony" of the risen Christ to the end-time church: "I saw that the testimony of the True Witness has not been half heeded. The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded. This testimony must work deep repentance; all who truly receive it will obey it and be purified."[90] -- Perspicacious 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've merged the article Criticism of Adventist Hospitals to this article, as suggested by Ste4k. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-07-02 20:15Z
The ole plagerism arguement. I've searched but have been unable to find the source. Back in the 1980'a a prominant attorney was given the task to find plagerism in the EGW writings. After his examination, he stated that she had written in accordance with the rules of the day and that no plagerism had taken place. Interesting how she's constantly accused of this, yet no one can prove it. {{user0|Maniwar}} 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
E.Shubee keeps adding the following links to the site:
* Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God * The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
I totally label them as Link Spam because 1) These have not proven to be reputable sources and 2) They act more like a blog of this Walter McGill. There are no verification of facts to his charges and no reputable news sources are cited. I deleted them because anyone on the internet can throw up a blog, but that does not make them a reputable source or even a source for that matter. -- Maniwar ( talk) 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a dispute about not knowing the difference between spam and legitimate Wikipedia content. 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
* Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God * The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
I type in seventh day adventis on wikipedia, and this comes up. Instead of someone creating an informational article about the seventh day adventis church, there is an article criticzing it. Nice Job. PrincessOfHearts 20:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether a vandal redirected one of the pages that redirects to Seventh-day Adventist Church here and PrincessOfHearts was caught before it was reverted. The redirects to this page all seem legit at the moment though, and I don't think it is worth the effort hunting it down, unless we need more evidence of malpractice by a particular editor. MyNam e IsNotBob 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I came to this article from a direct link elsewhere in Wikipedia, so I won't add to the above complaints about how badly the Search mechanism is broken if this is the top article. It must be. But the first thing I would expect to see at the top – that is, above the article – of an article like this one is wording like See Seventh-day Adventist Church for an article about the church itself. Yes, the first sentence of this anti-article does have a link to the real article, but that is not enough. -- CliffC 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the way this is dealt with at Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code is excellent. Have changed the article accordingly. MyNam e IsNotBob 08:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I notice the statement was removed with the question "what do you have against it?". 1. It says the exact same thing as the next line of the article. What is the point of having it twice? 2. The {{ about}} tag is for disambiguation, this page doesn't *need* to be disambiguated because the article title is perfectly clear about what the content of the article is. -- Chuq 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The substantial changes by User:E.Shubee have been reverted. A number of reasons can be cited, however the most compelling I see is the use of weasel descriptions like "idiotic" to describe the current state of certain links. It does not auger well for a series of changes to be accepted when description of that nature are given. My suggestion to people wishing to make such large scale changes is suggest the changes on this talk page first. In that way, referencing can be preserved and correctly done, changes can be improved on, and it will be easier to track what has happened rather than a series of minor edits which can be very difficult to follow. - Fermion 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I agree with most of the statements below. This article is too opininated to belong in an encyclopedia. I suggest you sick to the facts on a matter (for example this one) and let people draw their own conclusion based on the raw facts. I am disappointed with this article because it crosses the fine line between fact and the opinions of different people.
Can any of you Ellen G. White hating Seventh-day Adventists explain why the published and widely believed criticisms of by Ellen White are not encyclopedic whereas unpublished goofballs with websites are allowed to promote their opinions in the article? --
Perspicacious
00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Sister White was a sincere Christian and couched her rebukes in as loving a language as possible is a standard for many unchristian critics to emulate. And how dare you accuse our professingly Christian theological enemies of not being as kind or as sincerely concerned as Ellen G. White. Ellen White's sweetness and connection with God doesn't annul the fact that she published very strong and extremely pointed criticisms of Seventh-day Adventists. -- Perspicacious 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You obviously don't even grasp the fact that the paragraph has three sentences since your response indicates that you think it has only two.
The fact that Nazi medical ethics can be bought at a major Adventist institution without SDAs whimpering or protesting is a perfect example of the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the whole Laodicean Church. You say that this charge has no rational substance. It is rational to everyone who understands the story of Achan in the Bible (Joshua 7). "When Achan son of Zerah acted unfaithfully regarding the devoted things, did not wrath come upon the whole community of Israel? He was not the only one who died for his sin" (Joshua 22:20).
Do you really believe that your denial or ignorance of Joshua 7 means that everyone else is just as ignorant and just as clueless?
Do you really think that Christians who read of an Adventist institution poisoning people for profit don't see the obvious hypocrisy of the whole Seventh-day Adventist Church?
Ellen G. White and the Bible teaches that there is a corporate guilt on all Seventh-day Adventists for the Seventh-day Adventist Church's toleration of the open sins of just one of its members. In fact many Christians, not just Ellen White, teach corporate guilt based on Joshua 7. "This incident illustrates well the principle of corporate solidarity and corporate guilt. The sin of one man brought the Lord’s anger down upon the entire nation." [1] These are all clearly evident truths. They are only non-apparent to those who refuse to see them, the biblically ignorant and to those blinded by their own self-righteousness.
To all cowardly Adventists who are hiding behind Ellen White's skirt and pretending to be righteous, I say, stop reveling in your ignorance. Your conduct is shameful. Please stop misrepresenting Ellen G. White. She is not on your side. Her writings abound with criticisms of you and of most Seventh-day Adventists. -- Perspicacious 13:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This disputed statement has been edited since Perspicacious ( talk • contribs) reverted my good faith edits to the page. In doing so he clearly demonstrated that his version is in dispute, and as such it should be developed here.
The Laodicean Church
"Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585). Christ's message the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of the Christian Church at the endtime and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." [2]. According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186)."
My objections:
Ans e ll 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585). Christ's message to the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of that Church and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." [3]. According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186). -- Perspicacious 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In defense of the first sentence, look up the reference or better yet, look at the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on Revelation 2 and 3.
In reference to the second sentence, I've changed my mind and I now want to quote the popular evangelical John F. MacArthur instead. In reference to the Church at Laodicea, MacArthur says:
As for the third sentence citing Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186, do I have to call you up and read the page to you? -- Perspicacious 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Source: [5]
Part 8: On the Road to Righteousness
Soon after the emergence of Sabbathkeeping Adventists, certain disturbing characteristics of spiritual Babylon began to develop among them. They began to reflect more and more the spirit of the Laodicean church of Revelation 3. Love and zeal for the Lord gave way to self-exaltation and self-righteousness.
Not Yet Ready
This state of affairs provided sure evidence that the remnant people as a whole were not yet ready for the final seal of divine approval needed to protect them against the punitive judgment of the last plagues.
In 1851 Ellen G. White stated frankly that most of the Sabbatarian Adventists were not ready for the final events. They dwelled too long on "little trials," "picking at straws," she said, and were motivated too much by self-justification. She heard this heavenly rebuke of God's people: "Sabbathkeepers will have to die to self, die to pride and love of approbation. . . . Those who profess His name are not ready."[86]
James White, adding his voice to that of his wife, warned that many who professed the truth were not real Bible Christians. Evidencing a significant turn in the self-understanding of the emerging movement, he identified Sabbathkeeping Adventists with the Laodicean church of Revelation 3. He urged that the remnant church be "stripped from self-righteous views and feelings,"[87] that it recognize its own need for thorough repentance. Like Daniel of old, James White confessed: "We, as a people, have evidently rested down upon the theory of truth, and have neglected to seek Bible humility, Bible patience, Bible self-denial, and Bible watchfulness, and sacrifice, Bible holiness, and the power and gifts of the Holy Ghost. . . . Hence it is said, 'And knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked' [Rev. 3:17]. What a condition!"[88]
Ellen White even announced the shocking fact, new in Adventist eschatology, that the modern Sabbathkeeping people were basically repeating the history of Israel in the wilderness: "Modern Israel are in greater danger of forgetting God and being led into idolatry than were His ancient people. Many idols are worshiped, even by professed Sabbathkeepers."[89]
The purified remnant would become visible only in the final "shaking" of the church by means of the straight preaching of Christ's message in Revelation 3 to the Laodicean church. All depends on this "straight testimony" of the risen Christ to the end-time church: "I saw that the testimony of the True Witness has not been half heeded. The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded. This testimony must work deep repentance; all who truly receive it will obey it and be purified."[90] -- Perspicacious 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've merged the article Criticism of Adventist Hospitals to this article, as suggested by Ste4k. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-07-02 20:15Z
The ole plagerism arguement. I've searched but have been unable to find the source. Back in the 1980'a a prominant attorney was given the task to find plagerism in the EGW writings. After his examination, he stated that she had written in accordance with the rules of the day and that no plagerism had taken place. Interesting how she's constantly accused of this, yet no one can prove it. {{user0|Maniwar}} 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
E.Shubee keeps adding the following links to the site:
* Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God * The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
I totally label them as Link Spam because 1) These have not proven to be reputable sources and 2) They act more like a blog of this Walter McGill. There are no verification of facts to his charges and no reputable news sources are cited. I deleted them because anyone on the internet can throw up a blog, but that does not make them a reputable source or even a source for that matter. -- Maniwar ( talk) 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a dispute about not knowing the difference between spam and legitimate Wikipedia content. 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
* Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God * The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
I type in seventh day adventis on wikipedia, and this comes up. Instead of someone creating an informational article about the seventh day adventis church, there is an article criticzing it. Nice Job. PrincessOfHearts 20:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether a vandal redirected one of the pages that redirects to Seventh-day Adventist Church here and PrincessOfHearts was caught before it was reverted. The redirects to this page all seem legit at the moment though, and I don't think it is worth the effort hunting it down, unless we need more evidence of malpractice by a particular editor. MyNam e IsNotBob 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I came to this article from a direct link elsewhere in Wikipedia, so I won't add to the above complaints about how badly the Search mechanism is broken if this is the top article. It must be. But the first thing I would expect to see at the top – that is, above the article – of an article like this one is wording like See Seventh-day Adventist Church for an article about the church itself. Yes, the first sentence of this anti-article does have a link to the real article, but that is not enough. -- CliffC 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the way this is dealt with at Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code is excellent. Have changed the article accordingly. MyNam e IsNotBob 08:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I notice the statement was removed with the question "what do you have against it?". 1. It says the exact same thing as the next line of the article. What is the point of having it twice? 2. The {{ about}} tag is for disambiguation, this page doesn't *need* to be disambiguated because the article title is perfectly clear about what the content of the article is. -- Chuq 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The substantial changes by User:E.Shubee have been reverted. A number of reasons can be cited, however the most compelling I see is the use of weasel descriptions like "idiotic" to describe the current state of certain links. It does not auger well for a series of changes to be accepted when description of that nature are given. My suggestion to people wishing to make such large scale changes is suggest the changes on this talk page first. In that way, referencing can be preserved and correctly done, changes can be improved on, and it will be easier to track what has happened rather than a series of minor edits which can be very difficult to follow. - Fermion 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)