Talk:Seventh-day Adventist theology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed Changes and/or Additions

After reading the various changes and revisions in the last few days, I am asking all the editors to bring their proposed changes to the talk page to be reviewed and a consensus reached....Simbagraphix (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose factual additions, citations with credible sources and accuracy in letting the reader know the information related the substance in the article. That includes factual material regarding the Seventh-day Adventist church when it comes to the seventh day part of the topic and how it is that the non-Saturday Adventists become seventh-day Adventists. So then no need to have constant rollback of facts central to the article.BobRyan777 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to look at properly sourced, encyclopedic, non-OR, NPOV revisions that will improve the article. Some further points I would make:

1. This article must not become dominated by the Sabbath, or turn into a Sabbath apologetic. There are separate articles for Sabbath already. As it is, the Sabbath section is already quite OR and has unencyclopedic tone, and poorly sourced.

2. Historical development of seventh-day sabbatarianism can be briefly mentioned, but it should not dominate. History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is where detailed historical content should go (including details of how SDAism inherited the Sabbath from seventh day Baptists).

3. Block-quoting doctrines of other churches from primary sources (eg. WCF) and highlighting similarities/differences (without support from a secondary source) is blatant OR.

It is no secret that the Sabbath is a contentious topic for SDAism and time and again, we've seen it degenerate into POV pushing. Therefore this must be handled carefully. If you wish to propose revisions, please do so here on the talk page and respect the WP:Consensus process. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If need be, we can create a Sabbath article if needed or use one that is already created and see if appropriate if major changes are needed. If not, lets have the proposed changes laid out and see what we can come to a consensus on...209.12.14.250 (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There are already several Sabbath-specific articles:

* Sabbath in Christianity

* Sabbath in seventh-day churches

* Biblical Sabbath

Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of articles related to every subject in wikipedia that is not what determines what is specific to the article. We could delete almost all the detail from the article if that were the 'guide' and say "see the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church - wiki article" (where you will also not find the details you are deleting from this article). (I don't see the Catholic page having this level of difficulty stating basic well accepted fact and I hope it never does.) In this case the point of the examples of Sunday Scholarship affirming the Ten Commandment as context in the 1800's (context that specific for the Adventist decision to go with an unmodified form of the Ten Commandments switching from being a Sunday keeping group to Saturday) is not made in any of the articles listed above. It is not at all clear what interest is served in deleting these facts of history form this article where they are central to that point. This idea "search all over wiki until you get a little info on this point" is not the guiding rule for wiki articles. It would be nonsensical to create a "Adventist Sabbath article" just to avoid placing a small amount of information "specific to Adventists" in this article (and doing so for purposes yet to be explained). This deleting of well documented context specific to a key section of this article could appear POV. Continually reverting the fully documented context detail (That all admit pertains to the article and is without question, and is specific to the article) from the article looks like the edit-war model since no reason is given for doing so. BobRyan777 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reasons have been given. I am repeating myself: original research is unencyclopedic and against WP policy. Please also consult WP:SS. Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Lets look at what is being proposed and see if it can be worked in..Simbagraphix (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the puritans section, reference to the "Lords Day" is irrelevant as it is not a founding belief. @Rob talk 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As I see it, This whole section is on the foundation and background to the beginnings of SDA theology, so the emphasis that Puritans gave to the Lord's Day SDAs inherited and applied to the Seventh-day Sabbath. --MyaWilkinson (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a false premise to state that Sunday is the "Lords Day", that makes a conclusion rather than a neutral statement. If we are to include a statement like this we must also state the well documented history of how Constantine merged paganism with christianity to form the Catholicism which was what spurred the Protestant Reformation and how the Sabbath was changed from the 7th day to the day of the sun. We need either provide a full accurate history which includes the pillar of what the 7th Day Adventists believe, or not mention it, but stating that the venerable day of the sun is anything other than pagan origins is objectively false and historically inaccurate. @Rob talk 01:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What's your beef?!

What's your beef?????? If you have a problem then spell it out. Show where something is presented incorrectly. Try reading it first! I have been slowly adding material over a period of two weeks giving other editors plenty of time to check out what I've been doing. There is nothing to discuss! --MindyWaters (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting George Knight is not exactly balanced and needs to be gone over first and the moves also are not being discussed.Simbagraphix (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

George knight is the most reliable source on SDA history there has ever been!! Period!! No one has the breadth of knowledge and accuracy as he has. He is mainstream SDA. And he accurately calls out waco fringe groups that are messing up Adventism both the progressives and the "historic" adventists. You call for review by other editors but offer no input or evidence. You appear to be the only one opposing this and yet offer no evidence for this not being balanced. Thus I figure you just don't like Knight, but have nothing of any intellect to add. Your reversions are anti-intellectual and utterly useless because you have nothing to add.. --MindyWaters (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I share Simbagraphix's concern. I found some of the earlier revisions useful, but it now looks like a complete overhaul and the material in the article is no longer organised in a way that is helpful to an uninformed reader. Instead of an encyclopaedia article about what SDAs believe now in 2017, it now looks like a highly specialized essay about the historical development of SDA teachings. Someone who wants to learn quickly about SDA beliefs is not going to be served by having to wade through mountains of information about what SDAs believed in 1888 (etc.). I might revert it back to an earlier undisputed revision until this can be sorted. I suspect that Mindy's aims will be achieved by creating a new article along the lines of Historical development of SDA beliefs. Tonicthebrown (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tonicthebrown. Mindy, this isn't an indication that your contributions are unwelcome, it's just that they belong in a different (new!) article. Simbagraphix, I'm usually in agreement with you on these matters, but I'm not sure what your concern is regarding George Knight, would you care to articulate? He's affiliated with Andrews, not La Sierra or Weimar (as spectrum examples). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, Knight is a reliable source. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The article as it now exists has the doctrine presented in a skater gun pattern which makes any possible reason for them unrecognizable. All of the SDA pillars and distinctive doctrine are related topically and historically together. For instance the Sabbath doctrine only makes sense because of the cleansing of the tabernacle and the pre-advent judgment. a sanitized list is useless. Also, SDA doctrine has changed over time because of fulfillment of Bible prophecy and present truth. It is extremely important to know why and when a specific doctrine was adopted or modified or rejected. Just saying that SDA's believe in the sabbath is about as useless as saying I believe in green. even a list of supporting texts doesn't mean much, cause someone can make a list to support some other view. You must know why. --MindyWaters (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful to start maybe another page and put the thoughts there, and not just George Knight was my point. .Simbagraphix (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, the purpose of this article is to inform about SDA theology, not to present specialised information about the history. As per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." You are welcome to create a new, historically oriented article about the developmental process of SDA teachings since the 1800s, and link it from this article. That would be the appropriate thing to do. See also WP:TOOMUCH. Tonicthebrown (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The concern that this article is to inform about SDA theology and not present it's history is belied by the article as it now exists. For instance the sections GodHead, Human Nature of Christ, Sinless Perfectionism, and Ordination of Women all present extensive history and historical development of these topics. Just these 4 topics represent 34% of the size of the article (a total of 40,200 bytes). Most of these topics are poorly written and contain extensive quotes from primary sources which is against Wikipedia policy. My intent was to eventually copy edit these sections into WP policy.

All of my recent editing added only 21,000 bytes (15%) to the article across many sections. And my sfn reference calls to Knight (about 17 times out of 147 total references calls to dozens of other sources) was hardly excessive. I was in the process of organizing them according to when they became accepted by the church group. SDA doctrine didn't appear all at once, out of nowhere, with no context. It is the context that gives SDA doctrine its force. So far no one has offered a logical reason for why the article should remain as it is. The current article is sloppy and there is no logical organization to the topics. I was giving the article background and a logical structure making it easy to see Adventist doctrine in its most cogent context. I see no reason not to continue along that line. --MindyWaters (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Trinity section is too long and detailed, and should be summarised. Same goes for the ordination of women section. The "logical reason" for keeping extensive historical detail out of this article is what I said earlier -- it needs to be useful to a reader who is uninformed about SDA beliefs, and who wants to be informed about those beliefs without having to wade through mountains of information about history going back to the 1800s. As for logical organisation: there are 4 major sections- beliefs shared with other protestants, the main distinctive beliefs, Trinitarian beliefs, and miscellaneous other topics. The organisation is very good and, again, useful to an uninformed person.

I have no objection to minor editing to make things even better, but a wholescale re-write with insertion of large amounts of history is not appropriate for this article. What is your objection to starting a new article focused on history? Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong text under the section "View of Scripture"

Dear Friends, Under the section “View of Scripture” the text “They believe instead that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical authors, and that the authors then expressed these thoughts in their own words” seemed to be incompletedly resembled here. As for the Adventists belief each and every word in Bible is written in human language by the guidance of Holy Spirit. Some part God orders them to describe the incidents in their (author) point of view (maybe inorder to record the histories). In some cases God insists the exact words to be reflected in the Scriptures (Commandments – He himself wrote). The sentence I mentioned above have incomplete meaning, as it says that Adventist follow a Bible that is written by the founder of the denomination, that is completely unacceptable. It is referred to General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (2005), there are not texts in the book to acknowledge this sense. The following sentence framing “thought inspiration” also become meaningless. Hence I have edited text here. Merlin Immanuel (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reinstated the first part of the removed text, because it accurately reflects what is said in the cited source. For example, "Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused." Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

First time?

Pastor Richard P Mendoza added some content with these words: "On Thursday, October 9, 1913 for the first time the Doctrine..." The first time it was added, the words "FIRST TIME" were capitalized. I'm wondering where that information comes from, because it's not in the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is more to do in editing this monster down in size...

I hope that someone will come along and trim the fat off and leave the facts behind succinctly said. --MarekRedmond (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)