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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Remnant Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality, not quantity

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

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

...

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

...

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

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

How do Adventists explain this statement?

...

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version

Ellen G. White

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amended version

Ellen G. White

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

18. The Gift of Prophecy: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.) [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perspicacious

Confirmed cult status

The current section titled Cult status, where the Seventh-day Adventist church is accused of being a cult, is not written in the usual accusation/answer format and displays no rational response to the charge. The statement about "allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists" isn't referenced and the current response, which is also not referenced, that the schools of the cult "are open to all" doesn't refute the charge of being a cult.

The current section reads as follows:

Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.

In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like . For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching. Although he later reversed this opinion and belief and later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.

Others class Adventism as an unorthodox Christian denomination, including, for example, John Whitcomb, Jr. Allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists, and the importance placed on Adventist education for children are also major allegations of what is colloquially thought of as cult-like behavior. In their defense, Adventists respond that their educational system is designed to instill character and faith in their children; indeed, Adventist schools are open to all.

In describing their opposition to ecumenical changes, some Adventists refer to Ellen White, who wrote that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."

I propose the following improvement:

Cult status

Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.

In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like. For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching. Although he later reversed this opinion and belief and later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.

Richard Kyle, an evangelical Christian writing from the perspective of a historian in his largely uncritical book, The Religious Fringe: A History Of Alternative Religions In America, seems to take a middle of the road approach and writes of Seventh-day Adventists as being somewhat cultic:

"Whether the Seventh-day Adventists are a sect, a cult or a denomination is a matter of intense controversy. Some evangelical scholars have insisted they that are cultic. Others have claimed that they are not. Some scholars have reviewed the institutional developments of the Seventh-day Adventists and asked whether this onetime sect has now become a denomination.

"This study will regard Seventh-day Adventism as a sect. To be sure, they possess some cultic characteristics."

In defense of the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists it should be pointed out that Ellen G. White, the recognized prophetic voice of Adventism , has responded to the charge of cult-like behavior of the church in a humble apology:

"The remnant church is called to go through an experience similar to that of the Jews; and the True Witness, who walks up and down in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, has a solemn message to bear to His people." Selected Messages Book 1, p. 387.

"My brethren and sisters, humble your hearts before the Lord. Seek him earnestly. I have an intense desire to see you walking in the light as Christ is in the light. I pray most earnestly for you. But I can not fail to see that the light which God has given me is not favorable to our ministers or our churches. You have left your first love. Self-righteousness is not the wedding-garment. A failure to follow the clear light of truth is our fearful danger. The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people." Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 15, 1904.

Many Seventh-day Adventists are quiet about Ellen White's prophetic assessment of the church. They are eager to join the Christian mainstream. In contrast, historically conservative Adventists confess being Laodicea and are thankful that they differ doctrinally from the majority on biblical orthodoxy. They see agreement with mainline Christendom on all points as an invitation to damnation. Seventh-day Adventists teach that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven." --E.Shubee 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's not one accepted "cult" definition. I've met some adventists in my days, and they're not isolated from other people like f.ex. Jehova's Witnesses, they're not behaving bad (except of course one former girlfriend of mine that deserved ... never mind), so if they're "cultic", they're so weakly "cultic" that it's not worth mentioning till the day we have one unified definition of cult. And that won't happen till all cultic mind-controlling ideologies (including neo-liberalism and communism) have died and been buried forever. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

The section titled "Cult status" uses weasel words to suggest that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has repudiated previously trusted revelation or fundamental beliefs in order to change ecumenically. There is no evidence of this. The weasel phrase states, In describing their opposition to ecumenical changes, some Adventists refer to Ellen White, who wrote that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven." --E.Shubee 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Comments

Plagiarism

Leading sentences in the plagiarism section say, "The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that White's use of sources was typical for a nineteenth-century writer and that her use of other authors was limited" and "Fred Veltman ... was asked to analyze the charges of plagiarism." However, the cited Ministry Magazine for December of 1990 says "The content of Ellen White's commentary on the life and ministry of Christ, The Desire of Ages, is for the most part derived rather than original." (p. 12). "Ellen White used a minimum of 23 sources of various types of literature, including fiction, in her writings on the life of Christ." (p. 13). The finding of the Desire of Ages Project was that 31 percent of the Desire of Ages was "in some degree clearly dependent upon material appearing in our 500-plus literary sources." (p. 6). The average dependency of the dependent sentences "rated just a little higher than the level of 'loose paraphrase'." (p. 6). Furthermore, Fred Veltman, the one commissioned to do this research project, denied that his research had anything to do with plagiarism. "As I pointed out in my report, the investigation did not treat the issue of plagiarism." (p. 14). --E.Shubee 03:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. You will not that one change has been addressed. I am unable to see the other complaint. Could you spell it out as clearly as you possibly can? -Fermion 03:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use the statement about plagiarism out of context. Also, the article does not need to reference the editorialised "truthorfables" link. There is a perfectly fine, unemphasised version here (Djvu format). Ansell 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two sentences that contradict each other. "In 1982, Fred Veltman, then chairman of the religion department of Pacific Union College, was asked to analyze the charges of plagiarism brought by Walter Rea and others against Ellen White." This leads us to believe that the Desire of Ages Project relates directly to our section topic, which is plagiarism. Yet in the referenced article, which was written by Fred Veltman, Dr. Veltman says, "As I pointed out in my report, the investigation did not treat the issue of plagiarism." (Ministry Magazine, December 1990 p. 14).

Also consider the weasel features of the plagiarism section. The Desire of Ages Project was highlighted but its conclusions were not summarized from the study itself. Instead, a book by Graeme Bradford is cited as if he represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That's ludicrous. We're not even given a page number to where his doubtful statement is cited or justified. Bradford's statement is doubtful because no one man represents the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perhaps it can be said that the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes in its 28 fundamental beliefs but even that is probably not exactly true. However, to say "The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that White's use of sources was typical for a nineteenth-century writer" is absolute nonsense. Such a claim doesn't appear anywhere on the Church's list of official statements: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/index.html --E.Shubee 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the section should not be called plagiarism, as that is not the correct connotation for the historical context. The fact that the term plagiarism is used by critics of the church does not mean it is a valid criticism.

The statement by Graeme Bradford reflects the consensus of the church, unless you can find a statement to say otherwise. The entire book that is referenced deals with the issue, including the 1919 Bible Conference. Please deal with the statements without calling them "absolute nonsense." Ansell 05:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions User:Ansell. I have changed the name of the section accordingly. I agree that Bradford represents a consensus of theologians, historians, and to some extent the laity. As I am sure you have read the book, you will be aware that Bradford's position is the much closer to Ellen White's contemporaries than some of the ideas that have been promulgated since. -Fermion 05:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is another major contradiction. Fred Veltman wrote:

"Initially we researchers were assigned to study the entire text of The Desire of Ages—all of its 87 chapters and more than 800 pages. We soon found we had neither the time nor the staff to tackle a project of such scope. To reduce the textual base to manageable size, we asked statisticians to select 15 chapters that would serve as a random sample of the full text." (Ministry Magazine, December 1990 p. 5).

Now compare that to the vaporous non-quote from Bradford's book that has no page numbers, allegedly read by Ansell:

"The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that White's use of sources was typical for a nineteenth-century writer."

In other words, the Seventh-day Adventist Church only had time to analyze 15 out of 87 chapters from the Desire of Ages but somehow were able to profile all nineteenth-century writers for their comparison with Ellen G. White. Who completed that part of the larger study? --E.Shubee 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what your allegation is pointing to. There is no contradiction there. A belief can be founded on a statistical subset. Also please do not make personal attacks on myself as an editor and calling a statement as "vaporous non-quote... allegedly read by" is not assuming good faith. Ansell 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote: Veltman, page 861, (above the original quote that was referenced without its original context above):

"We did not make a thorough study of the full content of these earlier writings, but we did include in our analysis those materials written on the same topics as the DA chapters researched"

That shows that Veltman did research outside of the scope of the DA writings, and hence is able to comment on the matter. A Bradford quote will take a little more time to find as that is not an electronically available source. Ansell 06:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, your Veltman quote clearly proves that the Desire of Ages Project did not consider a typical nineteenth-century writer. --E.Shubee 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:Ansell, I was trying to find that quote myself. I put the page number on the main article. Fermion 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, E.Shubee, the statement does not say that. It considers typical nineteenth-century writers in the same genre, any other statement cannot have a contextual meaning. Ansell 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Most critics would probably respond by saying that if all of Ellen White's religious contemporaries sole the work of others without giving credit then their combined guilt doesn't excuse the sin of Ellen G. White. --E.Shubee 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note the addition of an additional reference from the Ellen G. White Estate where it is spelled out that "Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used them, she made them uniquely her own"--adapting the selections into her own literary framework. (emphasis added). I too, see no contradiction. -Fermion 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in citation given

In the Plagiarism section, this statement is made: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that White's use of sources was typical for a nineteenth-century writer." In the reference to the White Estate, nothing is said about what was typical for a nineteenth-century writer. Furthermore, in Ministry Magazine, December 1990, Fred Veltman, of the Desire of Ages Project, denied that his research had anything to do with plagiarism. "As I pointed out in my report, the investigation did not treat the issue of plagiarism." (Ministry Magazine, December 1990 p. 14). Please don't cite a 2,561-page report to prove a contradictory claim without giving an exact page number. --E.Shubee 14:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also ask you not to provide one-sentence "proofs" instead of putting some effort in to read the report. To quote Veltman, p 858--859:

"The project advisors have warned me that many will not read the full text of this report, particularly the research data and the analyses. Many, I am told, will not take the time to read the introduction to the research." This observation has turned out to be quite correct. On the plagiarism issue Dr. Veltman clearly stated on page 48 in the Introduction that because of time constraints his study would be limited "to a strict source study, omitting questions of context and the issue of plagiarism." 71.193.74.224 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC) David J. Conklin

Please take the time to read the report, or stop putting "tags" on the main article claiming you have infact found through your research that the claim is unverified.

As to the Ministry article quote, you may be interested in the rest of the paragraph, which puts your sentence in context: (Veltman, Ministry, December 1990, page 14)

"As I pointed out in my report, the investigation did not treat the issue of plagiarism. While we cannot settle that issue here, my personal opinion is that she is not guilty of this practice. We did find verbatim quotes from authors who were not given credit. But the question of plagiarism is much more complicated than simply establishing that one writer used the work of another without giving credit. A writer can only be legitimately charged with plagiarism when that writers literary methods contravene the established practices of the general community of writers producing works of the same literary genre within a comparable cultural context."

As to what should be there is the bold section which you could not have missed, Ministry, December 1990, page 13, top right, "We found that Ellen Whites sources had used each other in the same way that she later used them" (A statement which removes an ethical definition of plagiarism from the picture).

If you insist on using, and retroactively applying, a modern definition of plagiarism, (ie, copying with referencing), it is not something that she could have foreseen with her work, and hence it is not a complaint against her that she could have defended herself. Unless you have new material, it may be more productive for you to focus on another topic. Ansell 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I never invoked a modern definition of plagiarism and don't care if Ellen White was a plagiarist or not. Deal with whatever definitions the critics use. I'm asking you to answer Ellen White's critics honestly. Part of that honesty requires including the opinions of the BRI and the White Estate that were removed from the article. --E.Shubee 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What are the critics saying that is not satisfied by the current definition. What are the opinions of the BRI and White Estate that you are referring to. Also, please stop referring to the statements as being contradictory. What is the part of the statement that is contradictory given the source. And please quote them verbatim. Ansell 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A denial of the obvious still persists

It's wrong to pretend that the article Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church complies with Wikipedia rules when the facts say otherwise. It's clear that the following claim isn't supported by the citation given: Fred Veltman, was asked in 1982 to analyse the works with a scope of detecting whether both "literary borrowing" and/or plagiarism were a concern given cultural views on plagiarism in the literary context she lived in . --E.Shubee 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make up new sections of discussion to back up your personal use of tags on the main page. A reply to the point above would be a good place to keep discussion going. Also see above for why there is no contradiction, and please discuss your use of large tags for "disputes" before you put the tags on. Unless there is a recognised dispute then the tag is irrelevant. Ansell 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hell

Weasel words are cropping up again.

"It is a common belief among most Christians" is general and sweeping, and begs the questions: Which Christians? What percentage of the Christian populations are we talking about? Where are these beliefs documented? In the same sentence: "While traditional Christianity teaches:" Who do you mean? RC? Eastern Orthodox? Jewish Christianity?

It's all in the detail.

Trishm 11:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I also do not understand where the criticism is in this section. It seems more like a grenade toss meant for shock effect. Without a cited, explicit criticism, this section is nothing more than original research. It needs to either be revised or deleted. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, it is the definition of what "traditional Christianity teaches" that includes the weasel words: "Traditional Christianity teaches that, for the sins of a brief earthly life, the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell and will continue to suffer this torture for all eternity". What "traditional Christianity" teaches this? And, the words "the wicked dead" and "fire and brimstone" and "sins of a brief earthly life" are all examples of weasel words. Many, many Christians reject the idea of an eternal "burning" in Hell. "The wicked dead"? "Suffer this torture"? Please. If those aren't weasel words, I don't know what is. "Traditional Christianity" does not teach that an eternity in Hell is "torture", instead it is the just punishment for those that reject the propitiation of Jesus Christ. NO "traditional Christianity" teaches that Hell is "torture". These are weasel words, pure and simple. I intend to edit this passage and back it up with citations, something this article is abysmally lacking. Supertheman ^(talk) 20:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I just changed a few spelling mistakes. However, I also discovered that there are two spellings of fulfilment. I changed them all to the British, not realising double 'l' was acceptable. Feel free to change them back. Fermion 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I note that the large majority of the editors for this article claim to be Seventh Day Adventists. Is it fair to have the criticisms page regularly edited by Adventists? I believe that by and large they will be more interested in the defence of the criticisms as opposed to pointing out in a neutral tone which criticisms exist. I'd hate to see this article loose it's credibility as the Wikipedia articles on the Free Mason's have due to bias editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.28.150.120 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one am seeking NPOV and verifiability. Are you? Colin MacLaurin 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am. This seems to be more of a defense of the SDA church than a criticism.Scarymonstersandsupercreeps (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Assurance of salvation

Can someone point out where the criticism in this section is? Is there a critic who denounces something regarding the "assurance of salvation"? If so, it needs to be cited. Otherwise this section may need to be deleted. As it stands I don't understand the section's purpose. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Shouldn't this article be named Criticism of Seventh-day Adventism? This isn't a criticism of a "church" its a criticism of the SDA religion. All the other articles such as Criticism of Atheism, Criticism of Islam, and Criticism of Christianity have titles as such. Any objections? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it. However, if there are criticisms specific to a church within the religion, they should probably remain in a separate article. We're dealing with the same issue at Criticism of Mormonism. That article needs to be split up into two articles, one movement-wide (Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement) and another denomination-specific (Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The Latter Day Saint movement has several churches / denominations, yet the article treats movement criticisms as being specific to one church (the LDS) only. That being said, shouldn't the article be renamed Criticism of Adventism? When I click on Seventh-day Adventism, it takes me to the SDA church. However, Adventism has its own article; it seems to be a more general term. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You bring up good points. I am not all that familiar with SDA so I'm really in no position to make any judgement calls on that. I just noticed a difference in all these pages and thought there was a lack of consistency. It makes it hard to find the other articles... I was looking at Criticism of Christianity and wanted to find Criticism of Catholicism but instead came up with a search screen telling me there was only Criticism of the Catholic Church which I thought was odd. I suppose the issue could be dealt with by splitting this article... if anyone wants to do that. But as for now it should be ok to rename the page to prevent any confusion while the other issues are being dealt with, right? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait a while to see if anyone else wants to chime in on this subject, but what do you think? Should it redirect to Criticism of Adventism or of Seventh-day Adventism? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Annihilationism section

The section on annihilationism, which is already tagged for original research, does not seem to contain any actual criticism, either of the SDA Church or of annihilation itself. As it is now, I don't see why it belongs in the article, so I am about to remove it. Kansan (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shut door theology removal

Some of the vast removals seem to be justified enough (I did one the other day as I happened to be traveling through this part of Wikipedia), but is this one justified? I did write on the user's talk page regarding it, because I think the reasoning for that removal seems somewhat flimsy. I'd rather discuss than start an edit war, but it is possible to go too far in trimming down an article. [10] Kansan (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added this back in as it was per your request, thanks. 2Peter14 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding quickly and for the work you've put in on this article. Kansan (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This section should really be removed as a separate section, condensed and put in the Ellen White section. The current format suggests it is a major or current fundamental SDA belief. It is only relevant with respect to accusations that Ellen White was a false prophet. Sjdferg (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the criticsm are failure... Noob... And you are totally insane. Read Matt 7:1,2. for expand your thinking. And, it's all nonsense. It doesn't makes any sense by using Wikipedia to makes other feel and think like you. TOTALLY INSANE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HHitoshi (talk • contribs) 05:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Christology section

Does the current format of this section wrongly suggest that the post-fall Christological view of Jesus is the official or majority view within Adventism - when it is neither?

This charge is often given as another ‘proof’ that the SDA Church is a cult. However, the criticism is technically irrelevant, because the SDA Church actually has no official position on the subject, with the official SDA position being: “However, the church has wisely not elucidated in a doctrinal statement the specific nature of Jesus' human nature.” See:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/christ%27s%20human%20nature.htm

With respect to individual Adventists, there is a variety of views, consistent with the broad debate found within ‘orthodox’ Christianity itself. Both sides of the debate try to rely upon Ellen White for support. A quick search of the SDA General Conference’s Biblical Research Institute will demonstrate the SDA Church very fairly provides articles from scholars advocating both positions. For example, see: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/humannaturechristunfallen.pdf http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/humanatureChristfallen.pdf

Just a suggestion Sjdferg (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are the 'traditional' Adventists referred to in this section exactly? And there doesn't appear to be any reference for the statement, "Many Adventists believe that Jesus was beset with all of the moral weaknesses and frailties that ordinary humans experience, including the inclination to sin." Who are these Adventists and who says they believe this? 161.152.28.136 (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Trinitarian section

Does this fail the NPOV test under the criteria of "undue weight".

I am not sure if the whole premise of this section is factually correct. It says, "Several Seventh-day Adventist scholars have acknowledged that the Adventist view of the Trinity is different from the historic, orthodox Christian doctrine." This is not really the true, with the various references really being about how "historically" early Adventism had a range of unorthodox concepts of God, include Arianism, Pantheism and Tritheism.

This section especially gives the impression that these Adventist scholars are currently (as opposed to mere historically) advocating a form of Tritheism, or other type of unorthodox form of Trinitariansim, which isn't the case. The only reference that seems to be dealing with contemporary Advenist view on the Trinity is the last one by Fortin, Dr. Denis; however, the part quoted does not say the modern SDA Church rejects a 'historic, othordox' view of the Trinity but merely reject some of the philisophical assumptions that the Early Fathers hadin order to arrive at that same and agreed conclusion.

The failure to distinguish historical beliefs from current Adventist views on the Trinity is a major issue for neutrality. If these references are going to remain, the current and official position of the SDA Church should be quoted, which as fundamental belief #2 says: “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.”

Furthermore, the current text says "the Adventist view of the Trinity is different from the historic, orthodox Christian doctrine." What exactly is the 'historic, othordox Christian doctrine' exactly? Does the author mean the Chalcedon Creed - if so perhaps say so. Remember, there are a variety of 'ancient' and 'othorodox' views on the Trinity, for example, there is Monophysitism, Miaphysitism, Docetism and Nestorianism to name just a few theories. Moreover, many branches of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which arguably are just as 'historic and othordox', such as Syrian Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church, Coptic Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and Armenian Apostolicism, reject the Chalcedon Creed. In any event, there is no indication that the SDA rejects the Chalcedon Creed's formulation of the Trinity.Sjdferg (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical versus current criticisms

Many of the criticisms seem to relate to past, historic views of unendorsed Adventist individuals in the formulation of Adventist theology, rather than current and official views held by the SDA Church. Obviously, the first SDA pioneers didn't just wake up one day will a full set of beliefs, but rather they were formulated gradually. As part of that theological development, some early founders had unorthodox beliefs not shared by the majority of Adventists or the SDA Church (either then or today). It is no different from trying to accuse the Early Church of promoting circumsission, given the issue was not resolved until the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15); or Roman Catholic Church of Arianism, given the full doctrine of the Trinity was not forumated until later Ecumenical Counsels.

I think there is a strong case that most of these criticisms better fit in the separate and existing wiki article on the history of the SDA Church, which does include the history and development of Adventist theology, for example the progression of early 'unothordox' views on God towards a more 'mainstream' view of the Trinity. Furthermore, in the absence of properly referenced contemporary criticisms, this separate criticisms page is fast reaching its use-by date and perhaps should be deleted, esp in light of wiki-policy in favour of putting criticisms on the main article page? 161.152.28.136 (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Investigative Judgment

Further to the comments about this separate page being a little useless, the investigative judgment section appears to be a very poor work compared with the separate investigative judgment wiki page. 161.152.28.136 (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Further major revision work

I notice that despite a number of concerns and comments raised by many, notably sjdferg, no one has done any further work or even further replied in this forum after some months to discuss the issues raised. Therefore, I have taken the initiative to do some further revisions myself. Happy to discuss Fatima51 (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I have substantially re-worked this and re-inserted many of the major criticisms that have variously been taken out over time, to the point that this page had been pointless and a little misleading. To solve the ongoing debates re the NPOV, I have divided each issue into a criticism and response part, to ensure the reader isn't mislead and gets a better overall picture of the points of both sides. If you want to be partisan, instead of the previous guerilla blogging wars that everyone one doing before, one can now put additional references in whatever relevant section and side of the issue in an orderly manner less misleading to readers.Fatima51 (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I think the new structure is fairer to both Adventist and non-Adventist contributors and ensuring the article overall maintains a balanced and NPOV. I see a lot of the issues in other related wiki articles have migrated back in. Good, because it didn't make sense for these related single issue wiki pages to have criticism sections but there being nothing on this main generic criticism article.Sjdferg (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder if others might think the current format of dividing each issue into a criticism and response section amounts to POV forking? However, I notice the Wiki guidelines say:

There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).

On this basis, I think the current format is still best because: i) the whole criticism page itself is arguably a POV fork that arguably should be deleted; ii) the new format ensures that both faults and merits are included as relating to each issue, as is advised by wiki; iii) it is immediately obvious to a reader whether a sentence is meant to be a criciticism or a response to a criticism, and stops contributors just deleting whole sections (i.e. it is pretty obvious if say one criticism section was there but the responses were deleted); and iv) it serves best to stop strong and vocal critics (both for and against Adventism) continually re-writing the whole article to be either totally anti-Adventist or pro-Adventist, as seemed to occur previously. Sjdferg (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like no one has really looked at this page substantially in years (I note the last major threads were in 2006), not merely months. I think a major re-write was in the cards.Sjdferg (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoever removed my emboldened parts of quotes - that is ok. However, you should have then also deleted the brackets (emphasis added), because obviously the emphasis no longer exists. If people stylistically prefer they might also want to consider italicising these quotes. Not sure what wiki guidelines suggest.

I would appreciate whoever changed this did this work please. Perhaps they could put all the quotes in those nice fancy quote boxes? Happy either way.Fatima51 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "emphasis added". Sorry, I should have caught that the first time around. Direct quotations are not italicized in Wikipedia. There are so many quotations in this article that if they were all put in boxes the article would be cluttered and difficult to read. We mustn't get too carried away with fancy formatting -- it can make the article difficult for people to read, which defeats the purpose of having the article. Ground Zero | t

More criticism quotes

I think the page is once again looking a little more balanced, and ensures that the main criticisms are actually mentioned (rather than just deleted by Adventist contributors), but equally making sure official Adventist responses to these crticisms are quoted as well - as recommended by wiki guidelines. However, I am just wondering if people thinks a few more quotes from critics re each criticism are needed?

I only suggest this because in many cases the response to the criticism is actually longer than the criticism itself. Not sure if that is a problem as such, but it would be nice if the criticism and response parts were about equal length, with equal numbers of quotes. I know some Adventist contributors might disagree, given wiki guidelines mention not necessarily giving equal weight to some minor or unfounded criticisms, but I think it is best for the credibility of the page.

I am other happy for people to just add in further criticism quotes and references as they think fit.Fatima51 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sabbath change to Sunday section

I just cut and paste some of the content in this part and moved it because it was misleading to readers. It was in the criticisms section, which was probably the wrong place, because it included quotes saying the RC Church and Martin Luther alleging it was the authority of the Pope and not the Bible that authorised the change. Therefore, it really was a response and I have thus moved these paras to the response part.Fatima51 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cottrell":

• From Investigative judgment: "The 'Sanctuary Doctrine' – Asset or Liability?" by Raymond Cottrell. This paper was presented publicly to groups at least twice – in 2001 Cottrell presented it to the 2nd Jesus Institute Forum (website), and 2002 Larry Christoffel, associate pastor of the Campus Hill Church of Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California delivered it to the San Diego Adventist Forum; Cottrell was present and both fielded questions. Some footnotes are missing in the link provided. Adventist Today hosts a version in 14 parts – see parts 12 and 13 for the missing footnotes
• From Progressive Adventism: "The 'Sanctuary Doctrine' – Asset or Liability?" by Raymond Cottrell, presented publicly in 2001 and 2002
• From Robert Brinsmead: Cottrell, Raymond (May 1999). "Whither, Robert D. Brinsmead?". Adventist Today. 7 (3). Loma Linda, CA: Adventist Today Foundation. ISSN 1079-5499. Retrieved 4 November 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned Cottrell references were added in this edit. I (sentient) could also not tell what was intended here... --Mirokado (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Views inside and out of Adventism

I have added further info into this section about the 1919 Bible Conference. I think it is very relevant to the topic on views of Ellen White, and notice there is already an existing wiki page on the topic.Sjdferg (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sabbath as 'Today' and Heb 4

I have inserted a criticism that the Sabbath is 'Today' as found in Heb 4. It is a common criticism cited and thus deserves to be listed here. I have quoted a whole passage from "Grave Communion International", which I hope non-Adventist contributors will agree was the fair thing to do. However, I have equally quoted the SDA official position on this text, so again I hope Adventist contributors will agree was the fair thing to do. I hope both Adventist and non-Adventist contributors will agree that this provides the most overall NPOV, and gives readers links if they wish to explore further. Sjdferg (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with this section, Sabbath as "Today":

1. "Some critics" is an example of a weasel word, we need examples of who has said what about this.
2. The quote is a generic answer to a question about the Sabbath. It is synthesis to use this to illustrate a criticism of the Adventists. Providing the necessary examples will probably render this quote unnecessary.
3. The quote only refers to one of the verses mentioned above.

There is another problem which applies I suspect to much of the article, for which I will create another section, #Copyright violations --Mirokado (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (update Mirokado (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

References

It seems clear that the references in this article need some systematic updates. I have started with the Major critics section and, depending on any reactions here, will carry on through the article. I will be entirely happy if others also update some of the references, there is a lot to be done. We need:

• clear attribution of quotations
• short references linking to a common full citation for commonly cited works, particularly for citations with page numbers
• to remove ibid etc from the references, as already tagged
• consistent use of inline references instead of citations sometimes appearing in the article text
• complete references (author, date, title, work, location, publisher, isbn, access date etc as appropriate). These should preferably be completed by the person adding the content, as it takes much less time to do that with the reference already available

I propose to do this by using various templates which generate short form references automatically, including merging identical (book and page) references. These are {{sfn}} and friends and {{cite book}} and friends using the |ref=harv or whatever parameter. These templates play nicely with current uses of the cite * references, so it is not necessary to change everything at once.

More systematic references should not become a sort of tyrrany, inhibiting valid contributions, but they will help maintain the article quality. We can always "tidy up" later as long as content is added with reasonably complete references to start with.

(I removed an unsigned section with no visible content and the same name from the start of this page) --Mirokado (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have consolidated the references to Canright 1889 as an example, in the process resolving a dead link and providing a page number. Also had a look at an ibid, which required a different, specific url. This shows that what starts out as mere "tidying up" often reveals substantial problems, which sometimes can even be solved. --Mirokado (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

More or less finished the reference updates for the Major critics section. The changes have been fairly systematic despite occasionally large diffs, and have involved the rest of the article when the citations involved other sections. I hope you will agree that the references for this section are tidier and more complete. Before continuing with individual references in other sections, I will try to get rid of the Ibids and make the block quotations consistent: delimiting each quote with the blockquote tag and wikifying, for screenreader users for example. --Mirokado (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ibids now removed. Several are replaced by citation needed. I will continue working on this article, along with any fellow editors of course, the next general targets will be the use of blockquote tags etc for accessibility and dealing with long quotes which are copyright violations, with references completed as I encounter them. The rate of subsequent work will be slower than was possible this weekend. --Mirokado (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are some long quotes from books, other websites etc which I think amount to copyright violation. Such quotes must be replaced by clear summaries of what the sources are saying, or removed. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The long quotes in Sabbath as "Today" are an example of this.--Mirokado (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I now find that material has been copied verbatim, and at least in some cases without acknowledgement, from adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com, which as a blog is probably not a reliable source. I will remove all such material straight away as a serious copyright violation. If this leaves sections with no further reliably-sourced content I will remove them. If this leaves a section unbalanced, for example all criticisms and no response, I will move the rest to a sandbox page. --Mirokado (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The first of many recent edits by Fatima51 (talk · contribs), dated 15 April 2011 is a clear, unacknowledged copyvio of this blog entry dated 11 March 2011. There are lots of subsequent edits. The article as it stands is riddled with content copied from this blog.

This edit, an example from another major recent contributor Sjdferg (talk · contribs) wikifies some previously added content, and adds some references ironically including some to adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.

I see no practical way of disentangling any remaining new content from the copyright violations, so I have restored the article to its latest presumably-clean state. With some regret I must point out as I have done quite a lot of work on it over the past few days, unfortunately a lot of that was modifying the copyvios! I will ask one of our copyvio experts to review my action. --Mirokado (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church. --Mirokado (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Top examples from the duplicate detector analysis comparing just one file from the blog with the version of this article before I had started to edit the copyvios:

• this is with a minimum of four words for a match and disregarding copied quotations
• some phrases were copied into more than one section of the article
• content was copied from other pages in the blog too

Downloaded document from http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com/2011/03/17-who-says-sda-church-is-cult_11.html (78317 characters (UTF8), 1047 words)

Downloaded document from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church&oldid=458047074 (442965 characters (UTF8), 16928 words)

Total match candidates found: 389 (before eliminating redundant matches)

Matched phrases:

as noted by george r knight professor of adventist church history at andrews university writing in graeme bradford's people are human 2006 p11 12 adventists have arguably brought some of this outside criticism on themselves in particular since ellen white's death in 1915 the sda church has fostered a false mythology of her writings inconsistent with scripture objective fact and ellen white's own explicit instructions settled understanding as cited above it is also acknowledged in fairness to some ex adventist critics especially those who grew up in the sda church between 1915 and 1980 that adventism did indeed go through an admittedly reactionary and fundamentalist period however as noted by several contemporary adventist theologians and historians such as gary land in adventism and america 1986 and graeme bradford's people are human 2006 p94 one must distinguish the sda church as existing in the times of ellen white and early pioneers compared with a legalistic type of adventism that was fostered by some including for a time by much of the sda leadership after ellen white's death as ex adventist observers bull and lockhart admit in seeking a sanctuary seventh day adventism and the american dream 2nd edition ed 2006 89 91 (201 words, 1241 characters)

furthermore according to some observers such as kenneth samples given adventist theology fits within an arminian framework the sda church's harshest critics are much more likely to come from a reformed theological background cal minian (35 words, 235 characters)

kenneth samples pdf finally according to the late adventist theologian samuele bacchiocchi most criticisms of ellen white come from former adventists many of whom were church pastors see http www

background cal minian finally according to the late adventist theologian samuele bacchiocchi most criticisms of ellen white come from former adventists many of whom were church pastors as noted by

(24 words, 162 characters)

... Matching phrases found: 19

including quotations in the match gives 38 matching phrases out of 1418 candidates

Thanks to Moonriddengirl for demonstrating this tool. Once we are both satisfied that this section gives a clear picture of the problem, one of us will close it. --Mirokado (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There were also earlier copyvios. I include here extracts from some, not necessarily all, runs of the duplication tool.

founded calvary community church in phoenix az a 12 000 plus member church affiliated with calvary chapel where he is currently senior pastor in the intense debates regarding the inspiration

--Mirokado (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I would regard the article as clean now. At least, any other problems will be less serious and more difficult to find. --Mirokado (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101008062819/http://ministrymagazine.org/archive/1993/June/adventists-and-evangelicals-another-viewpoint to http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1993/June/adventists-and-evangelicals-another-viewpoint

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)