Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Investigative judgment and salvation

The defrocked Adventist theologian Dr. Desmond Ford is the most noteworthy critic of the Investigative Judgment doctrine as taught by Seventh-day Adventists.[1] This section should summarize Dr. Ford's belief that the IJ contradicts the gospel and how The Gospel According to Jesus by John F. MacArthur totally demolishes Dr. Ford's criticism. --Perspicacious 19:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that MacArthur totally demolishes Ford's criticism is POV and should not be placed in the article that way. MyNameIsNotBob 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the use of the NPOV tag on that section is misleading. The section is poorly written, and even more poorly referenced, and generally needs improvement. -Fermion 06:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The section should not show one persons idea of what the final solution is. Showing one view and then demolishing it as if it were a straw man. That is not what NPOV is. Ansell 06:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the volume of documented support and reasoning that I had to post on this talk page to totally decimate the popular criticism of Ellen White. It can be done by accurately representing both sides. That's a NPOV but I doubt that my short victory will last.--Perspicacious 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides a straw man and NPOV issues, it's not encyclopedic. Again, you would not open up Britannica and read alternating paragraphs expressing two different opinions. Also, this shouldn't be about victories, long or short. An article should not be some kind of contest between the editors, it should be a collaboration and concensus among them. Ken 05:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus."[2]

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."[3] --Perspicacious 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And again, you would not open up Britannica and read alternating paragraphs making assertive conflicting statements. Ken 06:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Official church responses

User:Perspicacious, you did not respond to my comments regarding the NPOV of the plagiarism section. Instead, you made a personal attack in the changelog, simply reverting my changes, stating

Eeverting to the better version. "Official church responses respond" reveals ignorance. The other change sounds convoluted and is a significant step backward.

Ironically critisizing my typo responses respond with your own Eeverting. Everyone makes edit mistakes, and that isn't a reason to ignore the talk page entirely and attack the editors.

I stand by my statements regarding the POV of your version, as well as the mis-classification of official church responses, which are again below:

Some things are unclear regarding your edit. Other things need improvement. The phrase reveal many sources used is POV. The term Bible writers doesn't read well. The phrase in which McMahon points to the accuracy of the health principles espoused by White is also POV.

Finally, a third party's response is not an "official" response by any standard. Institutions that derive funding from each other, share board members, and are otherwise affiliated are still separate institutions. This is true especially of larger institutions. For example, Catholic Charities and its subsidiaries often have divergent views from the Catholic Church. NASA statements are not official United States statements, even though NASA derives funding from the US government. Likewise the White Estate and your other sources certainly have ties to the SDA Church, but their opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the church, and by no means are they official church responses. I see nothing on the White Estate's website, or adventistbiblicalresearch.org, to indicate that they are acting as a proxy for the SDA church, or that their statements constitute official church statements. Am I missing something? (Pending your review of my statement, I've added the citation-required template to your statements in question.)\

Again, please avoid personal attacks, straight reverts, and use the talk page. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how responses from other organizations equate to official church responses, since the very sources you cite refute them as being official. Ken 06:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken, a few thoughts. (1) A couple of times you have made mention to Britannica. While I agree that the standard of writing on this page needs to be improved, and that the alternating approach that has been suggested reflects a very elementary writing style, I think there is a weakness in your argument. Namely, wikipedia is redefining what an encyclopedia is. As such comparisons to standard print encylopedias can be problematic. (2) Many of the statements you have been arguing about in the plagiarism section were orignally authored by me as a suggestion of moving forward, as such I am bemused by the defense of them by perspicacious, and that you argue with him. Nonetheless, I disagree with your contention over "offical". While it is true that unless it is voted by a general conference session it can't be called offical, the current statement lacks clout. The problem is that while I appreciate your argument about NASA and catholic charities, I don't think they have application here. The two organisations in question do indeed represent the church, they are both sponsored and controlled by the church. As such, if I were wanting a position paper that represented the mainstream of the church I would approach those two organisations. In that sense it is offical. -Fermion 06:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fermion, I think a good compromise, which provides maximum accuracy, is to cite the organizations directly and explain their relationship with the SDA Church. (Which is what, in the past, I have tried to do.) I don't think the term official church responses works because it seems to put extra weight on the responses being "official". I think it's ok for it to read, "Responses from X and Y, which are associated with the SDA Church" -- or something on those lines.

Regarding the Britannica comparison. My main point is that each paragraph should stand on its own in terms of having an NPOV. I think that is true of any NPOV writing style -- from Bitannnica to the Associated Press to WP. The article can alternate in explaining each side of an issue, but it shouldn't alternate between taking each side (or any side) of an issue. Ken 05:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken, I can't see how the BRI isn't official. It is a department of the General Conference. In fact it is in the same building. Consider this quote from their website [4]

The Biblical Research Institute was established as a service department by action of the General Conference Committee in 1975.

As such the term official is completely legitimate. -Fermion 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fermion, you make a good point, although I still disagree for two reasons. (1) The White Estate is included in the responses, (2) just because an institution is funded or established by another, does not mean they are the same. Would you be happy with Adventist responses instead of Official church responses? Ken 00:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are some of these sections encyclopedic?

I am concerned that a number of sections on this page lack encyclopedic content. They are more concerned with the arguments surrounding the claims rather than who made the claims. Possibly the best examples are "Christology" and "Remnant Church Status". To steer away from being original research and not using weasel terms the article should, for example, read:

• Carrow, in his 1982 thesis Fundamentals of Christian Eschatology in the Post-Modern world, wrote that Seventh-day Adventists were veering away from the ability to use numerology to find meaning.

NOT:

• The Seventh-day Adventist church, in its 1981 statement [5], claimed that church theologians should no longer use numerology to find biblical meaning.

I hope this is clear enough in itself, if you have any questions please ask. MyNameIsNotBob 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

Negligent management at Glendale Adventist Medical Center played a major role in the serial killer scandal that hit that hospital in the late 1990's. Efren Saldivar was a respiratory therapist who confessed to police that he had killed over 100 patients by injecting the paralytic pancuronium which paralyzed the patients leading to respiratory and cardiac arrest. Several bodies were exumed and body fluids tested positive for this paralytic agent. Efren Saldivar is currently in jail. Glendale News-Press: [6]

In press release #03-159 Florida (Adventist) Hospital was forced to pay $1.4 million dollars to settle health-care fraud allegations.[7] --Perspicacious 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Critics have accused the Seventh-day Adventist Church of operating many less-than-exemplary businesses and hospitals, tolerating poor and unsafe working conditions and paying low wages with meager benefits. --Perspicacious 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand, but the claims above are supported, however, they are not in the class of arguments that this page is made up for. They are worthy of inclusion on Glendale Adventist Medical Center, and last time I looked, they were there. Ansell 13:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

General Concerns

I couldn't find an appropriate section for this, so I decided to start this one. Some general concerns I have concerning this article is related towards:

1) Ellen White: When I read this article, the strongest impression that is left on me is the (unsubstantiated) defamation of her, and not just Adventism in general. Some points (with their proofs) that should be brought up (which is not my personal decision but by the general agreement of the scholars of the Adventist community) is that:

i) How, with only a third grade education, was it possible for her to write such works? Of course many will bring up plagarism (har har). The fact of the matter is Adventists believe that with her devine gift, she was able to write such beautiful works (which have proven to be free of any grammatical errors, none the less -- such claim will indeed need a reference however).

ii) When referring to her visions, many attribute them to a neurological disorder. However, somewhere in the Bible (I'll have to look it up later, but I remember a few sermons on this, latest one by Shawn Boonstra), it outlines a critera for prophecies, and Ellen White was able to meet all of these, such as not breathing during a vision, the ability to hold up a huge 18lbs Bible for an extended period of time, etc.

iii) What many do not realise is that Adventists do not hold Ellen White's teachings as "the ultimate authority". There has been criticisms to the emphasis Adventists place in her teachings, but keep in mind her saying (of course, need a reference) that her works are not to be taken as the Bible, but rather is a lesser light pointing to the greater light (that being the Bible).

2) Annihilationism: The criticisms against the belief of annihilationism is quite weak and even seems one sided. For example, the first Bible quote given against this belief is interspersed with some other quote, and then is brought back again and argued against in the most pathetic manner. Yes, let it be known, it is a PARABLE, analogous to Aesop's fables. Ecclesiastes 9:5 should be mentioned "...the dead know nothing...". Anyhow, all in all this section is poorly worded and should be redone.

It's not a bad article, but some places really need to be reworked to clarity and cohesion. Please keep in mind I'm not trying to dilute the opposition's argument. I just think it isn't presented in a proper NPOV manner. --AtomicCactus 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A good reference for the ellen white teachings section would be Graeme Bradfords "Prophets are Human" and "People are Human", along with the quoted sources from the book. I agree that the annihilationism section is not currently balanced but I am not sure how to balance it. I think if the claims are not referenced properly then it has to go, "many critics" with one possibly isolated claim is not encyclopedic. Ansell 13:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism is inaccurate? The last paragraph states, "Since the 1960s, Annihilationism seems to be gaining as a legitimate minority opinion within modern, conservative Protestant theology. It has found support and acceptance among some British evangelicals, although viewed with greater suspicion by their American counterparts." --Perspicacious 00:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will say that the article has absolutely no references, which makes me suspicious of broad claims like the one you quote. Without references the article is not verifiable, and therefore, may not be encylopedic as you infer from your edit summary. Ansell 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But if it's not referenced properly then it has to go—so I should delete it immediately, right? I've only heard one similar statement to confirm it from a theology professor but that's not NPOV so I should delete it right now, correct? --Perspicacious 01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lack of referencing, and referencing an article are both reasons to delete, however, a more prudent course of action may be to attempt to find sources first and upon not finding any relevant sources then discuss and leave the discussion open for a reasonable amount of time. The paragraph is not harming the page in its current form as it asserts its claims well, its just not verifiable. A possibility if noone responds within a few days is to move the paragraph from the main page to here.

In terms of the Annihilationism page, it is best to discuss the whole issue on its talk page with the editors there before doing anything at all of the like. Ansell 01:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Investigative judgment and salvation

Investigative Judgment is a unique Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, teaching that in 1844 Christ moved into the Holy of Holies, where he is judging all who have lived based upon their works and commitment to Christ[8]. This has been criticised by other Christians, and some Adventists, as denying the Protestant belief that Christ completed his work on the Cross. Many Christian faiths believe in Salvation by Faith while others believe in Salvation by Works, or a combination of the two. In The Great Controversy (p. 488), White writes,

The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs for them to fill.

Can someone explain why it is reasonable to have semi-referenced semi-related claims about abuse in hospitals, when at the same time we are removing stuff about the Investigative judgment which has been perhaps one of the more controversial issues facing the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the past few decades? MyNameIsNotBob 03:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The defrocked Adventist theologian Dr. Desmond Ford is the most noteworthy critic of the Investigative Judgment doctrine as taught by Seventh-day Adventists.[9] This section should summarize Dr. Ford's belief that the IJ contradicts the gospel. It should also summarize The Gospel According to Jesus by John F. MacArthur which answers Dr. Ford's criticism. --Perspicacious 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The removed "stuff about the Investigative judgment" is trash. The fact that Nazi medical ethics can be bought at a major Adventist institution without SDAs whimpering or protesting is a reflection of the whole church. --Perspicacious 04:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with the Hospital claims, they are not general criticisms of the churches behaviour as a whole. They are related to the individual hospitals in question, and a referenced section should be available on that page. This page is not for "exposing" things that church institutions have done wrong. It is for critically evaluating what church beliefs are. What exactly is the scope that you feel this page should entail Perspicacious? Ansell Review my progress! 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Adventists' tacit approval of Nazi medical ethics is a relevant criticism. The scope is respectable criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. --Perspicacious 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So how is a set of claims about obscure church-related institutions classed as more "respectable criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" than stuff about the Investigative Judgment? MyNameIsNotBob 04:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Claims that the church tacitly approves an action by one of its hospitals is not what i deem to be relevant to the church. Has the matter ever been brought up as a church wide discussion. Has anyone outside the church used the matter to say that the church is generally doing something wrong. Ansell Review my progress! 04:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the Adventist approval of Nazi ethics is more respectable than criticism of the investigative judgment. My objection was to a trash summary. --Perspicacious 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "trash summary"? Ansell Review my progress! 04:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the summary false and not referenced, the original author and his supporters reveal complete ignorance of the Adventist IJ doctrine. --Perspicacious 05:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is my complete edit summary, the one on the page history was accidently entered too soon "rv. is it because it is a "new age" site that you can't handle it, it there an academic concern with the referenced text?"

The summary is referenced, and if you have ideas about the IJ doctrine, which is controversial and used as a criticism of the SDA church then put them down, dont delete references disparagingly referring to them as on the same level as comic books, get a better reference and help improve wikipedia. Ansell Review my progress! 10:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly about the above is uncivil or not assuming good faith as you commented on my talk page with a warning about the above. I think quotes like "Do I need to call you up and read the page to you?" and "Deleting link which does not support the claim made. Looking for matching comic book reference" and "Removing trash" are not exactly the best examples of good faith editing.

If you have a problem with a link then discuss it here, dont go reverting and placing warnings on talk pages about someone being uncivil and not assuming good faith. Ansell Review my progress! 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the version that Perpicacious had converted into a long explanation of the whole concept to the main Seventh-day Adventist Church page as it is an apologetic piece that does not fit the scope of this page. This page is for a review of the criticism and a short rebuttal. Ansell Review my progress! 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. This page is for your undocumented distortions of Adventist doctrine and destroying straw men of your own devising. --Perspicacious 23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks, but anyway, What exactly is the straw man that I was creating and then destroying. Is it better to word it in neutral voice than to say, the "that critics don't understand the typology of the Old Testament sanctuary". That is hardly neutral voice. This page is not for a straight defence from the Adventist viewpoint. A full text quote from the fundamentals page adds nothing to the value of the section, and your remarks about the intelligence of critics also is not for wikipedia. Ansell Review my progress! 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure my firewall will allow me to edit. Just testing. Will leave statement in a minute. MyNameIsNotBob 23:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to have any extended expositions of church doctrine anywhere on this page. It is well out of the scope of this article. What we are dealing with here is the criticisms. We need to be discussing who and why is making what criticisms. That is the scope as far as I see it. That, in my mind means that copying the fundamental statement is not necessary. MyNameIsNotBob 23:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice that "reference its lack of biblical basis" isn't NPOV? --Perspicacious 11:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it is basically NPOV, with a question about the "lack" part. It is stating that critics, reference, its (the policy), lack of biblical basis (a clear statement, although possibly has a POV as lack hasn't been defined) Ansell Review my progress! 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This section has turned into an apologetic for the church. At every stage the churches position does not need to be defended. To do so would make this article unbelievably NPOV. -Fermion 08:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please justify the Shut door section?

I am baffled as to the inclusion of the two paragraphs about the Shut door theology in this article. There is no explanation in the paragraph that justifies it as Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Further, an extended explanation of the origins of the teaching really belongs on History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Unless someone can justify this paragraph in the next couple of days in a way such as I have suggested earlier on this page, I will remove it. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 05:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a criticism that is used against the church, the references explain that. It is used to say that the church stopped believing that anyone else could be saved after a certain time. Which way am I supposed to justify it anymore in? It already fulfills the verifiability criteria, and it is within the scope of reasonably widely known criticism's of the church. Ansell Review my progress! 05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the early belief in the shut door theology. However, I am still not aware that anyone has criticised the church for holding to that theory for the first few decades of its development. MyNameIsNotBob 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is used commonly as a part of a claim that Ellen White was a false prophet because she claimed she had a vision which showed the shut door concept, and then later she revoked the claim. That is how it relates as a common criticism. Ansell Review my progress! 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I get your drift. Just the articles wording doesn't imply it. MyNameIsNotBob 07:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Section of questionable point

The below section did not make much sense on the page. I would like it fixed before it is returned. -Fermion 06:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Phariseeism

It has been alleged that "The average member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church thrives on self-righteousness and hypocrisy."[10] Ellen White has made similar accusations numerous times:

"One matter burdens my soul; the great lack of the love of God, which has been lost through continued resistance of light and truth, and the influence of those who have been engaged in active labor, who in the face of evidence piled upon evidence, have exerted an influence to counteract the message God has sent. I point them to the Jewish nation and ask, Must we leave our brethren to pass over the same path of blind resistance, till the very end of probation? If ever a people needed true and faithful watchmen, who will not hold their peace, who will cry day and night, sounding the warning God has given, it is the Seventh-day Adventists. Those who have had great light, blessed opportunities, who like Capernaum have been exalted to heaven in point of privileges, shall they, by nonimprovement, be left to darkness corresponding to the greatness of the light given?" The Paulson Collection of Ellen G. White Letters, p. 349.

"I entreat you, brethren, be not like the Pharisees, who were blinded with spiritual pride, self-righteousness, and self-sufficiency, and who because of this were forsaken of God. For years I have been receiving instructions and warnings that this was the danger to our people." The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 166.

Curiously, Ellen White thought that a solemn message might stir up the Church to see their deplorable condition:

"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.

What's to understand? --Perspicacious 00:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. The page addresses criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

2. The word Church applies, in part, to its people.

3. Ellen G. White is a worthy critic.

4. Ellen White isn't the only one claiming that Adventists are Pharisees.

5. The context of the section is Cult Status.

6. When people think of Seventh-day Adventists and cults, they think of Phariseeism.

7. The charge of Adventists imitating the Jewish Church of the first century comes from God Himself.

8. Ellen White said that God revealed this to her many times.

The biggest problem that I see here is that the large quotes are unnecessary. Whevever I am instructed on how to write an essay it is emphasised that inline qoutes are far better than block quotes. If your statement (4) is correct, where are the references to others? If it is as per (5) why is it in its own section? (6), I struggle to believe this. I had never heard the term prior to this page. (7) is unreferenced and POV. (8), once again - reference? MyNameIsNotBob 06:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The accusation of cult status and the character and attitude of the Laodicean Church are thematically linked.

"We want to understand the time in which we live. We do not half understand it. We do not half take it in. My heart trembles in me when I think of what a foe we have to meet, and how poorly we are prepared to meet him. The trials of the children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ—how the enemy sought every occasion to take control of the minds of the Jews, and today he is seeking to blind the minds of God’s servants, that they may not be able to discern the precious truth." 1SM 406.

"The character and prospects of the people of God are similar to those of the Jews, who could not enter in because of unbelief. Self-sufficiency, self-importance, and spiritual pride separated them from God, and He hid His face from them. . . .

"The Jews despised the good that was proffered them in the time of Christ, and after the long forbearance of God, the things that were for their peace were hidden from their eyes—that which, if received, would have been to them their greatest blessing became their stumbling block. Thus it is today among us. . . .

"The light of truth is shining upon us as clearly as it shone upon the Jewish people, but the hearts of men are as hard and unimpressible as in the days of Christ, because they know not what they oppose. Many who claim to be standing in the light are in darkness, and know it not. They have so enshrouded themselves in unbelief that they call darkness light, and light darkness. They are ignorant of that which they condemn and oppose. But their ignorance is not such as God will excuse, for He has given them light, and they reject it. They have before them the example of the past, but they will not be warned, and unbelief is enclosing them in impenetrable darkness. They refuse to accept the testimonies they ought to believe, and are ready to accept tidbits of gossip and testimonies of men, showing their credulousness and readiness to believe that which they want to believe." 11MR 286-287.

"We see that we are in no better condition than the Jewish people." 1SAT 95. --Perspicacious 11:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what your comment has to do with the discussion. MyNameIsNotBob 12:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)