Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Former good article Seventh-day Adventist Church was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Top-importance).
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Christianity / Adventist (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (marked as Top-importance).
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Seventh-day Adventist Church:


  • This needs to be well referenced and talk about establishment of the movement. Phrases such as This message was gradually accepted and formed the topic of the first edition of the church publication, The Present Truth should be avoided. (The phrase is insider POV).

Practices and customs

  • "Sabbath activities" needs to be cleaned up... ? too much unnecessary detail


  • The entire criticism section seems to fails to present a neutral point of view. Specifically, as it stands it seems to be strictly a defense against criticism.

Structure, polity and institutions

Priority 1 (top)
Special Topic Archive
  1. Discussion regarding Graham Maxwell

Ellen White[edit]

It should be pointed out that the belief that Ellen White was a profit is by no means universal in Adventism, is a subject of common debate among members and even in sermons, and her teaching are much less central to modern Adventist doctrine. Regardless of the idea of a unified singular opinion on the matter suggested by some users (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the adventist belief in Communes?[edit]

i have heard that they belief in retreating from the world into remote communities or communes. to separate them from the evils of society what is this belief called? and where is mentioned in the doctorine?

There is no Adventist belief in Communes or the activities you describe. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ellen White actually says that families with young children should get out of the cities and move to the country to prevent the influences of evil on their children. However, like Enoch, couples and singles should reach out to the people in the cities and tell them the good news of Jesus. However, if you feel the effects of the evil on your soul, you should retreat from your city missions and go to the country to protect your own soul. It's what Enoch did. Also, you should check out the book Country Living by Mrs. White. Fablina (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a movement within Adventism that seems much like a commune movement. It began with what has been called the self-supporting work. The founder of Wildwood, W.D. Frazee led in the establishing of self-supporting institutions in various locations. One of these establishments, Oak Haven, near Pullman, Michigan had a significant influence on me as a youngster. Our family would attend their camp meetings held on the forested campus near Pullman. The youth of those attending had a grand time associating with each other, playing games, hiking the oak forest, etc. These self-supporting institutions did not follow official church communal doctrine; such a doctrine has not been formulated. But they have been rigorously established using the Wildwood model. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC) There are some Adventists that prefer a rural lifestyle, but there are many people like that in rural America. Also when reading Mrs White's writings about cities consider the unhealthy conditions in cities in the late 1800s - like living in a 3rd world slum today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talkcontribs) 08:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A commune is defined as "a group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities" - this "sharing possessions" is not what Adventists do. Each Family whether in the city or in the country has its own home, property etc as you find in all towns every day. The fact that country living is the preferred model set before Adventists (in books like "country living" ) does not change that fact.BobRyan777 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


I wrote a letter to the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada to ask them what Babylon means. I just received the response. This information needs to be in article for it to be correct.

Dear Rob,

Your question is: "Does (the term Babylon)refers to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Or does it refer to everyone who does not observe on the Sabbath? Or many different types of Christian people?"

Our Answer: Babylon is presented in the Book of Revelation with these characteristics:

First, in Revelation 14:8 you have:

   a) Fallen -- which implies a state of apostasy.
   b) With the wine of her adulteries -- An unfaithful woman is symbolic for Fablina (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC) an apostate church.

Then, in Revelation 17:1-7 you have:

   a) The same picture of a prostitute with the wine of its adultery.
   b) In its forehead you have "Babylon ... the mother of prostitutes." The term mother implies that this prostitute has daughters who follow her.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has always considered that the term Babylon encompasses all apostate churches, churches that have departed from the sound Biblical teachings of Jesus as well as the prophets and apostles. Of course, it includes the Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant Christian denominations that have also departed from the Biblical teaching.

See attached an extract from the book The Great Controversy.

I hope this clarifies the issue for you. Have a nice day,


Nilton Amorim Secretary/Vice-President for Administration Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada 1148 King Street East, Oshawa, ON L1H 1H8 (905) 433-0011 ext. 2083

Rob.saberon (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is really helpful. Thank you. I'm not sure, though, if a private letter constitutes an acceptable encyclopedic source. In any case Mr. Amorim does not say anything much different from QOD. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rob.saberon, I like you're style! user:sumaterana —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Babylon can also mean a backslidden seventh-day adventist church. If you would like me to provide proof for that, I can. --TaylorLanebore me 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism removed[edit]

There are some things in this article which break wiki policy, the main one is the fact that some parts of article should be moved to criticism section.

Roman Catholic Church is known for religious exclusivism, they claim to have truth, and that all others are more or less wrong, just as they claim that there is only one true church, other Churches couldn't be called churches, Peter was first pope, Jesus founded Roman Catholic Church and so on.... another words, claims which are disputed by majority non-RCC Christianity.

However, article regarding their "exclusivism" is in article called "Criticism of Catholic Church", not on main article, same is with Islam and all other Christian, or non-Christian faiths. Why? Becouse it is wiki policiy, parts of articles which are criticism focused go in criticism article, if such exists. And such, indeed does exist. For that reason I have removed "Exclusivism" section to "Criticism of ... Adventist Church"

The whole or great majority of Criticism section should go to "Criticism of ... Adventist Church"

If not, I will start one in Roman Catholicism article, which is probably most criticized religion in world, but has no word on Criticism in main article. Wiki has to use same rules for everybodey, all are equal. Roman Catholic Religion is not "over" the rule.

If someone wants to put back criticism, he has to discuss it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, discussion ought to occur before unilateral removal of the criticism section.
The criticism section of this article has been present and stable for over 18 months now, and has enjoyed the wide consensus of editors. It does not breach any Wikipedia policies in any significant way. It is fair and balanced. It has not acted as a troll magnet.
Criticism is a legitimate part of an article on a topic, in the interests of NPOV. I encourage you to read WP:Criticism and specify any ways that you think this section is in breach. Discussion on this talk page is the next step of the process, before large scale revision. By moving the material to a separate Criticism article, you have created a POV-fork, which is against policy.
With all due respect, a negative attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church is not sufficient reason to remove the criticism section. Thanks, Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is absolute shit. I came in here to find honest information about this church, not a loving tribute clearly written BY the church. I know just from experience, reading, hearsay, etc, that this church is controversial. Reading the article, you'd think the sun shines out this church's ass.

The sun (or son) does shine out of our ass. How dare you question us! Go to hell, you wicked heathen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

With all respect for you, when you go to islam, Hinduism or Catholicism article you will have same impression, bad words are not nice to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaterana (talkcontribs) 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to believers in Christ, Babylon is a people who are confused about what the gospel really means. The gospel is good news to the drunk, because when Christ through the presence of the Holy Spirit enters into one's soul the drunk is no longer under the control that degrades him. That's just one instance. Babylon just believes that there is a Christ and they miss the power that the real gospel gives us. Read writings of John Wesley and Andrew Murray —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is accurate I am an SDA and everything said in here is the truth.Smartpotatoe (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the current criticism section is just right - it just touches on the three major issues of criticism, and then allows for a more detailed discussion in the separate criticism article. The problem is with the separate criticism article itself, which fails to adequately differentiate early historical views of individual Adventists from current and official stances of the SDA Church organisation. Sjdferg (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your disgust, Unnamed Friend, gives you no excuse to use bad language. These words may be read by little children. And yes, you're right--we are a very controversial denomination, and it may seem that we don't know what we believe anymore, but just because we are divided doesn't mean that we are bad people. Oh, and to the person who wrote "The sun (or son) does...How dare you question us! wicked heathen!": do you think berating and cursing will help anyone? Especially the Adventist church? I am a strong advocate of Romans 12:14. Anyway, (if you couldn't tell lol) I'm a Seventh-day Adventist, and probably nobody could give a really unbiased "definition" of our church. Most who know anything about us are either for us or against us. But I don't worry--things will be settled when Jesus comes again. Until then, I will wait for Him to reveal what has gone on in the hearts and minds of every one of us. I am not afraid, and I hope you aren't either, Unnamed Friend. May God bless you and keep you, and be with you in all your ways. Fablina (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Fablina

I have noticed that if you compare the Seventh-day Adventist writeup to the Catholic church writeup you will find that both have a wiki page dedicated to criticism of the group - be it Seventh-day Adventist or Catholic. What is "different" in the treatment here on wikipedia between the groups is that there is added to the SDA page a massive percentage on "criticism" with many sections - and this is not the case for the main Catholic page. I am not suggesting it get spread around to other denominations but there should be a more objective standard in format and practice used. BobRyan777 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text about adventist calling ... babylon[edit]


Finally, it is alleged that certain Adventist beliefs and practices are exclusivist in nature. Non-Adventist critics have raised concern about the Adventist claim to be the “remnant church”, and the characterization of Roman Catholicism[1][2][3][4] as "Babylon the Great" (Rev. 17,5), just as was believed by many great reformers such as Martin LutherCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). , Jean Calvin and others. These distinctively Protestant understanding of eschatology is said to legitimize the evangelism of Roman Catholics, just as some other evangelical Christians believe.[5][6][7]

Also Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that all Christians (Protestants or Orthodox) who seek to return to Roman Catholicism and accept Pope of Rome as a Head of Church of Christ on Earth are to be considered as daughters who came from Her ("Mother of Harlots" Rev 17,5).

Adventist theologians also state that the doctrine of the remnant does not preclude the existence of genuine Christians in other denominations.[8]

"We fully recognize the heartening fact that a host of true followers of Christ are scattered all through the various churches of Christendom, including the Roman Catholic communion. These God clearly recognizes as His own. Such do not form a part of the "Babylon" portrayed in the Apocalypse."
— Questions on Doctrine, p. 197.

I believe that this section now accurately depicts the teaching on the nature of Babylon from the Church sources. I didn't want to come across as hostile to your point of view, I just wanted the article to be accurate and now I think it is. (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted the article to be accurate and now I think it is. - indeed it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I have a problem with these sentences:
"just as was believed by virtually all great reformers such as Martin Luther[5], Jean Calvin and others. These distinctively Protestant understanding of eschatology is said to legitimize the evangelism of Roman Catholics, just as many other evangelical Christians believe."
The appeal to "virtually all great reformers" and "other evangelical Christians" is non-objective, and unencyclopedic. The wording sounds like you are trying to persuade someone of an opinion (i.e. that Rome is Babylon), rather than objectively stating a fact. Such an argumentative tone is inappropriate here.
Also, the quote from Donkor also is not suitable for this section. It is not relevant here, in a criticism section, and appears to be some kind of apologetic for the Adventist view. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I admire you're comment and I have made some neccesary editions which you proposed, I hope that you're satisfied now:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. Hopefully we can reach a mutually appealing wording soon. Here are some further issues I have:
    • I still do not think it is appropriate to mention the "great reformers" view of Catholicism, for the same reasons stated above. That would be tangential. It's only purpose would be to enhance the credibility of the SDA claim that Catholicism is Babylon -- which is not the issue here. All that matters is the plain fact that Adventists have traditionally associated Catholicism with "Babylon" -- it does not matter who else has also done so.
    • "This distinctively Protestant understanding of eschatology". This is inaccurate, and POV. The view of Catholicism as "Babylon" is rare in Protestantism today.
    • "Evangelism" is not an appropriate word, because in common Christian usage it means taking the gospel to non-believers in Jesus Christ. The word should be "proselytism", which refers to persuading a person from one religious system to another, even when the person is already a Christian believer.
    • "Evangelism (or proselytism) of Roman Catholics". Not accurate, as Adventists in historic and modern times also proselytize other Protestants, not just Catholics.
    • "Just as some other evangelical Christians believe". Again, not appropriate. This sentence is only here for apologetic purposes, and is tangential.
Here is the wording that I would approve:

Finally, it is alleged that certain Adventist beliefs and practices are exclusivist in nature. Non-Adventist critics have raised concern about the Adventist claim to be the “remnant church”, and the traditional association of Roman Catholicism, along with other denominations which accept Catholic doctrine, with "Babylon". These attitudes are said to legitimize the proselytising of Christians from other denominations.

We can include in a footnote that Protestants who accept papal doctrine have been called "daughters" of Babylon (as in QOD chapter 21). That is a piece of fine detail which does not need to go in the main article body. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, criticism will not be in the main article at all, as is with all other religions, as far as regarding me you're "version" is good but needs some better wording(in literal sense).

Adventists call other protestants Babylon[edit]

This is second part of statement mentioned here - "and the traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations " as "Babylon"

Problem comes with second part of this statemant, I understand what's some editors point, but... you have to give a qoute for "other denominations", and this qoute has to be from some adventist source and it has to be existing web site or official document, not a Weasel word like statemant

  1. "People say…" (Which people?)
  2. "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
  3. "It was written..." (Where was it written?)
  4. "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
  5. "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
  6. "It has been mentioned that..." (Who mentioned it?)
  7. "It is known that..." (By whom is it known?).
  8. "Concern has been raised about..." (Who raised the conserne?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone gives a good statement which has source reliable and not a Weasel word this claim can stay. But if there is no reliable source I propose this (second part) to be deleted.

- Please check out the sources on these pages:  (pay attention to sections 2 and 3)
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 

The article on this website suggests that the current version of the article is accurate: Rob.saberon (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sory sir but I have no where there read about protestant denominations beeing babylon.

Regarding this article

There is no word on protestants beeing babylon, there is just said that eccumenical movemant as it is right know is bayblon style becouse of it's disunity and confusion, this is opinion of many other christians and that article actually speaks about eccumenism, and ecumenical movemant not about ecclesiology

Regarding this article

Sorry to say but this is bad qoute, you're missing there two keywords both protestants, and babylon. It mentionts nor word protestant/ism, or Babylon, so its unfair to say that we say that protestants are babylon, when there are no such words there.

Regarding this article

First of all it is not at all adventist source, but a non adventist apologetic website countering SDA doctrines and even calling it "a cult" [1], it's clearly not "independent source"

Second of all, there is no word like "protestants" there or "protestantism" or "denominations"

Third of all it says that "God's call is to come out of Babylon to follow Jesus and truth."

it doesn't say that Protestants are Babylon, it just says that some churches are more like Catholic then Bible believing, this section doesn't say that you have to go SDA to be saved, that SDA is "only true church", "remnant church" or simmilar, it speaks about Sabbath/Sunday worship doctrine in particular, not ecclesiology in general. Becouse of that it's usless to link to them trying to prove a claim that they don't claim, or is taken out of context.

Unless you give so called "credible source" and a qoute from which it is obvious that we believe that all other protestant denominations are Babylon, The second part of statment above which I dispute will be deleted. Its unfair and unjust to say that I belive (SDA) something that we don't believe or say. User:Sumaterana

I am asking for a Smoking Gun (as G.W. Bush used to say), a clear qoute, official statment, simple sentence (declerative), not a Weasel word like sentences, from non reliable or non independent sources, which have no keywords.

I'm asking for a regular sentence; which has a subject and a predicate indicating what you claim. I honestly don't belive you'll ever find it but you can try and google it out, have a good time searching for it, but remember unless you find it, article will be changed in my favour, I wish you a lot of luck! I suggest you to start searching official documents or SDA Bible commentary (which I regard as reliable source). User:Sumaterana

This article says that Protestants, Orthodox and others may be considered babylon, but as individuals, not as organisations. In any case this explanation should be reflected in the paragraph to clear up the misunderstanding. (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I respect you're thoughts, I read a bit of article, but I ask for a clear qoute where Seventh day Adventist church say's that other protestants are babylon, I repeat, unless there is such qoute, article will be changed in my favour.

may be considered babylon, but as individuals, not as organisations. I agree with this statemant, but the same could be claimed for adventists who live like a world but are formaly in SDA church, you dn't need to be theologian to make such clame. It's obvious to anybodey who reads Bible.

One digression - we speak about alleged SDA claim that other protestant denominations as babylon, not individuals in protestant churches, as is mentioned in the article that you provided. I please others who provied a link to carefully read link that they provide and to be shure that it is focuesed on subject that we discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are two examples:

"WHAT IS BABYLON? Under the judgments of the Almighty this alliance breaks down into three parts. Rev 16:19.(It is riveting to notice that the cities of the nations then fall. All round the world many of their tall buildings are like dominoes on end.) Religiously Babylon includes the dragon, the beast and the false prophet. V14. These are paganism(the Satanic gospel, including New Age spiritism): the Papacy and apostate Protestantism. " from

"What is “Babylon the Great” called in Rev. 17:5? This text says that she is, “The mother of Harlots.” NOTE: The symbolism here is of a great mother church which has daughters who have sprung from her. It takes no genius to figure this one out. The great Roman Church claims openly to be the mother church and repeatedly makes public appeals to her separated children to return to her. The daughters who came from her “protested” and pulled away from the mother and became known as Protestants. The name BABYLON is a family name which includes both mother and children. It is shocking and sobering to realize that God is clearly indicting both mother and daughters as fallen." Written by a Seventh-day Adventist Pastor from

At least SOME church members think that 'apostate Protestantism' is a part of Babylon. (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was amazed by qoutes you gave, they fulfilled 3 key conditions

1. Adventist source 2. Good keywords 3, Plain and clear sentences from which is obvious what is belived and claimed

However.... These are not official doctrines, but... i'll pass over that, but I please you to accept part of article as I propose it, I hope that my version has pleased everybodey, and if not I suggest you to help me and make revisions (we all together). My edition looks "anti-catholic", I don't dispute it, but, so is our theology[2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a little confused, no? It is not a denomination as a whole that will be sent to hell, but individuals themselves that make their own decisions. There are many who are nominal members of the Seventh-day Adventist church who will not be saved, and there are many in other denominations who will enter into the joy of our Lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fablina (talkcontribs) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged "Restorationism"[edit]

Seventh day adventist Church is a protestant denomination and is seen as such in the whole world. Attempt to make it classified as Restorationist movemant just like some NRM like movemants (Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons) are going to fail.

Reason for that is that Seventh Day Adventist Church is a respected protestant denomination, as is clearly visible from its interfaith relations with other Protestant churces.

They are seen as protestants by mainstream protestants, and are classified as protestants worldwide, as is not case with Jehowah Witnesses and Mormons. Attempts by anonymous users such is to change this status are not going to pass.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This very neutral and credible website classifies the Seventh-Day Adventist as Restorationist: Rob.saberon (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, SDA belives in progressive revelation, not restorationism like Jehowas, or Mormons belive. We NEVER claim apostolic succesion, to be apostolic church or simmilar things like JW, LDS and catholic church claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on Restorationism says: "Restorationist organizations include Christian Conventions, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saint movement, Seventh-day Adventists, and others." check it out. (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventists[edit]

Seventh-day Adventist Church generally does not consider their denomination as a restorationist movement, because they believe in progressive revelation.[9] Another words, that God was continuous unfolding prior revealed truths, such as baptism by immersion only for those who believe in Jesus Christ, keeping Saturday as a Sabbath day (day of rest) and similar doctrines which they consider as biblical, but which have been removed by Roman Catholic Church in past. They do not claim Apostolic Succession, as do some other restorationist and non-restorationist denominations.

Criticism section[edit]

"In general, making separate sections with the title 'Criticism' is discouraged." (Wikipedia:Criticism) It should be easy to rework the criticism into other sections. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point Colin, and thanks for alerting us to the Wikipedia guideline. However my opinion is that the criticism section in this article is reasonably justified. I have watched this article for well over a year, and it does not appear that this criticism section is acting as a "troll magnet". The section has remained balanced and stable pretty much indefinitely.
The SDA church, along with other sectarian movements and splinter group churches, has attracted the kind of criticism throughout its history which targets the church as a whole; i.e. it is alleged that this is a body which has departed from historic orthodoxy and set itself up as an exclusive "club", and therefore the movement or denomination as a whole is illegitimate (in the context of Christianity as a whole). This may be contrasted to a situation where individual aspects or components of something are criticised, rather than the entity as a whole. This leads me to believe that "criticism of the SDA church" is a discrete topic which deserves its own section rather than being worked into the rest of the article. IMO, if it is successfully argued that a "criticism" section is inappropriate, then the criticism article logically ought not to exist (and indeed there may be something in this...).
Perhaps Evolution is a good analogy. There is plenty of "criticism" of the theory of evolution, but of different types. "Scientific" criticism is appropriately integrated into the main body of the article, whereas cultural or religious criticism which attacks evolution as a whole, and claims that it is illegitimate in its entirety, is more appropriately addressed in a separate section ("Evolution#Social and cultural views").
I hope I've made some sense here! I look forward to futher discussion about this Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs updating[edit]

The WP:LEAD reads like a sales brochure, not like a summary of the entire article. It needs updating. This is an encyclopedia article, not a normal article. I have a rule of thumb that ensures good coverage: If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead. -- Fyslee/talk 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments, Fyslee. Personally, I feel that the lead currently does a fairly good job of summarising the article. Though I would also raise the following suggestions for possible improvement:
  • "with a worldwide membership of over 14 million and an active presence in most countries of the world." - perhaps this does sound like a bit of an advertisement; however I think it's important to state the membership. Perhaps it can be reworded and moved down to the bottom paragraph.
  • Don't really think it is important to explain the title. Currently the sentence is clumsy: "The title refers to the Church's belief in the imminent second coming (or "Advent") of Jesus, and the observance of the "seventh day" of the week (Saturday) as the Sabbath."
  • "It is more widespread than any Protestant church" -- hmm, that is a bit like an advert, I don't think it's necessary. (especially when we've already stated the membership)
What do you think about the following new version?
The Seventh-day Adventist (abbreviated "Adventist") Church is a Christian denomination which is distinguished by its observance of Saturday, the "seventh day" of the week, as the Sabbath. The denomination grew out of the Millerite movement in the United States during the middle part of the 19th century, and was formally established in 1863.[10] Among its founders was Ellen G. White, whose extensive writings are still held in high regard by the church today.
The Seventh-day Adventist church is closely aligned to Protestantism, although some critics regard it as a sectarian movement. Its theology corresponds to key evangelical teachings such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Distinctive teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. The church is also known for its emphasis on diet and health, for its promotion of religious liberty, and for its culturally conservative principles.
The world church is governed by a General Conference, with smaller regions administered by divisions, union conferences and local conferences. It currently has a worldwide membership of over 14 million people, has a missionary presence in over 200 countries and is ethnically and culturally diverse.[11] The church operates numerous schools, hospitals and publishing houses worldwide, as well as a prominent humanitarian aid organization known as the Adventist Development and Relief Agency.
Tonicthebrown 12:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I have made it "live", lets see what happens! Fermion 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I basically think you're doing good work, but my concern was more related to the requirements for the lead section as found at WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb above ensures that we meet that requirement. Are all sections with a heading represented in the LEAD? At the time I noticed the problem, I was looking at the criticism section. (It could just as well have been another section.) I noticed that there was no mention of criticism or controversy in the lead, and that is a serious lapse. It needs to be fixed. Just look at each section, summarize it in a sentence or two, and then take them and write them in some form of nice prose and add it to the lead. The lead should summarize the whole article so that the lead can stand alone, and so that a reader will not be surprised by the unexpected appearance of information in the article that was not mentioned in the lead. The lead is what in other places is called an "introduction." Wikipedia expressly does not use that term for a section (and it should be removed and reworded if found!), and uses a "lead" without a heading instead. -- Fyslee/talk 07:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ongoing discussion and assistance with this article, Fyslee. In my opinion each of the major sections are covered by at least one sentence or phrase in the lead. I'll use a table to illustrate. Tonicthebrown 09:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Origins and early history The denomination grew out of the Millerite movement in the United States during the middle part of the 19th century, and was formally established in 1863.[2] Among its founders was Ellen G. White, whose extensive writings are still held in high regard by the church today.
Beliefs Its theology corresponds to key evangelical teachings such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Distinctive teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment.
Culture and practices The church is also known for its emphasis on diet and health, for its promotion of religious liberty, and for its culturally conservative principles.
Organization The world church is governed by a General Conference, with smaller regions administered by divisions, union conferences and local conferences. It currently has a worldwide membership of over 14 million people, has a missionary presence in over 200 countries and is ethnically and culturally diverse.[3]
Adventist mission The church operates numerous schools, hospitals and publishing houses worldwide, as well as a prominent humanitarian aid organization known as the Adventist Development and Relief Agency.
Criticism The Seventh-day Adventist church is a Protestant denomination, although some critics regard it as a sectarian movement.
Independent ministries, offshoots, and schisms This is the only section not represented in the lead... my opinion is that it is more of an appendix than part of the main article, and thus doesn't need a corresponding mention in the lead. Do you agree or disagree?
Great table. I love it! I think a couple points deserve better mention in the lead (getting back to what made me notice the problem): the "Criticim" section only mentions external criticism. What about internal criticism? Weight wise it deserves more space. The last section may feel like an appendix to you, but other readers may feel otherwise. It is in the article and IMHO believe it deserves some mention. -- Fyslee/talk 19:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions for how we could include a succinct mention in the lead? Tonicthebrown 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Internal criticism? Amen! I have been the primary editor responsible for trying to add it. One of the most major inaccuracies IMO is regarding the authority accorded to Ellen White. It is not just that external critics say White is or has been overused in the church. The majority of Adventists themselves agree (at least about the past)! I have noticed that church employees of all types (Review editors, scholars progressive or conservative, etc.) all believe that a significant portion of members overuse Ellen White. (Mind you, on the other side of the coin, probably most are also concerned that many youth are ignoring White. I would be very surprised if this is not a documentable fact). This should remind us of NPOV - explain all major viewpoints, roughly in proportion, and tiny minority viewpoints might be excluded altogether. For external criticism, sources used are not often the best sources - e.g. websites run by non-notable individuals. Colin MacLaurin 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some documentation of internal criticism would be good. However, please note that keeping it balanced is likely to be a complex and delicate task. Remember that internal criticism comes from both the conservative and progressive ends. So a progressive may criticise the church for overusing EGW, while a conservative will criticise the church for embracing "new theology" and undervaluing EGW!! Do we include Larry Kirkpatrick's comments that the progressives are damaging the church and should just get out? Tonicthebrown 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
(I found good sources that youth mostly ignore Ellen White and have added them to that page and another. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Worldwide presence[edit]

Regarding "advertising", I agree that some of those statements sounded like advertisements. However they are also very important encyclopedic pieces of information. e.g. This was recently deleted, and I state it here for example and also to recover it for discussion: "It is more widespread than any Protestant church.[12]" It is a very significant fact that the Adventist church is very widespread. Stating that it is the most widespread after the Catholic church is actually a more precise, and non-weasely way to state this. I don't see why this fact wouldn't belong in this article. In the very least, I believe it ought to be placed on the General Conference article, which I envision as a sort of "Seventh-day Adventist Church by region" article. Colin MacLaurin 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't have any problem with such a statement, as long as it can be documented using good (non-SDA) sources, and the source is then used as an internal reference. The better referenced things are, the fewer problems. -- Fyslee/talk 12:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have 2 issues. (1) I would like to know the precise definition of "widespread". Eg. does it mean geographically widespread, or something else? On what basis or criteria is the SDA church second most widespread after Catholicism? This needs to be spelled out, or else it does sound a bit weasely. (2) I agree with Fyslee that we need a reliable and independent citation for this fact. If these concerns are met, I won't have a problem with the statement going in the article. However, I think that it should go somewhere in the article body (eg. under "structure and polity" or "membership"), as the lead already has enough material. Tonicthebrown 09:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Vagueness, imprecision, and lack of neutral references are things that create unpleasant editorial disputes and other problems. The better references we have, the more stable the article will be. A repetition of Adventist myths and urban legends (yes, we have them! Why should we be different than everyone else?!) is also something we need to avoid. It is easier for persons like myself from old multi-generation Adventist families to fall into that trap. That's why it's good to have non-Adventists and new Adventists editing here. -- Fyslee/talk 18:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding sources, I notice that Seeking a Sanctuary seems to be a highly regarded book. Written by a non-Adventist academic (at Cambridge or Oxford I recall), and a former Adventist journalist, it is certainly not biased towards the Adventist POV. The journalist claimed it is a neutral attempt to describe the church. I have noticed some Adventist educators have used it in the classroom, and I have read positive reviews by Adventists, so one would expect the POV is indeed neutral. A second edition recently came out. I plan to buy it eventually, but I suspect this will be a good source. However I also suspect that other sources will disagree on some points, so remember NPOV. From an interview of one of the authors I read, I recall he used the term "historic Adventist" more broadly than the Wikipedia article, including what I would call conservative "mainstream". My point is, use discretion. Colin MacLaurin 02:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Best sources to use[edit]

I would like to see this article reach "Featured" status, but I believe the major improvement which needs to happen first is to get better sources. (The photos could also be better). Please add books (particularly) below, preferably with a book review from a reliable source, so that we know they are indeed the best sources: Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC). Feel free to edit this section wiki-style. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Seeking a Sanctuary seems generally regarded as the very best book. Written by two former Adventists, it aims to provide a neutral assessment. Described by respected historian Gary Land as the best book.[3]. Barely any references at the moment. Col 17 December 2007
  • Historical Dictionary of Seventh-day Adventists by Gary Land. Keith Lockhart said "the entries on art, music and literature are pretty good."[4] I've added some references but a lot more could be added. Col 17 December 2007
  • Seventh-day Adventists Believe... by the Ministerial Association of Seventh-day Adventists. Published by Review and Herald in 1988. User:Tonicthebrown has added quite a few references so far. Col 17 December 2007
  • Seventh-day Adventist Commentary Reference Series (especially including Encyclopedia [originally published in the 1950s so old], Bible Dictionary, and Handbook of SDA Theology [more recent]). Not many references at the moment, but there should be many - this is a notable collection. Col 17 December 2007
  • Questions on Doctrine (1957). Dated now, but a very important source. The related books by evangelical Walter Martin, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism (1960) and Kingdom of the Cults in which Adventism appears in an Appendix (i.e. not a cult) have been highly influential.

I believe there is a big shortage of non-Adventist material as well. Dale Ratzlaff has been described as the leading critic. These and similar others deserve mention, but generally represent only a very conservative POV. Keith and Lockhart are much more notable, and have received excellent reviews.

Public perception, Gilmore girls[edit]

Sorry Colin, but I really do think this is rather trivial. I wouldn't personally have added it to the article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Do what you like with it. Nam did present a paper on it at this year's ASRS meeting. He mentioned on his blog it was by far the most significant reference to Adventists in film/TV. Yet maybe it should be deleted. I had in mind for this section quoting Seeking a Sanctuary and other studies, about general public ignorance of Adventists, confusing with JWs and Mormons etc. based on hard qualitative surveys. I do think some of this cultural stuff is missing. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, it would probably be quite worthwhile to have some info about "general public ignorance" based on good studies. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My copy of the book should be crossing the Pacific Ocean anytime now :-) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC) One survey showed Adventists were slightly more disliked by the general [American?] public than Mormons... ugh (no offense to LDS church members!) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the seven day Adventist Church a Cult? They seem to follow the old testement rather than the more modern teachings of Christ.[edit]

Headline text[edit]

IT IS A CULT BECAUSE IT KEEPS ON POINTING FINGERS AND EXPLANING ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

its not a cult. look up cult. sda's just FOLLOW what the Bible teaches. *dream on*dance on* 20:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talkcontribs)

Oh, but it is a cult. My dictionary says a cult is a system of religious veneration directed toward a particular figure or object: the cult of St. Olaf. Seventh-day Adventists (whether they know it or not) worship the Sabbath, and (contrary to their popular claims) hold Ellen White (their modern-day prophetess that had many incorrect prophecies) in higher regard than the Bible itself. Ellen contradicts the Bible many times, and yet the Adventists carry Ellen onward as their standard-bearer. Adventists: You cannot pick and choose. No on-the-fence business. Either choose Ellen, or choose the Bible. Can't have some of both; they are by nature contrary. If you remain on the fence you'll be spat out by Jesus. Either you are for Him or you are against Him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are very misinformed. Ellen G Whites writings are not a replacement for the Bible. They are a sort of "Companion Guide" to the Bible. Unlike other denominations Adventist follow many of the things the Bible says to. And Jesus will spit you out if you continue your ignorant ways. (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A book by E G White on the cover says "Ellen G. White has undoubtedly been the most influential Seventh-day Adventist in the history of the church. She and her husband, James, provided strong leadership as the church was founded and organized. Her personal presence and her writings did much to shape and guide Adventism. Her counsel and insights continue to direct the Adventist Church. Today millions look to her writings for guidance and motivation." I am not competent to determine what a cult is or is not, but I subscribe to the basic doctrine that "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays eggs like a duck, flys like a duck, there is a possibility that what I am observing, 'might be a duck'!"Ken (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@Ken. The Pope is undoubtedly the most influential Catholic person in the history of the Catholic church. He provides strong leadership and his presence and writings do much to shape the Catholic church. His counsel and insights continue to direct the Catholic church. Millions look to his writings for guidance. So is the Catholic church a duck too? Allenroyboy (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to heard your opinion about the SDA church. Don't you see the difference between "worshiping" THE Sabbath and "worship" ON Sabbath? I am an Indonesian but even came from a non-English speaking country but understood the difference between those 2 terms. May God bless you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Mamamrimbing (talkcontribs) 05:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's quite amusing and alarming to see the speed at which people are ready to label the SDA church a cult. I am willing to bet that most of the accusers have done little research about the church save for a few hysterical websites that peddle this rubbish.

I'm actually a militant atheist (check my wiki contribs for proof!), but I was raised in the SDA church, and I am here to tell you that far from being a cult, they are mostly excellent human beings. Totally deluded, and wrong-headed, but no more than those of any other belief system rooted in the supernatural.

Yes, they are exclusivist, but which church isn't? The very fact that numerous Christian churches exist, is proof positive that they believe they know something the others don't. The truth is that all churches believe that they, and they alone, have the 'truth'.

The term cult is actually a bit of an irregular verb anyway. I mean what distinguishes a cult from a regular religion? The number of adherents? The 'strangeness' of their views? Who decides? When I saw this debate, I was reminded of the quote: "A cult is just a religion without any political power".

It was this general ignorance that caused Lindy and Michael Chambelain to be subjected to a kangaroo court. The simple fact is that the SDA church is almost indistinguishable from any conservative Christian denomination, except for a few very minor points of doctrinal obscurity. HappyGod (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Traditional view of other churches as Babylon[edit]

This (unsigned) message was posted on my talk page.

Regarding SDA

Sir, I dn't dispute you're knowledge, but you're claim "and the traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations " as "Babylon"

Problem comes with second part of you're statemant, I understand what's you're point, but... you have to give a qoute for "other denominations", and this qoute has to be from some adventist source and it has to be existing web site or official document, not a Weasel word like statemant

Unles you make a good stament that is source reliable and not a Weasel word you're change on SDA main page may stay. Second of all, I don't dispute that we (SDA) belive that many protestants have gone away from Byble, but we as much as I know NEVER call any protestant Church babylon.

In response, let me say that Chapters 20 and 21 of Questions on Doctrine provide a good discussion of the traditional characterization of other churches as "Babylon". This comes from older theology which, as I understand it, is not as widespread today. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, Im asking you for a qoute, sopy-paste, clear statmenat not a Weasel word. If you say, there is written this and that you have to prove that. That book is aviable here , so be free to search, find and qoute —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, my opinion is that there are no weasel words in the sentence in question.
"Specifically, concern has been raised about the Adventist claim to be the “remnant church”, and the traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations as "Babylon"."
QOD chapter 21 illustrates both the charge and Adventist response about other churches (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) constituting "Babylon". This is cited, along with several other relevant references (eg. Catholic answers) which demonstrate the traditional position and its criticism. In my view there is no need to quote something word for word; it is better to paraphrase. Tonicthebrown (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, concern has been raised about ... traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations as "Babylon"

First - that is a weasle word

  1. "Concern has been raised about..." (Who raised the conserne?)

Second - when and where did Seventh-day Adventist Church characterize other protestants as babylon

I want a good qoute on my second point, unless there is such... there will be changes made in my favour —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first problem, I have reworded the sentence to begin "Non-Adventist critics have raised concern...". I hope that satisfies you.
Regarding your second problem, with all due respect, I do not feel it is appropriate, civil or assuming good faith for you to demand a quote like this and threaten to modify the article if one is not forthcoming. Issues with Wikipedia articles must be settled by civil discussion, as outlined in the policies, not by threats. It is very easy for you to read that chapter in QOD, where you will find the relevant support for the sentence. I shouldn't have to do the work for you. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I made such impression, I apologize, I will try my best to satisfy you!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems friend. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Peace Church?[edit]

I noticed one of the categories listed is 'Peace Churches.' However, aside from the reference to the Reformation movement, there is no discussion of the SDA stance on warfare. I do know that many adventists are conscientious objectors. What is the official stance on the topic? It may be worth noting, particularily if this article is part of the aforementioned category. (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Adventist Church has a long tradition of members being conscientious objectors with members typically serving without weapons in medical positions. During the World Wars the church actively trained young men as medics in case they were drafted. Desmond Doss is a famous example who won the Medal of Honor for extraordinary bravery in the Pacific Theater. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be added to the article. As an outsider looking over the page I too was confused regarding the categorization. (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over Adventist culture[edit]

Please note: The existing article made it clear that the conservative culture is a feature of traditional Western Adventism. It also added a qualifying remark: "However, these sentiments are far less common among the more recent generations of Adventists." All of this is well sourced, so please don't replace it with original research. I grew up in an Adventist church too, and spent 20 years of my life in it, and my experience fit the conservative description well (i.e. no dancing, cards, rock music, theatre, etc.). Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that qualifies as orginal research (I did not add it), but in my experience it is overwhelmingly correct. There are young conservatives, certainly, but they are in the minority, while they are much more widespread among the older adventists. (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A cappella?[edit]

I remember in the early '90s that various people, both SDAs and members of the Churches of Christ (which has an a cappella tradition), telling me that SDAC traditionally eschewed instrumental accompaniment in worship. It was, at the time, one of the only groups I'd heard of that did so, the other ones being C of C and Primitive Baptists. Is this incorrect, or just old? Lawikitejana (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It would probably vary from congregation to congregation, but I have never encountered or heard of one that does not use any sort of instrumentation by choice. Some more conservative ones dislike drums and guitar, but that isn't a matter of official doctrine so much as personal prejudice. (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

seven day adventist[edit]

how many member now in seven day adventist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Error in text[edit]

There is some kind of misunderstanding: Wiki says: "The General Conference has released an official statement concerning the Adventist position with respect to the ecumenical movement, which contains the following paragraph:" and there is a link for where stands in fIrst paragraph: "The General Conference Executive Committee has never voted an official statement regarding the Seventh-day Adventist relationship to the ecumenical movement as such. A book has been written dealing at length with the subject (B. B. Beach, Ecumenism-Boon or Bane? [Review and Herald, 1974]) and a number of articles have appeared over the years in Adventist publications, including the Adventist Review. Thus, while there is not exactly an official position, there are plenty of clear indications regarding the Seventh-day Adventist viewpoint."

so it seems to me that there are no official statement about ecumenical movement but only a viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Women in modern leadership[edit]

Didn't see any reference to women in current church. Are they ministers, elders? This seems like relevant information for all religions216.14.238.126 (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Suz

The church does not currently ordain women, and has been criticized for it. (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
While that has been a subject of contention for many years, there are a number of church congregations that have ordained women as members of their ministerial staff. They perform all the same duties as the male ministers, including weddings, baptisms, burials, etc.. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Women have some of the same positions as men in the SDA church. They are titled "deaconesses" compared to their male counterpart of "deacon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The church ordains women as deacon(esses) and Elders but in most places not as Ministers. However there are licensed female ministers and in some regions ordained female pastors (Columbia Union and Pacific Union in the USA, China, Netherlands, and parts of Germany.)Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I need your help[edit]

I would like to start a page on scientific evidence for creationism. I've read several books on the subject and would appreciate your support on the page for those who have some scientific knowledge on the subject. Refreshments (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that subject is already "taken", unless you have plenty of V & RS documenting a unique way of covering the subject that isn't already done here. Here are some links to look at:
I suggest you read extensively there before doing anything. Then learn Wikipedia's editing culture and policies by editing non-controversial subjects (IOW not creationism!) for awhile. BTW, calling creationism "science" is inherently problematic. It's a matter of faith and it's important to be honest about that. "Scientific creationism" is an oxymoron. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the subject isn't taken actually. Creation Science page only describes from a extremely judgemental point of view, what the scientific community considers Creation Science to be. Creationism is far too long of a article itself, but there is no article for the concrete scientific claims or evidence for Creationism/Creator. Help appreciated! Refreshments (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That is because there are no valid, empirical scientific claims by so-called "creation science." It is a pseudoscience. That is not an opinion. (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on saying that, I say there is no firm foundation for evolution. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution. Imagine I told you that I shook together some metal, rubber, glass, and plastic, there was a big explosion, and the result was a Mercedes Benz? Would you believe me? Of course not. So wherever does one get the idea that it happened, and the result was people, animals, elements, and plants much more complicated than a car? Fablina (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You might like to consider the views of Gerald Schroeder on this topic.Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


I have reverted the following elaboration on the lead:

distinguished mainly for their strong belief in the second coming of Jesus Christ as the blessed hope, the grand climax of the gospel and celebrating God's creative and redemptive acts by communion with God and one another on Saturday

This elaboration appears to be made in good faith, however suffers from WP:Weasel ("strong belief"), factual inaccuracy (belief in the second coming is not distinctive -- it is held by many contemporary evangelical protestants also), and somewhat POV (the wording is not dispassionate, matter of fact). I do not believe it adds anything significant to the article. ELaboration on SDA's second coming and Sabbath beliefs is already outlined later in the article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. The LEAD should shortly and neutrally summarize the main points covered in each section with a heading. It's OK to use nice prose to frame it, but it shouldn't be flowery or promotional. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Branch Davidians[edit]

Come on, even the most revised look at the SDAC has to acknowledge the Davidians and that unfortunate business in Waco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, a branch of a branch lead by a loony committing crimes does NOT reflect the Adventist Church. Would you put in negative stuff done by ex-any other group?

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

Symbol unsupport vote.svg To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 27, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Current inline bare html links should be converted into inline citations for consistency.
    There are a large number of un-referenced statements throughout the article.
    Outstanding citation needed tags from January 2008 have not been addressed.
    I repaired some deadlinks and tagged others using WP:CHECKLINKS
    Disambiguation to Conditional immortality needs fixing
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Some referencing issues which need to be addressed. On Hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    OK, no progress has been made. The only action has been vandalism reversion and adding a link to the Icelandic Wikipedia. I am de-listing this artcile from GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Addressing a minor point above, I have disambiguated conditional immortality to Christian conditionalism. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Factual correction[edit]

In two places in the article--in the sections on Criticism and Offshoots and schisms--Walter Rea is mentioned as a former member of the church. White it is true that the church did not and does not agree with his published criticism of Ellen White's alleged plagiarism, he has remained connected with the church, unlike others mentioned with him, and still attends services on a regular basis today. (While I could name the congregation where he attends, that is not relevant here.) (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious liberty possible ambiguation[edit]

The phrase "Religious liberty" might be confused with phrase "Christian liberty". Two unrelated concepts. "Religious freedom" would be the proper American English term (note that the Adventists originated and are still active in the US). I don't know what a proper way to say it in International English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Three Angels Messages[edit]

A separate point about the 3 angels messages under the Beliefs is not necessary because they are already mentioned under "Remnant". The 3 angels messages are not as prominent a belief as the others listed there. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement[edit]

In the Offshoots & Schisms section, reference is made to a 2005 apology for the failures of the SDA Church durng World War II. "In 2005, the mainstream church tried to make amends and apologized for its failures during World War II.[102]" The reference given is "Church Leaders Say 'We're Sorry': German and Austrian churches apologize for Holocaust actions" by Mark A. Kellner However, the referenced article is concerned with failures associated with anti-semetic and pro-Nazi attitudes of the German and Austrian SDA leadership during World War II only. No reference is made to, nor apology given for any failure of the SDA Church during World War I that led to the schism and the subsequent formation of the SDARM. If there are no objections, I will delete this sentence. Engellion (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


Can somebody please explain why the logo was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


This phrase in the lede strikes me as not particularly neutral. While I have no doubt that Adventists believe that their practice follows the Bible more closely than other Christian denominations, I presume that if you ask those other denominations, they'd also claim to be "bible-based." Wikipedia is not in the business of settling disputes between sects.

If the a self-description of "Bible-based" is important to Advenist beliefs then the phrase should be introduced with a sentence something like this: "The Adventist Church describes itself as 'Bible-based.' [Church source] states that "[justification for the phrase/explanation of Adventists' use of the phrase][citation]." --Jfruh (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And "Bible-based" doesn't even appear in the main body of the article. I would be for removing it unless a source isn't provided soon. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD rfc[edit]

Regards Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard R. Brand, perhaps someone from here wants to comment? Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SDA is not a christian denomination (or is it?)[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has at least twice edited the introduction to the article, with the "point" of the edits being to strike all mention of Seventh-day Adventism being a Christian denomination. The latest edit summary from the IP includes "IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION. THE FOUNDER STATES IN HER WRITINGS JESUS WAS NOT THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY."

The only source he cites is, and looking at the text there, I see the word Christian show up so often that I have to interpret (dangerous, I know, but I couldn't find a direct statement) that the website considers SdA a Christian denomination.

Are there independent, scholarly writings that support the IP's view that SdA is a separate religion from Christianity? —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

[White's] life-changing masterpiece on successful Christian living, Steps to Christ, has been published in more than 140 languages. Seventh-day Adventists believe that Mrs. White was more than a gifted writer; they believe she was appointed by God as a special messenger to draw the world's attention to the Holy Scriptures and help prepare people for Christ's second advent.
Clearly (according the estate of White contrary to SDA is in some sense a Christian denomination. Aside from that, can someone more specifically cite her (or other SDAs) assertion that the carpenter wasn't also deity (regardless of whether they also assert he was an angel too, supposedly the point of confusion). Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do the founders' beliefs at a certain point in time trump the stated Fundamental Beliefs of the denomination? Why not go even further back? All of those founders ate pork. Many were Millerites and believed the earlier interpretation of 2300 days. Why does anything matter other than the current beliefs? HkCaGu (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, but I'd still like to understand where this (also mentioned at Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#Christ_and_the_Archangel_Michael) is coming from. Cesiumfrog (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Besides WP pages that discuss most of SDA beliefs separately, there are dozens of SDA websites which discuss all of the SDA beliefs and where they come from. Just do a little looking around and get educated. There is no need to discuss them at length here. And don't forget that WP isn't about truth, it's about what can be supported by reliable sources. There is a big difference between reporting what SDAs believe and trying to judge whether it is truth or not (the latter is not the purpose of WP). Besides reporting what SDAs believe, the pages can report what critics have to say. (However, WP is not about determining who is right or wrong).
The above change needs to be supported by a source. If not, it is not allowed. Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Please don't be disingenuous. You quote VnT, but I'm the one asking for sources, you're the one who is removing inline citation-requests and insisting on one particular viewpoint regards which you insinuate (without giving justification) that dissent could only arise from being uneducated.
Some considerations: Since I've already been "looking around" it would be helpful if you got more specific; Changes that start removing unsourced material are not disallowedencouraged; Finding better sources on this area of apparent contention would help us ensure the articles are giving due weight to the range of viewpoints. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Curiously, this unreliable source has full citation to primary sourcing for White asserting that the carpenter is not the deity (I guess this relates to non-trinitarian SDA history), and also mentions that the carpenter-angel doctrine is shared by Jehova's Witnesses (apparently SDA, specifically perhaps its nontrinitarian phase, made a substantial influence in the early development of JW?). Still looking for a more reputable tertiary source. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The book of John in the new testament writings in the Bible makes it clear, totally clear. 'In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God... and the word became flesh and dwelt amongst us' Ask any seventh day adventist and their teaching is that Jesus was Michael. And that the man Christ Jesus is not the Lord God almighty. The founder Ellen G White wrote it in her teachings. Ellen G.White (1903, ms 150, SDA Commentary V.p 1129). That's fine if they want to believe that but one must MUST go back to what they say. It cannot be a christian denomination if they say this about Jesus. It goes against what the Holy Bible says. Ad so the corrections must be made to change it from christian denomination to religion.

  • I am starting a new section where I provide quotes from Ellen White re: Christ's relationship to the Father. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The other case , Christian denominations believe the word of God when it says in the book of ephesians ch 2 vs 8 'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God' not by works, so that no one can boast. ' It is the gift of God, nothing we can do can earn salvation. This is Christianity and any christian denomination must agree with this very basic fact of the Bible teaching.

With SDA it is a works based religion. Ask any sda, to get to heaven one must keep the sabbath every week, and must get baptised in water. AS two of their laws otherwise they cant get to heaven. This is clearly a works based requirement for salvation. It is fine if they want to believe that but it is in direct contradistinction to the word of God in the Holy Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As to your first point, see item 15 here for what EGW taught, and for what SDA officially teaches see item 4 here. —teb728 t c 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this anonymous Sydneysider repeat-contributor has overlooked the fact that SDA doctrine has shifted over time. (So you're correct about White's original views, notwithstanding her estate's subsequent rationalisations noted by teb, but since then the church has taken a more mainstream Christian stance on this issue). As HkCaGu points out, the article lead is about the present SDA church; your contribution might be more suitable for inclusion in the history or theology/trinity sections instead. Also, note (regards your works-salvation interpretation) that it is not up to you to decide what counts as Christian - you would need to find reliable sources stating that a significant viewpoint considers SDA non-Christian. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't even know if's contribution is suitable anywhere. Quoting a partial sentence without presenting the context (and as simple as the rest of the sentence). And the twisting from "Michael is Jesus" to "Jesus is Michael". And I'm sure "ask any sda" will not work to this editor's satisfaction. HkCaGu (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC), I am a Seventh-Day Adventist, and have been for 30 years. I believe that Jesus is the Lord God, the Creator of the universe. Every fellow SDA I know believes the same. I also believe that salvation is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ, accomplished by his death, to which he submitted on our behalf. These are plainly taught in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church. I don't believe that anyone is saved by keeping the Sabbath. Rather to the contrary, I keep the Sabbath as a testament to my Saving Creator, and because He told me to, much as He said not to murder, take His name in vain, etc. I wish to reflect His character, even though I fail very, very often. I apologize for expressing my personal views, but this was a direct challenge from another editor, and I hope to further expose the highly POV edits, which insult a group of people. In the interest of the quality of this article, I have presented this statement. 78.26 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
As the section on this page ( Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#Christ_and_the_Archangel_Michael ) points out, the argument about Christ being or not being Michael hinges on the meaning of the word archangel. IF you take it to mean a class of created angelic beings (as many Christians and the JWs do) then you conclude that if Jesus is Michael, then he must be a created being and so, not God. However, IF you take archangel to be a title or a position, i.e. the arche (chief-of-the-) -- angel (angels), then, as the article points out, just as former black slaves became Indian chiefs without truly being Indians, so too, Jesus the Word as Michael, could hold the position of chief-of-the-angels without being an angelic created being. Thus SDAs claim (in the 3rd paragraph) "We believe that the term Michael is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God... But such a view does not in any way conflict with our belief in His full deity and eternal pre-existence, nor does it in the least disparage His person and work." (cite included). The problem seems to be that some people cannot think outside of their own box or pov. And so you get those, like the fellow above, who claims SDAs are not Christian because he chooses not to see that there is another way to understand "archangel" than his own way.
Walter Martin, expert on Christian and Non-Christian cults, concluded many years ago in his book, The kingdom of the cults, that SDAs are indeed Christian. Johnjonesjr (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Especially if, as it mentions, "angel" is only translated as "messenger" rather than being interpreted as a member of a race of winged-folk from the traditional Christian pantheon. One can freely be one's own chief messenger. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The SDA church has clear doctrinal statement saying that Christ is part of the Trinity. So it is indisputably a Christian denomination. The archangel issue is spurious. As others have pointed out, this article is about the present day SDA church, not 19th century SDA belief or Ellen White teaching. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, who is he?

I think the argument all boils down to the founder who as mentioned was regarded as having divine revelations from God, her teachings being taught and in fact the cornerstone of their religion. That they still hold to otherwise they would have struck it from their records of teaching. and that teaching is that 'the man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God almighty'. There is no need to go any further to prove that SDA's are not a christian denomination. In fact in more research you will find that they believe Jesus use to be Michael the angel. But with all of this and with the SDA organisations admitting these teachings, WIKI editors refuse to allow us to amend the document, therefore perpetuating the growing trend of stories on WIKI being unreliable sources and inaccurate sources of information and not a place to turn to for facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is not to settle disputes between sects, since the definition of terms of religious belief is not really subject to reliable sources. If a religious group indentifies itself as Christian, then we will also identify them as such, though we also ought to identify ways its theology differs from other groups that similarly identify. --Jfruh (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is just so repeatedly wrong. Even believing that Jesus was not divine does not stop a group from being "Christian" -- see Unitarianism in particular. To be blunt, go present us a source which directly states SDA isn't Christian, rather than trying to sell us on your own original and peculiar interpretations. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose there are a few sources which can be mustered to show that some do not view Adventist to be Christian. But there are others that do. Recall Walter Martin of Kingdom of the Cults and his conclusion about Adventists being Christian. He spent considerable time studying Adventists including EG White and concluded that SDAs have some odd beliefs and that some within Adventism have beliefs contrary to most Christians about Christ but that mainstream Adventism is best described as Christian. There are some 'Christians' who refuse to talk with Adventists while there are other Christians who invite Adventist ministers to chair local ministerial associations. This issue is to document the difference, it seems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a widespread phenomena among Christians to consider that only small (mutually incompatible) minorities out of all self-indentifying Christians are truly real Christians. If someone thinks this issue warrants belabouring in the article, then it might also be noted the extent to which it applies specifically to SDA. Perhaps a guideline already exists elswhere..? Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC) labor under the delusion that a person or organization should be eternally judged by a single statement - taken in isolation - once made (possibly in error or an exception). (Now take a very deep breath, because you're going to get a very long run on sentence!) It amounts to you claiming that an old man still believes in Santa Claus, because he said (as a two year old child) that he believed that Santa Claus was real, and you continue to make that false claim, even though the child discovered a year later (at three years old) that Mommy was kissing Santa Claus, and he was Daddy(!), and that after that discovery he not only stopped believing in Santa Claus, he stopped believing in other fairy tales, such as angels, devils, and g-d too, and he even wrote (as a 35 year old man) a best-seller about the non-existence of Santa Claus. It would be absurd of you to continue to make that claim, and your current campaign is just as absurd. It defies all logic and you need to drop the stick and stop kicking the dead horse. You have found one lone statement, and refuse to recognize that the church and its authors (including Ellen White) identify the church as Christian; they state that Christ has always been God; that Christ has always been part of the Trinity; that when He was incarnated on Earth was fully human, and (at the same time) was still fully God. Now that's a mystery, but it's Christian theology, held by most major Christian denominations, and the SDA church is in full agreement with them. If you want to read about the nature of Christ (Christology), you can read Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics or Ellen White's Desire of Ages, and they are in full agreement on this fundamental point:

"The true divinity of Christ is affirmed again and again by Barth. Jesus is “very God of very God,” he argues. He was possessed even in his earthly life, even as a baby of Bethlehem, even in his death on the cross, of all the divine attributes. Never at any moment did the person of Christ cease to be God or limit in any way the fullness of his deity."1

To read what Ellen White actually says about the divinity of Christ, you can search every word of her vast writings here. Choose the second globe on the right side of the page, and then search for "divinity of Christ". We expect a full doctoral dissertation from you (many have been written on the subject), with exact references and quotes. Have fun. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Adventists consider themselves Christian, thus, they are Christian, this is just a denominational pissing match.

Ellen G. White (Adventist) statements re: the divinity of Christ[edit]

All Adventists, conservative and liberal, consider Ellen White's statements authoritative re: what Adventists believed at the time she wrote what she did. For a current authoritative statement the 28 Fundamentals are voted by the world church in session. These 28 are very carefully worded and discussed before being voted upon.

The following are quotes from Ellen White.

But although Christ’s divine glory was for a time veiled and eclipsed by His assuming humanity, yet He did not cease to be God when He became man. The human did not take the place of the divine, nor the divine of the human. This is the mystery of godliness. The two expressions human and divine were, in Christ, closely and inseparably one, and yet they had a distinct individuality. Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost while He stood faithful and true to His loyalty. Surrounded with sorrow, suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the people to whom had been intrusted the oracles of heaven, Jesus could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven. He was ready to take once more His divine glory when His work on earth was done. (Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899, par. 11)

There were occasions when Jesus stood forth while in human flesh as the Son of God. Divinity flashed through humanity, and was seen by the scoffing priests and rulers. Was it acknowledged? Some acknowledged that He was the Christ, but the larger portion of those who upon these special occasions were forced to see that He was the Son of God, refused to receive Him. Their blindness corresponded to their determined resistance of conviction. {Volume 5 of the SDA Bible Commentary 1129.4}

When Christ’s indwelling glory flashed forth, it was too intense for His pure and perfect humanity entirely to conceal. The scribes and Pharisees did not speak in acknowledgment of Him, but their enmity and hatred were baffled as His majesty shone forth. The truth, obscured as it was by a veil of humiliation, spoke to every heart with unmistakable evidence. This led to the words of Christ, “Ye know who I am.” Men and devils were compelled, by the shining forth of His glory, to confess, “Truly, this is the Son of God.” Thus God was revealed; thus Christ was glorified (The Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899). {5BC 1129.5}

Christ left His position in the heavenly courts, and came to this earth to live the life of human beings. This sacrifice He made in order to show that Satan’s charge against God is false—that it is possible for man to obey the laws of God’s kingdom. Equal with the Father, honored and adored by the angels, in our behalf Christ humbled Himself, and came to this earth to live a life of lowliness and poverty—to be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Yet the stamp of divinity was upon His humanity. He came as a divine Teacher, to uplift human beings, to increase their physical, mental, and spiritual efficiency. {5BC 1129.6}

There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” {5BC 1129.7}

In every possible way Satan sought to prevent Jesus from developing a perfect childhood, a faultless manhood, a holy ministry, and an unblemished sacrifice. But he was defeated. He could not lead Jesus into sin. He could not discourage Him, or drive Him from the work He had come to this earth to do. From the desert to Calvary the storm of Satan’s wrath beat upon Him, but the more mercilessly it fell, the more firmly did the Son of God cling to the hand of His Father, and press on in the blood-stained path (Manuscript 140, 1903). {5BC 1130.1}

When Jesus took human nature, and became in fashion as a man, He possessed all the human organism. His necessities were the necessities of a man. He had bodily wants to be supplied, bodily weariness to be relieved. By prayer to the Father He was braced for duty and for trial (Letter 32, 1899). {5BC 1130.2}

4 (chs. 10:18; 17:3). Christ’s Life Was Unborrowed—“In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.” It is not physical life that is here specified, but eternal life, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual received. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Lifegiver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. “I lay it down of myself,” He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as his personal Saviour. “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3. This is the open fountain of life for the world (The Signs of the Times, February 13, 1912). {5BC 1130.3}

DonaldRichardSands 22:25, November 11, 2011‎ (UTC)

Donald, thanks for providing some excellent quotes. Good work. Let's hope that IP203... learns something from this. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
"All Adventists, conservative and liberal, consider Ellen White's statements authoritative" That's simply not true, some Adventists question White as a profit or reject it outright. (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What do sources say about Adventists and their Christian standing?[edit]

The section is intended to provide citations of non-Adventist sources which demonstrate how Seventh-day Adventists are viewed, re: the Christian standing. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1.   Hubbard, Benjamin Jerome; Hatfield, John T.; Santucci, James A. (2007). An educator's classroom guide to America's religious beliefs and practices. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. p. 85. ISBN 13:978-1-59158-409-4 Check |isbn= value (help). 
"Common Misunderstandings and Stereotypes: 'Seventh-day Adventists are not Christian because they follow the Jewish practice of worshipping on Saturday.'
"It is true that there is a strong emphasis placed on the Hebrew Bible, especially the book of Daniel and the Ten Commandments. However, Adventists, like many other Christians, read and follow both the Old and New Testaments...Following the Ten Commandments and observing the Sabbath are understood as expressions of faith in Jesus Christ..." page 85, 86
2   Neusner, Jacob, editor; deChant, Dell (2003). Chapter 12, World Religions Made in the U.S.A.: Apocalyptic Communities, Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses in World Religions in America, an introduction, 3rd edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 188. ISBN 0-664-222475-X Check |isbn= value (help). 
"My father's chief concern was that the Adventists were 'not Christians.' He also had concerns about my mother's religion, which had begun as a schismatic sect of Christian Science. He referred to both groups as 'cults,' and cited a sermon by a famous radio preacher he listened to occasionally..."
3.   Stoutland., Frederick A., Sr. (2005). Landscapes of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Ridge Bay Press. p. 239. ISBN 0-9772341-0-X. 
"Competitive Faiths: We've already been getting snapshots of Judaism, Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox. We'll continue to look at them, though not in this particular chapter. The study of competitive faiths focuses briefly on Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and Muslims. Separately we'll also look at Seventh Day Adventists. Some mainstream theologians believe Adventist theology is not faithful to the core truths of Christianity. But today, most believe that the majority of them have changed from their original beliefs, which stated works was a vital part of the salvation plan. To help clear up any misconceptions, I include them not as a competitive faith of mainstream Evangelicalism, but as a parallel group with some important doctrinal differences regarding the Sabbath and eternal destiny of the unredeemed," page 239.
4.   Rhodes, Ron (2005). The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers. pp. 19–33. ISBN 0-7369-1289-4. 
"This book is divided into 17 alphabetized groupings of denominations: Adventist churches, Baptist churches, Brethren churches, Catholic churches, Christian churches, Congregational churches, Episcopal and Anglican churches, Friends (Quaker) churches, Fundamentalist and Bible churches, Holiness churches, Lutheran churches, Mennonite churches, Methodist churches, Orthodox churches, Pentecostal churches, Presbyterian churches, and Reformed churches...Unlike some other denomination handbooks, this book does not provide information about denominations from Judaism, world religions like Islam, or cultic groups. So, for example, you will not find listed in this volume information on the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses. These groups may claim to be Christian but in fact are not Christian because they deny one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity as taught in the 66 books of the Bible..." Chapter One, Adventist Churches: Advent Christian church, Seventh-day Adventist church, and Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement.
5.   Queen, Edward L.; Prothero, Stephen R.; Shattuck, Gardiner H. (2009). 'Seventh-day Adventist Church' in Encyclopedia of American religious history, Volume 3, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. p. 913. ISBN 13:978-0-8160-6660-5 Check |isbn= value (help). 
"Seventh-day Adventist Church: The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant denomination that grew out of religious revivals in the mid-19th century and predictions by self-taught Bible scholar William Miller about the second coming of Jesus Christ..." page 913

Leader or President of GC[edit]

Is Ted Wilson considered the leader or just president of GC?Jainsworth16 (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

He is the President of the GC. I don't know who changed that, but we don't have a leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceramd14 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


This section continues to undergo vandalisation, Wikipedia's Policy regarding neutrality is clear, If there are refutable critisms of the chruch, subheading regarding the beleifs mentioned about White's life, they belong under the critism heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mntrol (talkcontribs) 00:02, 15 febuary 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Good-faith disputes over content — even if in defiance of consensus or otherwise disruptive — are not vandalism (see WP:VANDAL). Edit warring is not acceptable as a dispute resolution process here, even in cases where an editor is convinced that he/she is right and everyone else is in the wrong. This matter (apparently involving not only the appropriateness of the new material in dispute, but also the proper article in which it should be placed) needs to be discussed civilly and in good faith and a broad consensus reached on where (if anywhere) to add it. Any further efforts by anyone to impose a change of this sort unilaterally (without trying to seek a consensus, or in defiance of a consensus not to do so) is likely to lead to blocks and/or semi-protection in order to prevent further edit warring. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of the abbreviation QOD[edit]

I found in the article no explanation of the abbreviation QOD that is used in it more than once. At last, reading the talk page - in which at least 1 older section also uses the same abbr. without explan. - I discovered the title "Questions on Doctrine" (in this page), guessed it might be abbreviated by QOD, clicked on the link and found my guess confirmed. The article should include an explanation of QOD. I added one by using the redirect to the article with the full name in title, simply making the first occurrence of the abbreviation into a link --UKe-CH (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Adherence to Kosher laws[edit]

Adventists are known for presenting a "health message" that recommends vegetarianism and expects adherence to the kosher laws in Leviticus 11. Obedience to these laws means abstinence from pork, shellfish, and other foods proscribed as "unclean"

How do they square this stance with Acts 10:11-15?FrFintonStack (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Great question FrFintonStack That sentence is problematic because Adventists do not keep "kosher" - that is a Jewish concept and not one I've ever seem promoted in any Adventist church. However, Adventists do promote following the dietary guidelines in [5] as a matter of better health (not salvation or doctrine). Observant Jews (obviously) and many Muslims (to some extent) also believe that eating unclean foods is bad for you. Most people in the west think eating buzzards and rates are bad for you too, and science supports at least some of the prohibited foods are not so good for eating (ie shellfish, if not properly cooked, can be quite deadly)

While everyone will agree that Leviticus 11 is about diet, Adventists do not see Acts 10:11-15 as guidance on diet and neither did Peter. Rather, when you read through all of Acts 10 you see that:

  • Peter was in vision v 10
  • The voice said "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" v15 - which is the point of the vision
  • At first Peter wondered (v17 and v19) what the vision meant. He was seeking an application other than a literal instruction to kill and eat. He did not see it as a cooking lesson.
  • As Peter was thinking, 3 men showed up. The timing here is important to understand the vision
  • The Spirit tells Peter in v19 and v20 “Simon, three[a] men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.” This is clearly direction that the vision is about the visitors, not about lunch.
  • v22 says an Angel was responsible for the men coming - again divine direction toward a conclusion
  • v23 Peter breaks Jewish laws and invites the unclean Gentile men into his Jewish home (see v28)
  • v25 Peter again breaks Jewish laws, this time by going into a unclean Gentile home
  • v28 & v29 He (Peter) said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection." Peter did not say, "God has shown me we should eat pork and snakes" rather Peter connects what he was shown in vision to people.
  • v44 the Holy Spirit confirms Peter's understanding of the vision by falling on Gentiles. Peter baptizes them.

And after this vision and following events, in Acts and beyond, there is a concerted effort to spread Christianity to Gentiles, not only to Jews, as was the effort in Acts 1-9. No where does the Bible say Peter (or any other early Christian leader) started eating unclean foods and there is no recorded effort to get Jews to start eating unclean foods as a result of the sheet vision. The sheet vision was an illustration to how to treat people, not direction on what to eat. Hope this helps? Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Early Sabbatarianism comments/edits[edit]

I added some comments citations, quotes regarding various non-Adventist confessions of Faith and other documents that pertain to the context and background in which Adventists turned to become Seventh-day keeping -- when in fact the start out as Sunday keeping.BobRyan777 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is using well documented sources for the facts cited -- please do not undo facts and well documented sources for the sake of POV - BobRyan777 (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you are trying to improve these articles. However, my reversion was in line with WP:BRD. While in WP:GF, the main problem with your revisions was WP:OR. I've also outlined the other issues previously. Please consult WP policy re. OR, SYNTH and RS. As for "well documented", there needs to be proper sourcing from suitable secondary and tertiary sources. Your sourcing was from WP:PS (eg. Catholic catechism and other confessions) as well as a few non-RS such as
To avoid WP:editwar I'll leave your revisions for a day or two to give you an opportunity to address these issues, but after that, I'm reverting back to the revisions which had been achieved by a WP:Consensus over a number of years involving numerous WP editors. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Merger[edit]

I propose merging Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with Seventh-day Adventist Church creating a stronger NPOV article that avoids undue weight to topics. There are only 5 sections in the criticism article that we can easily work into this article. I propose the following:

  • Section 1 - Major Critics - this article mainly refers to a book so we can create a "in literature" section of this article and place books about it there. if they don't make the notability cut we can always reedit
  • Section 2 - Docterine - there is already a docterine section of this article so blending the two together won't be very hard
  • Section 3 - Ellen G White - This can be moved the her Wikipedia page
  • Section 4 - references - can be merged with the references section of this page
  • Section 5 -External Links - Some of them can stay but we should remember that Wikipedia is not a directory and we can trim which ones don't make the cut.

This merger will create a better article for a better Wikipedia. any suggestions or feedback are welcome and appreciated :) Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on a merger for the same reason stated in ...Simbagraphix (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I oppose a merge for the simple reason that this is already a very large article, and the status quo is appropriate as per WP:SS. Tonicthebrown (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
HEy Tonicthebrown, I have removed the merger request and I do appreciate your feedback, a merger of the two articles would make an unwieldy beast of a writing. thanks for your feedback and have a good day. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ford controversy[edit]

A lot of good work has been done on the article lately. My only concern is that the reference to the Desmond Ford controversy has been entirely removed [6]. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the "offshoots and schisms" section, but in my opinion that particular episode is too important to general SDA history to have no mention of it within the main article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree - I think that is a very significant event in the church's history. It is not quite a schism, but pretty close. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Creating a category for all religions who believe in creationism[edit]

I've been trying to get the ball rolling on creating a category for all religions that believe in creationism. This would, of course, include the seventh day adventists. Please contribute to this discussion here Would_there_be_a_way_of_categorising_religions_which_believe_in_creationism and if you are able, help bring this about. Thank you. In Citer (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 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:

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

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference SDACatholic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Robert K. Sanders. "Is the Seventh-day Adventist Church a Cult?". Truth or Fables. 
  3. ^ "Seventh-Day Adventism". Catholic Answers. Retrieved 2007-02-05. 
  4. ^ See also Questions on Doctrine, chapters 20 and 21.
  5. ^
  6. ^ Reaching Catholics for Christ
  7. ^ "SDA church claims to be the remnant" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-02-06. 
  8. ^ Ángel Manuel Rodríguez (October 2002). "The Remnant and the Adventist Church". Biblical Research Institute. Retrieved 2007-02-05. 
  9. ^ Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines and Progressive Revelation
  10. ^ "Seventh-day Adventists - The Heritage Continues". General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 
  11. ^ "Seventh-day Adventist World Church Statistics". Office of Archives and Statistics, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. 2006-05-10. Retrieved 2006-10-18. 
  12. ^ Barry D. Oliver, "Do We Need an Organised Church" in Meaning for the New Millennium, 209-12.