Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theSeventh-day Adventist Church article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus. |
 | Seventh-day Adventist Church was one of thePhilosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists was nominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on10 May 2025 with a consensus tomerge. Its contents weremerged intoSeventh-day Adventist Church. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history; for its talk page, seehere. |
 | This level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
 | Section sizes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than60 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4. |
Indiana University Press and Oxford University Press trump the General Conference of the SDA Church. Yup, here at Wikipedia they do.WP:NOTTHEOCRACY.
IfEllen G. White were Nicene Trinitarian,James Springer White would have repudiated her.
Strictly speaking, very seldom did Ellen White “do theology.” That is, she did not ordinarily do what professional theologians typically do. She did not produce a book of or about theology. She did not think, speak, and write in theological language. ... She did not elaborate a particular doctrine of the Trinity, atonement, God and time, or free will. She did not explain the precise meaning and broader implications of her own language and ideas, nor did she always use her theological vocabulary consistently. She did not endeavor to explain verbal or conceptual inconsistencies—either those of Scripture or her own—or to reduce the tensions inherent in her overall theological understanding.
— Guy, p. 144-145
With Adventism's most articulate spokesmen so implacably opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is unsurprising that one researcher was forced to conclude that he was "unable to discover any evidence that 'many were Trinitarians' before 1898, nor has there been found any Trinitarian declaration written, prior to that date, by an Adventist writer other than Ellen G. White."46 But even this is an overstatement. Although not actively anti-Trinitarian, Ellen White always carefully avoided using the term "Trinity," and her husband stated categorically that her visions did not support the Trinitarian creed.47
— Bull and Lockhart, p. 75
There is no smoking gun that she ever endorsed Trinitarianism.
but in her version of the event that destroyed the unity of the divine realm—the rebellion of Satan. As White related in theSpirit of Prophecy, the devil's revolt against divine law came about precisely because Satan was unwilling to accept Jesus' position in the heavenly hierarchy. At that time Satan, who was then known as Lucifer, was "a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God's dear Son."13 It was an arrangement with which he had been happy, according to White, until a primordial ceremony formalized the supremacy of Jesus: "The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself."14 However, Satan believed that this decision had been taken without prior consultation, and he convened a meeting of the angels to air his grievances. A ruler had now been appointed over them, he said, and "he would no longer submit to this invasion of his rights and theirs."15
— Bull and Lockhart, p. 72
See? She did not think that Jesus wasborn equal to the Father, but only latermade so (i.e. promoted to such office). In her view, Jesus being promoted to equality with the Father was the cause of Lucifer's rebellion. So, her book does not make sense if Jesus was born equal to the Father. Which does not mean born by Mary about 4 BCE, but born by God in eternity past. Well, I'm still trying to make sense of her writings... Lucifer could not have been offended of something he knew for ages and had willingly accepted for ages. Lucifer could only be offended by a sudden change of roles. At least according to her story.
47. James White, "Mutual Obligation,"Review, 13 June 1871, 204.
— Footnote 47 at p. 387 to Bull and Lockhart, p. 75
If you'd ask me why she did not speak about the Trinity, either to assert it or to oppose it, a plausible reason is that she either did not understand or did not care for such abstractions.
Fritz Guy is a professor of theological studies at La Sierra University, Riverside, California. I.e. an Adventist university.
Malcolm Bull is professor of art and history of ideas at Ruskin School of Art from Oxford University. His BA is in theology.
So, yeah, an Adventist professor of theology, a man, confessed that she neither spoke nor wrote as a theologian.
And that obnoxiousWP:SOCK has accused me of being crazy for doubting her Trinitarianism, an issue which is now settled by citing these professors (one of them being an Adventist professor). And I was insulted by someone who has solemnly declaredI'm pretty certain that most SDAs, aside from some liberal academics, would not assent to the Nicene Trinitarianism.
So, I was insulted for doubting her Trinitarianism by an Adventist who does not buy into traditional Trinitarianism either. What's this,The Comedy of Errors? Why would anyone insult somebody else who has just bolstered their own POV?
So, answering the charge of theWP:SOCK, according to Ellen White God the Son wasn't co-equal with God the Father since eternity past, but was promoted to co-equal with God the Father at a certain moment, this was a change of roles which offended Lucifer and caused his rebellion. At least as far as sense can be made of such convoluted story. Of course, there is also the possibility that it is an erratic, absurd story.tgeorgescu (talk)04:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, to answer another charge: Fritz Guy tells it as it is, but there is no evidence that he has fallen from his faith. Through claiming that Guy would be an apostate, the obnoxiousWP:SOCK has engaged in seriousWP:BLP violations (their claim is libelous). Of course, this isn't a legal threat, just a statement that the sock has engaged in defamatory lies in order to dismissWP:RS they do not like. Their defamatory statement isThe two books you quote from are by liberal academics and former SDAs who have an axe to grind about White and SDAism, as a result they are extremely unreliable sources.
I don't think that the SDA Church him taught them to defame their fellow believers when they cannot win a rational dispute.
So, the sock had oddly attacked me for bolstering their own POV, and hoped to bluff their way through telling patent lies about their fellow believers. No wonder that they got banned form Wikipedia. They wholly deserve it, since they have no respect forWP:SCHOLARSHIP and no respect for truth. They behaved like a caricature of the Christian apologist from the propaganda of New Atheism, attacking anyone who does not toe the line of their own prejudices.tgeorgescu (talk)08:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I counted that this article has 165 Seventh-day Adventist references and references that aren't Seventh-day Adventist are 53.Catfurball (talk)21:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: Can you please protect this article it has been persistantly been vandalized since October and it hasn't stopped.Catfurball (talk)19:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs protection for a long time it constantly keeps being persecuted by stupid sockpuppet vandals, enough is enough.Catfurball (talk)22:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article addresses thatJohn Harvey Kellogg's lifestyle beliefs align with the Seventh-day Adventists and that breakfast habits in the USA were fundamentally changed by him, it does not specifically say that he was a member like his own bio does (until he was ex-communicated, anyway). Somebody might want to sharpen the focus a little. Pointing this out was my job. Thank you for your time,Wordreader (talk)15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
