Talk:Investigative judgment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Investigative judgment is part of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
 |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:
|
|||
[edit] Recent expansion
Hi - I've recently expanded this page substantially. If anyone has any comments, I'd love to hear them. It'd be great if someone who has researched the Glacier View controversy could expand that section further as well. Tonicthebrown 07:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm impressed with the Glacier View controversy section. The sources are well balanced. One addition I suggest is to mention the other document as well. The consensus document, which Ford found he could agree with, was prepared by the designated group of scholars. According to my limited reading, there was another document prepared, unofficially, by a different group present at the meeting. This document specificially highlighted the differences. It was this document that Ford was trialled by. -Colin MacLaurin 12:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I found some online sources, which were referenced in the 25 Years After Glacier View article on the page. One is Ministry magazine (October 1980) in DjVu format. Another is Spectrum (November 1980) which is an independent magazine, but the format is HTML or PDF, which are standard formats. I went with Spectrum for convenience, but it is up to you. See the section Sanctuary Debate Documents which includes the following:
- Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary (consensus statement on the sanctuary)
- The Role of Ellen G. White Writings in Doctrinal Matters (consensus statement on Ellen White)
- The Ten-Point Critique (Spectrum's title. Adventist Review calls it 'Statement on Desmond Ford'. It is the document prepared by a small group to highlight the differences.)
- Papers Prepared for the Sanctuary Review Committee
- Desmond Ford Correspondence
- As I mentioned earlier, I am impressed with the article as it already stands. Good job! -Colin MacLaurin 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've done some more updating - what do you think? Tonicthebrown 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PUC lecture
A lecturer at Avondale College told me that during his 1979 Pacific Union College address, Ford said that the 1844 date could not be derived from Hebrews. Apparently, a year later at Glacier View, the church had moved on to accept this earlier position of Ford; although by this time Ford himself had moved substantially further. Is this correct? If so (and a citation would be better), it would make a good addition IMO. (I haven't read/listened to the 1979 address or Glacier View yet.) Regards, Colin MacLaurin 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
I just found a comment that "Leaving the Adventist Ministry" by Peter Ballis, professor of sociology at Monash University in Australia, is one of the best sources regarding the fallout from the Glacier View controversy; in a blog post which I assume is by the editor of Spectrum. It would be good to incorporate this work sometime. Colin MacLaurin 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have access to the source - do you have it? Tonicthebrown 07:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not in my personal collection, but presumably it would be in the College library. Sorry for suggesting a source that is probably hard to come by :) This comment was left here partly for my own future reference, if I get around to looking up the book, but I thought others might appreciate it too. I just checked, and Arthur Patrick references him multiple times in the 25 Years Since Glacier View article[1]. It would be good to quote the original source. I will do this sometime. Colin MacLaurin 13:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
