Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Seventh-day Adventist Church 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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do: edit  Expand "Glacier View Controversy" section, to include more background, history, theological issues, and details of the Glacier View meeting itself Add to "Adventist Responses to Criticisms" section, ideally with material from Adventist scholars etc.

Seventh-day Adventist Church has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Seventh-day Adventist Church has undergone multiple peer reviews by Wikipedia editors which are now archived. These may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. Wikipedia:Peer review/Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive1 Wikipedia:Peer review/Seventh-day Adventist Church (most recent)

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	To-do list for Seventh-day Adventist Church:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Origins 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 Structure, polity and institutions
Priority 1 (top)

Archives
April 2004 – 5 March 2006 Discussion regarding Graham Maxwell 15 February 2006 – 21 March 2006 26 March 2006 – 2 April 2006 2 April 2006 – 24 April 2006 19 April 2006 – 13 October 2006 1 February 2007 Consensus discussion regarding inclusion of critical links

Contents 1 Seventh day Adventists are not New religious movement 2 Let's Make This a Featured Article!! 2.1 Participants 2.2 Target dates 2.3 Discussion 2.3.1 Lead 3 To-do's for this article - "Can you help?" 3.1 Suggested major improvements 3.2 Trimming 3.3 Introduction 3.4 Distinctive doctrines 3.5 Sections 4 Links 4.1 Critical links 5 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 6 Subcultures section 6.1 Biblical Research Institute 7 Logo fair use 8 Sabbath keeping 9 Alcohol 10 Coffee & Tea? 11 "Based solely on Scripture" 12 Clear Word Bible 13 Criticms: Minor changes 14 Demographics 15 Teetotalism 16 Images 17 Joseph Bates

[edit] Seventh day Adventists are not New religious movement

Therefore they cannot be mentioned as such, they are accepted as a protestant denomination with over 15 milion members. They have over 7000 schools with over 1 milion students. Andrews University and Loma Linda University are only some of them. In their noumerous hospitals over 86,553 doctors and nurses are employed. With their schools and hospitals they are second in the world, just after roman catholic church. You can go on article Protestantism and you can see they are listed there as a protestant denomination. They are regarded as a protestant denomination in the whole world. Articles here must represent neutral point of view, not a catholic church point of view

Some churches like the Jehovah's Witnesses and (particularly) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints hold views which diverge rather greatly from "mainstream" Protestantism, but adventists dont.

Also there are other churces that keep sabath (God's 4th commandment) too... like Seventh-Day Baptists, True Jesus Church, United Church of God, Living Church of God and some other churches. Regarding Saturday as a sabbath day (which it is, according to Bible) cannot give them NRM status. Its bizzare to do so. Also there is a whole range of protestant denominations that reject doctrines of Catholic church, its not SDA teaching only.

Basicly all apostoles were adventists... another words... they expected Christ to come soon.

Its not come "new age" doctrine or a "NRM"

ipernar

[edit] Let's Make This a Featured Article!!

It's been a year since this article was considered for Featured Article status and failed. It has come a long way since then -- does everyone agree? I would like to gather support for a campaign to make it a featured article. I'm sure that's something we'd all very much like to see achieved. Tonicthebrown 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

I think we'll have the best chance of success if we work as a team and someone acts as overall coordinator. Is anyone willing to do this? How about MyNameIsNotBob (talk • contribs)?

[edit] Target dates

I think we should set some target dates. A Peer Review should occur soon; we could then aim for 01 March 2007 for nomination?

[edit] Discussion

I have done a lot of work on the article in the last week. The article has been restructured according to the suggestions made by Colin MacLaurin (talk • contribs) (see below), which I thought were very good. I've also done a big cleanup of the Origins section to make it more encyclopaedic. There is still a lot to be done, however. The second half of the article needs a fair bit of work IMO Tonicthebrown 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article introduction has now been expanded to be more comprehensive. I tried to follow the guidelines in outlined in Wikipedia:Lead section. Tonicthebrown 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

What does everyone think about the new lead intro? I tried to make it more conforming to Wikipedia and more informative. Before it was not really a summary, and I think this does a better job at summarizing the article. Any thoughts? --Maniwar (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-do's for this article - "Can you help?"

Lets try to continue working towards a featured article, if possible. Currently the content is still rather weak and is also poorly referenced. Here are my suggestions on what need to be improved, feel free to add your own points: MyNameIsNotBob 00:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Beliefs section. Currently this is a very brief summary, apart from the Sabbath section. One would almost be better off just reading the Fundamental Beliefs statements for themselves. The sections that are there currently need to be expanded and referenced from a number of sources. Currently the only two sources that are used in that section are the "Fundamental Beliefs" and "What we believe..." Adding some context and insight to each of these statements would be of great benefit. The section also lacks an explanation of the Adventist belief in "Investigative Judgment". Is there someone brave enough to write that?

Hi, I'm fairly new here, but I've made quite a few changes. I thought it would be a good idea to start a separate Seventh-day Adventist doctrine article which can go into more depth about a range of doctrinal issues (including the SDA distinctives). That way we can keep this article's doctrine section brief. I've also been "brave" enough to expand the investigative judgment article :-) Tonicthebrown 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section should be brief. The last time I touched that section my intention was to consider Adventists as adherring to mainstream evangelical theology, except diverging on three significant issues: state of the dead, sanctuary, and Sabbath. The only other thing worth clarifying is Adventists pre-millenial stance. -Fermion 07:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

SDAs also diverge from mainstream theology with the "great controversy" and "remnant" doctrines. I've expanded the "Second coming" section to include a clarification of the premillennial position. (Now moved to the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine article.) I've also created a new article - Eschatology (Adventist) which explains SDA end-times teaching in more detail, and what SDAs believe about the millennium.Tonicthebrown 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what deserves inclusion, is what I did to the Sabbath part too much? Its hard to tell, there is no standard to go by. It strikes me as odd though that nothing is said about our sanctuary doctrine. MyNameIsNotBob 07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some material on the sanctuary, but perhaps it could be expanded further. May even deserve a separate article, if someone is inclined to do the work. Tonicthebrown 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Images. Currently the article is only text apart from the logo at the top. I am not sure the fair use tag on the image is properly justified either, I believe it can be and I have an email from the church verifying that. Is there someone familiar with fair use who can verify what needs to be done with that logo. Also another image or two might be nice to improve the asthetics of the aticle. Does someone have a camera with which they can go photograph a church building?

What about an image of White or Bates? Or a classic second coming illustration?

I have put the photo of the Whites in there. Would like a church building as well, and maybe one other. MyNameIsNotBob 07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Origins section. This section is seriously lopsided, and not much help comes from the History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church page. Is there someone else interested in history research who can help me expand this? My main inhibition is lack of resources. Currently I am working off my brother's college textbooks and resources, which I have to steal to use :-).

You might try and find "Lightbearers", as it is a very effective Seventh-day Adventist history book. User:MilquetoastCJW

As in Schwarz and Greenleaf? Ansell 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think thats what Milque is refering to. Thats one of my brothers textbooks that I steal when i get the chance. I have used it on History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. MyNameIsNotBob 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested major improvements

• Origins section has too many details, which would be better placed in the main article. Also, the "to do" list has far too much history in my opinion, which doesn't all belong in this article.
• Sabbath activities also could be shortened, maybe new article possible, but be careful of POV forking as there is already a Sabbath article (see my comments elsewhere)
• Mission needs expanding
• How about merging Mission, Outreach, Publishing and Membership into "Membership and Outreach" or similar? (Why do we publish? It's for members and outreach.)
• Also, it doesn't have much of an international feel.

Main sections could be: Origins, Doctrine, Membership and outreach, Lifestyle and customs (subheadings: "Sabbath activities" and "Health, diet and sexuality"), Structure, polity and institutions, Movements and offshoots and Outsider criticisms. I think this would improve the structure of the page.

Having said that, the article is coming along well. Good job everyone! -Colin MacLaurin 20:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Make sure we haven't left off any major organizations.[1] -Colin MacLaurin 09:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

I think there are several parts of the article that aren't very relevant, interesting or encyclopedic, and should be deleted or at least condensed. (Bear in mind non-Adventist readership.) I'd like to know if others share or oppose my opinions. The sections are:

• "This message was gradually accepted and formed the topic of the first edition of the church publication, The Present Truth (now the Adventist Review) which appeared in July 1849. While initially it was believed that the Sabbath started at 6pm, by 1855 it was generally accepted that the Sabbath begins at Friday sunset.[citation needed]" (Origins)
• "In 1903, the denominational headquarters were moved from Battle Creek to temporary quarters in Washington D.C. and soon thereafter established in nearby Takoma Park, Maryland. (In 1989, the headquarters was moved again, this time to Silver Spring, Maryland.)" (Origins)
• "Saturday morning is greeted with Bible study and a prayer of thanksgiving for physical and spiritual rest and repose. Adventists believe that "we are called to grow into the likeness of His character, communing with Him daily in prayer, feeding on His Word"." (Practices and Customs)
• "The pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church had much to do with the common acceptance of breakfast cereals into the Western diet. John Harvey Kellogg was one of the early founders of the Seventh-day Adventist health work. His development of breakfast cereals as a health food led to the founding of Kellogg's by his brother William K. Kellogg.[citation needed]" (Practices and Customs)
• "Masturbation has also been traditionally condemned as a sinful practice, contrary to God's design for the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit and for sex as a shared experience within marriage.[citation needed]" (Practices and customs)
• "The church has two professional organizations for Adventist theologians that are affiliated with the denomination. The Adventist Society for Religious Studies (ASRS) was formed to foster community among Adventist theologians who attend the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the American Academy of Religion. In 2006 ASRS voted to continue their meetings in the future in conjunction with SBL. During the 1980s the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) was formed by Jack Blanco to provide a forum for more conservative theologians to meet and is held in conjunction with the Evangelical Theological Society. ATS publishes the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society." (Institutions)
• "Historically, Adventists vehemently resisted changes in the broader American culture. Different elements in the church were impacted by Fundamentalism. Denominational leaders including progressives such as A. G. Daniells and W. W. Prescott as well as other traditionalists discussed these issues at the 1919 Bible Conference. This conference would contribute to the polarization of Seventh-day Adventist theology. Some of the issues such as the atonement would become significant during a series of conferences between Adventists and evangelicals that led up to the publication of Questions on Doctrine in 1957." (Movements and offshoots)

Tonicthebrown 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tonic, thanks for your suggestions of improvement. I haven't looked at this page for months, and I have decided that it's too much effort to wade through the hundreds of page changes so I read it anew. Agreed that some of those sentences could be reduced or removed. However please place good content on a relevant subarticle.

I would particularly like to keep the sentence about ATS and ASRS. It is a very important insight into the spectrum which exists in Adventist theology, but expressed in a very factual manner (not original research). Perhaps this section could be moved to the theology section. What do you think? Theology is repeated twice - in the introduction and in the theology section. I suggest that the description be limited to "Seventh-day" [Sabbath] and "Adventist" [imminent Second Coming] in the intro. Perhaps the "Theological Subcultures" section could also be moved into the theology section. Also, while the bullet points in that section are helpful, I understand that bulleted lists are generally not recommended in policies, although I may be wrong. Anyone, please share your thoughts. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 09:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I've actually gone ahead and done a lot of that trimming over the last few months. Some notable material was moved to sub-articles. I'm quite happy with ATS/ASRS and "Theological subcultures" as they are. I agree with you there is too much theological detail in the intro, but I encountered resistance from other editors previously when I tried to cut it down. (Personally I don't think the quote about the Bible is necessary either.) Tonicthebrown 09:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tonic, good job on the Sabbath section! I agree with you about the quote regarding the Bible being unnecessary, and about too much theology in the intro. (I will post my comment elsewhere). Your second line - do you mean you support the retention of the material, or are you additionallly saying that you disagree with my suggestion to merge the material? Colin MacLaurin 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the last quotation was a good one, and a major insight into the church. I suggest we reinstate it. Comments please! Colin MacLaurin 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Which quote are you talking about? --Maniwar (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The last bullet point above. Colin MacLaurin 05:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the one about 1919 Bible Conference? Personally, I don't think those details are notable enough for the main article (note that they now exist on the History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church article). I've hardly come across any Adventist literature which references that era of Adventist history. The relevant article states that "The conference was then nearly forgotten until 1975 when the Conference transcripts were discovered in the General Conference Archives." If we start including information about "nearly forgotten" episodes in the church's history, then we're really getting into minutiae don't you think? The 1888 Minneapolis General Conference surely is more notable -- but I think a great deal of care needs to be exercised because of the controversy surrounding it. Right now, I think it's best to keep history to a minimum here, and expand the History article (which, by the way, really needs more expanding!) instead.

Here's an interesting quote (from Dr. Arthur Patrick, retired Avondale College scholar regarding notable dates in Adventist history.

Adventists, perhaps more than most other Christian groups, find it is fruitful to understand themselves in terms of a number of dates: for instance, 1844, 1863, 1888, 1901, 1907, 1919, 1950, 1957 and 1980 are some of the years that may be cited as possessing special significance. Recently (2003) at La Sierra University I offered a month-long graduate seminar focused on four of the important Adventist dates: 1844, 1888, 1957 and 1980; the course outline offers bibliographical data.

– TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER GLACIER VIEW: USING THE LANTERN OF HISTORY, ANTICIPATING A BRIGHTER FUTURE (footnote), www.atoday.org

Perhaps we could use these dates as a framework for expanding the History article. Unfortunately, my own knowledge is pretty limited except for 1844, 1863, 1957 and 1980.Tonicthebrown 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Colin MacLaurin 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Brief explanation for my recent editing of the intro:

• Moved historical detail back to first paragraph. Think it is better there, seeing as the article itself has the history come first
• Don't think it is necessary to mention all 3 founders; they are listed in the main origins section
• I think it's worth having a small amount of doctrine/theology in the intro. So I have included 2 aspects of common protestant belief (Trinity and scripture), and 2 aspects of distinctive belief (soul sleep, IJ) which I think are most noteworthy.
• Don't think there is need to emphasise Ellen White twice.
• "Separation of church and state." Don't think this is really that important, and it isn't mentioned further down in the body of the article. Replaced it with "promotion of religious liberty", which I think is more pertinent, and underlies the impulse to keep church and state separate. Religious liberty is mentioned several times in the article.
• Got rid of "local churches", since they do not really "administer"!

As it stands, the intro now captures something from each of the main sections of the article: History, Theology, Practices/customs, Structure and polity, Mission, Membership, Criticisms; and is therefore appropriately balanced. I'd suggest that we please try not to upset this balance by making major changes without prior discussion on this talk page. Cheers, Tonicthebrown 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think those changes were good ones. The intro is much more concise now. I request that we can also mention annihilation or conditional immortality, perhaps piped as rejection of eternal hell to avoid technical jargon. Colin MacLaurin 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, but is conditional immortality really a distinctive Adventist belief anymore? In light of the ACUTE article, which suggests it is growing more popular in the wider church... Just wondering. cheers Tonicthebrown 08:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinctive doctrines

I have thought for a long time that the term Adventist "distinctives" is stretched (see my comments here). I think Cliff Goldstein said that the 1844 IJ is the only truly distinctive doctrine. Soul sleep is currently listed as a distinctive, but according to Avondale College lecturer Rob McIver, the holistic view of anthropology (the nature of mankind) is actually the majority scholarly view. How about a line, "Adventists are also known for [annihilationism/conditional immortality - which one?], [and any other major teaching I have forgotten]". Could we also mention "salvation by faith", given that one version of the highly influential Kingdom of the Cults I saw recently incorrectly described Adventists as teaching salvation by faith and works in parallel? Colin MacLaurin 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that QOD lists only (1) sanctuary, (2) the IJ, (3) SOP = EGW, (4) seal of God vs. Mark of the beast and (5) 3 angels message as "distinctive". I agree that holistic anthropology is the majority scholarly view, at least among protestant evangelicals. However, holistic anthropology doesn't necessarily impliy soul sleep. As far as I know, only SDAs and JWs officially teach soul sleep. Many evangelicals who believe in the unity of human nature (and even annihilationism) nevertheless teach that the spirit (or soul) is conscious in death (as per the Westminster Confession, and John Calvin). Tonicthebrown 04:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of the above conversation, I suggest that we separate doctrines into a kind of hierarchy by their prominence in conservative Christianity, from "standard" beliefs held in common with evangelical Christians, as already well described, to "somewhat distinctive"/"controversial"/"disputed" views including holistic nature of mankind, annihilation/conditional immortality, etc. and then "truly unique" teachings such as the IJ, Ellen White (actually I have met non-Adventists who believe she was inspired, but I confess that this is not notable enough to be worth mentioning), etc. I think the phrase "somewhat distinctive" captures well the tradition of Adventists calling these beliefs "distinctives", and yet is accurate as well. In particular, I would like to add "holism", and question the separation of "sanctuary" and "IJ". Please share your thoughts :) Colin MacLaurin 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that the SDA "distinctives" can be streamlined in this way. However I would hesitate to perform such a sophisticated analysis in a Wikipedia article, since the detail and subtlety would be lost on the majority of "average" readers. I think it is much easier simply to list the doctrines which are generally thought of as being distinctive to the SDA church, even if that means we mix together a group of doctrines which are "truly distinctive" and a group which is only "somewhat distinctive". I think the introductory statement: "In addition there are other distinctive teachings which are less common in the Christian world, some of them unique to Seventh-day Adventism:" makes it clear enough that these 2 categories might exist.

Regarding "holism", I think that "state of the dead" and "conditional immortality" already covers that. A direct link between these teachings and holism is articulated in the Seventh-day Adventist theology article. Regarding sanctuary and IJ: personally I think that it is helpful to treat them separately (even though they represent a single fundamental) because of the complexity of the topics. I have also noticed that Adventists often refer to the "doctrine of the sanctuary" and the "investigative judgment" as if they are distinct ideas Tonicthebrown 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps adopting a hierarchy would be too detailed an analysis. I think there are a couple of major teachings which deserve a mention somehow. In particular, creation is an important one. I see the purpose of the section as characterising the theology of the church, not just to say what is truly distinctive about it (although naturally there will be more emphasis on the distinctives, as currently in the article). Holism could be mentioned in about two extra words - I think this concept is a major one in Adventism, for example Adventist schools in Hong Kong and other Asian countries are named for "threefold" holistic education. Colin MacLaurin 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed in principle to saying something about creation. I'm just worried about how the topic is fraught with complexity. Does the SDA church teach Young Earth Creationism? I don't think it does, considering the statements made by the Geoscience Research Institute -- the church seems at least open to a form of Old Earth Creationism. So then, what if we just say "the church teaches Creationism?" That would probably be accurate enough; but then again there is the survey cited in Seventh-day Adventist theology which reveals only 43% of Adventist science educators agree with the statement "God created live organisms during 6 days less than 10,000 years ago." But I suppose they are simply disagreeing with the official position of the church...

Regarding holism, perhaps we could have merge it with the current statement about state of the dead. For example: Holistic human nature - Adventists believe that humans are an indivisible unity of body, mind and spirit. Consequently, they reject the concept of the immortal soul and believe that death is an unconscious sleep... Tonicthebrown 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

I'm not sure why membership and mission/outreach has been merged. Could you please explain the rationale for this? Thanks Tonicthebrown 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought there were too many headings, and still are. Sorry - I should have discussed it on the talk page first. I don't have an emotional attachment to it so modify it if you wish! Colin MacLaurin 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of headings I agree, but I think that is justified given the amount of material which this article attempts to cover. In my opinion, membership and mission/publishing don't really go together. "Membership" contains information of an institutional nature, whereas mission/publishing relates to the dynamic activity of the church. As such, if we were to merge sections, I think membership would probably fit in more under "Structure and polity". What do you think?

Thinking along these lines, perhaps we should reorganise things so that Section 4 is purely "institutional" and Section 5 is purely "Mission/activity"? Therefore, membership statistics should go under section 4. On the other hand, I would argue that education, ADRA, etc. are actually mission-oriented, and should thus go under section 5. If you look at the official webpage [2] ADRA, religious liberty, education, health and media are all in fact grouped under "Mission and Service".

So a proposed new outline could be as follows:

• 4. Organization and institutions: Structure and polity, Membership stats, Church officers, Ecumenism, independent organizations
• 5. Mission and outreach: Mission, Education, Humanitarian, Religious liberty, Media, Publishing.

Tonicthebrown 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor comment - "independent ministries" section is similar to "offshoots..." IMO, but these do not appear in proximity in the article. Swapping 4 and 5 above would fix this, but this is only a minor consideration... Colin MacLaurin 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Removed [3] - doesn't look notable. Colin MacLaurin 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical links

There appears to be an ongoing edit war over the inclusion of critical links under External Links. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion and compromise. IMO there are currently too many critical links, it appears as if someone just wants to savagely attack the church. Suggestion: how about having just 2 or 3 critical links, to websites which are critical in a fair and constructive way. The rest can be placed on the Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. Tonicthebrown 06:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subcultures section

I can see the idea behind the new section however I am concerned about how encyclopedic it actually is. Our biggest problem on this article at this point in time is its severe lack of references. This needs to be addressed ASAP, and adding more unreferenced material just makes the problem worse. MyNameIsNotBob 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the material is OR as is. Focusing on references is a definite first step. No time here right now, sorry bout that. Ansell 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Research Institute

Could we remove the statement about the BRI being moderate? This is a revision of an earlier edit by myself in which I commented it was conservative mainstream, and I propose a middle-ground compromise. If we just leave it as "The BRI is the official... of the church", then this is the least disputed way to characterise it. Implicit in that NPOV statement is that it is mainstream, at least in some senses of the word. Mainstream Adventism is highly nuanced, and I'm not sure that because it fits into this band that it could be called "moderate", although of course being official it is institutionally moderate. Colin MacLaurin 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I've changed the word to "neutral", but if you still don't think that's appropriate please feel free to modify. I probably should have discussed this change with you first. I appreciate your attempt to place the various organisations relative to each other on the spectrum; however, I think this could easily be accused of being based on personal opinion. I think that it could only be justified if you can cite official statements from ATS, ASRS etc. saying "we are on the conservative end of mainstream", etc. Tonicthebrown 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am increasingly feeling convicted that the various organizations should not be characterised in this fashion, in the main article. It is detail which is not relevant in an article already overloaded with information. Details regarding the diversity within the church can be covered in subarticles. Also, I think the editor (it wasn't me) who inserted the ASRS and ATS comments did an excellent job. By stating that the ATS meets with the ETS and the ASRS with the AAR and SBL characterises them quite strongly (forgive the abbreviations)! The AAR and SBL are more liberal than the ETS, which hints that the ASRS is more liberal than the ATS, even though this "fact" will be lost on most readers. But this important insight is stated in the most factual manner possible. The BRI is currently mentioned 3 times. I propose that we delete the first reference. I don't think the definition of "moderate" as those who aren't in the extremes is fair. There is huge diversity within this so-called "moderate" group. Within it, various entities are much closer to one end than the other. Colin MacLaurin 07:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo fair use

Does the recently approved guideline here have any bearance on wikipedia's use of the logo? MyNameIsNotBob 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It really is very clear on the issue:

"Only official churches, organizations, and entities administered by organizations listed in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook are entitled to use the Seventh-day Adventist Church's corporate identity symbols (logo graphic and text) as described in the Church's corporate identity standards manual."

I suppose that means a direct end to "fair-use" on that front. :( Ansell 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I did email the relevant department prior to the publication of this guideline asking about the encyclopedia's use of the logo and they said it was okay, so I guess I might email again. MyNameIsNotBob 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They should probably log an OTRS ticket by emailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org (someone correct me if that is wrong) relating to this so that there is official confirmation about it. Ansell 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the real issue here regards groups claiming to represent the church. For a group to use the official church logo, you would of course expect some pretty strict guidelines. However the Wikipedia article(s) do not claim to represent the church - rather, they are a "critical" (in the academic sense of analytical) commentary of it. As I recall, "fair use" is all about critical commentary. --Colin MacLaurin 15:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this assessment. My correspondence with the General Conference Public Relations Department points out that the guideline is specifically for the use by church organisations of the logo. MyNameIsNotBob 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabbath keeping

I think it's more accurate to say that Seventh-day Adventists follow the biblical teaching of a seventh day sabbath in the intro rather than saying Adventists are known for their seventh-day sabbath teaching. Adventists aren't teaching that concept. Adventists follow that concept which was taught by God to the Israelites.

Thank you for your contribution. However, claiming that SDAs are following the biblical teaching is not NPOV. This would be raised in a peer review and we'd have to correct it. If you would like to outline an argument for Sabbath keeping, the best place to do so is probably the Sabbath article. Tonicthebrown 06:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it non NPOV? The Bible must merely be opened to Exodus 20 to see the 4th commandment stating the 7th day is the sabbath day. Adventists aren't creating this belief, they are merely following it. God is the one who teaches it...Adventists are just one of the few groups that publicly follow it. --Kroma 14:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be NPOV to say that the Old Testament teaches that the Sabbath could be kept. I believe that noone would dispute that. However the majority of Christians believe that the Sabbath does not apply to today. Remember that Wikipedia is about presenting the different majority views, in due proportion. A more NPOV statement would be "Adventists believe that keeping the Sabbath is biblical". Regards, Colin MacLaurin 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying Adventists believe that keeping the Sabbath is biblical is a juvenile statement for an encyclopedia entry on Adventists. You don't need an encyclopedia to tell you that there is a Sabbath commandment in the Bible. Now your point about Adventists believing it still applies to day is a more relevant statement. Perhaps the statement should be "Seventh-day Adventists believe that the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment is still in effect today."--Kroma 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol

I was under the impression that SDA doctrine considered using alcohol to make merry to be a sin. This article seems to indicate that the official position is abstentionism (cf. Christian views of alcohol). Can someone clarify, preferably with sources? --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstinence from alcohol is outlined in the 27 fundamentals as well as the SDA Church Manual. Tonicthebrown 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Would they call it sin? Would one be excluded from membership and/or leadership because one drank alcohol in moderation? --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Many Adventists would probably call alcohol "sin", yes. You'd almost certainly be excluded from leadership if you drank. As for membership -- to become a member you must agree to the Adventist baptismal vow, which includes a promise not to drink, sell or manufacture alcohol. However, in practice I doubt a church would disfellowship someone just because they had a few drinks... Cheers! Tonicthebrown 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bible makes it clear that it is drunkenness that is the sin.--Kroma 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee & Tea?

Does the SDA church still forbid members from drinking coffee and tea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps you are thinking of the Latter Day Saints? V-Man737 01:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As part of the "health message" it is still encouraged generally not to drink coffee (and other caffeinated products I think). An interesting Adventist Review article with broader ramifications about the use of "drugs" in general can be found here. Ansell 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't meaning the LDS. I'm aware of their Word of Wisdom. Adventists I have known did not drink beverages containing caffeine and I didn't know if it was treated the same way as alcohol (totaly banned) or simply spoken against. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, healthy principles are still taught. But I just checked the 28 Fundamentals and both the old and the new baptismal vows, and they don't mention coffee/caffeine but only alcohol, tobacco and narcotics. Yes, it is still taught. But contrary to some people I meet ("Oh, you're a Seventh-day Adventist? So you don't drink tea or coffee?") it is far from the most emphasized or important thing [Hello... "Jesus?"]. Actually here at Avondale College they installed a coffee machine in the Caf (cafeteria) this year. This is probably not typical, although Avondale is not one of the most liberal tertiary institutions the church operates. Hope this helps, Colin MacLaurin 09:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Based solely on Scripture"

I am raising a concern that I have with this sentence in the introductory paragraph to the article:

Seventh-day Adventist beliefs state they are based solely on scripture,[1] "Scripture is a road map. The Bible is God's voice, speaking His love personally to you today."[2]

In my opinion, this sentence is not accurate or verifiable. The fundamental beliefs of the SDA church, which is cited, do not anywhere state that the beliefs are based "solely" on Scripture. The relevant statements are as follows, with my comments:

"Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture."

This says that the Bible is "their only creed", which is not the same as saying that their beliefs are based "solely on the Bible". It is merely a rejection of other creeds (such as the Apostle's Creed and Nicene creed used by other churches), and a reiteration of the traditional Adventist avoidance of credalism. Furthermore, it goes on to say that the church "hold(s) certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of ... Scripture" and that the beliefs "constitute the church's understanding ... of the teaching of Scripture" (emphases mine). This is a clear acknowledgement that Adventist beliefs are based on an interpretation of Scripture; which contradicts the rather absolutist statement "SDA beliefs state they are based solely on Scripture".

"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested."

(See also [4] "However, we also believe... that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine.")

Belief #18, regarding Ellen White, calls her writings an "authoritative source of truth" which (implied) must be tested against the Bible. Thus the statement "based solely on Scripture" confuses the reader where the position is in fact more complex. It would be more accurate to say that the beliefs are "based ultimately on Scripture, as interpreted and understood by the church, with the assistance of Ellen White's inspired commentary etc...."

Hence, I propose the sentence is replaced with something less absolutist and more reflective of the actual Adventist position; for instance:

• "Adventists have a high regard for Scripture..."
• "Adventists are committed to the supreme authority of Scripture.."

I have deleted the sentence until a consensus can be reached. Tonicthebrown 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tonicthebrown, I will await your consensus and I will allow it to run it's course without reverting your edit. Once it has ended, I will propose that we insert this statement Seventh-day Adventist beliefs state they are based on scripture,^[1] "Scripture is a road map. The Bible is God's voice, speaking His love personally to you today."^[2]'. And as for your charge that there is no support, the reference above clearly supports this (see reference above). The reference I inserted, is in accordance with Wikipedia and supports the statement. Additionally, as I've pointed out, "high regards" is not the same as "based on". English is a very funny language and those two sentences carry totally different meanings. If we need to discuss this more, that's fine, but for now that is what I will propose. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Maniwar. Could I please ask you to explain exactly how you understand the "reference" to support the statement "Adventist beliefs state they are based solely on scripture". As I said, "the Bible is our only creed" is not in my opinion the same thing (see above). And I would be happy for a statement along the lines of: "Adventists regard scripture as supremely authoritative...". Could we agree on that as a compromise? Tonicthebrown 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair compromise. I am against "high regards" because that does not lend authority, it only says we'll consider it. I do believe however that the quote is fair and does lend support and is neutral. What say ye? --Maniwar (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maniwar. I agree with inserting the sentence: Seventh-day Adventists regard scripture as supremely authoritative in matters of life and doctrine: "Scripture is a road map. The Bible is God's voice, speaking His love personally to you today."^[3]'

This places Scripture as the primary authority for belief, while allowing other sub-authorities to exist - general revelation, contemporary prophecies etc. By my understanding, this is consistent with what the SDA church teaches. Cheers, Tonicthebrown 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tonic, I think this has run it's course. Go ahead and add the suggested changes. --Maniwar (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I roughly agree with Tonic's remarks. It is certainly worthy of mention that Adventists emphasize the authority of the Bible, but this must be expressed neutrally. Adventists are conservative Christians, and hence share a respect for the Bible's authority along with other theologically conservative Christians including evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals.

I also agree with Tonic that the "Scripture is a road map..." quote should be removed. Actually, I quoted it and more on the 28 Fundamentals page as it appears as a preface to those beliefs, if that is any consolation. I think the introduction could be clearer, although it lines up reasonably with the policy guideline. Colin MacLaurin 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I've been somewhat busy and am now back. The roadmap quote is quite POV. The official Website has that listed and it supports what Adventist’s teach in Revelation Seminars, Church, and other avenues that scripture is the basis. To list it, as the official website does, is not POV, but informative and supportive. That statement is not used in the 28 fundamentals context, but in their beliefs in general. I'm not wanting to start an edit war, but I do feel it warrants being mentioned. Tonic is adamant about adding negative views, and this one paragraph adds a foundation to refute these minor critics. If we are so quick to add the negatives, then we need to also add the positive and this is a foundation of the church (Sola Scriptura). I say we place it back in, and with your "roughly agree" comment, I gather that you may also agree. --Maniwar (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maniwar, just want to clarify my opinion about that quote. It's not that I think it is POV. I just don't think it fits well in the introduction to an encyclopedic article. It lacks a feeling of formality and objectiveness which is a requirement for encyclopedias, including Wikipedia. If you look further down, in the "theology" section, there is a clear statement that Adventists believe in the infallibility of Scripture. I think that is sufficient.

And please, can I please stress that I am not trying to be negative about the SDA church. That has never been my POV. I have had over 2 decades of experience in the Adventist church, and my family are active members there. My overall view of the church is positive; it is only certain historic elements that I am opposed to. I think I have worked hard on this overall article (and other Adventist articles as well) to give a strong positive impression of the church. But it is only fair that there is also balanced criticism of the church -- when you have spent as much time in the church as I have, you can also see its faults. All of the major criticisms (regarding theology, EGW, exclusivism) are widely attested. I do not think there is a defamatory or derogatory tone. Please notice my inclusion of counterpoints: Martin and Barnhouse, Veltman and the quote from QOD. Tonicthebrown 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote does reflect a very emphasized Adventist belief in the importance of Scripture, and this belief should be included, as it is. I agree strongly that if critics of the church have some incorrect accusations, then these points ought to be clarified in the article, which is why I wanted to have justification by faith alone included in there. However this article has so much content to be included that I think we should restrict the number of quotations used. I have the same criticism of Eschatology (Adventist) (no offence to the contributor) which shows this problem more markedly - nearly half the article is quotations from Ellen White, whereas a summary style would be better. Regarding Tonicthebrown, I have often seen edits from him in which he disagrees with or reverts edits which are overly critical with respect to Wikipedia's policies. Let me comment that I also appreciate Maniwar's contributions and respect for NPOV, discussing on talk pages etc. Colin MacLaurin 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Word Bible

I noticed there was no mention of the Clear Word Bible translation (or paraphrased). Shouldn't there be some reference as it was published by the SDA church? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

There is a separate article here. It is linked on the Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church page. I don't believe The Clear Word is notable enough to be mentioned on the main SDA page. Tonicthebrown 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the 'See Also' section. Perhaps that should suffice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed per Tonicthebrown's comments. The Clear Word is not insignificant, but I also agree that it is not notable enough within the church for inclusion on this page. Although it has received advertising in church newspapers, it is emphasized more by critics. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it is the only translation of the Bible put out by the SDA church. Doesn't that warrant a single line in the 'See Also' section? I'd agree putting something in the article itself doesn't make any sense, but a link seems like a decent middle position. It seems incomplete not to have a link.

As far as I know, that may be true. However most Adventists use a NIV, KJV or other standard translation, not an Adventist-specific version. There are many important Adventist-related pages which could be linked, and I don't think this competes with them; per comments above. Colin MacLaurin 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticms: Minor changes

1. Removed vandal abuse (ie: spreading membership by raping)

2. Removed the entry in criticisms about Adventists requiring only Adventists to marry. This is incorrect and is not found in any of the fundamental beliefs or church manual.

3. Removed the entry in criticisms about Adventists considering other Sunday churches as antichrist. The overall doctrines suggest they hold a similar view to Martin Luther, that the pope is the antichrist.

I'm also questioning some of the sources that are not neutral who in turn quote non-official church documents. For instance, while Adventists believe they are part of the remnant church, they do not believe they are the only ones going to be saved in the last days. We need to understand what the remnant means to an Adventist versus the traditional view of a cultish remnant (ie: they think they are the only ones going to heaven).

"Remnant and Its Mission: The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)" Source: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html (OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENT)

"This is the only statement from E. G. White where she uses the term "remnant" to designate believers outside the Adventist Church. She called them "a remnant who trusted in the Word of God," individuals who are holding communion with God. Interestingly, she uses the story of Elijah to illustrate what she means, namely, that God has His instruments everywhere else. Yes, only the Lord knows who they are, but at the end they will be visible as they become part of God's eschatological remnant.[52] " Source:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/remnantSDAchurch.htm (OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENT)

Conclusion -- the remnant that the SDA preaches is not all inclusive but rather a communion with God.

--Jbanning22 08:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jbanning. Thank you for your contributions. I would like to respond to some of your comments above.

• Page 183 of the SDA church manual states that "...the Seventh-day Adventist Church strongly discourages marriage between a Seventh-day Adventist and a non-Seventh-day Adventist, and strongly urges Seventh-day Adventist ministers not to perform such weddings."
• The purpose of the criticism section is to explain what other people have said against the church, not to present or defend official church teaching. The cited sources (Catholic Answers, Truth or Fables, etc.) do in fact accuse SDAs of referring to other Christian churches as "babylon". Similarly, critical sources do claim that the SDA church is a cult on the basis of its remnant teaching. This criticism may well be based on a misunderstanding of SDA teachings; nevertheless, the criticisms have been made, and so it is appropriate to disclose them in this section.
• Again, the view of Martin Luther is not relevant here. SDAs may well agree with him; nevertheless, this is an explanation of criticisms that have been made in relation to the SDA church. Tonicthebrown 09:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, legitimate crticisms (those with basis) can reasonably be presented. Antyhing else requires a counterpoint and risks devolving into finger-pointing. --Belg4mit 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Belg4mit. We cannot simply include any type of criticism in this page or in any other Wiki page if it has no factual basis. If it is a 'valid' criticism, which we should define as having merit, then we should include it with two sides of the story. For instance, there are a number of misconceptions about this church that are 'popular' such as they are part of the Jehovah's Witness or Mormon-based. Both of which are false and have no factual bearing. Your statement "the purpose of the criticism section is to explain what other people have said against the church" -- I don't agree with that either because many things have been said against the Adventist Church and they are not all included here nor should they be. We need to remove ones without merit, like criticisms quoting unofficial Adventist ministries. The definition of a cult should also be defined. Are we using dictionary definitions such as "adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices"? Because that applies to all Christian churches. Every Christian church is then a cult. --Jbanning22 19:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your comments. As I see it, the criticism section (which is really quite small next to the article as a whole, which portrays the church in an overwhelmingly positive light) describes 3 legitimate strands of criticism. (By legitimate I mean that these are criticisms that have been regularly and publicly made against the official church.) These are (1) in relation to doctrine, (2) in relation to Ellen White and (3) in relation to exclusivism. All three of these areas have point and counterpoint included (I recently added counterpoint for the final area). Therefore, from my POV, the section is both fair and appropriate, and should remain in the article. I fully agree that there is no need to include absolutely everything negative that has ever been said about the SDA church -- this was never my intention! :-) Tonicthebrown 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are trying to focus too much on the criticism section. I realize it is needed, but not to the detriment of the article or the church. Every single minor critcism does not need to be mentioned. I'm curious to know if point#2 is more of an Australia issue, and not an international one. It is not a significant issue here in the US. --Maniwar (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Might something about demographics be relevant? I know there are caucasian adventists (many participated in germ warfare experiments as pacifists, both of these tidbits are incidentally missing from the article) but in my own experience every adventist I've known has been (the descendant of) a black immigrant from the Carribean. Is this as common as it seems? --Belg4mit 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Something about demographics would indeed be very interesting and worthy of including in the article. Your experience is not typical of the world church. Adventism started among predominantly White Americans. However over time the North American church has became the minority numerically, as the church expanded in other parts of the world. Recent statistics for the 13 world administrative divisions of the church show that most members are in Central and South America, and Africa. Perhaps you live in England. Jon Paulien said, if I recall correctly, that 90% of the church there are immigrants from such places as the West Indies, as you say, and not Anglo-English (forgive the tautology)! Colin MacLaurin 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teetotalism

I just thought I would encourage anyone who would like to contribute to the teetotalism article and the Christianity and alcohol article. The Adventist view would be appreciated.

[edit] Images

The article is coming along very well in my opinion, and is nearing completion. I believe the biggest current need is to obtain high quality images from talented photographers. It will take time, so let's start now! Featured articles I have seen often include copious numbers of beautiful images. It is a truly international church, so let's represent this. A different country for every pic would be ideal. Some of the main areas/cultures I can think of are Africa, South America, Asia, and North America/Australia/Western Europe. Ideas for the list:

• church logo (already included). Some more white space padding would look better.
• Ellen White (already included). Is there a pic of the James/Ellen/Joseph trio?
• church building (we already have several, but we can do better IMO)
• church worship service - this may feel "warmer" to the reader than an exterior church building pic, helping to "include" them in the article
• Pathfinders is a major part of the church and would make a great pic
• mission work - a pic of happy, smiling volunteers and kids or other locals would look great on the page
• colour-coded world map of no. of Adventists by country, as suggested by me before and in the Feb 2007 peer review

Colin MacLaurin 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Colin, here are a couple more ideas which you pursue yourself if you have a digital camera:

* Picture of a footwashing ceremony -- quite unique to SDAs, and would go well at the Holy Communion section

* Picture of Avondale college, for Education section.

I've got a few other ideas which I'll look into in the next week or so. Tonicthebrown 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, how about a nice infobox? Incorporate the church logo into it. I just searched all the current good articles and featured articles relating to religion and only found one religious movement with an infobox, the Orthodox Church in America. We're basically pioneering. What do you think? An infobox is a very useful super-quick reference. Colin MacLaurin 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I feel about this. The Adventist's don't have enough 'significant' people (or maybe they do) to do an infobox. Maybe if there was a generic "Religious Leader" infobox. Yet, I do like the concept. Hmmmm, just thinking out loud. Could we justify on the Wikipedia world that the Seventh-day Adventist's need their own infobox? Any other comments? I do like the setup of the Orthodox Church in America's infobox. --Maniwar (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant a sort of denominational infobox, not one for individual Adventists. It would give details on church membership, GC president, starting date, starting location (US somewhere), parts of the world, influences (e.g. Millerites, Methodism), founders, administration (GC), etc. I didn't mean creating a new template, but using an existing generic one. I think it would make a great quick reference. Colin MacLaurin 11:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's a great idea. Which one would you have in mind? --Maniwar (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a proposal here [5]. Don't know if you want to comment. --Maniwar (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Bates

Someone who knows what their doing, needs to find all the Joseph Bates entries and change them to Joseph Bates (Adventist) because the Joseph Bates page is now an ambig. page with a murder from North Carolina. I don't know how to search for all of the entries to change them. --Maniwar (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)