ATTENTION MEMBERS need your assistance :)

[Tishri1]

The SOF idea was already dismissed as not desirable or necessary for this group.

The SOF was stated more than once to be a protection. Only progressives do not seem to want that protection because they are not threatened by divergent views. And statements of faith have a way of being turned from a shield into a sword when folks forget why they put them there in the first place.

If the progressives want protection it is the protection of their ability to discuss the topics they want to, with the people they want to. They do not want freedom FROM discussion which is what is offered by a statement of faith on Christian Forums.

the SOF is not necessary maybe just a link to give folks curious a place to go and read about your commonly held beliefs or learn more about the movement

what we need is a purpose for this forum and this group of believers

it doesnt need to be used to protect you all from outsider attacks if that is not a problem(**makes note that this forum anticipates generating fewer reports )

 

[Byfaithalone1]

How come your name does not reflect SDA but just Adventist?

It's a great question. I had assumed that this was a name the site administrator chose, but I could be wrong about that. I don't have any information that suggests that it is a name that this group selected. In fact, at one time, this group was comfortable with the idea of including the word "former" in the name but we were told that the site administrator did not like that word.

how bout of we say "SDA-Progressive and Moderate" switching it around like that seems more inclusive to the onlooker(me)

Fine by me. As long as we're changing the name, how about making it more inclusive (i.e. to match our statement of faith)?

Perhaps SDA -- Progressive, Moderate and Former?

BFA

 

[Edial]

It's a great question. I had assumed that this was a name the site administrator chose, but I could be wrong about that. I don't have any information that suggests that it is a name that this group selected. In fact, this group was comfortable with the idea of include the word "former" in the name but we were told that the site administrator was uncomfortable with the use of that word.

Right ... word "former" is out.

The issue is, if in spirit many of you indeed are former SDAs and some of you are current SDA who have questions, why not be called what you already are called, Prog/Mod Adventists?
And why shouldn't the SoP reflect that?

 

[Laodicean]

Right ... word "former" is out.

The issue is, if in spirit many of you indeed are former SDAs and some of you are current SDA who have questions, why not be called what you already are called, Prog/Mod Adventists?
And why shouldn't the SoP reflect that?

I'm curious as to why "former" is not allowed.

I'd also be curious to know the approximate ratio of formers to current. If the majority posting here are formers, maybe the present name of the forum is misleading. I know I felt I was coming home to a family of SDAs only to discover otherwise. A tad bit disconcerting, to say the least. Personally, I'd prefer a name that reflects more accurately the content of the posts on here. Something like Disillusioned SDAs or Unorthodox SDAs or even Angry SDAs. Then I'd have known what I was getting into.

But, hey, I'm new here, so y'all will name it what you think best. I'm just along for the ride.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Right ... word "former" is out.

The issue is, if in spirit many of you indeed are former SDAs and some of you are current SDA who have questions, why not be called what you already are called, Prog/Mod Adventists?
And why shouldn't the SoP reflect that?

In the past, it has been my understanding that the site administrator does not permit former SDAs to contribute in any decisions that impact this subforum. This does not seem to be particularly "inclusive," especially in a subforum whose culture is built on the concept of inclusion. However, I gave up worrying about that a long time ago. Progressive SDAs have been very warm and accepting and I have no fear that this will change anytime soon. I realize that I am a guest in a forum owned by someone else. I will live within the rules as long as I am granted the privilege of doing so.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Personally, I'd prefer a name that reflects more accurately the content of the posts on here. Something like Disillusioned SDAs or Unorthodox SDAs or even Angry SDAs.

Wow! I'm not sure how to relate to this post. I am not disillusioned, unorthodox or angry. I would be sad if I had left you with the impression that I am. However, I would not wish to control your perceptions.

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

I'm curious as to why "former" is not allowed.

I'd also be curious to know the approximate ratio of formers to current. If the majority posting here are formers, maybe the present name of the forum is misleading. I know I felt I was coming home to a family of SDAs only to discover otherwise. A tad bit disconcerting, to say the least. Personally, I'd prefer a name that reflects more accurately the content of the posts on here. Something like Disillusioned SDAs or Unorthodox SDAs or even Angry SDAs. Then I'd have known what I was getting into.

But, hey, I'm new here, so y'all will name it what you think best. I'm just along for the ride.

you've got jokes..... I am not angry, nor disillusioned.... I do disagree with some of the positions of the church, yet I am a member... so are you saying that only those who agree with the church 100% on everything should only be allowed to call themselves sdas?

In reality you home with a real sda family because in real families there are differences of opinions, and views, and perceptions... It is unfortunate that what you were seeking does not really exist...

 

[Laodicean]

Wow! I'm not sure how to relate to this post. I am not disillusioned, unorthodox or angry. I would be sad if I had left you with the impression that I am. However, I would not wish to control your perceptions.

BFA

BFA, don't take it personally. There are others who post here besides you. Actually, I think you are one of the less "angry" former SDAs, willing to live and let live. But there are other posters who definitely sound alienated, to me, and when certain nonSDAs (need I name names?) go about bashing some of the SDA beliefs, and no one disagrees with him, the silence speaks volumes to me.

 

[Sophia7]

How come your name does not reflect SDA but just Adventist?

I don't know if you remember this, Ed, but around the time of the forum split, there was some controversy over the names of the two Adventist forums. Some of the traditional Adventists objected to the progressives' use of the name "Seventh-day Adventist." Some concerns were even brought up about the use of the denomination's trademarked name. Thus, the advisors at the time decided not to use the "Seventh-day Adventist" designation for either forum but just to call them "Adventists." However, that is of course less accurate than the full name since there are other groups (also having their origins in the Millerite movement of the 19th century) that could also be classified under the more general category of "Adventists." On the other hand, at CF I think most people understand that the "Adventist" forums refer to "Seventh-day Adventists."

 

[Sophia7]

I'm curious as to why "former" is not allowed.

I'd also be curious to know the approximate ratio of formers to current. If the majority posting here are formers, maybe the present name of the forum is misleading. I know I felt I was coming home to a family of SDAs only to discover otherwise. A tad bit disconcerting, to say the least. Personally, I'd prefer a name that reflects more accurately the content of the posts on here. Something like Disillusioned SDAs or Unorthodox SDAs or even Angry SDAs. Then I'd have known what I was getting into.

But, hey, I'm new here, so y'all will name it what you think best. I'm just along for the ride.

Wow.

There used to be more progressives posting here, and I wouldn't have thought of them in the terms that you have described above. However, I think that many of them have departed from this forum because the ubiquitous threads on the law, Sabbath, and Ellen White didn't interest them.

 

[Laodicean]

you've got jokes..... I am not angry, nor disillusioned.... I do disagree with some of the positions of the church, yet I am a member... so are you saying that only those who agree with the church 100% on everything should only be allowed to call themselves sdas?

Stormy, I did not say anything about whether posters should call themselves SDA or not. Really. Read back.

I was just referring to the apparent purpose of the forum, which seems to be to basically discuss disagreements with certain SDA beliefs. That is fine with me, but some of the disagreements come across (to me, anyway) in a manner that seems like bashing rather than as a discussion that is in search of progressive insights into old SDA positions. If, in the process, the progressive insights lead to old SDA positions being thrown out, then so be it. But I get the impression that certain positions have already long been thrown out and any discussion is no longer of interest. Maybe I'm just a johnny-come-lately, and progressives have long since moved on, and so my comments are boringly still at the examination stage.

In reality you home with a real sda family because in real families there are differences of opinions, and views, and perceptions... It is unfortunate that what you were seeking does not really exist...

I seek exactly what you describe, differences of opinions and views and perceptions. Did I give a different impression of what I am seeking?

 

[Sophia7]

BFA, don't take it personally. There are others who post here besides you. Actually, I think you are one of the less "angry" former SDAs, willing to live and let live. But there are other posters who definitely sound alienated, to me, and when certain nonSDAs (need I name names?) go about bashing some of the SDA beliefs, and no one disagrees with him, the silence speaks volumes to me.

Perhaps you still don't understand Progressive Adventism. As I think has been clarified in this thread, Progressive Adventists are not hung up on the 28 FBs as a statement of faith or as a definition of Adventism, and they do not insist on acceptance of them by all Adventists. Thus, they do not view disagreement with them as a threat or as "bashing."

 

[Edial]

I don't know if you remember this, Ed, but around the time of the forum split, there was some controversy over the names of the two Adventist forums. Some of the traditional Adventists objected to the progressives' use of the name "Seventh-day Adventist." Some concerns were even brought up about the use of the denomination's trademarked name. Thus, the advisors at the time decided not to use the "Seventh-day Adventist" designation for either forum but just to call them "Adventists." However, that is of course less accurate than the full name since there are other groups (also having their origins in the Millerite movement of the 19th century) who could also be classified under the more general category of "Adventists." On the other hand, at CF I think most people understand that the "Adventist" forums refer to "Seventh-day Adventists."

Thanks!

Yes, at CF most people (inluding myself) understand "Adventist" being related to SDA, even being SDA in itself.

Yet it includes other folks that are not SDA, as seen by their icons.

Good seeing you by the way.

 

[Laodicean]

Wow.

There used to be more progressives posting here, and I wouldn't have thought of them in the terms that you have described above. However, I think that many of them have departed from this forum because the ubiquitous threads on the law, Sabbath, and Ellen White didn't interest them.

I hear you, Sophia. It's too bad that progressives have chosen to depart this forum because some have gotten stuck on the law, Sabbath, and EGW. Why should those few be allowed to rule the forum? There's nothing stopping progressives from starting threads of their own interests, if they find threads on the above subjects to be boring. Personally, if most everybody stops posting here, except for the few who are pounding away on the law and the Sabbath, I also will move on, because I don't believe in beating dead horses.

 

[Sophia7]

In the past, it has been my understanding that the site administrator does not permit former SDAs to contribute in any decisions that impact this subforum. This does not seem to be particularly "inclusive," especially in a subforum whose culture is built on the concept of inclusion. However, I gave up worrying about that a long time ago. Progressive SDAs have been very warm and accepting and I have no fear that this will change anytime soon. I realize that I am a guest in a forum owned by someone else. I will live within the rules as long as I am granted the privilege of doing so.

BFA

The title of this forum used to include former Adventists. That title was chosen at the creation of this forum by the progressives themselves, who didn't want to exclude former Adventists from their community. However, that portion of the title was later removed by the site advisors due to the objections of a few progressives and the fact that no other congregational forums at CF include "former" members in their titles.

 

[Laodicean]

Perhaps you still don't understand Progressive Adventism. As I think has been clarified in this thread, Progressive Adventists are not hung up on the 28 FBs as a statement of faith or as a definition of Adventism, and they do not insist on acceptance of them by all Adventists. Thus, they do not view disagreement with them as a threat or as "bashing."

And I don't think you are hearing me. I have nowhere said that the 28 must be adhered to or be a definition of Adventism. I have nowhere insisted on their acceptance...unless presenting points that I think support them is considered to be me insisting that they must be accepted. I thought I was merely discussing the other side of the coin.

Bashing is when someone begins to accuse others of not being redeemed, of being misled, of not having salvation because of their belief in the Sabbath, and so on. Maybe you have not been reading some of the threads where nonSDA posters make these statements? And where such statements are met by what appears to be an accepting silence?

 

[Laodicean]

And tell me if this is not so. If someone comes into this forum, affirming their belief in the Sabbath, the law, or EGW, I'm betting that makes them immediately an outsider and not really one of the family. In other words, in order to be welcomed warmly here as a progressive/moderate SDA, one must come affirming a disbelief in the IJ, EGW, and/or even the law. That makes for a common bond for those on this forum. Those disagreements constitute a litmus test of whether you are a real member of this family or not. Come on, let's not pretend. Is this true or not? I think it is, and it means that I probably should be moving on.

 

[Edial]

And tell me if this is not so. If someone comes into this forum, affirming their belief in the Sabbath, the law, or EGW, I'm betting that makes them immediately an outsider and not really one of the family. In other words, in order to be welcomed warmly here as a progressive/moderate SDA, one must come affirming a disbelief in the IJ, EGW, and/or even the law. That makes for a common bond for those on this forum. Those disagreements constitute a litmus test of whether you are a real member of this family or not. Come on, let's not pretend. Is this true or not? I think it is, and it means that I probably should be moving on.

This is my understanding. From an outsider.

My understanding is that Progressive and/or Moderate means exactly that - not necessarily following the Traditional way.

ALSO, accepting the ones that do not follow the Traditional way.

IF, some call themselves Progressive yet dogmatically reject others who do not believe in something that they personally strongly believe in, then they are not Progressives.

Progressive means agreeing to disagree - not insisting one's opinion upon another.
It is a discussion.

Am I wrong?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[VictorC]

Right ... word "former" is out.

Why?

The issue is, if in spirit many of you indeed are former SDAs and some of you are current SDA who have questions, why not be called what you already are called, Prog/Mod Adventists?
And why shouldn't the SoP reflect that?

Because some of the members have engaged in a process of examining the fundamental beliefs published by the SDA church, and the insights provided by those who have also engaged in that process have been considered valuable.

Tell me (chime in, everyone), is there a consensus that we want a place where we can engage in a sub-forum that is defined by the topic, rather than the label marking those who post in the sub-forum? I believe that is something this very unique area provides.
The General Theology area is general mayhem, and doesn't suit the topical emphasis.
The Denomination-Specific area is located in an area that those looking to engage in conversations regarding Adventism simply don't find it.

What is the purpose this sub-forum exists, and why is there a move afoot to discourage former Adventist's input?

 

[Laodicean]

This is my understanding. From an outsider.

My understanding is that Progressive and/or Moderate means exactly that - not necessarily following the Traditional way.

ALSO, accepting the ones that do not follow the Traditional way.

IF, some call themselves Progressive yet dogmatically reject others who do not believe in something that they personally strongly believe in, then they are not Progressives.

Progressive means agreeing to disagree - not insisting one's opinion upon another.
It is a discussion.

Am I wrong?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

wow! I think you have summed up perfectly what the statement of purpose should be! I like that.