ATTENTION MEMBERS need your assistance :)

[Laodicean]

Why?

why is there a move afoot to discourage former Adventist's input?

?? I didn't see a move to discourage input from formers or nonSDAs. I thought Edial and Trish were merely trying to formulate a statement of purpose. A more explanatory purpose would certainly help newbies avoid what happened to me -- embarrassment.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

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.

It's no mystery that I disagree with many of the unique SDA beliefs, so I don't take issue with disagreement. I do, however, take issue with people who bash one another personally. On that point, I've never been silent.

BFA

 

[Edial]

I just remembered I'm on Leave till late Sunday night ... all Staff needs to do that once every 3 months, so my wings are clipped for 2-3 days.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Byfaithalone1]

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.

Ahhh, thanks for jogging my memory! I now remember it well, including those who were involved at the time!

BFA

 

[VictorC]

?? I didn't see a move to discourage input from formers or nonSDAs. I thought Edial and Trish were merely trying to formulate a statement of purpose. A more explanatory purpose would certainly help newbies avoid what happened to me -- embarrassment.

This thread has grown to disproportionate dimensions because of a difference in opinion concerning how this forum should be labeled. Some want to define those who contribute, while others want the emphasis placed on the topic we address here. The divergence in emphasis is apparent even between what Edial and Tishri1 write.

 

[VictorC]

I just remembered I'm on Leave till late Sunday night ... all Staff needs to do that once every 3 months, so my wings are clipped for 2-3 days.

Thanks,
Ed

I value your input, and hope to see your reasoned approach return.

 

[StormyOne]

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.



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

thank you for clarifying..... if you want to discuss the IJ, or whatever, I am more than happy to discuss with you what I believe... likewise if a sda brother or sister comes to this sub-forum promoting the usual traditional interpretations, we welcome them... the problem of rejection is usually not with us but them... in other words once they find out that some here no longer believe say in the IJ concept or that the mark of the beast is not Sunday worship, they say that we are not really adventists, or that we are in apostasy, etc.... and then the name calling begins....

 

[StormyOne]

Let me also say that I am not threatened by the contributions made by former adventists, or non-adventists... its just a discussion.... and I like the interaction... its the disrespect and flaming that usually rubs me the wrong way....

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

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.
​

It's no mystery that I disagree with many of the unique SDA beliefs, so I don't take issue with disagreement. I do, however, take issue with people who bash one another personally. On that point, I've never been silent.

BFA

actually, I stated it inaccurately. I meant to say, "when certain nonSDAs...go about bashing those who hold to some of the SDA beliefs...." It's one thing to bash a blelief, but another to bash those who hold that belief. And maybe the reason why you have not spoken up when that has happened is because you probably did not read those threads where that occurred. That's okay. I don't expect you to read everything on here, BFA.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

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.
​

actually, I stated it inaccurately. I meant to say, "when certain nonSDAs...go about bashing those who hold to some of the SDA beliefs...." It's one thing to bash a blelief, but another to bash those who hold that belief. And maybe the reason why you have not spoken up when that has happened is because you probably did not read those threads where that occurred. That's okay. I don't expect you to read everything on here, BFA.

In fairness, this is not an accurate assessment of my posts. I have been openly opposed to anyone -- regardless of their background or denominational affiliation -- who bashes the individual rather than discussing ideas. I'm sure I have not spoken up every time this has occurred (I'm not the CF Police). But I have spoken up consistently -- even to those who share a similar viewpoint.

Since you have recommended a name for this site that would apply to a number of people who aren't angry or disallusioned, I have wondered whether a number of different posters may be guilty of "bashing." Let's stick with ideas and steer away from labeling and demeaning people. This is where bruising begins and bruising never leads to productive dialogue.

I'm here because I benefit from open, charitable dialogue.

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

thank you for clarifying..... if you want to discuss the IJ, or whatever, I am more than happy to discuss with you what I believe... likewise if a sda brother or sister comes to this sub-forum promoting the usual traditional interpretations, we welcome them... the problem of rejection is usually not with us but them... in other words once they find out that some here no longer believe say in the IJ concept or that the mark of the beast is not Sunday worship, they say that we are not really adventists, or that we are in apostasy, etc.... and then the name calling begins....

actually, I did not come here wanting to discuss the IJ or the Sabbath. My first post was on an entirely different subject. Recently, I read through the threads on this forum, starting back in 2005, and I don't remember seeing name calling by traditionalists on here. Maybe that occurred in the traditional SDA forum? What I have seen is the reverse, where certain nonSDAs bash those who hold to the IJ, the law, the Sabbath, and/or EGW. Maybe I missed some of the comments of which you speak, in the back threads. But if that happened, I'm with you: I certainly do not support that!

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

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.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

actually, I stated it inaccurately. I meant to say, "when certain nonSDAs...go about bashing those who hold to some of the SDA beliefs...." It's one thing to bash a blelief, but another to bash those who hold that belief. And maybe the reason why you have not spoken up when that has happened is because you probably did not read those threads where that occurred. That's okay. I don't expect you to read everything on here, BFA.
​

In fairness, this is not an accurate assessment of my posts. I have been openly opposed to anyone -- regardless of their background or denominational affiliation -- who bashes the individual rather than discussing ideas. I'm sure I have not spoken up every time this has occurred (I'm not the CF Police), but I have spoken up consistently.

please don't take it personally, BFA. I did not say that your posts are this way.

Since you have recommended a name for this site that would apply to a number of people who aren't angry, disallusioned or ___, I must take issue with your own bashing. Let's stick with ideas and steer away from labeling and demeaning people. This is where bruising begins and bruising will never lead to productive dialogue.

okay, I retract those names if there are some who will feel bashed by being called "disillusioned" or "unorthodox" or even "angry." I wouldn't want to hurt anyone inadvertently.

 

[AzA]

Let's recap.
This group is situated in the Faith Groups section. All Faith Groups have at minimum Statements of Purpose. We can't stay here without one, so we're going to get one.

Not all faith groups are denominational. Some like WWMC cluster around a rather broad approach to Christianity and as such welcome as regular posters both confessing Christians and people who are seeking or from other traditions willing to fellowship in good faith.

Occasionally there are drive bys by people who don't share the core approach (liberalism) or the guest approach (respectful conversation) and so attack principles of the group or members of the group.

Because of the SOP, those people can be reasoned with and/or reported. And respectful conversation can resume.

There is no reason this cannot work here again.

 

[StormyOne]

actually, I did not come here wanting to discuss the IJ or the Sabbath. My first post was on an entirely different subject. Recently, I read through the threads on this forum, starting back in 2005, and I don't remember seeing name calling by traditionalists on here. Maybe that occurred in the traditional SDA forum? What I have seen is the reverse, where certain nonSDAs bash those who hold to the IJ, the law, the Sabbath, and/or EGW. Maybe I missed some of the comments of which you speak, in the back threads. But if that happened, I'm with you: I certainly do not support that!

You don't see the flame wars because the Mods remove the offending comments as quickly as possible, that is the other variable... sometimes the thread is closed, cleaned up and you would never know what happened.... I have been called quite a few names during my time here... but that was yrs ago, and we have moved on...

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Let's recap.
This group is situated in the Faith Groups section. All Faith Groups have at minimum Statements of Purpose. We can't stay here without one, so we're going to get one.

Not all faith groups are denominational. Some like WWMC cluster around a rather broad approach to Christianity and as such welcome as regular posters both confessing Christians and people who are seeking or from other traditions willing to fellowship in good faith.

Occasionally there are drive bys by people who don't share the core approach (liberalism) or the guest approach (respectful conversation) and so attack principles of the group or members of the group.

Because of the SOP, those people can be reasoned with and/or reported. And respectful conversation can resume.

There is no reason this cannot work here again.

I'm not opposed, but I'm wondering how a SOP will accomplish that in this setting. If you have any ideas, I'm wide open.

BFA

 

[Joe67]

Hogs make a big obvious mess as they work.

Little foxes spoil the vines when the grapes are tender, and we hardly know it.

Joe

 

[Sophia7]

actually, I did not come here wanting to discuss the IJ or the Sabbath. My first post was on an entirely different subject. Recently, I read through the threads on this forum, starting back in 2005, and I don't remember seeing name calling by traditionalists on here. Maybe that occurred in the traditional SDA forum? What I have seen is the reverse, where certain nonSDAs bash those who hold to the IJ, the law, the Sabbath, and/or EGW. Maybe I missed some of the comments of which you speak, in the back threads. But if that happened, I'm with you: I certainly do not support that!

When I joined CF in fall 2005, there was only one Seventh-day Adventist forum, and it was only a couple of months old. Almost immediately, there was tension between those who held to the 28 FBs and those who questioned or disagreed with some of them. That led to the creation of two SDA sub-forums--Traditional and Progressive--in addition to a main SDA forum for all Adventists, and people were labeled according to whether they agreed with all 28 FBs.

At that time, I would have considered myself more traditional than progressive although even then I had questions on some Adventist doctrines, and I can't say that I ever held to a completely traditional viewpoint on some things. So I never liked the idea of being labeled as a particular type of Adventist--and I have, at various times and by various people during my tenure here, been labeled as a traditional, progressive, and former Adventist. Eventually, my questions and what I had considered minor disagreements with Adventist doctrines turned into major disagreements, and my hubby ended up resigning from the ministry almost three years ago because he, too, had come to disagree with several Adventist teachings (primarily the IJ). Now, although, I no longer consider myself an Adventist, I still feel a connection to this community because of our common background in Adventism, which doesn't go away just because a person is no longer officially affiliated with the denomination.

Most of us who have been here since the early days of the SDA forum and who have questioned or disagreed with Adventist beliefs publicly have at some point in the past been the target of personal attacks--which, as Stormy pointed out, were dealt with by the moderators if they were found in violation of CF's rules against flaming. The SDA forum went through some months that were more peaceful, depending on who was posting regularly at the time, but always problems would reappear eventually, to the point where both the members and staff finally agreed that it would be best for each group to have its own forum, not just sub-forums. The situation was complicated by a period a few years ago (known as "777" to those who were around then) during which the site owner at the time gave almost complete autonomy to the members of each forum at CF to make their own rules and to elect their own moderators. As you may imagine, that only increased tensions among Adventist members.

This is just a brief summary, but I hope it helps you to understand some of the factors that have brought this forum to the point where it is now. If you're looking for the earliest posts, you'll probably find many of them in the Traditional Adventist section. Just wanted you to be aware of the fact that these forums were once one in name but that there have always been differences in ideology and in focus among different groups of Adventists. This is also true of the Adventist Church, which includes members from a wide spectrum of viewpoints, not necessarily easily labeled into "traditional" and "progressive" categories.

 

[StormyOne]

When I joined CF in fall 2005, there was only one Seventh-day Adventist forum, and it was only a couple of months old. Almost immediately, there was tension between those who held to the 28 FBs and those who questioned or disagreed with some of them. That led to the creation of two SDA sub-forums--Traditional and Progressive--in addition to a main SDA forum for all Adventists, and people were labeled according to whether they agreed with all 28 FBs.

At that time, I would have considered myself more traditional than progressive although even then I had questions on some Adventist doctrines, and I can't say that I ever held to a completely traditional viewpoint on some things. So I never liked the idea of being labeled as a particular type of Adventist--and I have, at various times and by various people during my tenure here, been labeled as a traditional, progressive, and former Adventist. Eventually, my questions and what I had considered minor disagreements with Adventist doctrines turned into major disagreements, and my hubby ended up resigning from the ministry almost three years ago because he, too, had come to disagree with several Adventist teachings (primarily the IJ). Now, although, I no longer consider myself an Adventist, I still feel a connection to this community because of our common background in Adventism, which doesn't go away just because a person is no longer officially affiliated with the denomination.

Most of us who have been here since the early days of the SDA forum and who have questioned or disagreed with Adventist beliefs publicly have at some point in the past been the target of personal attacks--which, as Stormy pointed out, were dealt with by the moderators if they were found in violation of CF's rules against flaming. The SDA forum went through some months that were more peaceful, depending on who was posting regularly at the time, but always problems would reappear eventually, to the point where both the members and staff finally agreed that it would be best for each group to have its own forum, not just sub-forums. The situation was complicated by a period a few years ago (known as "777" to those who were around then) during which the site owner at the time gave almost complete autonomy to the members of each forum at CF to make their own rules and to elect their own moderators. As you may imagine, that only increased tensions among Adventist members.

This is just a brief summary, but I hope it helps you to understand some of the factors that have brought this forum to the point where it is now. If you're looking for the earliest posts, you'll probably find many of them in the Traditional Adventist section. Just wanted you to be aware of the fact that these forums were once one in name but that there have always been differences in ideology and in focus among different groups of Adventists. This is also true of the Adventist Church, which includes members from a wide spectrum of viewpoints, not necessarily easily labeled into "traditional" and "progressive" categories.

A nice and concise summary of the history here... thanks for that walk down memory lane...

 

[AzA]

I'm not opposed, but I'm wondering how a SOP will accomplish that in this setting. If you have any ideas, I'm wide open.

BFA

It's not really about what we need. It's about what the moderators feel they need.

In our setting, saying that we usually discuss stuff related to Adventism because most of us have had some connection with Adventism, and that we do not require 28FB-type orthodoxy -- this lays down a baseline for core activity.

We've already established we have no problem with wide-ranging discussion and welcome both denominational members and non-members. That's unique to us. Respect *should* be covered by generic rules but in practice moderators have a hard time following up if the section SOP does not actually describe what goes on there.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

It's not really about what we need. It's about what the moderators feel they need.

In our setting, saying that we usually discuss stuff related to Adventism because most of us have had some connection with Adventism, and that we do not require 28FB-type orthodoxy -- this lays down a baseline for core activity.

We've already established we have no problem with wide-ranging discussion and welcome both denominational members and non-members. That's unique to us. Respect *should* be covered by generic rules but in practice moderators have a hard time following up if the section SOP does not actually describe what goes on there.

OK. I hear you. Thanks.

BFA