ATTENTION MEMBERS need your assistance :)

[Kira Light]

I think "everyone" is incorrect, as that would include me, which it doesn't.

Sounds like you are probably in the earliest phases of rejecting EGW's teachings. She has a lot of well documented poor health advice as well as many visions that she claimed were from God that never came true. Google is your friend if you ever get the will to examine the SDA prophetess more closely..

 

[Edial]

Sounds like you are probably in the earliest phases of rejecting EGW's teachings. She has a lot of well documented poor health advice as well as many visions that she claimed were from God that never came true. Google is your friend if you ever get the will to examine the SDA prophetess more closely..

Different thread.

Please let's stick with the topic.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Kira Light]

Different thread.

Please let's stick with the topic.

Thanks,
Ed

Merely defending my previous point.. Is this thread about over? Is there much else to say?

 

[Edial]

Merely defending my previous point.. Is this thread about over? Is there much else to say?

Once this thread is over it will be closed.

At this time there are yet some members who would like to contribute to the purpose of this thread.

I understand there is someone else who posts weekdays who might want to contribute.

Once folks say "Yes", we're done.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[AzA]

Between November last year and February this year, some members spent a lot of time hashing out what distinguished this forum from the traditional forum. At that time, there was a proposal that we create a single SDA forum with specialist sub-forums including an open group like this one. That proposal has died, and so has the conciliatory attitude it inspired, but the thread including our discussions is still available.

Text from that thread includes the following:

"Progressive members are unlikely to assume that narrow or majority interpretations of any belief are the only appropriate or most sound interpretations of that belief. Various interpretations may be viewed at the same time, and compared without the assumption that the conventional opinion is superior. This way of exploring can unnerve people who assume that a certain conclusion should get priority. But I think it's important to remember that this is part of the "progressive tradition" -- and I think the Open Circle [i.e. the Progressive SDA sub-forum] should be one means of respecting that tradition."

This aligns with Tall's comments earlier.

One draft description of the sub-forum:

This sub-forum is "a place for inquiry and exploration—we welcome you to share your faith experiences and questions, and to discuss with us ideas and doctrines including the Adventist 28 fundamental beliefs. Our purpose is not to prove one another right or wrong through debate, but to better understand each other's perspective through friendly discussion and conversation. It is our intention to create greater unity through a better understanding of our diversity."

Additional draft material giving background on the forum and Seventh-day Adventism:

"...a forum for members of the Seventh-day Adventist church and Seventh-day Adventist community to discuss and fellowship

A few things to know about Seventh-day Adventists:

Members of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church belong to the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

We are a vibrant and diverse denomination, and span 13 divisions around the world. On this site, SDA church members and friends unite around these shared beliefs: God created the world, loves all creation, took responsibility for our redemption, and calls us to a whole life in Him now and through eternity. As a result, we look forward to "the restoration of all creation to full harmony with His perfect will and righteousness." (link; Genesis 1:1; John 3:16; Hebrews 12:1-3; John 14:1-3; Romans 12:1-2; Revelation 21:3-5)

For more on commonly held Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, including the seventh-day Sabbath and the imminent coming of Jesus Christ, please see the page What Adventists Believe."

I recommended that that page from the official denomination's website serve as a link for the general forum because its contents are accessible and loosely languaged. Most moderate and progressive Adventists would be able to see themselves in the majority of the content. Yet it's looseness would also likely upset a traditional Adventist. I say this because when we proposed this language, a member of the traditional forum objected to it because he viewed it as vague, non-distinctive, and ecumenical. For him these were all very bad things.

I don't post much in this section anymore because I do not wish to discuss the law, the Sabbath, Ellen White, or the law, the Sabbath, or Ellen White. But those who are here do wish to discuss these things. I would not recommend banning any subjects, however. Those who are here should discuss what they wish.

 

[AzA]

The SDA community is much larger than the denomination's active members. The community includes current active members, current inactive members, former members, employees of hospitals, schools, and service organizations, as well as people who have been served by any of these branches and so have come to feel connected.

The older group of progressive members on CF treated all of these classes as "members" for the sake of this forum. I would hope that future members do that as well. Respectful discussion is not too hard a goal. We've actually accomplished it before, and on a variety of subjects.

 

[StormyOne]

The SDA community is much larger than the denomination's active members. The community includes current active members, current inactive members, former members, employees of hospitals, schools, and service organizations, as well as people who have been served by any of these branches and so have come to feel connected.

The older group of progressive members on CF treated all of these classes as "members" for the sake of this forum. I would hope that future members do that as well. Respectful discussion is not too hard a goal. We've actually accomplished it before, and on a variety of subjects.

yep... agreed....

 

[VictorC]

You are absolutely correct.
You would have tremendous pressure from the Mother Ship.

(But I wanted YOU to say it ).

But you are a believer and have freedom in Christ.

Lutherans understand a lot more than you might consider.

Even now, 100s years later, we challenge all types of Synodal decisions.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

Ed, I admit I haven't ever looked in the Lutheran congregational forum, so I haven't a clue what happens in there. One of the complaints I have about the Lutheran church is that they apparently fail to convey their own historical teachings to the laity in their assemblies. In other words, Lutheran pastors tend to know theology rather well, but it isn't taught in their churches.

That is a pity, as some core conclusions reached by Martin Luther are remarkably sound. You would probably find Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians very applicable to what you find in the Adventist forums, while it receives little interest within Lutheranism. This is why I tend to have a natural repulsion from the concept of a "safe haven" for congregations. We should aspire to the unity of the faith, rather than encourage protection of what Martin Luther correctly identified as heresies that divide us.

My concern about the "mother ship" isn't really so much concerning protection. Truth always survives open exposure and inquiry. My concern is that reminding the "mother ship" adherants of their status as a guest rather than the homeowner would discourage their tendency to levy a dictatorship over anything labelled "Adventist" and call everyone here "disbelievers". That happens a lot more than you think it does.

 

[VictorC]

and if a unity of the one faith entrusted to us is to be attained, we need a place where we can discuss all the traits inherited that caused division in the first place.

this is also what we are looking for , it shows the purpose of this place quite well

Now, stand back and ask yourself why you needed a congregational forum in the first place. You just confirmed that what we all want is a cubbyhole with "Adventist topics" on the door, and we don't need no stinkin' SoF to protect us from open inquiry.

and to further answer your question about a supposed bias on my part concerning my own MJ forum....actually i facilitated the writing of their SOP but did not participate in offering any suggestions for it... I only took from the members(and all the forums in this area)their own words thru discussion to produce a SOP that would help them be free from harassment and create a place where they could be relaxed and free from constant contention and judgment

Contention is a synonym for open inquiry. That "contention" is inherent in a discussion forum anywhere you look. We didn't come here to share Betty Crocker recipes, you know.

 

[Tishri1]

the thread including our discussions is still available[/URL].


"Progressive members are unlikely to assume that narrow or majority interpretations of any belief are the only appropriate or most sound interpretations of that belief. Various interpretations may be viewed at the same time, and compared without the assumption that the conventional opinion is superior. This way of exploring can unnerve people who assume that a certain conclusion should get priority. But I think it's important to remember that this is part of the "progressive tradition" -- and I think the Open Circle [i.e. the Progressive SDA sub-forum] should be one means of respecting that tradition."

This aligns with Tall's comments earlier.

One draft description of the sub-forum:

This sub-forum is "a place for inquiry and exploration—we welcome you to share your faith experiences and questions, and to discuss with us ideas and doctrines including the Adventist 28 fundamental beliefs. Our purpose is not to prove one another right or wrong through debate, but to better understand each other's perspective through friendly discussion and conversation. It is our intention to create greater unity through a better understanding of our diversity."

Additional draft material giving background on the forum and Seventh-day Adventism:


We are a vibrant and diverse denomination, and span 13 divisions around the world. On this site, SDA church members and friends unite around these shared beliefs: God created the world, loves all creation, took responsibility for our redemption, and calls us to a whole life in Him now and through eternity. As a result, we look forward to "the restoration of all creation to full harmony with His perfect will and righteousness." (link; Genesis 1:1; John 3:16; Hebrews 12:1-3; John 14:1-3; Romans 12:1-2; Revelation 21:3-5)

What Adventists Believe."

thanks for both links the second could be invaluable if everyone agrees as we do use a link to more info in all our SOPs

 

[Tishri1]

Now, stand back and ask yourself why you needed a congregational forum in the first place. You just confirmed that what we all want is a cubbyhole with "Adventist topics" on the door, and we don't need no stinkin' SoF to protect us from open inquiry.

Contention is a synonym for open inquiry. That "contention" is inherent in a discussion forum anywhere you look. We didn't come here to share Betty Crocker recipes, you know.

victorC you are not helping ok please stop this and work with us your likely to make this take a lot longer as I think your the only one who is being difficult and making nonsensical accusations here, all we want is an SOP not a SOF we dont have those anymore as when we had those we had to much enclosure and lil denominational kingdoms in this area, we dont do that now BUT we do want to afford some protections to all the members from any harassment they may find they are having to endure here and the best way to do that is to have a statement of purpose

the statement of purpose

• helps define why this forum exists, what purpose all the folks here have for getting together
• tell who they are and what they believe
• and then gives info in the forum of a link to those inquiring an outside source, and that could be a SOF or historical background ectect
• it could also define one or two things this forum is not....

 

[Tishri1]

yep... I was here, and the experience was trying as I remember.... the rub of course was the claim of some as being true adventists and everyone who did not share those views were labeled as the spawn of satan......

does that happen in here at all? everything going good now?

 

[Tishri1]

The longer text you highlighted is too bulky. I think a couple of sentences is fine. I just wanted to give folks an idea of where progressives were coming from.

sounds good to me too i like the way you put things together and yes to say alot in a small space is just what we need , a few sentenses or if you want a few bullet points would be great!, what do you think of that link provided a few posts up? could that work for you all as a link for more info about progressives?

 

[VictorC]

victorC you are not helping ok please stop this and work with us your likely to make this take a lot longer as I think your the only one who is being difficult and making nonsensical accusations here, all we want is an SOP not a SOF we dont have those anymore as when we had those we had to much enclosure and lil denominational kingdoms in this area, we dont do that now BUT we do want to afford some protections to all the members from any harassment they may find they are having to endure here and the best way to do that is to have a statement of purpose

the statement of purpose

• helps define why this forum exists, what purpose all the folks here have for getting together
• tell who they are and what they believe
• and then gives info in the forum of a link to those inquiring an outside source, and that could be a SOF or historical background ectect
• it could also define one or two things this forum is not....

It isn't my intent to become difficult nor to write nonsense (as you allege). The reason that it appears that I'm "not working with you" is because I remain unconvinced that the SoP you deem requisite isn't necessarily so. We're talking past one another, and the second bulleted point inherent in the SoP is what I have tried to point out as undesired. I don't want to have my person defined, but rather define what the topical purpose of the forum is. This is a distinction that I believe continues to elude you. If I am alone in that observation, then disregard what I have opined instead of dismissing it as "nonsense".

 

[VictorC]

the rub of course was the claim of some as being true adventists and everyone who did not share those views were labeled as the spawn of satan

does that happen in here at all?

Yes, the "spawn of satan" accusation happens a lot here, usually by a select few of a consistent persuasion.

 

[Tishri1]

It isn't my intent to become difficult nor to write nonsense (as you allege). The reason that it appears that I'm "not working with you" is because I remain unconvinced that the SoP you deem requisite isn't necessarily so. We're talking past one another, and the second bulleted point inherent in the SoP is what I have tried to point out as undesired. I don't want to have my person defined, but rather define what the topical purpose of the forum is. This is a distinction that I believe continues to elude you. If I am alone in that observation, then disregard what I have opined instead of dismissing it as "nonsense".

then describe it that way , this isnt meant to be as hard as your either making it or taking it

 

[VictorC]

then describe it that way , this isnt meant to be as hard as your either making it or taking it

What was so wrong with what I considered acceptable in my previous post?

A place for Seventh-day Adventists who do not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. Others who wish to discuss Adventist issues are also welcome.

That might work. Careful consideration of language designed to avoid alienation of contributers would polish it. I don't know exactly what would work best, but this seems like a workable draft.

 

[StormyOne]

does that happen in here at all? everything going good now?

occasionally it happens, however we have been able to get the person to cease from the name calling or report them if they persist.... so at this moment, everything is good... Though I am sure that the lull is due in part to less people posting here....

 

[Tishri1]

Yes, the "spawn of satan" accusation happens a lot here, usually by a select few of a consistent persuasion.

GOOD!!!! That is the one main reason we are trying to help you all in here....As a forum run by standard rules we can support most forums from this kind of bullying with our flaming rules ect but in the congregational forums we want the members to be "safe" and free from this kind of mocking and belittling so we can definitely word the SOP this way and cut out all that name calling

so right out front we want to say "Progressive Adventists are SDA's who......."

anyone who would challenge your validity can do so outside these walls

 

[Tishri1]

occasionally it happens, however we have been able to get the person to cease from the name calling or report them if they persist.... so at this moment, everything is good... Though I am sure that the lull is due in part to less people posting here....

well with the wording above Stormy, anyone who tries to come in here to challenge your right to still be joined to the SDA church would have their post removed for being off topic, you dont have to debate your right to exists in this area of CF