ATTENTION MEMBERS need your assistance :)

[VictorC]

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

Sometimes we're caught in a difficult tension concerning the best way to continue a conversation with the one invoking a rule infraction. It isn't always our best option to have a post edited or removed, but on occasion it is. This is why we're slow to call for moderator attention sometimes; we don't consider their involvement always the most expedient means to lead a conversation the way we want to.

I don't want to confuse the issue of infractions to the accepted rules that should apply across the forum to the concept of a safe haven. I have expressed my opinion that a "safe haven" is detrimental to the goal of our unity in the faith.

 

[StormyOne]

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

I understand what you are saying, however the rules have never stopped the name-calling before.... its usually dealt with after the fact... I think our concern is there has to be a balance between allowing controversial issues discussed and preventing controversial issues from being discussed because someone may get angry and start a flame war... In the past we have erred on the side of allow everything and deal with the flaming if it occurs.... I prefer that to preventing people from interacting....

 

[FreeinChrist]

As this forum is labeled "Adventist" - is it safe to say that you believe in a 7th day Sabbath as the day for corporeal worship rather than Sunday?

 

[AzA]

As this forum is labeled "Adventist" - is it safe to say that you believe in a 7th day Sabbath as the day for corporeal worship rather than Sunday?

It would not be accurate.
The Sabbath is a rest day. Worship occurs on any day.

 

[VictorC]

As this forum is labeled "Adventist" - is it safe to say that you believe in a 7th day Sabbath as the day for corporeal worship rather than Sunday?

This thread has grown to enormous proportions, and so a review of all of the entries necessary to support this consensus will take some time and effort: We have agreed that an observance of the sabbath should not be a litmus test for participation on this forum.

 

[tall73]

In the past we have erred on the side of allow everything and deal with the flaming if it occurs.... I prefer that to preventing people from interacting....

Makes sense.

 

[Tishri1]

I understand what you are saying, however the rules have never stopped the name-calling before.... its usually dealt with after the fact... I think our concern is there has to be a balance between allowing controversial issues discussed and preventing controversial issues from being discussed because someone may get angry and start a flame war... In the past we have erred on the side of allow everything and deal with the flaming if it occurs.... I prefer that to preventing people from interacting....

ok sooo lets say a cf poster starts a thread Titled "Progressives are not SDAs" , would you like the SOP to help keep threads like that away? or do you not really mind having threads like that in this forum?

 

[Edial]

As this forum is labeled "Adventist" - is it safe to say that you believe in a 7th day Sabbath as the day for corporeal worship rather than Sunday?

Free, that was discussed in-thread some posts back.

At this time we are working with Tall's proposal.

We are just waiting for some other folks to contribute, the ones that post on weekdays.

Once we have it, we'll have the opinion of this Community.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[StormyOne]

ok sooo lets say a cf poster starts a thread Titled "Progressives are not SDAs" , would you like the SOP to help keep threads like that away? or do you not really mind having threads like that in this forum?

sure... a thread like that is fine.... I suppose if someone were to post that thread, it wouldn't take too long to show them why they aren't either or we would simply say, thank you for sharing your opinion, have a good day...or it could erupt into a flame war.... no way to know until the person shared their views....

 

[tall73]

A slight revision focusing on the topic rather than the people involved in case some prefer that.

A place for Seventh-day Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

 

[Edial]

A slight revision focusing on the topic rather than the people involved in case some prefer that.

A place for Seventh-day Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

I think this is better - topic rather than people involved ...

I have a question.
Are there SDA churches that openly discuss this or is this a movement of like minded questioning folks from within a traditional SDA church which officially follows these 28 beliefs?

Either way is OK. I am just curious.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[VictorC]

A slight revision focusing on the topic rather than the people involved in case some prefer that.

A place for Seventh-day Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

I think the topical emphasis works better with the wide latitude of individuals contributing here.

 

[Laodicean]

I have a question.
Are there SDA churches that openly discuss this or is this a movement of like minded questioning folks from within a traditional SDA church which officially follows these 28 beliefs?

Either way is OK. I am just curious.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed, I can't speak for every SDA church, but the one I'm a member of has a couple of Sabbath school classes that question some SDA beliefs quite openly, and they are allowed to continue to exist and promote their ideas within the church setting. I also know of a neighboring church that is even more liberal, extending its liberality of thought beyond a Sabbath school class and into their general activities. This is all under the umbrella of the traditional 28, however, so as long as you remain a member, you basically are endorsing the 28-belief image. There just is not hostility among the points of view, as far as I can ascertain, anyway.

As to what I would consider a balanced and caring church, traditional in its beliefs but accepting of a wide variety of peoples, google Forest Lake SDA Church. I like to listen on the internet to Derek Morris' sermons, and he is a good example, in my opinion, of a pastor who is balanced in his views, caring, and seems to have a close walk with God.

 

[Restin]

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.

In these two paragraphs, Aza has defined what has been happening here on this 'progressive forum' and who were considered 'members'. I do think the word 'Progressive' was originally intended to keep some in the church, or, at least be a part of the extended SDA 'community', as 'unity with diversity' was perceived to be the goal.

Presently, to maintain a goal that says 'unity with diversity', apart from the management or confines of SDA leadership, sounds good to me. However, I do feel the name 'progressive' is somewhat misleading to newcomers and believe this would be more clearly stated something like 'Unorthodox Adventism'. Anyone else with a suggestion...?

Note: It is not like BFA, a consistent, reliable contributor to this forum, to stay away this long. However, as he has younger children living at home, I am thinking he is on 'vacation', and it may be after the 4th of July before he returns. I hope we can give him some time.

Many thanks to those carrying the burden to make this work.
...Restin

 

[StormyOne]

In these two paragraphs, Aza has defined what has been happening here on this 'progressive forum' and who were considered 'members'. I do think the word 'Progressive' was originally intended to keep some in the church, or, at least be a part of the extended SDA 'community', as 'unity with diversity' was perceived to be the goal.

Presently, to maintain a goal that says 'unity with diversity', apart from the management or confines of SDA leadership, sounds good to me. However, I do feel the name 'progressive' is somewhat misleading to newcomers and believe this would be more clearly stated something like 'Unorthodox Adventism'. Anyone else with a suggestion...?

Note: It is not like BFA, a consistent, reliable contributor to this forum, to stay away this long. However, as he has younger children living at home, I am thinking he is on 'vacation', and it may be after the 4th of July before he returns. I hope we can give him some time.

Many thanks to those carrying the burden to make this work.
...Restin

and what pray tell would be the difference between Unorthodox Adventism and "Adventists Gone Wild?" Inquiring minds would like to know.....

 

[AzA]

I have a question.
Are there SDA churches that openly discuss this or is this a movement of like minded questioning folks from within a traditional SDA church which officially follows these 28 beliefs?

Either way is OK. I am just curious.

Both are true.
Individual congregations are often accountable to their geographic conference, and that conference may or may not attempt to control how a church operates in its community.
Baselines of "conservative" or "liberal" vary by region, as you might imagine, but also vary significantly within regions depending on members' social classes, ages, and ethnic backgrounds.

 

[Edial]

Both are true.
Individual congregations are often accountable to their geographic conference, and that conference may or may not attempt to control how a church operates in its community.
Baselines of "conservative" or "liberal" vary by region, as you might imagine, but also vary significantly within regions depending on members' social classes, ages, and ethnic backgrounds.

Got it.

Thanks.

 

[Edial]

OK. FINAL draft for SoP ...

comments?

A place for Seventh-day Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

 

[sentipente]

My only statement of faith is that we should have faith in each other and be respectful. I would add that we place our faith in our Creator, who is the author of our lives and not in any human authorities. Consequently, the divine gifts of logic and reason ought to be liberally used.

 

[StormyOne]

OK. FINAL draft for SoP ...

comments?

A place for Seventh-day Adventist discussion that does not insist on acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs. All who wish to discuss are welcome.

I like that....