Can we set up a vote to have the Prog/Trad sub-Forums be fazed out?

[reddogs]

I think there is ample evidence that we have a growing consensus that the Prog/Trad sub-Forums are 'obsolete' and were a bad idea to begin with and should be fazed out. Is think that there should be a way withing the wiki to set up conditions, and if those conditions are met we can faze out the Prog/Trad sub-Forums. What is everyones feeling on this?

 

[SpeakNow]

You base that on whose opinions?

My idea of ample evidence is a little different than yours I guess.

I am not voting on anything else until we have mods in here.

 

[StormyOne]

It was a bad idea... and yes it could be phased out sooner rather than later.... perhaps some members could resist the urge to tell other members that they aren't "true adventists" that would be a start in the right direction..... IMO that is...

 

[SpeakNow]

It just got voted on to keep them, and now we're going to do away with them altogether?

 

[SpeakNow]

You should ask IceDragon101's opinion on this since he sent me a PM to come here and vote on the Progressive forum. Obviously some people still want them around.

 

[reddogs]

You base that on whose opinions?

My idea of ample evidence is a little different than yours I guess.

I am not voting on anything else until we have mods in here.

I am asking what is the feeling in our forum to see if the reading on the general consensus is accurate, no one is voting, we are just seeing what everyone thinks on this issue.

 

[SpeakNow]

Maybe I misunderstood you a little and if I did, I apologize.

However, it was just voted on to keep the two subforums and add two more.

Just voted on last week as a matter of fact so I think the consensus has already spoken.

I would be willing to set a GOAL that we eventually faze them out and try to come to some agreement. I'd like to be everyone's goal honestly.

We aren't going to do that without moderation however, and that's why I think that needs to be our next matter of business.

 

[JonMiller]

That is what I originally thought, after the recent mess I am not sure though.

JM

 

[reddogs]

That is what I originally thought, after the recent mess I am not sure though.

JM

We can still pull out a win for everyone out of 'jaws of defeat' and division, if we just carefully explain the steps, the conditions that need to be met, and how we will deal with any issues that come up as they invariably do........

 

[sentipente]

You should ask IceDragon101's opinion on this since he sent me a PM to come here and vote on the Progressive forum. Obviously some people still want them around.

That was before you arrived.

 

[sentipente]

Maybe I misunderstood you a little and if I did, I apologize.

You have been doing quite a bit of that recently. Pay a little closer attention to what posters ACTUALLY post and much misunderstanding (and confusion) will be avoided.

 

[sentipente]

SpeakNow may have a point that it may be better to get mods first. The structure can always be adjusted later. (I'll get the phone number later).

 

[honorthesabbath]

It was a bad idea... and yes it could be phased out sooner rather than later.... perhaps some members could resist the urge to tell other members that they aren't "true adventists" that would be a start in the right direction..... IMO that is...

The problem stormy is that the liberal offshoots are NOT TRUE Adventists----TRUE in the sense that they have not remained TRUE to the 28 fundemental BELIEFS.

By goodness--how hard is this to realize?

 

[reddogs]

The problem stormy is that the liberal offshoots are NOT TRUE Adventists----TRUE in the sense that they have not remained TRUE to the 28 fundemental BELIEFS.

By goodness--how hard is this to realize?

Yes, and many people are not TRUE to their wives and sin, but yet they still can reach eternal life, there is hope for all through Jesus Christ. We must go in that direction......

 

[StormyOne]

The problem stormy is that the liberal offshoots are NOT TRUE Adventists----TRUE in the sense that they have not remained TRUE to the 28 fundemental BELIEFS.

By goodness--how hard is this to realize?

that is where we disagree..... and adventists have not always had 28 fundamentals.... most true adventists know that....

 

[sentipente]

The problem stormy is that the liberal offshoots are NOT TRUE Adventists----TRUE in the sense that they have not remained TRUE to the 28 fundemental BELIEFS.

By goodness--how hard is this to realize?

Honor, to follow your argument you would have to deal with the fact that it was not until recently that we adopted first 27 FBs and then added a 28th at the last GC Session. Are you suggesting that those who were Adventist before the 27 FBs were adopted were not true Adventists or do you draw the line at the last GC when they became 28? By your reckoning we may discover that none of us is a true Adventist. Only the GC can really settle that and I doubt they would waste the time to get involved in this forum's squabbles.

 

[StormyOne]

The fact of the matter is that "true adventists" never needed 27, now 28 fundamental beliefs, to know what they thought or what they believed...

 

[sentipente]

The fact of the matter is that "true adventists" never needed 27, now 28 fundamental beliefs, to know what they thought or what they believed...

I remember those days when we proudly declared, "We have no creed." Then the 27 FBs appeared.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Oh my--never mind--why oh why did I think I could reason with a liberal?? Shame on me!

 

[sentipente]

I just noticed something. How did the label change from Progressive to Liberal. Could some US politics be at play here? Just wondering.