Do you want to start working on the rules for this forum?

tall73 · Aug 19, 2007

I am not traditional Adventist. So please take this with that in mind.

Perhaps you should consider a topic restriction rather than a person restriction.

That way folks like woob etc. or even others could post here, but they would not be allowed to go against traditional doctrine. If they had something they were not traditional on they would have to take it to the debate section.

This would get rid of some of the labeling but still allow you control over your area, and keep out strange doctrines.

Just a thought.

IntoTheCrimsonSky · Aug 19, 2007

TrustAndObey said:
So maybe we could say that Moderates and Traditional Adventists may post here, but we prefer to leave all "teaching" posts to come from Tradtional Adventists?

I could go with that. In most cases I don't consider myself experienced enough to teach, anyway. I do this Tall's idea sounds good, though.

TrustAndObey said:
Moderates will have more places to post in this subforum than anyone else.

Very true.

tall73 said:
I am not traditional Adventist. So please take this with that in mind.

Perhaps you should consider a topic restriction rather than a person restriction.

That way folks like woob etc. or even others could post here, but they would not be allowed to go against traditional doctrine. If they had something they were not traditional on they would have to take it to the debate section.

This would get rid of some of the labeling but still allow you control over your area, and keep out strange doctrines.

Just a thought.

So basically, unless the topic is in harmony with the 28 fundamentals it's not allowed in here? That could work.

TrustAndObey · Aug 19, 2007

I agree, if the topic is in line with the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Adventist church, or if it's a fellowship conversation, that would be fine.

honorthesabbath · Aug 19, 2007

Thank you for restating my idea. I basically had in mind those who repeatedly seem to want to fight with TSDA's over doctrine, be they offshoots or those of other denominations.

So the 'teaching' portion is very good. Let's keep it.

DarylFawcett · Aug 20, 2007

Sounds good to me!

TrustAndObey · Aug 20, 2007

I've never known a non-Traditional Adventist that tried to come in here and teach.

The problem *I* have seen is snide comments and ridicule of what we already believe, and I won't tolerate that in here anymore.

happywiththelord · Aug 20, 2007

I totally agree!

*ugh, this is all so exhausting!*

tall73 · Aug 20, 2007

TrustAndObey said:
I've never known a non-Traditional Adventist that tried to come in here and teach.

The problem *I* have seen is snide comments and ridicule of what we already believe, and I won't tolerate that in here anymore.

Which is why making it about beliefs, rather than people, would be most constructive I think.

In fact, I might still contribute a little, if you let me, but only on the things we agree with. There are some things I am very traditional on and wouldn't mind having a place to talk about them.

TrustAndObey · Aug 20, 2007

tall73 said:
Which is why making it about beliefs, rather than people, would be most constructive I think.

In fact, I might still contribute a little, if you let me, but only on the things we agree with. There are some things I am very traditional on and wouldn't mind having a place to talk about them.

Tall, as I mentioned in another thread....you are WELCOME here.

Everyone is really, but maybe you could help us keep the snide comments out of here.

Our beliefs are laid out on the table for anyone to scrutinize, but there are a lot of different doctrines within the "progressive" belief system, so....you know, it's hard to say from one person to the next.

It just makes it really difficult to fellowship sometimes.

But yes, you are more than welcome to contribute.

TrustAndObey · Aug 20, 2007

Daryl, you've done a superb job of typing up our ideas in rule format, would you care to take what we've been saying and implementing it into rule lingo?

If you can, we can vote on this right away, unless anyone has some more rule suggestions?

DarylFawcett · Aug 20, 2007

I will work on that now.

Could this be why I am a member of the By-Laws Committee for both the local conference and union?

DarylFawcett · Aug 20, 2007

I have slightly reworded what you see quoted below as well as added the proposed 4.4 rule from what has been posted here:

4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventist Fellowship Sub-forum

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists, who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

I didn't remove any of the proposed rules in the above quote so that we can see what the added one looks like in relation to the other ones.

I really feel we shouldn't delete what has been proposed unless it is by unanimous agreement amongst the Traditional SDA group here, therefore, please look this over and tell me if anything here should be reworded.

If anybody feels any of the above rules should be deleted, then time should be allowed to see if there is anybody who feels that it shouldn't be deleted, but rather decided in the POLL.

Of course, additional rules can still be proposed here.

DarylFawcett · Aug 20, 2007

After posting what I posted, I am under the assumption that the purpose of the proposed 4.4 rule is to replace completely the proposed 4.3 rule?

If I am correct in my assumption, and, if everybody here agrees, then I will delete the proposed 4.3 rule and renumber the proposed 4.4 rule to the proposed 4.3 rule.

I hope I am making sense and not confusing anybody here.

honorthesabbath · Aug 20, 2007

Hi Daryl, yeah--after re-reading the rules, I think you can delete 4.4 as it is a bit repundent.

I just hope other will respect our forum.

Thanks for refining the wording.

DarylFawcett · Aug 20, 2007

The proposed 4.4 rule came as a result of Tall73's suggestion and others response to that suggestion.

As I may not have worded 4.4 per the intent of this rule, I hope to hear more about this in relation to its purpose.

TrustAndObey · Aug 20, 2007

Daryl, I think we also need to have a quick mention that only Traditional Adventists can "teach" in this subforum.

Also, debate really isn't an issue, but sarcasm is. Is there a way to keep that kind of stuff out of here?

happywiththelord · Aug 21, 2007

i dont see how we can keep sarcasim out of here. we cant rule to death everything! i use sarcasism a lot . its just kinda how i talk. but i do it in an hopefully funny way.

i like the four rules above. very easy to follow and understand.

DarylFawcett · Aug 21, 2007

Here is an updated list of the proposed rules for this section:

4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventist Fellowship Sub-forum

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists, who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.

How does this look now?

TrustAndObey · Aug 21, 2007

Daryl, those look awesome. The first person to be voted off the island will have to be HappyWithTheLord!

I think we all know the difference between funny sarcasm and hateful sarcasm Happy, so you're safe.

As far as I'm concerned, this looks good enough to print! I mean, poll!

What do you the rest of you think?

thecountrydoc · Aug 21, 2007

Hi Daryl,

Been gone for the last 4 days and am pleased to see what you guys have come up with. I agree with Lainie, I think it really looks good!

Respectfully, yourbrother in Christ,
Doc

Do you want to start working on the rules for this forum?

Sophia7's husband

~ ¤ Love. It's in you. ¤ ~

TrustAndObey

Guest

Senior Veteran

Ticket Support Manager

TrustAndObey

Guest

Veteran

Sophia7's husband

TrustAndObey

Guest

TrustAndObey

Guest

Ticket Support Manager

Ticket Support Manager

Ticket Support Manager

Senior Veteran

Ticket Support Manager

TrustAndObey

Guest

Veteran

Ticket Support Manager

TrustAndObey

Guest

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency