Is there any reason for all the recent Seventh Day Adventism-related threads in this subforum?

[trophy33]

It's a conspiracy theory. I did actual research on the origin of this meme and most of the sites have ties to the beef industry.

This is what you can do to verify if the theory is right or wrong. Find some such studies, google the authors. I did and they are really frequently linked to Loma Linda.

Because you are implying every Adventist is either incapable of understanding the scientific method, or is part of a conspiracy (I guess to sell more broccoli, perhaps).

What? Where do I say anything about every Adventist?

 

[FireDragon76]

This is what you can do to verify if the theory is right or wrong. Find some such studies, google the authors.

I did. And it seems to be misinformation cooked up by the beef industry, ignoring the wide variety of scientific evidence that shows a plant-based diet is healthy and nutritionally adequate.

Are you aware that the American Kidney Foundation recommends a plant-based diet for long-term kidney failure (because most animal-based protein has a very high renal acid load)? Kidney failure is one of the leading killers in the US. Is that another bit of science cooked up by Adventists?

 

[trophy33]

I did. And it seems to be misinformation cooked up by the beef industry

I do not understand what you mean. You googled the authors of such studies and found something about the beef industry?

Are you aware that the American Kidney Foundation recommends a plant-based diet for long-term kidney failure (because most animal-based protein has a very high renal acid load)? Kidney failure is one of the leading killers in the US. Is that another bit of science cooked up by Adventists?

I do not know, I was not creating the recommendations for this foundation and I do not know what are their sources.

 

[FireDragon76]

I do not understand what you mean. You googled the authors of such studies and found something about the beef industry?

The meme you are talking about, that plant-based diets are pushed by the Adventists and therefore the scientific research on plant-based diets is suspect, was likely created by the beef industry. Those are the major websites I see that meme.

I do not know, I was not creating the recommendations for this foundation and I do not know what are their sources.

It's the National Kidney Foundation. They make recommendations for kidney disease patients based on research and by nephrologists.

National Kidney Foundation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kidney disease is a silent killer in the US. Most people that have it don't even know it, as it initially has few or no symptoms.

 

[JSRG]

These factors are also why the Traditional Latin Mass communities in the Roman Catholic Church were growing before Pope Francis decided to crack down with his deeply unpleasant actions in contradiction to the tolerance of Pope Benedict XVI. I really wish Pope Benedict had not stepped down; his doing so has been a disaster, and not just for the Catholic Church.

Traditional Latin Mass communities might have been "growing" but were still a rather small number. Any growth in their part would be more than made up for by losses in the rest of the church (also, are we counting Latin Masses by groups like the SSPX that are either not in communion or in a case of questionable communion with the Catholic Church proper? Growth by them is not really growth for Catholicism)

I expect something like 95% or more of Catholics (even if we restrict it to churchgoing Catholics) are at most only vaguely aware of Summa Pontificarum. At most it put the breaks on growth of a small subsection of the Catholic population--to try to blame it for the decrease in membership/attendance that was happening before Francis even issued it makes little sense.

EDIT: The above should have read Traditionis Custodes, not Summa Pontificarum, though the basic point remains.

 

[trophy33]

The meme you are talking about, that plant-based diets are pushed by the Adventists and therefore the scientific research on plant-based diets is suspect, was likely created by the beef industry. Those are the major websites I see that meme.

What I was saying is this - if you will see another such study, google the authors and their background. And in this way verify it for yourself, that those authors are frequently religiously biased. I said nothing about googling any memes.

It's the National Kidney Foundation. They make recommendations for kidney disease patients based on research and by nephrologists.

National Kidney Foundation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kidney disease is a silent killer in the US. Most people that have it don't even know it, as it initially has few or no symptoms.

And how is this related to what I say?

 

[tall73]

Almost all "plants are good, meat is bad" studies are somehow connected to Loma Linda. When some another such study comes out, try to check the authors and reviewers, their background. You will be surprised.

They do obviously have a vested interest in such studies.

But they also have a church population that allows for study of different diets within a willing population. It is not always easy to find populations that have vegetarians, vegans, meat eaters, etc. who are usually willing to participate in large numbers. And the churches provide that.

They also have a large network of medical centers which can serve as a base for such research.

Of course, there are also downsides to that sort of population study in the Adventist church. Those who are most interested in health within the context of the Adventist church tend to be vegetarian. Everyone in the congregation was urged to participate, which gives a good sample size. However, it also means the poor outcomes for meat eating in those studies may just reflect that those most committed to health would likely be in the vegetarian camp in an Adventist church.

Studies that focus on populations that don't used processed food can capture another aspect as well. Some studies have been done on hunter gatherers for example, that may show some of the effects thought to do with meat eating may be more just the modern diet, with or without meat.

Now that there is a larger group of carnivore diet adherents I expect to see some longer term studies. Certainly those eating all animal products should see fairly readily if there are lots of harmful effects from such.

 

[The Liturgist]

Traditional Latin Mass communities might have been "growing" but were still a rather small number. Any growth in their part would be more than made up for by losses in the rest of the church (also, are we counting Latin Masses by groups like the SSPX that are either not in communion or in a case of questionable communion with the Catholic Church proper? Growth by them is not really growth for Catholicism)

I expect something like 95% or more of Catholics (even if we restrict it to churchgoing Catholics) are at most only vaguely aware of Summa Pontificarum. At most it put the breaks on growth of a small subsection of the Catholic population--to try to blame it for the decrease in membership/attendance that was happening before Francis even issued it makes little sense.

I was going based on the growth of the Traditional Latin Mass communities within the Catholic Church, that are fully canonically regular, and not the SSPX. Pope Francis has actually been surprisingly friendly with the SSPX even as he has been hostile to the TLM within the canonical RCC, especially the Diocesan Latin Mass communities, who were most affected by Traditiones Custodes (which had an exemption for the FSSP, the religious order created to counter the SSPX, and presumably, one would hope, for the ICKSP, which serves the same function). Specifically Summorum Pontificum allowed any priest, and not just priests who were a part of the FSSP or ICKSP or certain other traditionalist liturgical orders, to say the mass using the Extraordinary Form, at their discretion, without requiring the approval of their bishop, and that is what Pope Francis revoked. This was followed by a large number of the more liberal bishops in the RCC restricting or banning the Latin Mass in their dioceses.

Fortunately there are also conservative bishops, like Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, who cracked down on those clergy who were willing to embrace homosexuality, such as the priest at a larger parish in San Francisco who made an extremely offensive and inappropriate joke about the hymn “Hail Holy Queen.” Indeed the clergy in his diocese attempted to turn St. Mary Star of the Sea, a particularly beautiful waterfront parish, into an Oratory, part of the Oratorians, a group established by St. Philip NerI which stresses liturgical beauty, with a view to that being a parish that would exclusively serve the TLM. Unfortunately that didn’t happen, but a large number of traditional Latin masses using both the Tridentine and Dominican Rite have been celebrated there. I believe my friends @Michie @concretecamper and @chevyontheriver , if I remember correctly, share my enthusiasm for Archbishop Cordileone.

 

[rturner76]

They seem to love to debate. I have gotten into quite a few discussions with some of them where I begin to feel like I'm being accused of heresy as a Catholic.

 

[The Liturgist]

The meme you are talking about, that plant-based diets are pushed by the Adventists and therefore the scientific research on plant-based diets is suspect, was likely created by the beef industry.

I find that hard to believe. For that matter I am also skeptical of the claim that the Adventists in general and Loma Linda University in particular are promoting plant-based diets and engaging in scientific fraud to make it happen, but I seriously doubt the beef industry is driving that claim. Beef is an extremely popular meat with a large number of enthusiastic consumers such as myself, and it does not need to engage in the kind of conspiracy that one might associate with the tobacco industry to stay in business, since the dietary properties of beef are well understood and humans have been consuming beef, bovine dairy products, and leather goods since time immemorial. People who are only marginally omnivorous are much more likely to be pescatarian or to limit themselves to chicken, turkey and other low-cholesterol products, since they alas have not come to appreciate the unmitigated splendor of chateaubriand or prime rib.

I myself, on the basis of the parable of the Prodigal Son, regard the consumption of beef as being divinely sanctioned, except during fasting periods, when those who are healthy should abstain from meat, during Advent, the Great Lent, the Apostle’s Fast, and the Dormition Fast, and on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year. This obviously does not apply to those who are impoverished, traveling or in poor health or who are the recipients of hospitality.

This all being said, I have an Armenian friend who attended Adventist school in his youth, and he told me that he got some major flak from his teachers for eating meat. It is also a known fact that Kellogg and Graham promoted their cereal and crackers respectively because they believed that, among other things, these foods would disincline their consumers towards engaging in sexual activity.

 

[tall73]

I myself, on the basis of the parable of the Prodigal Son, regard the consumption of beef as being divinely sanctioned,

You mean you don't eat the fattened soy bean?

 

[JSRG]

I was going based on the growth of the Traditional Latin Mass communities within the Catholic Church, that are fully canonically regular, and not the SSPX. Pope Francis has actually been surprisingly friendly with the SSPX even as he has been hostile to the TLM within the canonical RCC, especially the Diocesan Latin Mass communities, who were most affected by Traditiones Custodes (which had an exemption for the FSSP, the religious order created to counter the SSPX, and presumably, one would hope, for the ICKSP, which serves the same function). Specifically Summorum Pontificum allowed any priest, and not just priests who were a part of the FSSP or ICKSP or certain other traditionalist liturgical orders, to say the mass using the Extraordinary Form, at their discretion, without requiring the approval of their bishop, and that is what Pope Francis revoked. This was followed by a large number of the more liberal bishops in the RCC restricting or banning the Latin Mass in their dioceses.

And Traditionis Custodes (which is what I meant to say in my original post, I got it and Summa Ponticifarum mixed up) is something that I expect only a small minority of Catholics have heard of. Indeed, only a small minority of Catholics went to the Latin Mass to begin with. The idea that the decrease in membership and attendance of the Catholic Church can somehow be ascribed to something that affected a small minority of Catholics and occurred after a period of decrease was already happening doesn't make sense.

Traditionis Custodes might have had a small negative effect on membership or attendance, but that's all.

 

[BobRyan]

Looking at the most recent 20 threads in this subforum at the time of writing this post, eight are directly related to Adventism and two can be seen as indirectly related (the Sabbath-related ones). That's 40% of the topics being explicitly about it, and half the topics if we count the Sabbath ones. I don't remember this subforum being so focused on Seventh-Day Adventism prior to this. Did anything in particular cause this?

very good questions.

I don't know why there are so many "Adventists explain Ellen White statement about..." threads. Adventists typically do not go around starting a bunch of "all Ellen White all the time" threads even in our own Adventist forum area of CF let alone out here.

However - I myself have started some sola-scriptura threads on Daniel , Mark 1, Romans etc pointing out an Adventist POV on texts and inviting comments.

I start them in this open area instead of in the SDA-only area to give those who do not agree, a chance to post alternate ideas on those texts.

 

[FireDragon76]

I find that hard to believe. For that matter I am also skeptical of the claim that the Adventists in general and Loma Linda University in particular are promoting plant-based diets and engaging in scientific fraud to make it happen, but I seriously doubt the beef industry is driving that claim. Beef is an extremely popular meat with a large number of enthusiastic consumers such as myself, and it does not need to engage in the kind of conspiracy that one might associate with the tobacco industry to stay in business, since the dietary properties of beef are well understood and humans have been consuming beef, bovine dairy products, and leather goods since time immemorial. People who are only marginally omnivorous are much more likely to be pescatarian or to limit themselves to chicken, turkey and other low-cholesterol products, since they alas have not come to appreciate the unmitigated splendor of chateaubriand or prime rib.

I wasn't thinking primarily in terms of health impacts, but in terms of environmental damage. The beef industry in the United States has enormous externalities in terms of water, fossil fuel consumption, or greenhouse gas production. It's the worst form of protein production, in that respect. So there are alot of incentives for the beef industry to create misinformation.

I myself, on the basis of the parable of the Prodigal Son, regard the consumption of beef as being divinely sanctioned, except during fasting periods, when those who are healthy should abstain from meat, during Advent, the Great Lent, the Apostle’s Fast, and the Dormition Fast, and on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year. This obviously does not apply to those who are impoverished, traveling or in poor health or who are the recipients of hospitality.

I don't primarily rely on religion to decide my diet. I look to scientific evidence and determine what is best for the long term future of the human race and the planet as a whole.

This all being said, I have an Armenian friend who attended Adventist school in his youth, and he told me that he got some major flak from his teachers for eating meat. It is also a known fact that Kellogg and Graham promoted their cereal and crackers respectively because they believed that, among other things, these foods would disincline their consumers towards engaging in sexual activity.

They were wrong about some things but that doesn't mean they were wrong about everything. Kellogg's ideas about heart disease and the importance of digestion in overall health were far ahead of his time, even though for decades other doctors and the press ridiculed him (he was one of the first American physicians to be interested in probiotics, for instance). He also lived to a relatively old age with good health and physical fitness, which was very atypical for the time he lived.

 

[FireDragon76]

And Traditionis Custodes (which is what I meant to say in my original post, I got it and Summa Ponticifarum mixed up) is something that I expect only a small minority of Catholics have heard of. Indeed, only a small minority of Catholics went to the Latin Mass to begin with. The idea that the decrease in membership and attendance of the Catholic Church can somehow be ascribed to something that affected a small minority of Catholics and occurred after a period of decrease was already happening doesn't make sense.

Traditionis Custodes might have had a small negative effect on membership or attendance, but that's all.

Most Catholics I know didn't particularly care about the Latin mass and were not sad to see it go.

 

[JSRG]

Most Catholics I know didn't care about the Latin mass and were not sad to see it go.

I think Traditionis Custodes was a bad idea for multiple reasons. My position is simply that it makes little sense to blame it for a decline in Catholics when it would have been a small part of that at most.

 

[BobRyan]

I find that hard to believe. For that matter I am also skeptical of the claim that the Adventists in general and Loma Linda University in particular are promoting plant-based diets and engaging in scientific fraud to make it happen, but I seriously doubt the beef industry is driving that claim.

True - that is a bit of a stretch

 

[FireDragon76]

They do obviously have a vested interest in such studies.

But they also have a church population that allows for study of different diets within a willing population. It is not always easy to find populations that have vegetarians, vegans, meat eaters, etc. who are usually willing to participate in large numbers. And the churches provide that.

They also have a large network of medical centers which can serve as a base for such research.

Of course, there are also downsides to that sort of population study in the Adventist church. Those who are most interested in health within the context of the Adventist church tend to be vegetarian. Everyone in the congregation was urged to participate, which gives a good sample size. However, it also means the poor outcomes for meat eating in those studies may just reflect that those most committed to health would likely be in the vegetarian camp in an Adventist church.

Studies that focus on populations that don't used processed food can capture another aspect as well. Some studies have been done on hunter gatherers for example, that may show some of the effects thought to do with meat eating may be more just the modern diet, with or without meat.

Now that there is a larger group of carnivore diet adherents I expect to see some longer term studies. Certainly those eating all animal products should see fairly readily if there are lots of harmful effects from such.

Adventists that do eat meat generally don't drink or smoke, two things known for having negative effects on health. So comparing vegetarian Adventists vs. meat-eating Adventists is actually a good test case, as the groups are otherwise very similar.

 

[tall73]

Adventists that do eat meat generally don't drink or smoke, two things known for having negative effects on health. So comparing vegetarian Adventists vs. meat-eating Adventists is actually a good test case, as the groups are otherwise very similar.

I would say they are not that similar. It is true that most don't drink or smoke, though even that is not consistent across the board. Some did smoke or drink, and were open about it to me in private. Some you only found out round-about. But the general commitment to exercise, etc. was not as strong with those who were just not into health as much. And because being into health as an Adventist has some things that usually go with it as far as exercise, diet, etc. I do think the non-vegetarians were less healthy in general when compared to health conscious meat eaters outside of Adventism.

Now there may be regional differences as well. I am just going by my experience with the various Adventist churches where I was a member or involved in ministry.

 

[BobRyan]

Adventists that do eat meat generally don't drink or smoke, two things known for having negative effects on health. So comparing vegetarian Adventists vs. meat-eating Adventists is actually a good test case, as the groups are otherwise very similar.

True , that is a reasonable comparison if you want to eliminate a lot of other variables.