Should both Traditional and Progressive SDAs answer SDA questions in the main forum?

[woobadooba]

I have an issue with this because it creates confusion for those who might be new to the SDA church, or those who are considering becoming members of it.

Furthermore, most lurkers wouldn't even know to ask a question as such in either of the two sub-forums, but would be more inclined to ask it in the main forum.

And to be quite frank, I think the whole idea of having a division like this is misrepresentative of what the Bible teaches us on how God's church is to be united.

Moreover, I consider it insulting to have such categories because it implies that one group is less thoughtful than the other. But that's another topic...

Anyway, it's one thing to have a forum discussion amongst those who differ in belief on certain points within our church, but something entirely different when a question is directed at an SDA, which one expects an answer for that correlates to our general beliefs.

I think we should all agree that when a question of this nature is asked in the main forum it ought to only be answered according to our defined fundamental beliefs.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Should both Traditional and Progressive SDAs answer SDA questions in the main forum?

Yes.

 

[woobadooba]

Yes.

I feel that both parties should be allowed to participate in discussion threads. However, there has to be some kind of guidelines as to how questions should be answered. Such answers ought to reflect what the SDA church generally declares to be an official belief, so as to avoid confusing lurkers, as well as new church converts.

 

[tall73]

Forum rules don't make that demand. But I suppose there is some good-taste policy that the person answering at least cite the official view and then if they wish point out that extra material is a deviation.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I've expressed this concern before myself.

I know it has to be really confusing for people that ask questions in our forum.

What I see most is that the difference of opinion isn't that big of an issue, but that most progressives on this board (and I really do NOT mean any disrespect by this) don't really give the question an ANSWER of their own, they just try to attack the person that originally answered it, if the views differ.

A good-taste policy would be fantastic!

 

[reddogs]

I agree with Tall 73 on a good taste policy of at least cite the official view and then give their personal or differeing view.

I hate labels and this traditional vs (insert name here) is nothing short of evil dividing us, we need to go over any issues that Satan has used to cause hate and anger to grow, and slowly resolve them (at least in our little group here) until we can find a way to come together as in the end it wont matter who is right, as everyone who hates his brother will be wrong.............

1 John 2:9
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I don't like the division either. Personally, I think we could come to some sort of agreement on this without having to have an official new "rule" or policy about it (at least I hope we could).

Couldn't we just answer with "traditional adventists believe..............."? Progressive adventists could do the same thing.

Instead of trying to prove which side is wrong (since both cannot possibly be right if the views differ), why not just let the OP make their own determination?

The person asking the question could decide which view they liked best and go from there.

Just a thought

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

It would seem that anyone could take what they like from any of the statements made. If someone wants to try and find an official SDA answer to a question that is fine they should post it if they want. I don't think official statements can be found for most things asked here however and even if they could that does not make them the correct answers or even the current SDA view. We as a church have changed quite a lot really. Just think about the huge controversy that came from the official answers from the book Questions on Doctrines. In truth if either the traditionals or Progressives don't believe the official SDA position they certainly have never been silent on expressing their disapproval. Just look at all those traditional sites that condemn other Adventist for not agreeing with them that Adam had a post fall nature. Then there are traditionalists that are semi Arian and think that the trinity is a heresy.

It may be a nice idea to present the Adventist church as one in unity but it has never been that unified. As Walter Martin was fond of saying the Adventist church is not a Monolith.

 

[woobadooba]

It would seem that anyone could take what they like from any of the statements made. If someone wants to try and find an official SDA answer to a question that is fine they should post it if they want. I don't think official statements can be found for most things asked here however and even if they could that does not make them the correct answers or even the current SDA view. We as a church have changed quite a lot really. Just think about the huge controversy that came from the official answers from the book Questions on Doctrines. In truth if either the traditionals or Progressives don't believe the official SDA position they certainly have never been silent on expressing their disapproval. Just look at all those traditional sites that condemn other Adventist for not agreeing with them that Adam had a post fall nature. Then there are traditionalists that are semi Arian and think that the trinity is a heresy.

It may be a nice idea to present the Adventist church as one in unity but it has never been that unified. As Walter Martin was fond of saying the Adventist church is not a Monolith.

What we agree or disagree on individually is irrelevant here, because the fact of the matter is that we do have 28 fundamental beliefs which give the SDA church meaning.

Moreover, these beliefs are listed in this forum. Therefore, any questions that are asked within the main forum that are answerable by these tenets of faith which define who we are as a church, ought to be answered according to such beliefs. Otherwise there is no sense at all in listing such doctrines in this forum.

This isn't a doctrinal free for all. There must be some kind of order in here. The way it used to be set up in here was that questions were only answered according to what the SDA church generally accepts as truth. In my opinion things are totally out of control in this forum.

 

[Sophia7]

The way it used to be set up in here was that questions were only answered according to what the SDA church generally accepts as truth. In my opinion things are totally out of control in this forum.

This was never a policy of CF. The rules have always allowed only those who consider themselves Seventh-day Adventists to answer questions in this congregational forum. There is no rule that dictates how they must answer such questions, and I don't think it would be good to be that prescriptive in applying CF rules. In general, I think it's a good idea to explain the church's official position on doctrinal questions, if there is one, when people ask. However, we as staff can't tell those who consider themselves Adventists here that they aren't allowed to express their own beliefs when answering questions, even if they differ from the Adventist fundamental beliefs. CF rules permit them to do this.

 

[woobadooba]

This was never a policy of CF. The rules have always allowed only those who consider themselves Seventh-day Adventists to answer questions in this congregational forum. There is no rule that dictates how they must answer such questions, and I don't think it would be good to be that prescriptive in applying CF rules. In general, I think it's a good idea to explain the church's official position on doctrinal questions, if there is one, when people ask. However, we as staff can't tell those who consider themselves Adventists here that they aren't allowed to express their own beliefs when answering questions, even if they differ from the Adventist fundamental beliefs. CF rules permit them to do this.

Before the division took place within this forum views that were not in harmony with what the SDA church held as official beliefs were not to be used as a means to answer questions asked by non-SDAs, since such views were identified by forum members at the time as not being SDA, because they did not conform to what the church officially teaches as truth.

So to argue the point that any answer would suffice as long as one considers himself to be an SDA is moot, since there was a time when such a division did not exist in this forum, and those who fostered such beliefs that are foreign to what the church officially teaches were not identified as true SDAs. There may not have been a definitive rule as such, but the ruling was that only SDAs could answer questions, and it was a given that such answers would reflect what the church generally teaches. Hence the reason for posting our official beliefs in the forum!

Of course, the idea of calling some non-SDA who considered themselves to be SDA created some serious problems with forum morale, and thus resulted in a division of two opposing groups of people in the form of two separate sub-forums--Traditional SDAs and Progressive SDAs. It was believed that this would end the tension, but instead it created even more tension as each side now considers itself to be superior to the other. We just recently saw the fruit of this within the past few days by those who spoke of traditional SDAs in a mocking tone. And now to make matters worse there really is nothing to definitively distinguish us as SDAs except a mere confession that we accept the Nicene Creed and consider ourselves to be SDA. What rubbish!

Nevertheless, prior to this there was an implied general consensus amongst SDAs within this forum on what was acceptable as SDA doctrine. Of course, that which was acceptable reflected what the church officially teaches as doctrine. Such teachings were used as a means to answer any questions that any non-SDA would bring to the forum.

Are you forgetting that I've been around for a while?

Oh, by the way, to correct you on something...

You had said, "The rules have always allowed only those who consider themselves Seventh-day Adventists to answer questions in this congregational forum." This is not entirely true. One either had to have an SDA icon or disclose within his profile that he was an official member of the SDA church. This is quite different than one who merely has to consider himself to be an SDA in order to answer questions in this forum.

Obviously the rules have subtly changed. Can anyone figure out why? And can anyone else see the problem with merely considering oneself to be an SDA in order to answer questions in this forum?

 

[tall73]

From the moment I got here there were people trying to run off others. That is why the forums were divided. The mods didn't run people off then and they won't now.

And so you know I have, while on staff, and after, been trying to get them to allow us to promote two of our doctrines which are not allowed to be promoted now.

It is not a conspiracy. The rules haven't changed. If anything having SDA mods helped you all for a while because someone knew what in the world Adventists think.

 

[thecountrydoc]

My dear brothers and sisters,

There are some very basic concepts that need to be considered here. The first one is basic rules of gramatical composition. The words Seventh-day Adventist, constitute a name that only applies to those that are of like faith by the acceptance of certain biblical teachings and principals. To add a modifier, ie. Liberal, Progressive, or Evangelical, to the subject SDA, is to give the original subject a new meaning.

That being said (and hopefuly understood), questions or discussion that are directed to 'Seventh-day Adventist', should be answered and/or discussed by those who meet the definition of Seventh-day Adventist. Those that do not share the same tenets of faith by definition should not be allowed to challenge the basic tenets of faith, or the 28 Basic Beliefs of SDA, in the Seventh-day Adventist forum without clearly idendifying themselves as someone that holds a different beleif from the accepted beleifs of the SDA, anymore than someone of any other denomonation.

For one to belive that there will ever be a "meeting of the minds" on these rather different positions of fatih is to hope for some panacea. To debate these positions in a public forum can only be of benefit to Satan and his interest.

From the obvious contention between members here, and the appearent lack of interest in witnessing to those who have no knowledge of Jesus Christ or the 3rd. Angels Message, it would seem that all are somewhat less than "faithful servents."

I do not mean to belittle or demean anyone here, but it would seem that much more time should be spent studying the life and love of Jesus Christ.

May God put His loving arms around you, the Holy Angels protect you, and the Holy Spirit guide and comfort you as we travel salvations highway to our heavenly home.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

Lord put your arms around my sholders and your hand over my mouth.

 

[tall73]

My dear brothers and sisters,

There are some very basic concepts that need to be considered here. The first one is basic rules of gramatical composition. The words Seventh-day Adventist, constitute a name that only applies to those that are of like faith by the acceptance of certain biblical teachings and principals. To add a modifier, ie. Liberal, Progressive, or Evangelical, to the subject SDA, is to give the original subject a new meaning.

That being said (and hopefuly understood), questions or discussion that are directed to 'Seventh-day Adventist', should be answered and/or discussed by those who meet the definition of Seventh-day Adventist. Those that do not share the same tenets of faith by definition should not be allowed to challenge the basic tenets of faith, or the 28 Basic Beliefs of SDA, in the Seventh-day Adventist forum without clearly idendifying themselves as someone that holds a different beleif from the accepted beleifs of the SDA, anymore than someone of any other denomonation.

For one to belive that there will ever be a "meeting of the minds" on these rather different positions of fatih is to hope for some panacea. To debate these positions in a public forum can only be of benefit to Satan and his interest.

From the obvious contention between members here, and the appearent lack of interest in witnessing to those who have no knowledge of Jesus Christ or the 3rd. Angels Message, it would seem that all are somewhat less than "faithful servents."

I do not mean to belittle or demean anyone here, but it would seem that much more time should be spent studying the life and love of Jesus Christ.

May God put His loving arms around you, the Holy Angels protect you, and the Holy Spirit guide and comfort you as we travel salvations highway to our heavenly home.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

Lord put your arms around my sholders and your hand over my mouth.

No offense, but I have seen Woob witness to non-believers here and I have as well. Not to mention off site. I have seen others do so as well here. So I am not sure where the lack of interest in witnessing comes in.

The tension between members...Yeah, that is true enough.

 

[woobadooba]

From the moment I got here there were people trying to run off others. That is why the forums were divided. The mods didn't run people off then and they won't now.

And so you know I have, while on staff, and after, been trying to get them to allow us to promote two of our doctrines which are not allowed to be promoted now.

It is not a conspiracy. The rules haven't changed. If anything having SDA mods helped you all for a while because someone knew what in the world Adventists think.

tall73, for the simple fact that the official beliefs were posted, that evidences that any questions that were to be answered in here were to be answered according to those beliefs, not contrary to them. These are the beliefs which define who we are as a church. There were no sub-forums at the time which designated some as traditional and progressive. So it was a given that answers to questions about what the SDA church teaches had to conform to such precepts. And the truth is that this is how it should be, since our official beliefs have not changed, except that one new one was added.

And yes, there has been some changes in here, and for the most part they have not helped us at all. Truth is, this place has become way too liberal in my opinion. It's too bad you can't see this.

By the way, my previous post is right on. I've been here just as long as you have, and even longer. So I'm not speaking out of ignorance here.

 

[tall73]

A. I stated that we should give the official position.

B. You yourself were saying that the investigative judgment started in Peters day just a short time ago. So forgive me if I do not immediately consider you a classical conservative adventist.

C. Daveleau used the same policy of considering oneself Adventist in the sticky setting up the forums.

No, the split came after we got here. But the problem came before I got here. Ask Stormy who was one of the subjects of the inquisition.


D. when I first got here I was actually arguing with pay attention, etc. and taking the conservative stance. I just never advocated for kicking folks out.

E. You will get your way. You will have no Adventist moderators and the mods will simply dole out what the rules call for, just as they always have. Then who will you blame?

 

[tall73]

The truth is you have no idea how my wife or I advocated for adventists while on staff. You never will either most likely because everything staff related is sealed by privacy. But we were not plotting how to overthrow Adventists and enslave them to the ecumenical cause, I guarantee you that.

I (along with others) have gotten the policy director to promise to have the annihilationist rule reviewed. I sent him a 34 page document detailing the scriptural evidence, as well as a historical listing of adherents, and pushed for it in threads.

I have tried to push them to let us discuss our view of the beast, etc. It was because of this very issue that I quit staff. They wanted to sanitize theological discussion for the sake of "unity."

These two items you could see, because I raised the issues in the Discuss rules forum.

I have always, since I have been here, pushed for the ability to discuss all theological positions, because if anyone stands to lose in restraining speech it is US (apart from the obvious moral reasons).

I have also pushed for others to have the same right (that religious liberty thing).

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Tall73,

You said:

"No offense, but I have seen Woob witness to non-believers here and I have as well. Not to mention off site. I have seen others do so as well here. So I am not sure where the lack of interest in witnessing comes in.

The tension between members...Yeah, that is true enough."

No offense taken. My observations have been made as a result of having been here just a short time. It is from the current threads and topics that a nonSDA who stops by for the first time would draw a similar conclusion. I'm reasonably certain that before this division reared its ugly head that there were/are many that had their focus on other things.

This current situation remindes me of an old country saying; "When you're standing in aligators up to your tail, it is difficult to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp."

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[woobadooba]

A. I stated that we should give the official position.

B. You yourself were saying that the investigative judgment started in Peters day just a short time ago. So forgive me if I do not immediately consider you a classical conservative adventist.

C. Daveleau used the same policy of considering oneself Adventist n the sticky setting up the forums.

No, the split came after we got here. But the problem came before I got here. Ask Stormy who was one of the subjects of the inquisition.


D. when I first got here I was actually arguing with pay attention, etc. and taking the conservative stance. I just never advocated for kicking folks out.

E. You will get your way. You will have no Adventist moderators and the mods will simply dole out what the rules call for.

tall73, I became a member of this forum before you did. I was specifically informed by Dave that to participate in debate in the SDA forum I either had to have an SDA icon, or disclose in my profile on the merit of my word, that I was an official member of the SDA church, in which case I did.

As for the IJ, I don't agree with the official teaching on it. Therefore, if someone were to come in here and ask what our church teaches on it I couldn't tell them that our church teaches the view that I have come to know to be true.

And that is my point. If anyone who merely considers himself to be an SDA can answer questions in here, and thus act as a means which identifies what SDAs believe, that just doesn't fly with me.

Questions should be answered according to what our official beliefs state, since the question isn't, "What do you personally believe about...?" Or "what do progressive SDAs believe about...?" Or what do Traditional SDAs believe about...?" Rather, the question is, "What do SDAs believe about...?", thus implying that the person asking the question wants to know what the official teaching of the church is on that matter. And that is how it ought to be answered. Period.

 

[tall73]

tall73, I became a member of this forum before you did. I was specifically informed by Dave that to participate in debate in the SDA forum I either had to have an SDA icon, or disclose in my profile on the merit of my word, that I was an official member of the SDA church, in which case I did.

A. I cannot speak to what Dave did with you. I can say they didn't kick out folks like pay attention just because of his theological beliefs. Nor did they kick out stormy.

Is there someone in particular you think is not an Adventist member? Report it if you like. But I think you are only going to hurt yourself in the long run. Limiting who can speak only gets more popular the more it is done.

B. Your solution, to limit theological statements, is the very type of thing that goes against our views of religious liberty, and the very sort of thing some (only some but I have talked to them) folks would LOVE to do to all Adventists.

We need less rules limiting theological statements here, not more. Some of us are working as much as we can to stop limitation of speech. Please join us before we are all squelched.