Staying where we are not wanted

[freeindeed2]

Perhaps it is such statements as these that cause Night to think some mods don't want progressives around:

Originally Posted by thecountrydoc
How is it the right of a minority, who does not hold true to the teachings and doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, to prostitute the Seventh-day Adventist Church name by being designated a sub-forum of the SDA Forum?

Quite the statement from one an SDA mod! I think it's a serious power-play rather than an unbiased mod speaking there. That was uncalled for, and if he feels that strongly then he should be a participant, not a mod.

In CHRIST alone...

 

[freeindeed2]

I posted a few comments in there. I don't think I will get reported as I tried to be diplomatic with my words.

I am getting quite adept at verbally dancing around these hyper-sensitive mods! Tall has taught me well to curb my 'tone'!

Sure you don't get to say what you really want to say exactly how you want to say it, but maybe I can last long enough in there to have at least SOME of my opinions considered.

Anyhow, I am still learning. I have never been much for dealing with administration in any capacity. I would rather just bulldoze over them verbally and to heck with diplomacy and tact. I am not as refined and socially polished as Tall is when dealing with the 'higher-ups'.

I think I did relatively well though. Go and read for yourselves.

I'm still reading through the WHOLE thread and haven't even gotten to your comments Night. I just wanted to voice my support. Trads may not want to accept the MANY other factions of SDAism, but that doesn't really matter. They exist and there's NOTHING they can do about it, no matter how much they jump up and down and kick and scream. It is what it is. I'm heading back to read more of the thread.

In CHRIST alone...

 

[DeanM]

Quite the statement from one an SDA mod! I think it's a serious power-play rather than an unbiased mod speaking there. That was uncalled for, and if he feels that strongly then he should be a participant, not a mod.

In CHRIST alone...

Am I missing something here? You're refering to Tall73?

On my radar, he appears to be a regular member, and not staff.

Perhaps he was staff and no longer is, or he can shut off his staff icon (I can't) . . .

No disrespect intended! I am just curious if I'm missing something?

 

[NightEternal]

Am I missing something here? You're refering to Tall73?

On my radar, he appears to be a regular member, and not staff.

Perhaps he was staff and no longer is, or he can shut off his staff icon (I can't) . . .

No disrespect intended! I am just curious if I'm missing something?

Dean, the offending statement in question was made by Doc. Both Tall and Free were quoting Doc in thier respective posts.

It is Doc who Free is talking about.

 

[NightEternal]

he should be a participant, not a mod.

I agree and I have felt this way for a long time now Free. Of course, that is not news to anyone.

It certainly isn't the first outrageous, intolerant statement he has had to be called on and it surely won't be the last.

 

[freeindeed2]

Am I missing something here? You're refering to Tall73?

On my radar, he appears to be a regular member, and not staff.

Perhaps he was staff and no longer is, or he can shut off his staff icon (I can't) . . .

No disrespect intended! I am just curious if I'm missing something?

I was making reference to Doc's statement, not Tall73's, and from a completely different thread. I'll check it to make sure that's how it is stated in my post.

Basically, from what I've read so far, it's the Trad mods pushing their agenda in a thread that most of us (all SDA's) didn't even know existed. It's quite a bit lop-sided to be a fair representation for all SDA's. Par for the course here though!

In CHRIST alone...

 

[NightEternal]

It is preposterous that the thread was not advertised here when it was first started so that everyone on the forum could be made aware of its existence.

If Tall hadn't brought it to our attention, we would still be posting away out here in blissful ignorance while three Trad mods play a significant role in formulating our FSG's with no Prog input whatsoever!

 

[freeindeed2]

It is preposterous that the thread was not advertised here when it was first started so that everyone on the forum could be made aware of its existence.

If Tall hadn't brought it to our attention, we would still be posting away out here in blissful ignorance while three Trad mods play a significant role in formulating our FSG's with no Prog input whatsoever!

Then, "Thank you Tall!".

Secrets, secrets, secrets! Be sure your sins will find you out!

In CHRIST alone...

 

[DeanM]

Dean, the offending statement in question was made by Doc. Both Tall and Free were quoting Doc in thier respective posts.

It is Doc who Free is talking about.

Whoops! Thanks for bearing with me as I learn!

I agree and I have felt this way for a long time now Free. Of course, that is not news to anyone.

It certainly isn't the first outrageous, intolerant statement he has had to be called on and it surely won't be the last.

One can hope, though

I was making reference to Doc's statement, not Tall73's, and from a completely different thread. I'll check it to make sure that's how it is stated in my post.

Basically, from what I've read so far, it's the Trad mods pushing their agenda in a thread that most of us (all SDA's) didn't even know existed. It's quite a bit lop-sided to be a fair representation for all SDA's. Par for the course here though!

In CHRIST alone...

I misread, sorry

If I may offer myself a plug, here: I'm not on any sides.

It is preposterous that the thread was not advertised here when it was first started so that everyone on the forum could be made aware of its existence.

If Tall hadn't brought it to our attention, we would still be posting away out here in blissful ignorance while three Trad mods play a significant role in formulating our FSG's with no Prog input whatsoever!

-dreams of bliss-

Then, "Thank you Tall!".

Secrets, secrets, secrets! Be sure your sins will find you out!

In CHRIST alone...

This is a hard forum to mod in!
Anyone adverse to group hugs in here?

 

[annie1speed]

Hugs always help!!

 

[JonMiller]

No, Sophia, they are not. There is nothing in the Bible that says these qualities make one a prophet. If that were so all humans would automatically be prophets!

I think we tend to put prophets on pedestals, and they shouldn't be. I think that the SDA church has had many more prophets then EGW, but doesn't acknowledge them as prophets, and (sometimes) puts EGW on to high of footstool.

And sometimes we wonder why God doesn't work more obvious miracles. If He did, the problem would be even worse.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

proposal

stop using the term traditional and historic to refere to the main body of SDA' . they are CONSERVATIVE. HISTORICS are those who agree with the pre-1950's QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE, theology. There has already been a split in the main body and EVANGLICALS AND PROGRESSIVES just the contuination of the split, some have already questioned, these questions have come up 40 years ago and do effect Adventism. They are pertianate and relevant.

This is very true, and the 'traditional' forum here is an alliance between the CONSERVATIVE and HISTORIC groups. This is highly negative as I would not agree to be in a church espousing the HISTORIC position, and so would not want them to be the only ones allowed to post/answer questions in the main SDA forum (I wonder that the CONSERVATIVES seem so willing to put up with them, but not with the EVANGELICAL and PROGRESSIVE groups (I am probably personally closer to the EVANGELICAL camp).

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I have found for many Adventists it seems to be more important to be an Adventist than to be a Christian.

This is a huge issue, and sets my teeth on edge in the adventist church just like it does in the primitive baptist church I attended.

The only thing that makes us more cultlike is those who place EGW on a pedestal equal to the Bible.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I personally agree that countrydoc should not be a mod, and would like to remove him, but do not know how (and I doubt if it would be possible).

JM

 

[DeanM]

I personally agree that countrydoc should not be a mod, and would like to remove him, but do not know how (and I doubt if it would be possible).

JM

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.

But, you asked how to go about removing a member from the staff. I'd start here, I think (but I'm not sure). First, remember this rule:

"Issues with staff decisions should be taken to the staff member, then the reconciliation team, period. Don't post them, don't PM them to others, don't take them to Lee. "

After exhausting this avenue, I'd consider this option:

http://christianforums.com/f883-suggestion-complaint-box.html

 

[annie1speed]

I am not a 'voting member' of this forum, but I have come to the same conclusion. I thought he would be much more even in his speech and actions. I wonder if we could look back at his Q and A before his appointment.

I guess its like getting tenured as a professor - I've seen some people really toe the line until they get tenure and after that it's like where was THIS person before!

 

[OntheDL]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.

But, you asked how to go about removing a member from the staff. I'd start here, I think (but I'm not sure). First, remember this rule:

"Issues with staff decisions should be taken to the staff member, then the reconciliation team, period. Don't post them, don't PM them to others, don't take them to Lee. "

After exhausting this avenue, I'd consider this option:

http://christianforums.com/f883-suggestion-complaint-box.html

Yeah, I'd think one should follow the Matthew 18 model.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

This is very true, and the 'traditional' forum here is an alliance between the CONSERVATIVE and HISTORIC groups. This is highly negative as I would not agree to be in a church espousing the HISTORIC position, and so would not want them to be the only ones allowed to post/answer questions in the main SDA forum (I wonder that the CONSERVATIVES seem so willing to put up with them, but not with the EVANGELICAL and PROGRESSIVE groups (I am probably personally closer to the EVANGELICAL camp).

JM

why are they willing to put up with them, a few reasons
1. they have a historical connection to EGW. she was one for a time.
2. they do not really understand the issues.
a. nature of Christ
b. rightesous by faith
c. Evanglicals and Progressive seem to be too radical in there change. and the Trads and conservatives don't really understand them.
d. FEAR!!! they are afraid of Change. change = apostasy. since they take there Identiy from the insturtion first, remenant chruch and such. Like Catholics or Baptist. Evanglicals don't
e. Progressive are a very broad group and can include any one who has minor disagreements to full theological herasy. it is very broad
f. Most take an "ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH" to SDA Theology they call it truth but sometimes it's just their conclusions, not truth

 

[Adventist Dissident]

PROPOSAL:

Why don't we write up an offical statment about the different postions, or compile what has been written and keep it in a document to be handed out to Non SDA mods or staff. That way we can have something offical to send to them. that might include some wikipedia links on a topic. this will help Non SDA's understand the dynamics. that will solve the problems of trying to get us shut down. I always tried to educate the mods as to the problem. when I did they took a different stand.

 

[synger]

It is preposterous that the thread was not advertised here when it was first started so that everyone on the forum could be made aware of its existence.

If Tall hadn't brought it to our attention, we would still be posting away out here in blissful ignorance while three Trad mods play a significant role in formulating our FSG's with no Prog input whatsoever!

As a clarification, all staff were informed of the beginning of the FSG update process. In addition your moderators (christian73, DarylFawcett, FreeinChrist, reddogs, Svt4Him, thecountrydoc, visionary) were PMed when the SDA-specific discussion thread was opened. Moderators were free to invite members to participate in the thread. I think that some moderators didn't realize it was intended to be an open discussion.

I apologize that I did not make it clear that moderators could invite members to join the discussion. The Congregational FSGs were first on the list of FSGs to update, and so some of the process has been unclear.