Traditional Adventists ONLY Please! Vote!

[TrustAndObey]

The other forum contains the name "Seventh-day Adventist" as well.

 

[JonMiller]

If we go under the Congregation-wide Guidelines, only people that agree to the SDA statement of faith will be considered "members" of this forum.

You are still welcome to post here Jon, you just won't be able to debate or teach.

Why won't I be able to debate or teach?

What makes you better than I?

And you are discussing the Seventh-day Adventists forum, not the Traditional Adventist forum.

JM

 

[TrustAndObey]

Why won't I be able to debate or teach?

What makes you better than I?

And you are discussing the Seventh-day Adventists forum, not the Traditional Adventist forum.

JM

Jon, the Progressives, Moderates and Former Adventists all formed their own forum here on CF. It's a stand-alone forum that contains the name "Seventh-day Adventist" even though they have openly admitted they do not believe in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Traditionals were the only Adventists left out of their new forum so this actually is the Traditional Adventist forum now.

Please stop debating in here. I've asked you twice.

 

[TrustAndObey]

http://christianforums.com/f569-progressive-moderate-former-seventh-day-adventists.html

It's a separate forum and still has the name Seventh-day Adventist.

 

[happywiththelord]

Unbelievable!!

 

[honorthesabbath]

What the heck have they done now? How dare they rename this forum to TRADITIONAL SDA. I think it's time to let Lee know how we feel. The progs have an admin spokesperson for them and we do not!

Enough is enough.

 

[TrustAndObey]

It's not even "SDA", it's just Adventist.

Oh no....I think not!

 

[honorthesabbath]

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS!!! ARE YOU GOING TO PUT UP WITH THIS OUTRAGE? LET'S GET WRITING TO LEE AND LET HIM KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THIS SABOTAGE OF OUR RIGHTFUL TITLE.

THIS FORUM WAS NAMED SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST, AND IT IS GOING TO REMAIN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.

THIS HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.

HOW FAIR IS THIS? THE PROGS GOT TO NAME THEIR FORUM AND THEN WE HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE 'THAT'? NOPE-NO WAY IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS BIAS HAS GONE TOO FAR AND NOW I'M MAD. GET INVOLVED ALL YOU WHO SUPPORT THE DOCTRINES OF THE SDA CHURCH AND DON'T TAKE THIS ABUSE LAYING DOWN!

 

[CaDan]

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS!!! ARE YOU GOING TO PUT UP WITH THIS OUTRAGE? LET'S GET WRITING TO LEE AND LET HIM KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THIS SABOTAGE OF OUR RIGHTFUL TITLE.

THIS FORUM WAS NAMED SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST, AND IT IS GOING TO REMAIN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.

THIS HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.

HOW FAIR IS THIS? THE PROGS GOT TO NAME THEIR FORUM AND THEN WE HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE 'THAT'? NOPE-NO WAY IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS BIAS HAS GONE TOO FAR AND NOW I'M MAD. GET INVOLVED ALL YOU WHO SUPPORT THE DOCTRINES OF THE SDA CHURCH AND DON'T TAKE THIS ABUSE LAYING DOWN!

Hello.

I did the research on the naming issue. I have no opinion one way or the other on the issue of the Forum Specific Guidelins.

As some of you may know, the General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church applied for and obtained a registered federal trademark on the phrase "Seventh-Day Adventist" in 1980. That trademark applies to, among other things, "Conducting Religious Observances and Missionary Services." It is arguable that ChristianForums may be engaged in that sort of activity and therefore its use of the phrase "Seventh-Day Adventist" could be a violation of the Lanham Act.

Please note that this has nothing to do with orthodox or heterodox beliefs of participants in the forums. It only has to do with what entities can use the phrase "Seventh-Day Adventist."

However, the trademark claimed by the General Conference specifically excludes any claim to the use of the term "Adventist" when not used as part of the phrase "Seventh-Day Adventist." Thus, anyone can use that term to describe their work and product.

While not oppressively so, the GC has been fairly aggressive in protecting its trademarks. While it is my opinion that CF is not in competition with the GC and would likely prevail in any litigation under the Lanham Act, in an abundance of caution, CF has decided not to use the term "Seventh-Day Adventist" to describe any of its forums or subforums.

s/ CaDan
Administrator.

 

[Tishri1]

You all need to have a chat with Country Doc about your name...He revealed to us a Legal Document that clearly shows us we should not use the SDA name on CF, or be at risk of a law suit .

Now we dont want to head down that road even for a second.... I do understand the concern, but believe me it was at the serious warning of one of your own that we had to choose to protect our site

 

[honorthesabbath]

We'll be getting that fixed soon, one way or another.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Why won't I be able to debate or teach?

What makes you better than I?

And you are discussing the Seventh-day Adventists forum, not the Traditional Adventist forum.

JM

Jon, the forum is titled Traditional Adventists - unless you agree with all 28 Fundamental beleifs, you are not traditional and cannot teach or debate in this part of the forum.

 

[OntheDL]

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. However we do not need to have the word 'traditional' in the title since the 28 fundamental believes are held by the General Conference.

Also, I'd like to propose that we follow the examples of some of other forums:

The Midnight Cry - Adventist
forum for members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Let me know if there are other suggestions.

 

[OntheDL]

For the OP, I think if we should qualify the debate rules to allow discussions by those who are studying the Adventist doctrines with the intention of joining the SDA church.

 

[CaDan]

I would suggest reviewing the FSGs from OBOB. That has probably been the longest running denominational forum here and they have a lot of experience. You might be able to grab some ideas there.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Your Post:

You all need to have a chat with Country Doc about your name...He revealed to us a Legal Document that clearly shows us we should not use the SDA name on CF, or be at risk of a law suit .

Now we dont want to head down that road even for a second.... I do understand the concern, but believe me it was at the serious warning of one of your own that we had to choose to protect our site

It was not me that posted the offical GC of SDA Guidelines concerning trademarks, that was posted by CaDan. And as has been pointed out they are only guidelines. As for your concern about a law suit, please read CaDan's last post here very carefully.

I did the research on the naming issue. I have no opinion one way or the other on the issue of the Forum Specific Guidelins.

As some of you may know, the General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church applied for and obtained a registered federal trademark on the phrase "Seventh-Day Adventist" in 1980. That trademark applies to, among other things, "Conducting Religious Observances and Missionary Services." It is arguable that ChristianForums may be engaged in that sort of activity and therefore its use of the phrase "Seventh-Day Adventist" could be a violation of the Lanham Act.

Please note that this has nothing to do with orthodox or heterodox beliefs of participants in the forums. It only has to do with what entities can use the phrase "Seventh-Day Adventist."

However, the trademark claimed by the General Conference specifically excludes any claim to the use of the term "Adventist" when not used as part of the phrase "Seventh-Day Adventist." Thus, anyone can use that term to describe their work and product.

While not oppressively so, the GC has been fairly aggressive in protecting its trademarks. While it is my opinion that CF is not in competition with the GC and would likely prevail in any litigation under the Lanham Act, in an abundance of caution, CF has decided not to use the term "Seventh-Day Adventist" to describe any of its forums or subforums.

s/ CaDan
Administrator.

In this post CaDan has offered his opinion and that is fine. However his opinion is not necessarly a judiciary opinion. His opinion combined with staff actions may not produce the results you are looking for. In the future it would best not to make unilateral decisions.

Respectfully,
The Country Doc/
Seventh-day Adventist Fourm Moderator

 

[honorthesabbath]

...

 

[synger]

Let me try to clarify the FSG issue, at least.

The Congregation-wide guidelines outline that in the majority of congregational forums, one must be considered a "member" of that denomination in order to debate in their forum. It sets the PROCESS framework for allowing congregational forums to be "safe havens." In light of that, it also explains, in general terms, what "debate" means for most of these forums.

The forum-specific guidelines should contain the Statement of Faith for your forum... what doctrines make you distinctively Traditional Adventists. This is so that someone coming in and reading your SoF can say "I belong here, I'm a member of this forum, and thus I can debate" or can say "I disagree with this SoF, I am a guest, and I may not debate"

In the matter of debate, you have a number of options.

• No FSG: You may opt to have no forum-specific guidelines at all. There are a handful of congregations who do not. For them, debate is not a big issue, nor is membership. If you do not need the general protections of the Congregation-wide guidelines (which, as I said, set up the process framework that "only members can debate" and "what is debate"), then you may opt not to have FSGs at all. This would basically make your forum an open forum, with no "membership" and no restrictions on debate.

• FSG, with no debate: This is the default. If your FSGs contain only your Statement of Faith, then your forum will be protected by the Congregation-wide guidelines as it is written -- only those who agree with your SoF will be considered members, and only they can debate. Visitors will be limited to asking questions and posting fellowship posts. Most of the congregational forums have this model.

• FSG, with limited debate: This is where you can add specifics to the "Additional Guidelines on Debate" section of the FSGs. Some forums allow limited debate by non-members, and their FSG outlines what that means. Some forums allow debate by non-members in a special debate subforum. Some forums allow debate, but not about certain topics.

The admins are not writing your Statement of Faith. Nor are we even saying that you must have FSGs for your forum.

What we are saying is that if you wish to use FSGs to protect your forum from non-members debating, this is the process and structure you need to use.

If you wish to revisit your FSGs, now that this structure change has taken place, I would be happy to open a discussion thread for it in the Congregational Staff area (to try to keep policy discussions from cluttering up your forum).

 

[synger]

Since it seems obvious to me that we will indeed need to revisit your FSGs, I've taken the liberty of starting a discussion thread specifically for your FSGs. If you wish to discuss your Statement of Faith, or debate guidelines, please go there. If you are discussing names of forums and whether you need subforums, continue on in this thread.

That way, we can begin work on updated FSGs without getting intertwined with other discussions. Thank you.

 

[happywiththelord]

thanks synger!!