Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
mLine 169:
Line 169: + +
→SDA infomercial
What is the reason why there apparently cannot be the history of the very relevant conflict between Evangelical faith and the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]], and ongoing doctrinal controversy, and much needed balance (and links) in that regard. Must readers go to WP to obtain a more comprehensive view of SDA and its history? I do want to commend you however, for your first class writing on the [[Second Great Awakening]] which i came across as a result of the SDA page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:31, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
What is the reason why there apparently cannot be the history of the very relevant conflict between Evangelical faith and the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]], and ongoing doctrinal controversy, and much needed balance (and links) in that regard. Must readers go to WP to obtain a more comprehensive view of SDA and its history? I do want to commend you however, for your first class writing on the [[Second Great Awakening]] which i came across as a result of the SDA page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:31, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::Please try your hand at some other topics. CP discourages people who have a strong theological dislike of this Christian church or that one which prevents them from an objective assessment and inclines them to attack it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::Please try your hand at some other topics. CP discourages people who have a strong theological dislike of this Christian church or that one which prevents them from an objective assessment and inclines them to attack it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
"Objective assessment" is precisely the problem. If that was the real issue, then why was the article not targeted before when it was basically a advertisement for the SDA? Seeking to add balance, i added countering links to its obviously pro sda links. And then i added history, of which it really had none, which referenced the diligent research of Martin and his conciliatory conclusion that the SDA was not a cult, or cultic, but a heterodox, essentially Christian denomination. Necessary distinctions were then made btwn the 2 basic divisions which are manifest today. The Further reading section could have been neutral, if had been already. It is hardly fitting or balanced to have only basically positive info of SDA, especially when it has truly problematic doctrines. Should this be done with the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], and should the Controversy section on the [[Mormons]] be eliminated? If anything it is too brief. At least clearly reference some opposing views, esp. the historical summation work by Samples. Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:06, 10 July 2009 (EDT)