Thoughts on the forum, and the future..

August 7, 2011

It is called "discussion".

What you are proposing is "dismissal" of anothers viewpoint.

August 7, 2011

Those that question whether this board is actually even remotely representative of Adventist views, should be listened to and engaged with.

Not told to go elsewhere.

I think there has been much listening and engaging but it seems you are arguing for a fundamental shift in the nature and organization of the board. That's not going to happen so out of this comes the suggestion to create your own forum.

August 7, 2011

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I pray that someday the SDA church has a good long look at this board and considers its viability as a representative board for SDA beliefs.

I Think you have missed this disclaimer.........

Quote:

THE CLUB ADVENTIST FORUM® is a self-supporting ministry and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland or any of its subsidiaries.

This board is found by those that want to come and talk about Adventist issues and beliefs.

It is the largest single board on the Internet and comes top in search results.

The minute the board serves that purpose it IS answerable to other Adventists of good and regular standing in the church.

If it does not want to be examined and questioned, then it should not have the name Adventist in its title.

August 7, 2011

If this boards moderators and owners do not think they are answerable to the church and its members that they are claiming to represent the views of, then something is really really wrong in UAF land.

August 7, 2011

The board comes top of the search results because Stan works his proverbial off to make sure that is so. The amount of work and attention he puts into this board, on a completely volunteer basis, is phenomenal.

Any discussion of the board that doesn't take that into account is... what's that term again? Fundamentally flawed.

August 7, 2011

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Those that question whether this board is actually even remotely representative of Adventist views, should be listened to and engaged with.

Not told to go elsewhere.

I think there has been much listening and engaging but it seems you are arguing for a fundamental shift in the nature and organization of the board. That's not going to happen so out of this comes the suggestion to create your own forum.

I think there has been concerns raised by many that have been ignored and in some cases those raising the concerns have been driven away.

I believe that this board is claiming to represent Adventist views, but is in reality reflecting the ideologies of the owner of the board and the moderators that run it.

And that this reality when questioned is met with a slammed door, which basically says "go away".

But this board is claiming to be representative of SDA views and every SDA has the right to come here and question if that is indeed true.

The minute you parade "Adventist" in the title you come under the scrutiny of good and regular standing members of the Church.

And telling them to "go elsewhere" when they question whether you are in fact representing Adventist views correctly, raises serious concerns about the function of this board in the wider Three Angels Message.

It also raises serious questions about whether this board should be examined by the Church at large.

August 7, 2011

The board comes top of the search results because Stan works his proverbial off to make sure that is so. The amount of work and attention he puts into this board, on a completely volunteer basis, is phenomenal.

Any discussion of the board that doesn't take that into account is... what's that term again? Fundamentally flawed.

No one is questioning Stans work ethic.

How that somehow makes the board impregnable to the examination of SDA church members baffles me?

August 7, 2011

You're still failing to read what I wrote, Mark. No-one is saying 'go away' to anyone (um, except you, actually).

What I said was that *if* someone is miserable here, then *for their own sake* they might like to *choose* to put in the work to build somewhere they'd be happier.

Please do try to at least address the arguments I'm presenting, rather than something you're projecting onto them.

August 7, 2011

This is a forum not a tribunal! Why should anyone be "answerable" to any other person - Adventist or not? I came here to interact with people who had an Adventist mindset which means there would be people of differing degrees of belief and unbelief.

When we start holding people's feet to the fire because they don't believe as we do, that will be a sad day. But I forgot, someone very important already said that publicly and I guess his wish is starting to come through/true.

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

Taliking about issues and beliefs is one thing. Castigating people over their beliefs is quite another!

Alex

August 8, 2011

Whilst many of you here want to make this an issue about "Stan", I would prefer to steer away from that.

As that is clearly a tactic designed to raise emotional responses to what should be a logical discussion about issues.

Let us stick to those issues.

This is not about personalities, this is about concerns that many on here have raised over time about whether a board that runs with Non-Adventist moderators can really represent Adventist positions.

I do not think that is possible.

And I do not think it is wise or that it furthers Gods cause.

I think that it rather sows confusion and gives a bias to those views that are non-adventist in many forums on the board.

I know that I am not alone in this view as I have read the concerns expressed over the years on this board.

But they are consistenly ignored and treated with dismissal and in some cases contempt.

August 8, 2011

You're still failing to read what I wrote, Mark. No-one is saying 'go away' to anyone (um, except you, actually).

What I said was that *if* someone is miserable here, then *for their own sake* they might like to *choose* to put in the work to build somewhere they'd be happier.

Please do try to at least address the arguments I'm presenting, rather than something you're projecting onto them.

Bravus, your argument is this:

"If you do not like it here, go away and build another forum and leave us here that do like the current situation in peace."

How exactly is that going to promote discussion?

Remember the fundamental point I am making is this:

This board claims to represent the views of the SDA church.

Therefore it is answerable to the members of the SDA church.

Do you agree or disagree with this viewpoint?

August 8, 2011

This is a forum not a tribunal! Why should anyone be "answerable" to any other person - Adventist or not? I came here to interact with people who had an Adventist mindset which means there would be people of differing degrees of belief and unbelief.

When we start holding people's feet to the fire because they don't believe as we do, that will be a sad day. But I forgot, someone very important already said that publicly and I guess his wish is starting to come through/true.

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

Taliking about issues and beliefs is one thing. Castigating people over their beliefs is quite another!

Alex

How is questioning the way a forum representing Adventist views is moderated castigating anyone Alex?

No one is questioning whether this should be the place where people can discuss Adventism freely...

What is being questioned is whether non-Adventists should have control over a forum claiming to represent Adventist views.

August 8, 2011

I disagree. You're putting too much emphasis on the 'Adventist' in the title and not enough on the 'forum'. As abelisle said above, it's a place for *discussing* SDA beliefs. You don't get any discussion at all in an environment of perfect accord, and you get very poor discussion in an environment in which particular views are actively suppressed.

I agree with your concern - if it's true, and I'm not convinced - that some moderators may be enforcing their own views. If that's the case, that's something that needs attention.

I'm very far from being convinced that there's a systematic anti-SDA, anti-conservative or 'liberal' bias across the board at this site. I think if there's any bias at all (and I think it's limited) that it's pretty evenly spread across the spectrum of views of members of the 'big tent' SDA church.

I'll reiterate: no-one is being told to leave. Or to stop raising issues. Even expressing the opinions you are in this thread is completely valid. And you'll notice that you have been given complete freedom to do so.

August 8, 2011

Point of fact: are there actually *any* non-Adventist moderators? I'm not aware of any. I'm a bit of an anomaly... and have repeatedly offered to stand aside if that is the concensus of the forum, and repeatedly had that offer turned down *by orthodox and conservative members*.

Are there others? Or is this whole issue a bit of a furphy?

August 8, 2011

(there is also an issue where some posters *perceive* that they have been moderated for their views when *in fact* they have been moderated for breaking the rules in the manner and tone of what they posted - not a lot that can be done about that, I don't think)

August 8, 2011

There's an interesting parallel on which I think you might have a diametrically opposed view, Mark: the SDA church itself.

Are you happy to include those who come to that organisation and wish to change it? Or would you tell them to go elsewhere?

For me, the great heroes of faith are often reformers, from Jesus to Luther to EGW. Reformers are welcome: and so are the orthodox.

It's the claim that some are unwelcome that I object to. I'm always in favour of a big tent. And that includes my many, many conservative orthodox friends.

It's only when some within the tent start to suggest that others are unwelcome that I'll start pushing back.

By all means suggest that some *ideas* are unwelcome: but refute them with good solid arguments, don't censor them with the abuse of power.

Those that come to the Adventist church to specifically try to change its clear biblical mandate, should not be welcome.

Why would they?

Jesus did not accept the Jews attempts to dilute Christianity...

The church does not permit non-members to hold positions of office and responsibility.

This board, whilst claiming to represent Adventism, does permit this.

So this board actually operates principles that the Church itself does not condone.

How can those that are opposed to Adventist views, minister to those seeking to learn about Adventist views?

How can those opposed to Adventist views, represent Adventist views?

The Adventist church has a mandate to promote and protect the truth of the Gospel, a biblical mandate.

That also means that those opposed to that mandate are automatically denied the authority to influence that mandate.

It is not a question of "inclusiveness", it is a question of responsibility to the gospel and to the church given the mission of spreading that gospel, the correct gospel to the world.

August 8, 2011

Then maybe the real issue here is who are the Adventists and who are the non-Adventists? And who and how is this decided?

Does anyone who questions any of the 28 fundamental beliefs (even to a small degree) considered a non-Adventist? and anyone who questions EGW to any degree is obviously a non-Adventist?

If this is so, I wager that there are only a few true Adventists then? Why does this remind me of a cult mentality?

We are taking a path that surely leads to destruction- let God be our judge.

Alex

August 8, 2011

Then maybe the real issue here is who are the Adventists and who are the non-Adventists? And who and how is this decided?

Does anyone who questions any of the 28 fundamental beliefs (even to a small degree) considered a non-Adventist? and anyone who questions EGW to any degree is obviously a non-Adventist?

If this is so, I wager that there are only a few true Adventists then? Why this this remind me of a cult mentality?

We are taking a path that surely leads to destruction- let God be our judge.

Alex

If a person does not accept the 28 fundamental beliefs, how can they claim to be an Adventist?

Claiming that requiring the members to uphold certain provable and testable biblical positions (this includes the ministry of a prophet with its tests), is akin to "cultism" is an illogical statement.

Why would we be a cult because we agree on 28 fundamental truths of the bible?

August 8, 2011

If a person does not accept the 28 fundamental truths of the church, why would the "want" to be an Adventist?

August 8, 2011

We now have circular reasoning.

You have started down the road of defining "Adventist"...again whose definitions??

I think the thread is starting all over again!

August 8, 2011

The minute you parade "Adventist" in the title you come under the scrutiny of good and regular standing members of the Church.

And telling them to "go elsewhere" when they question whether you are in fact representing Adventist views correctly, raises serious concerns about the function of this board in the wider Three Angels Message.

It also raises serious questions about whether this board should be examined by the Church at large.

Again, Twilight, the challenge is that there a many SDA church members in good standing who regularly post on this board. The enjoy the fellowship and embrace the diverse viewpoints.

As a denominational worker of more than a few years I'm proud to be a associated with Club Adventist. Although I do not agree with everything that is done and said that is also the case concerning the conference I work for and even the church that I serve.

You cannot remake the church after your own image of it.

August 8, 2011

Quote: