Very interesting and relevant article. Although the article seemed to be aimed at the WO issue, the same could be said about other SDA doctrines (well - maybe not doctrines; but firmly held church policies and procedures and mandated by the Church Manual and other policies, procedures, directives, executive orders, guidelines, etc. The way people are disfellowshipped (or in some cases, NOT disfellowshipped), the diverse requirements for baptism congregation by congregation, stuff that is unprovable from scripture like the IJ, The Closed Door, The Papal Antichrist, Sunday Laws, 1844, etc. But these are being discussed heavily in other threads. To me, they all tie together.
I don't want anyone to think I am belittling them for believing the formal SDA doctrine or Policies; I'm just saying that people shouldn't be held to them if they cannot reconcile them to their understanding of scripture. Just saying their understanding of scripture is wrong doesn't cut it. People should be allowed to put what I believe to be non-salvational issues (like one's opinion on WO or the RCC) into whatever mental construct they need to wrap their heads around God.