Variations in SDA Belief

[Gregory Matthews]

*  More than 90% of the SDA members believe in the Trinity.

*  About 9% of the SDA members drink some alcoholic beverage.

*  Less than 3% of the SDA members use tobacco.

*  More vegetarian and vegan members live in the NAD, than in other parts of the world.

*  About 80% of the SDAs believe that the dead are unconscious.

*  About 30% of the SDAs believe that there is a soul that lives on after death.

NOTE:  I have personally met High-level SDA leaders in other parts of the world who believed in a soul that survives death, but that at death goes into an unconscious state.  This belief is actually in harmony with the actual statement of SDA fundamental belief, even if not in harmony with the prevailing view which does not posit an independent soul.

*  More than 70% believe that the 2nd Advent is near, but, only about 34% believe it will be in their lifetime.

 

The above information is taken from:  Duane McBride, "The Global Church Member Survey:  Encouragement and Challenges,"  Focus, Winter 2018, page 9.

NOTE:  Duane McBride is a research professor of sociology and the director for the Institute for Prevention of addictions at Andrews University.  The above information is based upon a 2018 research survey that extended to all of the Divisions of the SDA denomination.  Over 65,000 surveys were analyzed in the production of the above results..

[Gustave]

In some ways the SDA Church is similar to 1st Century Judaism in that different beliefs are under one tent.

In 1st Century Judaism "the Sadducees" rejected the idea that the soul was conscious after death or that there would even be an afterlife of ANY form while the Pharisees and average Jew accepted a conscious afterlife. Also there were certain groups of Jews who would not drink adult beverages while the average Jew did. At the end of the day all these people were still considered Jew's.

[Morwenna]

This begs the question: To what degree must a person's beliefs align with SDA Fundamentals in order to call themselves (and be considered by the denomination) an Adventist?

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Morwenna said:

This begs the question: To what degree must a person's beliefs align with SDA Fundamentals in order to call themselves (and be considered by the denomination) an Adventist?

In my understanding (and I may be wrong), the fundamentals are provided as a guideline for what SDA's believe rather than a mandatory creed.  The Fundamentals have changed significantly over the history of the SDA Church.  For example, the Fundies did not previously contain an item specifically addressing the Trinity.

That being said, there are certain Biblical principles embedded in the Fundies (e.g., the Sabbath, Jesus as Savior, salvation by grace, the physical return of Jesus) that people do need to accept.  I ain't no pastor; so I won't be assessing anyone's baptismal qualifications in the near future.

[Gustave]

Morwenna, I had this same question initially but I believe I've formulated an answer that's historical.

 

Initially "the Adventists" were a collection of Christians drawn primarily out of the various Denominations within the United States.

Ultimately William Miller condemned his own date setting and urged the people to return to their Churches - leaving essentially only the anti-Trinitarians (who started to squabble over Doctrines). 

This remaining group of anti Trinitarian "Adventists" fractured into multiple groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Christadelphians and World Wide Church of God 7th day. 

Eventually the SDA's adopted use of the Trinitarian Formula (which validated their Baptisms) and Officially claim to believe in the Trinity.

 

 

A Jehovah's Witness is just as much an Adventist as a seventh day Adventist is, they are just not "seventh day Adventist".

A Christadelphian is just as much an Adventist as a seventh day Adventist is, they are just not "seventh day Adventist".

 

Prior to Miller's group falling apart every member could be called "an Adventist", thus a Baptist, Lutheran, etc. adherent of Miller's schema was "an Adventist". When Miller renounced his own teachings there wasn't anything "distinctive" left to hold the large group together and so nearly everyone left leaving essentially only those who didn't have a Church to return to. It was this anti-Trinitarian group that retained the name "Adventist" and today the SDA's are the most well known. 

 

Thus, just as in the 1st Century - Judaism was essentially a theological BIG TENT with some Jews believing the opposite of other Jews (and getting into public arguments about it). This evidently didn't stop them from still being considered Jews. I think the same thing is going on with Adventists. A Jehovah's Witness doesn't believe in the inspiration of Ellen White and an SDA will not eat a ham sandwich unlike a Jehovah's Witness who has no problem with ham sandwiches - YET they are both Adventist. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The implication of what Gustave has said is that each of the groups that he mentioned can be traced back to the Millerite Movement.

I am not certain that  I would agree with that.

In addition, Gustave seems to suggest the essentially all of the Trinitarians returned to their previous denominations.  I would question that.

I would add another consideration:  Early leaders in what became the SDA Church, came from what was a "deist" denomination.  (Yes, Deists are not Trinitarian.)  But, it was an actual denomination, which does not exist today.  If everybody else returned to their previous denominations, why did not these people return to the group from which they came?

 

[Gustave]

Christadelphians (https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/christadelphians)

Jehovah's Witnesses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Storrs)

WWCOG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventism)

 

I should have better stated I have no issue with  the "Big Tent" approach - Jesus was a Jew and at the time of Jesus Judaism was definitely "Big Tent". The largest group of Jews believed in specific things and there was also smaller groups of Jews who believed differently" - yet they were all Jews. 

After years of research I understood SDA's were anti-Trinitarian, after talking with Gregory and looking at some of the evidence he referred me to I changed my thinking. There is a wide spectrum of belief among Adventist and also within the SDA Church specifically. "Jews" at the time of Christ used to gather together and discuss / debate and even harshly argue over the theology of their religion yet this didn't mean some of the Jews weren't really Jew's. It was a "Big Tent" - it's really not that much different today is it? Unless I've really got something wrong here??? 

 

 

 

[Morwenna]

Let me reformulate my question: To what degree must a person's beliefs align with SDA Fundamentals in order to call themselves (and be considered by the denomination) a Seventh-Day Adventist?

• Is it permissible to drink alcohol, and still be a SDA?
• What about eating a pepperoni pizza? Would that be a disqualification?
• Working on the Sabbath (even in a non-medical field, but perhaps in a support staff position)? Automatic excommunication?
• Disbelief in Trinitarianism?
• Belief in transubstantiation?
• Belief in infant baptism?
• Multiple wives?
• Disbelief in Ellen White's prophet status?

It seems to me that one or two of these things may not necessarily exclude a person from the SDA faith; but perhaps, a multitude may. My question then, how much is required/ how much is too much?

[pierrepaul]

My personal views are eccentric. I tend to keep them to myself except on a forum like this, as I have no desire to challenge anyone's faith in my local congregation.

Trinity - I tend toward modalism, which was rejected as a heresy by the early church. Adventists don't seem to have a well-developed doctrine of the trinity; few members I've encountered would object to modalism.

Soteriology - I haven't a fixed view; I find support for both Calvinist and Arminian views in scripture. As for the identity of the scape-goat, the sanctuary doctrine or the exact legal byzantine process by which God blots out sins, I don't really care. If the result is that I'm forgiven, that's enough for me.

Inspiriation - I lean toward thought inspiration and a non-literal reading of many texts.

Creation - I hold to a metaphorical and symbolic reading of Genesis 1 and 2, but it doesn't really matter to me.

2nd Advent - this doesn't concern me. I take one day at a time. Assuming that death takes me from this world, whether Christ returns the next week or in 1,000 years makes no difference to me.

Alcohol - consumption is generally unwise, but I don't see a blanket prohibition in scripture.

Diet - I think we're misguided in holding on to an adulterated watered down version of the rules of kashrut, but the vegetarian/vegan diet is generally more healthful.

Smoking - a filthy habit with no redeeming features. It's bad for health, but so is being fat. We don't discipline our obese brethren or exclude them from church office, should we really exclude smokers?

Sabbath - My views on sabbath observance differ from the majority of Adventists, but I generally hold to the Friday sundown to Saturday sundown view when situated at tropical and most temperate latitudes. At extreme latitudes I don't believe the "evening" necessarily coincides with sunset. I have eccentric views on what constitutes "work" and "servant" for purposes of the 4th commandment.

Women's ordination - much ado about nothing; I personally don't care for the idea of a full-time professional ordained clergy, male or female. I am loathe to send my tithe donations where they will end up in the division or GC coffers to help fund the internecine war between the NAD (and certain of its unions) and the GC.

Tithe - I don't believe the New Testament supports the SdA official teachings and practices. I support the church with a donation that I mark partially "tithe" and partially "offerings".

Ecclesiology - I have yet to experience the Holy Spirit leading in any of the deliberative meetings or votes I have attended, be they at the local, conference or union level. Clear corporate governance procedures are necessary for any large organization, but arguments that the GC vote is the voice of God holds little sway with me

Dancing - I see nothing in scripture regarding ballroom dancing, ballet, interpretive dance etc. Licentious, sexually suggestive or explicit dance likely violates the Biblical exhortation to modesty.

Music - I love Christian music of all kinds; I don't see the four-part harmony, multi-stanza "hymn" as a superior or more sacred art form over other types of music.

When I was baptized in the mid-1980s, I held to the official SdA doctrines 100%. Since then, my views have evolved. Given the above, should I resign my membership?

[Gregory Matthews]

 

Morewnna has asked about the following:  I will respond later.  Her question related to SDA membership, not election to office.

In specifically responding, I will place my comments directly under the question, in brackets [  ] and with my initials.

It should be noted that the so-called 27/28/29 Fundamental Beliefs were never intended to establish the boundaries of Adventism.  There are 13 beliefs required for baptism.  But, those have some slack as to membership.

In any case, it is the individual congregation that decides.  

• Is it permissible to drink alcohol, and still be a SDA?  [As I have posted, a recent research world-wide study has suggested that about 9% of SDA members do drink some amount of beverage alcohol.  So, yes, there are SDAs who remain members and do drink some alcohol--GM.]
• What about eating a pepperoni pizza? Would that be a disqualification? [ I can only say that such would be quite rare--GM.
• Working on the Sabbath (even in a non-medical field, but perhaps in a support staff position)? Automatic excommunication?  [We believe that there is necessary work that must be done on the Sabbath.  That decision is left to the individual.   Necessary work is not limited to the medical field.  SDAS serve    as police, prison guards, and much more.   Most jobs today do require some sort of support staff.  the decision is between the person and God--GM.]
• Disbelief in Trinitarianism?  {There are a few SDA members today who do not believe in the Trinity.  If they wish to live in peace with us, they can generally do so--GM.]
• Belief in transubstantiation?  [I have never heard of this being a membership issue--GM.]
• Belief in infant baptism?  [SDA clergy are unlikely to baptize an infant.  The parents can believe as they wish--GM.]
• Multiple wives?  [There are places in this world where  men have multiple wives.  This is an issue about which the SDA denomination has struggles.  I do not believe  that it has a good answer.  However, a man with multiple wives may not be allowed to become a SDA member.  NOTE:   IF you are personally involved in such a situation, I suggest that you discuss it in depth with SDA clergy--GM.  Why else would you be interested in asking such a question?]
• Disbelief in Ellen White's prophet status?  [Many people are confused as to what is meant by stating that we believe that EGW as a prophet.  In any case, officially you do not have to believe that EGW was a prophet--
  GM.]

[Morwenna]

Thank you, Gregory. You have at least attempted to answer my question. Still, I have to wonder: How many of these kinds of items would it take to cross that threshold of being a Seventh-day Adventist, and not being one? If one of them is ok, are two ok? What about 3 or 4 or more? Certainly, there must be some threshold. 

 I ask many questions for the sake of investigation, understanding, and clarity; I do not ask questions that pertain only to my own personal experiences. 

[Morwenna, I have what my wife calls a dry sense of humor,  that some people do not understand.  My comment as to multiple wives and you was an example of me attempting to  be funny.  I trust you were not offended--GM.]

[JoeMo]

On 5/16/2019 at 11:07 PM, Morwenna said:

• Is it permissible to drink alcohol, and still be a SDA? [I would say yes - in moderation.}
• What about eating a pepperoni pizza? Would that be a disqualification?[ If one is at a gathering and pork pizza was the only choice of food; I would say pray over it and enjoy.  Can you imagine what missionaries in Africa or SW Asia must eat to not offend the people to whom they are ministering?]
• Working on the Sabbath (even in a non-medical field, but perhaps in a support staff position)? [Up to the individual.]  Automatic excommunication? [Heavens, no!]
• Disbelief in Trinitarianism? [If so, kick me out.]
• Belief in transubstantiation? [I don't know any Protestants, much less SDA's that accept this.]
• Belief in infant baptism?[Whether people believe that or not, I don't know of any pastor that would do that.  The "baby dedication" in SDA churches  and christening" in other denominations is similar to infant baptism as far as I'm concerned - just no sprinkling.]
• Multiple wives?[ Really?]
• Disbelief in Ellen White's prophet status? [If so, kick me out.]

Even if these things disqualify a person from being an SDA, I doubt if any of them disqualify someone from the Kingdom (except maybe the multiple wife thing; if they take on extra wives after becoming a believer).

 

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, Morwenna said:

Thank you, Gregory. You have at least attempted to answer my question. Still, I have to wonder: How many of these kinds of items would it take to cross that threshold of being a Seventh-day Adventist, and not being one? If one of them is ok, are two ok? What about 3 or 4 or more? Certainly, there must be some threshold. 

 I ask many questions for the sake of investigation, understanding, and clarity; I do not ask questions that pertain only to my own personal experiences. 

[Morwenna, I have what my wife calls a dry sense of humor,  that some people do not understand.  My comment as to multiple wives and you was an example of me attempting to  be funny.  I trust you were not offended--GM.]

Do you know of a Church or group that advocates belief in  those things you question? 

Catholic as well as Orthodox Christians ( as in Greek, Russian, etc. believe in Transubstantiation / Trans - Elementation  and Lutherans basically believe in it but just refer to it as "change". 

Many Christians believe in infant baptism as it replaced circumcision and that was done at a very early age. 

Most of these things you mention an individual could hold as personal beliefs without other people realizing you do (short of showing up at a Church function with a dozen large peperoni pizzas)?  

I knew of a guy I used to work with that was kicked out of his Baptist Church because he became convinced that the light the Children of Israel followed through the desert was a cigar shaped UFO that was operated by Aliens and that Jonah was taken aboard an Unidentified Submersible Object (USO). The guy was obsessed with UFO's and eventually got terminated  because he started to talk about these things to Customers even after he was clearly told to NOT start conversations with customers about UFO's.  I'm thinking that if he would have kept these ideas to himself he probably would still be a member of his Baptist Church. 

I'm not comparing your beliefs to UFO's here, I'm just using this as an example. I believe in infant baptism and Transubstantiation myself. 

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Many Christians believe in infant baptism as it replaced circumcision and that was done at a very early age.

I've never heard that ever??? What I've heard is that the "real baptism" was replaced by what most churches are doing today??

[Gustave]

2 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I've never heard that ever??? What I've heard is that the "real baptism" was replaced by what most churches are doing today??

Col 2, 11 & 12

Eze 36, 25

Acts 2, 38 & 39

 

 

 

[phkrause]

6 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Col 2, 11 & 12

Doesn't say anything about children baptism!!!

 

7 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Eze 36, 25

Has nothing to do with baptism

 

8 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Acts 2, 38 & 39

Again nothing to do with baptism taking the place of circumcision!! Jews were already baptizing, and Jesus was circumcised and than latter baptized!! No where does the bible indicate that one took the place of the other, sorry your texts are not anything that claims what your saying!!

[Gustave]

2 minutes ago, phkrause said:

Doesn't say anything about children baptism!!!

 

Has nothing to do with baptism

 

Again nothing to do with baptism taking the place of circumcision!! Jews were already baptizing, and Jesus was circumcised and than latter baptized!! No where does the bible indicate that one took the place of the other, sorry your texts are not anything that claims what your saying!!

Ezekiel 36, 25 - If you say this has nothing to do with Baptism, ok....

I've got to take my Wife somewhere but I'll get back on when I can and help you out a bit.

 

 

 

[phkrause]

7 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I've got to take my Wife somewhere but I'll get back on when I can and help you out a bit.

Thanks, but I don't need any help, there's plenty of context and it definitely is not talking about baptism!!

[R. G. White]

On 5/16/2019 at 3:09 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  I have personally met High-level SDA leaders in other parts of the world who believed in a soul that survives death, but that at death goes into an unconscious state.  This belief is actually in harmony with the actual statement of SDA fundamental belief, even if not in harmony with the prevailing view which does not posit an independent soul.

For what it's worth, the "belief" that you mention appears to be in full harmony, not only with the actual statement of SDA fundamental belief, but with the Scriptures are well. (See Matthew 10:28.) The "prevailing" materialistic view seems to be based on nothing authoritative, and is probably not worthy of much consideration. It seems to be one of those extremes into which we tend to slip when we are too intent on countering the opposite extreme -- in this case, the inherent immortality of the soul.

So this is one area where I have to think that differences of opinion, within Adventism, are a healthy phenomenon. Some of your other statistics are a rather sad commentary, but Jesus will return just the same.

By the way, it was William Miller who was a Deist before he became a Christian. The Deists were not Christians. They couldn't be, because their signature belief was that God has not involved Himself with humanity since He first created us.

Edited May 19, 2019 by R. G. White
add Scripture reference

[Morwenna]

Thanks for the answers, all.

It is clear to me that what I am trying to ask is not being fully understood by the readers. I do not struggle with any of the examples I've provided. I am not looking for a church that allows or disallows beliefs in each of the examples I provided. In response to the original post regarding the variations in belief, I was merely asking, 

What is the percentage of complete, whole Seventh-day Adventist beliefs that a person must believe in order to be considered a Seventh-day Adventist?

I *do* know SDAs who drink alcohol; some who commune with other denominations; some who eat pork;some who are vegan; some who have affairs; some who gamble; some who don't believe EGW was a prophet; some who put EGW above the Bible; some who work on the Sabbath; some who only come to church if they *have* to work at the church: some who pay others to work for them on the Sabbath; some who do not believe in the Trinity; some who believe in evolution; some who believe in "once saved, always saved"; some who believe infant baptism is enough; some who are baptised 3 and 4 times: some who do not believe tithing is enough; some who do not tithe; some who pray only when barefoot; some who celebrate Christmas; Some who celebrate Halloween: some who will avoid any pork related food or medicine" some who will not call God by any other name than "Yeshua"; some who curse and swear; some who speed in the church parking lot; some who are sexually promiscuous; some who cheat on their taxes; some who spread rumors; some who abuse children; some who flirt with others during the sermon: some who abuse their spouse; some who file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat; some who believe having insurance is a sin...and yet, they are ALL considered Seventh-day Adventist. 

But I wonder, how much is too much? How much is not enough?

And as an aside:  I never stated that I don't understand dry humor; nor did I state that I personally struggle with any of the examples that I "questioned". And no, I was not offended by the idea that perhaps you, Gregory, thought I might be in a situation where there was more than one spouse per spouse. I am slightly offended at (what I perceive to be) the insinuation that I might not comprehend dry humor. 

Have a blessed week. I'll return after a respite from my perception of being slighted. 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

In my opinion, there is NO particular "percentage" of held beliefs that one must have to consider one's self a Seventh-day Adventist.

Some SDAs (even ministers) *do* drink alcoholic beverages, and fully believe they are doing nothing wrong.  Some work on the Sabbath when they feel there is a need.  Some don't pay tithe.  Most don't smoke, but yet are overweight potluck gluttons.  There are SDAs who are blackguards in private life, and pillars of the SDA denomination in public.

The SDA church isn't a club for perfect people, though some would like it to be.  There are all flavors of Adventists, representative of some of the worst of humanity, as well as some of the best.

If an Adventist is fully convinced in his or her own mind that his or her chosen behaviors or morality is wholly acceptable to God, then who am I to gossip or condemn?   I am not of the opinion that 100% of the doctrines need to be perfected in a person before he or she is considered eligible for baptism and membership.  Everyone is a work in progress.

Is God going to be judging people by whether or not they smoke, dance, eat pork, wear jewelry, etc?  Maybe.  I dunno.  Kinda reminds me of the adage that says, "Don't judge someone just because they sin differently than you" .....

[Gregory Matthews]

This thread had developed in several directions, all of which deserve responses.  In this post, I am responding to a post made last Thursday by Gustave in which he associated  the Jehovah Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Church of God and Armstrong's World Wide Church of God with Adventism and William Miller.  In commenting on his post, I suggested agreement, with minor disagreements.  In this post, I will expand on where I am on this issue.

Generally, I express my position in simple terms, such as this:  With the  failure of Christ to return, the followers of  William Miller went in a number of directions.  Some returned to their previous denominations.  Some gave up on God and religion.  Others united into newer, smaller religious groups, some which do not exist today.  The  largest group of people that may be traced back to William Miller is the Seventh-day Adventist Church.   The second largest group that remains today is the Advent  Christian group.  

In this simple statement, I do not include some of other groups that Gustave  mentioned as I place their beginnings much later in time than William Miller.  An example of this is Armstrong's World Wide Church of God.  

However, the term "Adventist" can be used in more than one sense.  It is often used to specifically refer to the SDA denomination.  In addition, it is correctly used in a generalized sense to refer to religious groups that believe in a 2nd Advent.  This valid definition expands the meaning beyond the SDA denomination.

The "gold standard" in the study of U.S. Religion is:  J. Gordon Melton, The Encyclopedia of American Religions.  The 1st edition was published in 1978 and the 9th edition was published in 2017.  My personal copy is the 3rd edition, which will be my reference point in my post today.  

Beginning on page 77, in an eleven (11) page discussion of the Adventist family of religious groups, Melton discusses which groups he believes should be included in the larger Adventist family.  He expands beyond what Gustave has proposed.  But, he generally includes the groups that Gustave had mentioned.  

Then, on pages 511 - 555 he again addresses the Adventist Family of religious groups. In this section, he further divides the Adventists into the following groups:  Sunday Adventists (2),  Seventh-day Adventists (7),  Church of God Adventists (22), Sacred Name Movement (12)  Jehovah's Witness Groups (13), Southcottites (3) Other Adventists (5),  British  Israelism (13).  My  listing of Adventist groups probably more fits this listing than it does the earlier listing that  Milton has given us.  This is some of the background for my comment to the effect that I  had some minor disagreements with the listing of Gustave. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Morwenna,  I will attempt to again responds to your question as to the central beliefs that are required to be considered as Seventh-day Adventist:

*  The central issue here is  that the individual congregation decides who is a SDA member.   The SDA denomination does not have a centralized authority that makes this decision.  This decision is not made by SDA Clergy.  It is  made by the local congregation.

*  In actual fact, some SDA members believe that the decision as to member ship should be based upon compliance with the so-called 28 Fundamentals.  These people may not want to allow any difference on even one of the 28.  Others may be willing to allow some differences.    This position, in my opinion is wrong.  The intention of the people who wrote the so-called 28 was NOT to make it a test of fellowship.  Those who believe that it should be such, are essentially making it a creed.  This is wrong.

*  My practice, over many years of ministry is to see the so-call 13 statements in the Baptismal Covenant as being the basis for joining the SDA Church.  Even this allows for some freedom and differences in understanding.  Those 13 are not clear and explicit in every detail. It should be noted while this use of the 13, is not a statement of reasons for removal from membership.  

*  In actual practice today,  some SDA clergy and individual congregations admit people into SDA membership more freely that would be indicted by this 13.

 

Morwenna, the bottom line is that a definitive answer to your question can not be given that applies to every congregation in the SDA Church.

 

   

 

[Gustave]

On 5/18/2019 at 11:45 AM, phkrause said:

I've never heard that ever??? What I've heard is that the "real baptism" was replaced by what most churches are doing today??

What do you mean by "real baptism"?

 

[R. G. White]

On 5/18/2019 at 9:28 PM, Morwenna said:

Thanks for the answers, all.

It is clear to me that what I am trying to ask is not being fully understood by the readers. I do not struggle with any of the examples I've provided. I am not looking for a church that allows or disallows beliefs in each of the examples I provided. In response to the original post regarding the variations in belief, I was merely asking, 

What is the percentage of complete, whole Seventh-day Adventist beliefs that a person must believe in order to be considered a Seventh-day Adventist?

I *do* know SDAs who drink alcohol; some who commune with other denominations; some who eat pork;some who are vegan; some who have affairs; some who gamble; some who don't believe EGW was a prophet; some who put EGW above the Bible; some who work on the Sabbath; some who only come to church if they *have* to work at the church: some who pay others to work for them on the Sabbath; some who do not believe in the Trinity; some who believe in evolution; some who believe in "once saved, always saved"; some who believe infant baptism is enough; some who are baptised 3 and 4 times: some who do not believe tithing is enough; some who do not tithe; some who pray only when barefoot; some who celebrate Christmas; Some who celebrate Halloween: some who will avoid any pork related food or medicine" some who will not call God by any other name than "Yeshua"; some who curse and swear; some who speed in the church parking lot; some who are sexually promiscuous; some who cheat on their taxes; some who spread rumors; some who abuse children; some who flirt with others during the sermon: some who abuse their spouse; some who file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat; some who believe having insurance is a sin...and yet, they are ALL considered Seventh-day Adventist. 

But I wonder, how much is too much? How much is not enough?

And as an aside:  I never stated that I don't understand dry humor; nor did I state that I personally struggle with any of the examples that I "questioned". And no, I was not offended by the idea that perhaps you, Gregory, thought I might be in a situation where there was more than one spouse per spouse. I am slightly offended at (what I perceive to be) the insinuation that I might not comprehend dry humor. 

Have a blessed week. I'll return after a respite from my perception of being slighted. 

I might suggest that none of us is in a position to fully answer your question. When it comes to doctrine, we have four or five "pillars" on which we all agree, or the person might as well not pretend to be one of us. These would include the Saturday Sabbath, the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary, the unconscious state of the dead, and the pre-millennial glorious Second Coming of Christ. Beyond that, each local congregation has the responsibility to exclude from membership those who persist in living in open sin. I suppose that, in some cases, this might include the persistent promotion of abhorrently false doctrine, or teachings contrary to the above-mentioned pillars.

Obviously, neither of the above facts, nor both together, are sufficient to exclude every spurious Christian, much less every spurious Seventh-day Adventist. What is God's solution to this? To me, it appears to be II Timothy 2:19.

Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”

Ultimately, we are saved as individuals. If we know our Shepherd, no one can snatch us out of His hand. As for the effectiveness of a church where the wheat and tares grow together, that's God's problem, not yours or mine. We just need to humbly do what we can to help.