I chose not to attend Southern College. Most SDA's in the southern conference go off to Southern or some other SDA college, but by that age I was done with the SDA system and wanted no further part in it.

I live in an SDA dominant community right now. The non-Adventists in this era certainly think that SDA's are pretty crack pot, their belief system that is. When I tell people that I'm from the SDA community but have since moved on and had my membership removed, they tend to open up and speak more freely. They're always interested in hearing about the strange belief's such as a future Pope being the anti-christ of Revelation, the belief in the absolute coming of a national and then global Sunday Law, and the belief that only those who refuse Sunday Worship - The Mark of Beast - will be saved at the second coming of Christ. Very crack pot indeed.

There's a website for questioning and former SDA's full of interesting facts called FormerAdventist.com: http://www.formeradventist.com/

But this geared towards people who have questioned adventism against the bible and found adventism in error, not people who have gone even further and questioned the bible itself and found all of the error in and of itself...

Bingo, Vishnu! I was just thinking that Tat and I are both correct, but that we are living in different parts of the country.

So...Tat... have you read the book yet? After you read it, we can discuss how I presented Adventism.

Yes, yes, of course. I realize that I went into this blind and may have jumped the gun from the get go. It's just that I saw something about Adventism come up on the recent posts feed and went straight to refuting the belief system as crack pot and false prophecy based. I have no idea how you addressed it in the book. It's just that the opening post came off as very SDA proselytizing sounding, as if you were about to cut right into a stop smoking lecture and Revelation seminar. lol

Now let's look at the blog you decided to post about this thread here at BT, and indeed a few straw man fallacies you sought to raise about me in particular:

http://storystonejournal.blogspot.com/2 ... venth.html


Did I? Here's what I wrote:


This was aimed at letting viewers know - before attempting to read the book not those who have already read the book - what on earth Seventh Day Adventism is in the first place. A history of the belief system and how it evolved from the mind of Ellen White before it was taken down the Missippi by her relative on the proselytizing voyage in question which is where your family tale enters the religion. I took it as a 'proselytizing book' because it begins with the White family's proselytizing efforts which converted your family into the SDA religion. That's what you've written about in the opening post describing the context of your own book.


Here's what I wrote:

I assumed that you had not discovered the truth about the cult because you write about striving towards a higher standard and such, which, is completely false. Adventism is based around giving people the illusion that they are of a higher standard than the paganized Sunday worshipping world of Christian, the non-christian religions, and the secular world. And it's in fact a big Whie Lie indeed, from the sick mind of who else but Ellen G. White.


It sounds like you're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, but, as any reader can see for themselves, I've stated over and over again that I have not read this book. I was going by what is written and quoted by you in this thread of discussion and that's it. And I've just refuted Adventism in general, not your book in particular. Unless of course in the process of refuting Adventism I also refuted your book as well because of it's SDA content. I won't know the answer until I've read the book, obviously, which I have never claimed to have done:


I was paying attention to being intellectually honest about the book the entire time and it sounds like you're trying to raise a straw man fallacy on me here for the sake of the SDA's or who ever else your blog is addressed to. That is where the actual dishonest tactics begin to show themselves and you are the one guilty of making the dishonest claims right now.


Ok, so you've rushed into yet another straw man fallacy against me. Let's review what I've actually written and what is actually means:

This is mostly my fault for how I worded the paragraph in a very rushed way. I can see how you pulled the straw man out of the bolded area in question.

But what I was saying is that I have the same family history rich in Adventism. But at this point in life I tend to just focus the SDA part of growing up out of it and instead focus on more enjoyable aspects like all of the water sports and fun we had. That's just me personally. But if I were to write a book about my own family heritage it would be about how I was eventually able to pull off weeding most of the SDA doctrine out of the family, now, in this generation. My immediate family is completely removed at this point. I wasn't talking about a book where I ignore the SDA past of my family, in the book, but rather a book where I write about the SDA past and how it lead up to this generation where it finally began to dissolve. And the story of how that happened is in fact very interesting and I've disclosed a little of it here at BT concerning my grandfather passing down information and such. So whatever the case - my fault or yours - you did completely misunderstand what I was trying to say and then took off right away misrepresenting me pubically as the result.


Of course my family heritage would be just as incomprehensible without discussing Adventism, which is why I never suggested such a thing in the first place as shown above.


You were doing pretty good until the end, when you tried to take a shot at the former Adventist movement as a whole. Some people are bitter because they have been given a nasty self serving lie as the absolute truth. And now they see and understand the lie for what it is. But once again, go read through the testimonies of former SDA's @

http://www.formeradventist.com/stories/index.html

The motivation is to shake things up and get people to open their eyes and investigate what they are being told is absolute, infallible, truth. To live a safer, kinder, mor peaceful life, isn't it necessary to take issue with these false beliefs?

Ellen White claimed that she saw in vision that she would be among the 144,000 remnant of Israel during the end times. Instead she died and no such event ever took place. She believed that "certain races of men" were the result of sex between man and beast. This is of course BS and an outrage to humanity. Did God reveal that to her? Of course not. And do exclusionary and racist oriented beliefs from a self proclaimed prophet receiving divine visions from God constitute a safer, kinder, more peaceful life? Of course not. See http://www.formeradventist.com for more details on which of the two is more peace oriented by people who have lived both the SDA and non-SDA perspectives. Don't take my word for it.


I stand behind my intial request, which is that readers should first look into what Adventism is (a cult of mostly eccentric and very odd ball types), and then go on and purchase and read the book so that the reader can better understand the big picture when reading about the lives of a Seventh Day Adventist family saga. That' it. I'd suggest the very same with respect to any story about Mormons, or Jehovah's Witness, or even a Hindu or Buddist family saga for that matter. I have taken issue with Adventism, not your book in particular, unless of course it actually is geared towards promoting Adventism after all.

This forum is more public than my obscure little blog where you feel I misrepresented you. (I have, what, 1 follower?) I used our exchange as a springboard of my blog entry because, in my experience, your biting rhetoric is typical of the anti-Adventist movement -- from Walter Rhea forward. However, it is easy to misunderstand you because it's difficult to filter through the sarcasm.

You sound like people in my experience who have been very aggressive in their attempts to destroy the beliefs of those still in the Adventist church, and that is what I have responded to. I believe one should consider very carefully before endeavoring to shake up someone's faith because the results can be devastating emotionally and psychologically. But as you have pointed out, you were directing your comments toward the reader who is unfamiliar with the religion -- and not necessarily toward those who are still in it. I agree with you that is a good idea to research a subject thoroughly. This would include reading the Adventist sites along with material written by the former-Adventists, as well as any unbiased material on the subject (if such an animal exists.)

As to the use of the words "higher standard", I concede that you are right in that it does ring of the old religious elitism that we have encountered in Adventism, although it is by no means unique to Adventism. We are all elitists when it comes to our own ideas and beliefs, or at least I am. Don't be surprised if I re-work that sentence and maybe even blog about it. Keeping to a higher standard, of course...

THOUGHTS ON "A HIGHER STANDARD"

I visualize "higher standard" as a flag on a tall pole, and "holding to" it as holding that flag up against a wind that would tear it down if not for a great effort. In this sense, the characters of PRECIOUS JEWELS held to the higher standard in the face of the winds of desire and heartbreak that buffeted them.

Flags generally represent nations, but they can also represent beliefs and symbolize our most cherished values. To raise the flag and to hold to its standard does involve the sense of height, for a flag is raised above one's head, and to raise it higher means to keep it within ones' sight. A lower standard is a flag not raised--or one not raised high enough so that one may keep one's eyes on the goal. So the "higher standard" that I speak of is a comparison with itself, the standard raised or not raised.

--excerpted from a longer entry on my wee blog, Storystone Journal at storystonejournal.blogspot.com/2011/07/ ... ndard.html

I would also like to recommend a book by Brad Hirschfield, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE WRONG FOR ME TO BE RIGHT. He discusses the pitfalls of fervent beliefs, whether it be religion, politics or any other cause that narrows the vision to "I am right and you are wrong." He approaches it with an attitude of having forgiven himself for having embraced the fanaticism of certain Israelis who have lost touch with their humanity in their conviction that the land of Israel is their God-given right. Hirschfield was shaken out of that view when two Palestinian girls were killed and no one else in his group seemed upset. He speaks of moving on without being ashamed of where he was in his thinking, and of forgiving those who have not moved on with him. (I rarely think that someone else has said something better than I could, ahem, but I think possibly Hirschfield has.)