Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church

Finally, it is alleged that certain Adventist beliefs and practices are exclusivist in nature. Non-Adventist critics have raised concern about the Adventist claim to be the “remnant church”, and the characterization of Roman Catholicism^[1][2][3][4] as "Babylon the Great" (Rev. 17,5), just as was believed by virtually all great reformers such as Martin LutherCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)., Jean Calvin and others. These distinctively Protestant understanding of Bible is said to legitimize the evangelism of Roman Catholics, just as many other evangelical Christians believe.^[5][6][7]

Also Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that all Christians (Protestants or Orthodox) who seek to return to Roman Catholicism and accept Pope of Rome as a Head of Church of Christ on Earth are to be considered as daughters who came from Her ("Mother of Harlots" Rev 17,5).

Speaking about Pope claim that Protestant denominations are not true churches, Kwabena Donkor, associate director of the Adventist Church's Biblical Research Institute said that "As Seventh-day Adventists, our understanding of the church is completely different," Donkor said. "We don't identify the church as being Christ with the pope as the head."^[8].

Adventist theologians also state that the doctrine of the remnant does not preclude the existence of genuine Christians in other denominations.^[9]

"We fully recognize the heartening fact that a host of true followers of Christ are scattered all through the various churches of Christendom, including the Roman Catholic communion. These God clearly recognizes as His own. Such do not form a part of the "Babylon" portrayed in the Apocalypse."

— Questions on Doctrine, p. 197.

This is second part of statement mentioned here - "and the traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations " as "Babylon"

Problem comes with second part of this statemant, I understand what's some editors point, but... you have to give a qoute for "other denominations", and this qoute has to be from some adventist source and it has to be existing web site or official document, not a Weasel word like statemant

1. "People say…" (Which people?)
2. "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
3. "It was written..." (Where was it written?)
4. "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
5. "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
6. "It has been mentioned that..." (Who mentioned it?)
7. "It is known that..." (By whom is it known?).
8. "Concern has been raised about..." (Who raised the conserne?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.59 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unless someone gives a good statement which has source reliable and not a Weasel word this claim can stay. But if there is no reliable source I propose this (second part) to be deleted.

- Please check out the sources on these pages:

 http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1524/story3.html  (pay attention to sections 2 and 3)
 http://www.bible.ca/7-mark-beast.htm
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.90.35 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply 

The article on this website suggests that the current version of the article is accurate: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc3.html Rob.saberon (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sory sir but I have no where there read about protestant denominations beeing babylon.

Regarding this article http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc3.html

There is no word on protestants beeing babylon, there is just said that eccumenical movemant as it is right know is bayblon style becouse of it's disunity and confusion, this is opinion of many other christians and that article actually speaks about eccumenism, and ecumenical movemant not about ecclesiology

Regarding this article http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1524/story3.html

Sorry to say but this is bad qoute, you're missing there two keywords both protestants, and babylon. It mentionts nor word protestant/ism, or Babylon, so its unfair to say that we say that protestants are babylon, when there are no such words there.

Regarding this article http://www.bible.ca/7-mark-beast.htm

First of all it is not at all adventist source, but a non adventist apologetic website countering SDA doctrines and even calling it "a cult" [1], it's clearly not "independent source"

Second of all, there is no word like "protestants" there or "protestantism" or "denominations"

Third of all it says that "God's call is to come out of Babylon to follow Jesus and truth."

it doesn't say that Protestants are Babylon, it just says that some churches are more like Catholic then Bible believing, this section doesn't say that you have to go SDA to be saved, that SDA is "only true church", "remnant church" or simmilar, it speaks about Sabbath/Sunday worship doctrine in particular, not ecclesiology in general. Becouse of that it's usless to link to them trying to prove a claim that they don't claim, or is taken out of context.

Unless you give so called "credible source" and a qoute from which it is obvious that we believe that all other protestant denominations are Babylon, The second part of statment above which I dispute will be deleted. Its unfair and unjust to say that I belive (SDA) something that we don't believe or say. User:Sumaterana

I am asking for a Smoking Gun (as G.W. Bush used to say), a clear qoute, official statment, simple sentence (declerative), not a Weasel word like sentences, from non reliable or non independent sources, which have no keywords.

I'm asking for a regular sentence; which has a subject and a predicate indicating what you claim. I honestly don't belive you'll ever find it but you can try and google it out, have a good time searching for it, but remember unless you find it, article will be changed in my favour, I wish you a lot of luck! I suggest you to start searching official documents or SDA Bible commentary (which I regard as reliable source). User:Sumaterana

This article says that Protestants, Orthodox and others may be considered babylon, but as individuals, not as organisations. In any case this explanation should be reflected in the paragraph to clear up the misunderstanding. http://www.adventistlaymen.com/Documents/What%20Constitutes%20Babylon.htm 209.121.155.196 (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I respect you're thoughts, I read a bit of article, but I ask for a clear qoute where Seventh day Adventist church say's that other protestants are babylon, I repeat, unless there is such qoute, article will be changed in my favour.

may be considered babylon, but as individuals, not as organisations. I agree with this statemant, but the same could be claimed for adventists who live like a world but are formaly in SDA church, you dn't need to be theologian to make such clame. It's obvious to anybodey who reads Bible.

One digression - we speak about alleged SDA claim that other protestant denominations as babylon, not individuals in protestant churches, as is mentioned in the article that you provided. I please others who provied a link to carefully read link that they provide and to be shure that it is focuesed on subject that we discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.128.109 (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here are two examples:

"WHAT IS BABYLON? Under the judgments of the Almighty this alliance breaks down into three parts. Rev 16:19.(It is riveting to notice that the cities of the nations then fall. All round the world many of their tall buildings are like dominoes on end.) Religiously Babylon includes the dragon, the beast and the false prophet. V14. These are paganism(the Satanic gospel, including New Age spiritism): the Papacy and apostate Protestantism. " from http://www.tagnet.org/adventist.fm/articles/babylon.htm

"What is “Babylon the Great” called in Rev. 17:5? This text says that she is, “The mother of Harlots.” NOTE: The symbolism here is of a great mother church which has daughters who have sprung from her. It takes no genius to figure this one out. The great Roman Church claims openly to be the mother church and repeatedly makes public appeals to her separated children to return to her. The daughters who came from her “protested” and pulled away from the mother and became known as Protestants. The name BABYLON is a family name which includes both mother and children. It is shocking and sobering to realize that God is clearly indicting both mother and daughters as fallen." Written by a Seventh-day Adventist Pastor from http://www.tagnet.org/biblestudymoments/21.%20Mystic%20Babylon%20the%20Great%20Harlot.htm

At least SOME church members think that 'apostate Protestantism' is a part of Babylon. 209.121.155.196 (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was amazed by qoutes you gave, they fulfilled 3 key conditions

1. Adventist source 2. Good keywords 3, Plain and clear sentences from which is obvious what is belived and claimed

However.... These are not official doctrines, but... i'll pass over that, but I please you to accept part of article as I propose it, I hope that my version has pleased everybodey, and if not I suggest you to help me and make revisions (we all together). My edition looks "anti-catholic", I don't dispute it, but, so is our theology[2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.144.18 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seventh day adventist Church is a protestant denomination and is seen as such in the whole world. Attempt to make it classified as Restorationist movemant just like some NRM like movemants (Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons) are going to fail.

Reason for that is that Seventh Day Adventist Church is a respected protestant denomination, as is clearly visible from its interfaith relations with other Protestant churces.

They are seen as protestants by mainstream protestants, and are classified as protestants worldwide, as is not case with Jehowah Witnesses and Mormons. Attempts by anonymous users such is 24.83.90.35 to change this status are not going to pass.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.138.182 (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This very neutral and credible website classifies the Seventh-Day Adventist as Restorationist: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrrest.htm Rob.saberon (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sir, SDA belives in progressive revelation, not restorationism like Jehowas, or Mormons belive. We NEVER claim apostolic succesion, to be apostolic church or simmilar things like JW, LDS and catholic church claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.169 (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article on Restorationism says: "Restorationist organizations include Christian Conventions, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saint movement, Seventh-day Adventists, and others." check it out. 24.83.90.35 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seventh-day Adventist Church generally do not consider their denomination as a restorationist movement, because they believe in progressive revelation.^[10] Another words, that God was continuous unfolding prior revealed truths, such as baptism by immersion only for those who believe in Jesus Christ, keeping Saturday as a Sabbath day (day of rest) and similar doctrines which they consider as biblical, but which have been removed by Roman Catholic Church in past. They do not claim Apostolic Succession, as do some other restorationist and non-restorationist denominations.

"In general, making separate sections with the title 'Criticism' is discouraged." (Wikipedia:Criticism) It should be easy to rework the criticism into other sections. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You make a good point Colin, and thanks for alerting us to the Wikipedia guideline. However my opinion is that the criticism section in this article is reasonably justified. I have watched this article for well over a year, and it does not appear that this criticism section is acting as a "troll magnet". The section has remained balanced and stable pretty much indefinitely.

The SDA church, along with other sectarian movements and splinter group churches, has attracted the kind of criticism throughout its history which targets the church as a whole; i.e. it is alleged that this is a body which has departed from historic orthodoxy and set itself up as an exclusive "club", and therefore the movement or denomination as a whole is illegitimate (in the context of Christianity as a whole). This may be contrasted to a situation where individual aspects or components of something are criticised, rather than the entity as a whole. This leads me to believe that "criticism of the SDA church" is a discrete topic which deserves its own section rather than being worked into the rest of the article. IMO, if it is successfully argued that a "criticism" section is inappropriate, then the criticism article logically ought not to exist (and indeed there may be something in this...).

Perhaps Evolution is a good analogy. There is plenty of "criticism" of the theory of evolution, but of different types. "Scientific" criticism is appropriately integrated into the main body of the article, whereas cultural or religious criticism which attacks evolution as a whole, and claims that it is illegitimate in its entirety, is more appropriately addressed in a separate section ("Evolution#Social and cultural views").

I hope I've made some sense here! I look forward to futher discussion about this Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The WP:LEAD reads like a sales brochure, not like a summary of the entire article. It needs updating. This is an encyclopedia article, not a normal article. I have a rule of thumb that ensures good coverage: If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead. -- Fyslee/talk 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for you comments, Fyslee. Personally, I feel that the lead currently does a fairly good job of summarising the article. Though I would also raise the following suggestions for possible improvement:

• "with a worldwide membership of over 14 million and an active presence in most countries of the world." - perhaps this does sound like a bit of an advertisement; however I think it's important to state the membership. Perhaps it can be reworded and moved down to the bottom paragraph.
• Don't really think it is important to explain the title. Currently the sentence is clumsy: "The title refers to the Church's belief in the imminent second coming (or "Advent") of Jesus, and the observance of the "seventh day" of the week (Saturday) as the Sabbath."
• "It is more widespread than any Protestant church" -- hmm, that is a bit like an advert, I don't think it's necessary. (especially when we've already stated the membership)

What do you think about the following new version?

The Seventh-day Adventist (abbreviated "Adventist") Church is a Christian denomination which is distinguished by its observance of Saturday, the "seventh day" of the week, as the Sabbath. The denomination grew out of the Millerite movement in the United States during the middle part of the 19th century, and was formally established in 1863.^[11] Among its founders was Ellen G. White, whose extensive writings are still held in high regard by the church today.

The Seventh-day Adventist church is closely aligned to Protestantism, although some critics regard it as a sectarian movement. Its theology corresponds to key evangelical teachings such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Distinctive teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. The church is also known for its emphasis on diet and health, for its promotion of religious liberty, and for its culturally conservative principles.

The world church is governed by a General Conference, with smaller regions administered by divisions, union conferences and local conferences. It currently has a worldwide membership of over 14 million people, has a missionary presence in over 200 countries and is ethnically and culturally diverse.^[12] The church operates numerous schools, hospitals and publishing houses worldwide, as well as a prominent humanitarian aid organization known as the Adventist Development and Relief Agency.

Tonicthebrown 12:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree, I have made it "live", lets see what happens! Fermion 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I basically think you're doing good work, but my concern was more related to the requirements for the lead section as found at WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb above ensures that we meet that requirement. Are all sections with a heading represented in the article? At the time I noticed the problem, I was looking at the criticism section. (It could just as well have been another section.) I noticed that there was no mention of criticism or controversy in the lead, and that is a serious lapse. It needs to be fixed. Just look at each section, summarize it in a sentence or two, and then take them and write them in some form of nice prose and add it to the lead. The lead should summarize the whole article so that the lead can stand alone, and so that a reader will not be surprised by the unexpected appearance of information in the article that was not mentioned in the lead. The lead is what in other places is called an "introduction." Wikipedia expressly does not use that term for a section (and it should be removed and reworded if found!), and uses a "lead" without a heading instead. -- Fyslee/talk 07:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ongoing discussion and assistance with this article, Fyslee. In my opinion each of the major sections are covered by at least one sentence or phrase in the lead. I'll use a table to illustrate. Tonicthebrown 09:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great table. I love it! I think a couple points deserve better mention in the lead (getting back to what made me notice the problem): the "Criticim" section only mentions external criticism. What about internal criticism? Weight wise it deserves more space. The last section may feel like an appendix to you, but other readers may feel otherwise. It is in the article and IMHO believe it deserves some mention. -- Fyslee/talk 19:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any suggestions for how we could include a succinct mention in the lead? Tonicthebrown 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Internal criticism? Amen! I have been the primary editor responsible for trying to add it. One of the most major inaccuracies IMO is regarding the authority accorded to Ellen White. It is not just that external critics say White is or has been overused in the church. The majority of Adventists themselves agree (at least about the past)! I have noticed that church employees of all types (Review editors, scholars progressive or conservative, etc.) all believe that a significant portion of members overuse Ellen White. (Mind you, on the other side of the coin, probably most are also concerned that many youth are ignoring White. I would be very surprised if this is not a documentable fact). This should remind us of NPOV - explain all major viewpoints, roughly in proportion, and tiny minority viewpoints might be excluded altogether. For external criticism, sources used are not often the best sources - e.g. websites run by non-notable individuals. Colin MacLaurin 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that some documentation of internal criticism would be good. However, please note that keeping it balanced is likely to be a complex and delicate task. Remember that internal criticism comes from both the conservative and progressive ends. So a progressive may criticise the church for overusing EGW, while a conservative will criticise the church for embracing "new theology" and undervaluing EGW!! Do we include Larry Kirkpatrick's comments that the progressives are damaging the church and should just get out? Tonicthebrown 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

(I found good sources that youth mostly ignore Ellen White and have added them to that page and another. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC))Reply

Regarding "advertising", I agree that some of those statements sounded like advertisements. However they are also very important encyclopedic pieces of information. e.g. This was recently deleted, and I state it here for example and also to recover it for discussion: "It is more widespread than any Protestant church.^[13]" It is a very significant fact that the Adventist church is very widespread. Stating that it is the most widespread after the Catholic church is actually a more precise, and non-weasely way to state this. I don't see why this fact wouldn't belong in this article. In the very least, I believe it ought to be placed on the General Conference article, which I envision as a sort of "Seventh-day Adventist Church by region" article. Colin MacLaurin 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I certainly don't have any problem with such a statement, as long as it can be documented using good (non-SDA) sources, and the source is then used as an internal reference. The better referenced things are, the fewer problems. -- Fyslee/talk 12:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have 2 issues. (1) I would like to know the precise definition of "widespread". Eg. does it mean geographically widespread, or something else? On what basis or criteria is the SDA church second most widespread after Catholicism? This needs to be spelled out, or else it does sound a bit weasely. (2) I agree with Fyslee that we need a reliable and independent citation for this fact. If these concerns are met, I won't have a problem with the statement going in the article. However, I think that it should go somewhere in the article body (eg. under "structure and polity" or "membership"), as the lead already has enough material. Tonicthebrown 09:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Vagueness, imprecision, and lack of neutral references are things that create unpleasant editorial disputes and other problems. The better references we have, the more stable the article will be. A repetition of Adventist myths and urban legends (yes, we have them! Why should we be different than everyone else?!) is also something we need to avoid. It is easier for persons like myself from old multi-generation Adventist families to fall into that trap. That's why it's good to have non-Adventists and new Adventists editing here. -- Fyslee/talk 18:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding sources, I notice that Seeking a Sanctuary seems to be a highly regarded book. Written by a non-Adventist academic (at Cambridge or Oxford I recall), and a former Adventist journalist, it is certainly not biased towards the Adventist POV. The journalist claimed it is a neutral attempt to describe the church. I have noticed some Adventist educators have used it in the classroom, and I have read positive reviews by Adventists, so one would expect the POV is indeed neutral. A second edition recently came out. I plan to buy it eventually, but I suspect this will be a good source. However I also suspect that other sources will disagree on some points, so remember NPOV. From an interview of one of the authors I read, I recall he used the term "historic Adventist" more broadly than the Wikipedia article, including what I would call conservative "mainstream". My point is, use discretion. Colin MacLaurin 02:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see this article reach "Featured" status, but I believe the major improvement which needs to happen first is to get better sources. (The photos could also be better). Please add books (particularly) below, preferably with a book review from a reliable source, so that we know they are indeed the best sources: Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC). Feel free to edit this section wiki-style. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Seeking a Sanctuary seems generally regarded as the very best book. Written by two former Adventists, it aims to provide a neutral assessment. Described by respected historian Gary Land as the best book.[3]. Barely any references at the moment. Col 17 December 2007
• Historical Dictionary of Seventh-day Adventists by Gary Land. Keith Lockhart said "the entries on art, music and literature are pretty good."[4] I've added some references but a lot more could be added. Col 17 December 2007
• Seventh-day Adventists Believe... by the Ministerial Association of Seventh-day Adventists. Published by Review and Herald in 1988. User:Tonicthebrown has added quite a few references so far. Col 17 December 2007
• Seventh-day Adventist Commentary Reference Series (especially including Encyclopedia [originally published in the 1950s so old], Bible Dictionary, and Handbook of SDA Theology [more recent]). Not many references at the moment, but there should be many - this is a notable collection. Col 17 December 2007
• Questions on Doctrine (1957). Dated now, but a very important source. The related books by evangelical Walter Martin, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism (1960) and Kingdom of the Cults in which Adventism appears in an Appendix (i.e. not a cult) have been highly influential.

I believe there is a big shortage of non-Adventist material as well. Dale Ratzlaff has been described as the leading critic. These and similar others deserve mention, but generally represent only a very conservative POV. Keith and Lockhart are much more notable, and have received excellent reviews.

Sorry Colin, but I really do think this is rather trivial. I wouldn't personally have added it to the article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you're right. Do what you like with it. Nam did present a paper on it at this year's ASRS meeting. He mentioned on his blog it was by far the most significant reference to Adventists in film/TV. Yet maybe it should be deleted. I had in mind for this section quoting Seeking a Sanctuary and other studies, about general public ignorance of Adventists, confusing with JWs and Mormons etc. based on hard qualitative surveys. I do think some of this cultural stuff is missing. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, it would probably be quite worthwhile to have some info about "general public ignorance" based on good studies. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

My copy of the book should be crossing the Pacific Ocean anytime now :-) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC) One survey showed Adventists were slightly more disliked by the general [American?] public than Mormons... ugh (no offense to LDS church members!) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Acording to Advenitst church doctirne, they consider themselves as a church. They are protestant denomination, but they view them selves as a Church. if anyone wants to dispute their church status he can do it on article regarding criticism of adventist church

"However, it has a destructive effect on ecumenical relations if one church deprives another church of the right to be called a church. It is just as destructive as if one Christian denies another Christian the right to be called a Christian[5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.7 (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Rob.saberon (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This (unsigned) message was posted on my talk page.

Regarding SDA

Sir, I dn't dispute you're knowledge, but you're claim "and the traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations " as "Babylon"

Problem comes with second part of you're statemant, I understand what's you're point, but... you have to give a qoute for "other denominations", and this qoute has to be from some adventist source and it has to be existing web site or official document, not a Weasel word like statemant

Unles you make a good stament that is source reliable and not a Weasel word you're change on SDA main page may stay. Second of all, I don't dispute that we (SDA) belive that many protestants have gone away from Byble, but we as much as I know NEVER call any protestant Church babylon.

In response, let me say that Chapters 20 and 21 of Questions on Doctrine provide a good discussion of the traditional characterization of other churches as "Babylon". This comes from older theology which, as I understand it, is not as widespread today. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sir, Im asking you for a qoute, sopy-paste, clear statmenat not a Weasel word. If you say, there is written this and that you have to prove that. That book is aviable here http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/index.htm , so be free to search, find and qoute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.169 (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Friend, my opinion is that there are no weasel words in the sentence in question.

"Specifically, concern has been raised about the Adventist claim to be the “remnant church”, and the traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations as "Babylon"."

QOD chapter 21 illustrates both the charge and Adventist response about other churches (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) constituting "Babylon". This is cited, along with several other relevant references (eg. Catholic answers) which demonstrate the traditional position and its criticism. In my view there is no need to quote something word for word; it is better to paraphrase. Tonicthebrown (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Specifically, concern has been raised about ... traditional characterization of Roman Catholicism and other denominations as "Babylon"

First - that is a weasle word

1. "Concern has been raised about..." (Who raised the conserne?)

Second - when and where did Seventh-day Adventist Church characterize other protestants as babylon

I want a good qoute on my second point, unless there is such... there will be changes made in my favour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.59 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your first problem, I have reworded the sentence to begin "Non-Adventist critics have raised concern...". I hope that satisfies you.

Regarding your second problem, with all due respect, I do not feel it is appropriate, civil or assuming good faith for you to demand a quote like this and threaten to modify the article if one is not forthcoming. Issues with Wikipedia articles must be settled by civil discussion, as outlined in the policies, not by threats. It is very easy for you to read that chapter in QOD, where you will find the relevant support for the sentence. I shouldn't have to do the work for you. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I made such impression, I apologize, I will try my best to satisfy you!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.144.18 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply