Content deleted Content added
{{OnThisDay}} and similar messages on talk pages have not been maintained for the past three years, using AWB |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Religion}}, {{WikiProject New York}}. Tag: |
||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=High|seventh-day-adventist-church=yes|seventh-day-adventist-church-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}}
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low}}
}}
{{On this day|date1=2004-10-22|oldid1=6792449|date2=2005-10-22|oldid2=26188560}}
==Sohrab's book==
Reference to this appears to be out of place here per the [[WP:NPOV#Undue_weight|undue weight]] policy. His group, "The New History Society/Foundation" doesn't even exist anymore.
Line 9 ⟶ 13:
:I can accept that, I've made it briefer. Hope you can accept my change, since it's neutral. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::''Thief in the night'' is on almost every Baha'i bookshelf, and most Baha'is read it at one time or another. Sohrab's book however is probably the most obscure example you can find of Baha'i literature pointing to Miller's prophecies. It's not neutral to delete relevant information, it's POV to use a reference to a book which nobody reads (and look it happens to be a Covenant-breaker, how convenient for Wjhonson's agenda). There are hundreds of more relevant books, and you choose Sohrab's?? Could it be that you have an intention that you're not stating? [[User:Cunado19|<
:::A) This article is not about what orthodox Baha'is believe; B) This article is not about covenant-breakers; C) Neither pov is expressed, and finally D) I put it here because I just happened to come across it while reading. It has nothing to do with my "agenda" whatever you think that is. My agenda, happens to be, I found an interesting reference so I added the blurb here. Your removing it is certainly pov since you are stating quite clearly, that your removal is based on your religious beliefs. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually the few sentences that mention the Faith are obviously relevant, and it is not POV to mention a well read book which is largely dedicated to Miller's prophecies. If you added the reference to Sohrab out of genuine informational value, then you should be able to recognize that Sears' book is important to mention, and Sohrab's isn't. [[User:Cunado19|<
:Sohrab wrote his book before Sears didn't he? So what makes you so certain that Sears didn't copy Sohrab's idea? In that case Sohrab is primary and so deserves actually a higher position than Sears notwithstanding your *opinion* that Sears book is more read than Sohrab's. It appears however, that you are basing the primary of Sears on an *official Baha'i position* which is pov, since it's religious polemic. On the basis of historicity there is no basis for excluding Sohrab in favor of Sears. The only basis is a religious one. That makes it pov. Also I do not see that Sears work is "largely dedicated to Miller's prophecies". Can you make that case? I'm not seeing it yet. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 01:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
::Have you read the book? [[User:Cunado19|<
:::If you've read Sohrab's book, let me know. I have not read Sears book yet, but I've read several reviews of it. The message that I took away, is that it is largely a Baha'i apologetic vehicle, not necessarily particularly about Miller, and Sears was not a scholar but an entertainer. There are reviews which point out that there are many errors in Sears book. Of course it may be the only acceptable book for Baha'is to read, but that does make it the best one for this particular article. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 24 ⟶ 28:
:::::"Of course, it is best if we can find answers to our questions in the Sacred Writings themselves but it can also be helpful to read Bahá'í secondary books. It should be kept in mind, however, that these authors often express their own private interpretations which are not authoritative. Helpful secondary works include ''Christ and Bahá'u'lláh'' by George Townshend, ''Understanding Biblical Prophecy and Prophecies of Jesus'' by Michael Sours, ''Thief in the Night'' by William Sears and ''He Cometh with Clouds'' by Gary Matthews." [http://bahai-library.com/essays/brownstein1.html]
::::I'm familiar with all of those books, but the only one I've read was ''Thief in the Night'', and that's why I added it as a "notable" book about prophecies. If you read any of these, major themes are the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation that point to 1844, and in each book there is mention of three major parties: the Millerites, the German Templars, and the Shaykhi Shi`ah schools. Sears, I recall, focused a lot on the Messianic movement that William Miller was at the head of in the United States. I think any of the four mentioned in the quoted paragraph are worthy to be mentioned as notable Baha'i sources on the subject, so if you don't like Sears then pick one, or just use the web link, which conveniently has the prophecies listed on that page. [[User:Cunado19|<
I fail to see how I'm not playing fair. You are stuck on linking to Sohrab when he is completely insignificant and his book is not read by Baha'is or even published. I tried to remove all the book references and Ansell reverted me. I tried another format and Wjhonson reverted me. Linking to five books is completely an overkill, especially when the Baha'i section is a mere footnote itself on the page, to the point that a lot of people have tried deleting it altogether. Wjhonson, I believe I'm in the right here and unless you make a convincing argument I will continue to delete the reference to Sohrab. [[User:Cunado19|<
:"Read by Baha's" is completely immaterial to what is scholarly or not. If you want to delete all books I have no problem with that. However only posting a book that's *approved* by a religious hierarchy, I have a big problem with that. This encylopaedia is not here is promote a religious pov over all others. The more you say that what Baha'is believe should take precedence, the more distance you put between your position and mine. What Baha'is read or believe or do or eat is irrelevant. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 05:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
::"What Baha'is read or believe" is exactly why it's relevant, so you should care. It's your ignoring what they read that shows your POV. To be honest I'm not trying to fight here, I would assume just delete all the book references and just post the web link, either that or list about 50 other books that are more notable than Sohrab. [[User:Cunado19|<
:::I could agree, if this was a page on "what baha'is read" but it isn't. It's a page on Millerites and tangentially on the fact that Baha'is use the same reasoning that he pioneered. As such, any book that refers to that is certainly relevant. You started this war by deleting my reference, which was completely innocuous because you assumed I was being confrontational and I was not. Sohrab's book is completely bland and pro-Baha'i obviously you have not read it. You replaced it by a book with numerous factual errors simply on the basis that it's a more "approved" work. That position is pov. I have no problem in letting both references stay, but I do have a problem in only using one that "Baha'is" approve. This isn't the Baha'i university here, it's an open, scholarly, platform. We're not here to uphold the Baha'i position on anything. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 05:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 67 ⟶ 71:
:::::Wrong. I am the *one* who added the entire Baha'i reference in the first place. I used as my source the Sohrab book. Cunado replaced the ref with the Sears book. That's what started the whole thing. The Sohrab book is clear and says nothing negative about Baha'is, why don't you read it? You are automatically assuming it's evil or something just because Sohrab wrote it. At any rate, this isn't the "Baha'i approved" list of what we can and cannot read and reference. So it should be either both references, or no references. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 04:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Wrong. It does not have to have Sohrab or nothing. This has nothing to do with "Baha'i approved" either, I think you're living in a fantasy world when it comes to your big conspiracy theory. But I've lost all my enthusiasm to carry on this fight. As long as you don't add Sohrab I don't care what happens, even if the whole mention of the Baha'i Faith gets deleted. [[User:Cunado19|<
::::Well what can I think when you delete a perfectly valid reference for one that "Baha'is read" as if that's relevent? The point on this page is only that Miller's analysis influenced other faiths. What has that got to do with what Baha'is read? The influence is clear no matter which reference you read, and it's likely that Sears lifted it from Sohrab in the first place. Unless you can find an earlier reference than Sohrab's. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 97 ⟶ 101:
Vasilis, Greece
:My understanding is that you're correct. After the Millerites broke up, several of them, along with Russell formed a newsletter, which Russell eventually took over. So although Russell was not part of Miller's movement, he was partners with several prominent Millerites and spoke on the same material. [[User:Cunado19|<
Line 104 ⟶ 108:
I didn’t mean to intervene to the article, but this is the result when some people avoid to make a conversation.----[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC
The exact relationship between Russell and the Millerite movement is a little difficult to define.
# By 1870 (when Russell appears to have been in contact with Jonas Wendell) there really does not exist a Millerite movement as such. Following the Great Disappointment of 1844 there was a fragmenting of the movement--exacerbated by Miller's death in 1849. By 1870 it is more accurate to speak of various "adventist" groups" rather than "Millerite groups--in 1860 the Advent Christian Association (later the Advent Christian Church) was formed and in 1863 both the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Life and Advent Union were also been formally organized.
# While Jonas Wendell used a methodology similar to William Miller, he arrived at dates that Miller never calculated.
# In 1870, Russell and his friends formed a Bible study group in Pittsburgh they were joined by Adventist pastors George Storrs and George Stetson. Storrs promoted the doctrine of conditional immortality, and both the Advent Christian church and the Seventh-day Adventist church accepted this doctrine principally due to the work of Storrs.
# Storrs was founding president of the Life and Advent Union and was not an Advent Christian nor a Seventh-day Adventist.
# Nelson H. Barbour was a Millerite who following the Great Disappointment seems not to have been involved with any of the major groups but following his independent study promoted the Second Coming of Christ in 1873. Barbour seems not to have ever been as member of denominations that arose out of the Millerite Movement like the Advent Christian Church or the Seventh-day adventist Church--nor were his views ever accepted by these groups.
There is no doubt a connection between the methodology of Miller & the Millerites and Russell (and of course the hoped for event was the same--the Second Coming of Christ) and it is certain that Russell was influenced by the ideas of certain Adventists (more accurate I feel than Millerites). --[[User:JCrocombe|JCrocombe]] ([[User talk:JCrocombe|talk]]) 15:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusions.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] ([[User talk:Vassilis78|talk]]) 13:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:Probably true, all of it. But since f.ex. [[liberal theology|liberal theologists]] share a certain method of interpretation while reaching quite different results, and JVs, Millerites and Adventists share another method of interpretation, the concept of ''generalized Millerism'' (my term, don't use unless you find it outside Wikipedia) might be a viable classification to have <u>in mind</u> when writing about Millerites and similar groups. ... said: [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] ([[User talk:Rursus|bork²]]) 17:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
== Contradiction ==
Line 144 ⟶ 161:
This reads in reverse to my understanding of the term "Millerites". The article [[Great Controversy]] has details on the influences on other groups. [[Adventist]] describes only a subset of those influences; those who see themselves as descendants only. Should this article ''just'' be about the history of the Millerite Adventist movement up until the Great Disappointment of 1844? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Colin MacLaurin|Colin MacLaurin]] ([[User talk:Colin MacLaurin|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Colin MacLaurin|contribs]]) 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The opening phrase is indeed very poorly worded. Put simply, the Millerites were the followers of the teachings of William Miller on the soon return of Christ. Initially, they were focussed almost exclusively on this belief and had no interest in discussing other areas of theology. Following the Great Disappointment, this changed and there was a fragmenting of the movement and a proliferation of ideas not only on the second coming but on issues like the Seventh day Sabbath and the State of the Dead. The article accurately points out that "he Millerite movement originally had adherents across denominational lines, especially from Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist and Campbellite churches, forming distinct denominations only after the Great Disappointment."
The article is OK (with heavy editing) up until the heading "Distinguished from the other groups and movements" which is basically irrelevant & contains unsupported statements (like that on Southcott). What is missing (and what needs to become a major portion of the article is what happens post Great Disappointment. Here the Albany Conference is key and the formation of the various groups (and later, denominations). I suggest that George R. Knight's book ''Millennial Fever'' is an excellent reference for this - particularly p245-342). --[[User:JCrocombe|JCrocombe]] ([[User talk:JCrocombe|talk]]) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the input - always good to get expert help. For now, I have added the book to the references section. [[User:Colin MacLaurin|Colin MacLaurin]] ([[User talk:Colin MacLaurin|talk]]) 08:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have completed a major edit. Feedback would be appreciated. It still needs a lot of stylistic work to conform to Wikipedia standards. Also missing is a discussion of the social background of the Millerites --who were they & something short on ascension robes & how the Millerites awaited the Great Disappointment--both of which I hope to complete in the not-to-distant future. [[User:JCrocombe|JCrocombe]] ([[User talk:JCrocombe|talk]]) 16:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:Great works thanks JCrocombe. I have added a lot of wikilinks. A few things I wasn't sure about: Does "Dresden" refer to [[Dresden, Washington County, New York]]? "''Wm. Miller's Apology and Defence, Boston'', MT" looks funny - is "Boston" meant to appear within the book title? Is "Rochester" [[Rochester, New York]]? Please check my 5603 or 5604 Hebrew year comment. [[User:Colin MacLaurin|Colin MacLaurin]] ([[User talk:Colin MacLaurin|talk]]) 03:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the Book title, thanks for pointing it out. I assume that both the Rochester & Dresden locations are correct as you say though Miller does not specify further.
Would it be appropriate to ask that this article be re-rated in the near future? Is it now better than "start class"? [[User:JCrocombe|JCrocombe]] ([[User talk:JCrocombe|talk]]) 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:Hi JCrocombe, I promoted it to "B" class, the next one up. Anybody feel free to [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|nominate it as a good article]]. Not sure if JCrocombe wanted to add some more to it first as he mentioned earlier. [[User:Colin MacLaurin|Colin MacLaurin]] ([[User talk:Colin MacLaurin|talk]]) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
== Hmmm ==
Line 153 ⟶ 184:
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2002/oct18.html The King is Coming, Eventually] - article in ''[[Christianity Today]]''. [[User:Colin MacLaurin|Colin MacLaurin]] 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Millerite/Adventist groups in an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millerites&diff=prev&oldid=1162705 old version] of the page. [[User:Colin MacLaurin|Colin MacLaurin]] ([[User talk:Colin MacLaurin|talk]]) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
== Doctrine? ==
It would be good to have more specifics about the Millerite doctrine. The doctrine section talks a bit about issues under discussion, but is not clear on exactly what these issues were or how they were resolved. It would be good to be more clear. [[User:Kristamaranatha|Kristamaranatha]] ([[User talk:Kristamaranatha|talk]]) 04:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
==Assessment comment==
{{Substituted comment|length=113|lastedit=20081001082713|comment=Needs more reference citations and references. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] 14:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)}}
Substituted at 00:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
== In Popular Culture ==
Could a section on portrayals in popular culture be added? The current season of ''The Leftovers'', for instance, gives a rather vivid and moving glimpse into the experience of this sect. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MattyIce79|MattyIce79]] ([[User talk:MattyIce79#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MattyIce79|contribs]]) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on [[Millerism]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814069576|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902122809/http://www.tagnet.org/washington/history/millerite.html to http://www.tagnet.org/washington/history/millerite.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
== External links modified (January 2018) ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on [[Millerism]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/823293830|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721184913/http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=352&journal=1&type=pdf to http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=352&journal=1&type=pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 11:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
| |||