Talk:Millerism: Difference between revisions

 

==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.

: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)

 

 

:::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)

 

 

: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)

 

 

:::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)

:::::"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]

 

 

 

:"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)

 

 

:::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)

:::::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)

 

 

::::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)

Vasilis, Greece

 

 

 

 

The exact relationship between Russell and the Millerite movement is a little difficult to define.

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)

 

== Contradiction ==

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)

 

== Hmmm ==

 

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)