Talk:Millerism

---

Sohrab's book

Reference to this appears to be out of place here per the undue weight policy. His group, "The New History Society/Foundation" doesn't even exist anymore.

A brief reference in passing to the Baha'i perspective does not violate this policy. MARussellPESE 12:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I can accept that, I've made it briefer. Hope you can accept my change, since it's neutral. 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? Cuñado - Talk 04:41, 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. 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. Cuñado - Talk 20:55, 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. Wjhonson 01:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the book? Cuñado - Talk 08:11, 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. Wjhonson 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Wilmette Institute:

"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." [2]

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. Cuñado - Talk 03:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Cuñado - Talk 05:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"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. 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. Cuñado - Talk 05:37, 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. Wjhonson 05:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Section moved

Someone had deleted a large section that some anonymous editor had created over several edits. I thought that was a bit...harsh. So I moved it to the article for "William Miller". It still seems a bit pov to me, but I don't think it should just be haphazardly deleted like that. Wjhonson 07:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was not relevant to this page. As seen by the reduction in relevance even on Millers page by another editor, maybe it was not relevant there either. Bahai and Millerites have nothing in common save the date that the founder of the Millerite movement predicted and possibly the mechanism to get to the date. Ansell 11:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Noone has responded to my statement above, and because the entire mention of Bahai's is causing edit warring simply between bahai members, I am moving the last properly referenced section here. Discuss the issue here.

"The origins of the Bahá'í religion date to the period during which Miller predicted the return of Christ. Bahá'í books mention the Millerites and other messianic movements during the time as having correctly understood the prophecies which pointed to 1844. Bahá'ís use the same arguments that Miller used as proof that their religion fulfills the prophesied second coming of Christ."

Ansell 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ansell here. The Baha'i Faith does not have enough relevence to the Millerites or Miller to be included here. -- Jeff3000 12:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The original blurb was merely a mention that Miller's analysis of the time-line is also used in Baha'i apologetic, with a reference. That is relevant to Miller, it shows that his analysis is used by several current-day religious organizations, not just the SDA for instance. If someone can find a neutral way of saying this that's fine. I propose that we leave it without any citation at all if that would work. I have no problem with not mentioning Sohrab, but I have a problem with only allowing UHJ-approved citations. This is not a UHJ site. Wjhonson 20:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Baha'i editors here seem to agree that the Baha'i perspective deserves only passing reference at best. The argument about whether Sohrab's out-of-print and un-used book should be shoe-horned in. WP:NPOV#Undue weight cuts every which way. If the Baha'is deserve only the briefest mention, then reference to a single, disaffected, individual whose contributions didn't survive him don't warrant it at all. Nobody gives a damn about him, and outside of the Baha'i faith, nobody knows that he existed.

I think the blurb on the Baha'i perspective is a bit intense and would do well with something like:

"The origins of the Bahá'í Faith date to the period during which Miller predicted the return of Christ. Bahá'í books mention the Millerites and other messianic movements during the time as having correctly understood the prophecies which pointed to 1844. (Townshend, Christ and Bahá'u'lláh, [1957] 1966, and Sears, Thief in the Night, [1961] 2000, among others.)

And, Wjhonson, when WP discusses what "Baha'is believe", there's no other authoritative source than the UHJ; any more than there are authoritative sources for what the Catholic Church "believes" than the Catholic Church. As a Unitarian you might have a problem with that — but that's how these religions work. You might as well use The Davinci Code as an authoritative treatment of Catholic doctrine and practice.

Your edit on 14-Apr removing the Sears citation was sloppy, and mis-reads Undue Weight. It actually provides the source for the statements. Why would you delete verifiable sources, which are still in print, for Undue Weight but insist that an unknown, out-of-print, book be used? It makes no sense.

FTR, I'm not fond of the anon's expansion of the "blurb". By the time they were done the sub-section was way out of balance, and strongly support Ansell's summary deletion. I also don't think this needs five or more sources. Ye Gods! MARussellPESE 16:37, 24 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. 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. Cuñado - Talk 04:40, 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. Wjhonson 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Try dealing with some facts for a change Wjhonson. If you'd actually done the research and familiarized yourself with all the sources you'd find that Sears did his research independently.

The references are desirable to listverifiable sources that document the statements made. Sohrab's book is irrelevant. In fact it's so bloody obscure that had maybe one print run and is only reproduced on H-Bahai (an academic site studying the Babi/Baha'i faiths) as a curiosity of early Baha'i texts. How does this "verify" what Baha'is believe? The logic boggles the mind.

The "influence" of Sohrab's book? What are you talking about? It mentions the Millerites all of once], and doesn't even discuss why. Sears opens Chapter 2 with a detailed discussion of Miller and identifies it as one of the reasons he started looking at the 1843-1844 time-frame. The rest of the book details his own analysis of scriptural references parallel in cases to Miller's.

Sohrab's book couldn't be a worse source on pure academic grounds. You find one out-of-print introductory book online that supports the edit with a single sentence, and can pronounce it "influential"? And instead of letting someone update your source with one that actually addresses what you're trying to say, you revert it as a "polemic". MARussellPESE 13:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph is your opinion. You have no basis to state that his research was independent. The second paragraph is really ironic since *I wrote this section* in the first place and listed my source. It was the deletion of my source that started this. It's not obscure at all, you have no idea how many print runs it had as if that's relevant which it isn't, and I'm not trying to *verify* what Baha'is believe. As I've said many times, the official Baha'i position is irrelevant in a encyclopaedia. What's relevant is what occurred, not what people want to rewrite it as. What occurred is that Sohrab was the first, so far, source to bring up the Miller connection, and so he has primary authorship for that connection.

You of all people, who has chastised *me* to use the primary source, are now resorting to the opposite tactic to try to suppress it. If I'm wrong then find a more primary source that connects Miller's ideas to the Baha'is.

Whether there are other scriptural references *parallel in cases to Miller's* is not relevant to *this* article. The only thing that is relevant is the influence Miller had, not the spin Sears put on it or adds to it, that's not relevant.

Finally what single sentence are you talking about? I'm not seeing a "single sentence" in Sohrab. In fact if it where only a single sentence I wouldn't have edited this article in the first place. I did not say Sohrab's book was *influential*, the influence section is what influence Miller had, not what influence anyone else had. And *updating* does not mean striking-in-favor-of-religiously-approved-works. That is pov. Wjhonson 05:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gift of Photograph

I discovered what has proven to be the only known photograph of our brother in Christ, William Miller. It was found in the archive section of the New York Public Library about 15 years ago. I have added it to this article as a gift, a gesture made out of love. Someone accused me of vandalism by adding the image. Not only is that a false accusation, but also unecessary, and very hurtful. Pastorrussell 22:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A question about the connection of millerites and bible students or JWs

It is mentioned twice in the article that Bible Students and JWs originate with the movement of Millerites. How could that be said since Russell was never a member of the Millerite movement? Did Russell consider himself a Millerite or an Adventist? I far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, Russell and Bible Students generally had major doctrinal differences with Adventists. I would appreciate your comments on my question.

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. Cuñado - Talk 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I would like to add that even Russell's close associate Nelson Barbour was at the outskirts of Adventism, and I am wondering if his views about Christ’s advent were ever adopted among Adventists. My personal opinion is that what Russell inherited from Adventists was not their beliefs but their keen interest about the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. As regards G. Storrs, it seems that he persuaded Russell about the mortality of the soul, but at the same time it is said that Storrs was the very person that introduced this dogma to Adventists. So, even about these doctrines I do not think it accurate to say Russell took them from Adventism. But, to be honest, I would like to see how Adventists or Bible Students see this matter. Vassilis, Greece, 4 July 2006

I didn’t mean to intervene to the article, but this is the result when some people avoid to make a conversation.----Vassilis78 09:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Burned-over district disagrees on just what date he prophecied as the end of the world. Discussion at Talk:Burned-over district. - Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I have proposed a merger between Millerites and Adventist. The terms seem the same to me, but I don't have a great knowledge of history in this area, so if someone has a good reason not to merge, it's fine by me. Colin MacLaurin 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Merge - Not all of the Adventist (believers in the second coming of Christ) derived from the Millerite movement, i.e. Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association, United Seventh-Day Brethren. Granted, some are indirectly related because they came out of a subsequent groups of the movement. The Adventist movement also is not all Sabbatarians, though I recognize this is a weaker argument. Lastly, by merging, the Millerite article will become too long. And Wikipedia does suggest sub pages to prevent articles from being too long. --Maniwar (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

More Comments - I have examined several articles in the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. It has an article "Millerite Movement"[3]:

"An interdenominational movement flourishing in the United States, with some extensions elsewhere, from 1840 to 1844, based on a distinctive prophetic interpretation, and giving rise to the group of denominations classed as Adventist bodies, the largest of which is now the SDA Church."

This contradicts with the Wikipedia Millerites article which currently says,

"The Millerite tradition is a diverse family of denominations and Bible study movements that have arisen since the middle of the 19th century, traceable to the Adventist movement sparked by the teachings of William Miller."

According to the SDA Encyclopedia, the Millerite movement lasted from 1840 to 1844, and died off quickly after that. The SDA Encyclopedia gives several definitions for "Adventist" - the name the early Millerites took for themselves; any of several bodies arising from that movement; or as an abbreviation of Seventh-day Adventist (in SDA usage). Mergers are not necessarily needed. But what is certainly needed is clear definition of the terms, and clear definitions of the scope of each article. Perhaps Millerites should be about the early history, and Adventist about the later history (although the opening sentence of Millerites currently suggests the direct opposite)! I know of two Seventh-day Adventist history experts who have edited Wikipedia - hopefully they will comment. Colin MacLaurin 07:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would go with the SDA Encyclopedia. I've always thought of the Millerite movement as a historical thing which died at the Great Disappointment, whereas "Adventist" encapsulates both Millerism and its legacy -- i.e. the churches and denominations which descended from it and are still alive today. So I'd be against a merge. Tonicthebrown 09:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agreed. But where do we put groups which either descended from or were influenced by William Miller and the Millerites, but who do not consider themselves "Adventist"? e.g. the Jehovah's Witnesses and others, I understand. Should Great Disappointment be merged into Millerites? Much of the article is about groups influenced by the Millerites, but not Adventists. Perhaps "Millerites" should be a history of the movement, its theology, and its later influences. One section within the influences would be "Adventists", with a {{main}} link to Adventist. I have contacted two Adventist history experts and requested their input. Colin MacLaurin 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agreer no merger is necessary since there were several groups born from the millerite movement not just adventism. nate.

I am a Seventh-day Adventist so I'm very familiar with SDA history. Millerites and Seventh-day Adventists does not refer to the same thing. Adventists continued after the millerite movement broke up, and Seventh-day Adventists arose out of that. But there were other groups of Adventists, such as First Day Adventists, etc., that didn't become SDAs.

I just read the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Adventism". Unfortunately it is an old edition from about 1960. It said that "Millerites" was a term applied by those outside the movement, and "Adventist" was probably a self-designation. The article was very good, and I suggest we incorporate material from it into several Adventist articles. Colin MacLaurin 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

New merger proposal

I suggest an alternate merger instead. How about merging Great Disappointment into Millerites. After all, "The Great Disappointment was a major event in the history of the Millerites" according to the former article. Adventist would cover those groups descended from the Millerite movement which either consider themselves "Adventist", or are considered by notable opinion to be "Adventist". The Millerites article could describe other groups which were later influenced by William Miller and the movement, but were not a part of the original movement. This material is currently in "Great Disappointment" so could be merged in. It would also talk about Adventism, but only be a short summary-style paragraph with a {{main}} link. Please express your support or offer an improvement. Unfortunately, I am not aware that an Adventist history expert has commented. Colin MacLaurin 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article has sufficient info and is of sufficient note to be a separate article. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

This edit is interesting. It was done by an anon as his/her only edit. Revert? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I also can't find the link on this page to the redirect page [[Seventh-day Adventist]]. Otherwise, I'd fix it as [[Seventh-day Adventist Church|Seventh-day Adventist]] or similar. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)