56 Questions that critics are afraid to answer.

[current occupant]

This list and the additions to it are as uninformed on your part ...

My study on the plagiarism question has been going on now for seven years, the bibliography is 635 items long and I havbe been published on the subject in a scholarly, refereed journal on the subject.  So, I think I can say that I am quite well-informed--you have slandered me without knowing me--thus, it is you who is uninformed.

What ever.....

I know of your self proclaimed expertise.  I've never seen you recognized by any literary organization as an expert on plagiarism so to this point it means nothing to me.  That your claimed expertise has been developed in response to a perceived assault on the credibility of the standard bearer of the SDA church is very informative.

[djconklin]

http://www.nonsda.org/egw/egw77.shtml

http://www.nonsda.org/egw/images/healdsburg.gif

ROFL!  The last link was a joke.  It should be noted that the Healdsburg paper had a circ of about 100-200 (total population for the town was less than 2,500 as I recall) at the time.  What was the circulation of the New York Times?  If the charge was true, how come there's no record of the alleged victims being informed of the theft?  If the claim was true, how come she was never sued for it like Dana and others were?

An outsider looked at the data I had already worked up (http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html) and concluded  that I had already proven that Ellen White wasn't a plagiarist:

Robinson, B. A. "Seventh-day Adventist Church Its origin, beliefs, practices, etc.," Retrieved Feb. 22, 2008, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htm.

He concluded (without seeing the type of study recommended by Dr. Veltman) that Conklin had already "demonstrate[d] that there is no proof of Ellen White's plagiarism."

[djconklin]

This list and the additions to it are as uninformed on your part ...

My study on the plagiarism question has been going on now for seven years, the bibliography is 635 items long and I have been published on the subject in a scholarly, refereed journal on the subject.  So, I think I can say that I am quite well-informed--you have slandered me without knowing me--thus, it is you who is uninformed.

What ever.....

I know of your self proclaimed expertise.  I've never seen you recognized by any literary organization as an expert on plagiarism so to this point it means nothing to me.  That your claimed expertise has been developed in response to a perceived assault on the credibility of the standard bearer of the SDA church is very informative.

"what ever"? Isn't that ghetto slang when they've lost the argument?

You know very well, Ron, that I've never claimed expertise.  I have stated what I have done.  Since a scholarly, refereed journal has published my article I think that would count as being recognized. I have never claimed to be an expert.  On that score I'll agree with Keith R. St. Onge (a recognized expert on plagiarism) who said that he knew of no living expert and very few dead one's.  The critics assume that anyone and everyone will "know" that the use of even a single word is plagiarism (it isn't). I have never said that my work was a developed in response to anything.  I have repeatedly stated (I can't imagine how it has been missed unless done so deliberately) that I have simply analyzed the claims made by the critics.

[current occupant]

This list and the additions to it are as uninformed on your part ...

My study on the plagiarism question has been going on now for seven years, the bibliography is 635 items long and I have been published on the subject in a scholarly, refereed journal on the subject.  So, I think I can say that I am quite well-informed--you have slandered me without knowing me--thus, it is you who is uninformed.

What ever.....

I know of your self proclaimed expertise.  I've never seen you recognized by any literary organization as an expert on plagiarism so to this point it means nothing to me.  That your claimed expertise has been developed in response to a perceived assault on the credibility of the standard bearer of the SDA church is very informative.

"what ever"? Isn't that ghetto slang when they've lost the argument?

You know very well, Ron, that I've never claimed expertise.  I have stated what I have done.  Since a scholarly, refereed journal has published my article I think that would count as being recognized. I have never claimed to be an expert.  On that score I'll agree with Keith R. St. Onge (a recognized expert on plagiarism) who said that he knew of no living expert and very few dead one's.  The critics assume that anyone and everyone will "know" that the use of even a single word is plagiarism (it isn't). I have never said that my work was a developed in response to anything.  I have repeatedly stated (I can't imagine how it has been missed unless done so deliberately) that I have simply analyzed the claims made by the critics.

no argument - no loss.  you are the one who argues and apologizes for Ellen White. Your 'analysis' is in apology for Ellen White.

A true analysis on your part would find and acknowledge the errors as well as the good in a subject. I have never seen an acknowledgment of any errors or wrong doing on the part of Ellen White by any SDA defender or by anyone within the SDA church during the 50+ years I was a member.

Your assertion about 'ghetto slang' in reference to my words is as inaccurate as your assumption about my name.  this is the second time you have assumed information about me with out knowing me.  We can all see that assumptions rate highly with you and have a high likely hood of forming the foundation for much of your research on the plagiarism of Ellen White as well.

[current occupant]

In the organizational system of the SDA church, there are only two ways that someone who becomes a member can have their names remove from the record of church membership

1.   death
2.   apostasy

There is no provision for transfer of a believer's membership outside of the SDA system.

Actually there are three more methods:

3) one can be disfellowshipped for persisting in known sin--we did it once in my local church.
4) you can request that your name be removed.
5) if you fail to come to church for a number of years the church may send a letter asking if you intend to reurn.  If not, they will remove your name from the books.

May I ask what was your source ofthis misinformation?

In the organizational system of the SDA church, there are only two ways that someone who becomes a member can have their names remove from the record of church membership

1.   death
2.   apostasy

There is no provision for transfer of a believer's membership outside of the SDA system.

Actually there are three more methods:

3) one can be disfellowshipped for persisting in known sin--we did it once in my local church.
4) you can request that your name be removed.
5) if you fail to come to church for a number of years the church may send a letter asking if you intend to reurn.  If not, they will remove your name from the books.

May I ask what was your source ofthis misinformation?

In actual fact, numbers 3,4 and 5 would be interpreted as apostasy.

This is according to my participation on church boards while a member of the SDA church.

Do you agree that there is no provision for an SDA member to transfer membership to another denomination?

[current occupant]

Even someone who has been hurt by the doctrines of the SDA church and doesn’t realize the doctrinal source has to admit apostasy in order to fully divorce themselves from the emotional and spiritual abuse the belief system of the denomination engenders.

Again, this is compeletly false and basic Christian doctrines have never hurt anyone.

The alignment of SDA basic doctrine with basic Christian doctrine is tenuous at best. The terminology of the SDA fundamental beliefs and the supporting talk are designed to sound like the rest of Christianity but in reality there is a wealth of insider meaning to almost all of the language.

for instance: please explain how it is that SDA's claim to have avoided the errors espoused by the Christian belief in the trinity yet they claim to belief in the Trinity as common ground with other Christian believers.

How many SDA's believe that they should not believe and should never say that they are saved?  That is according to the writing of Ellen White.

[Sylvia49]

Current Occupant: On the subject of the Trinity:  EGW said "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio (trinity); in the name of these...-the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized..."

We believe that we have eternal life NOW, as believers in Christ.  We just don't believe that we are "once saved, always saved." We can lose our salvation as a matter of choice (but who'd want to).

I'm not an SDA scholar, just a Christian church member.

God bless, Sylvia49

[djconklin]

you are the one who argues and apologizes for Ellen White. Your 'analysis' is in apology for Ellen White.

Fot at least the 3rd time--how many times does it take before it sticks?--I do not argue for or apologize for Ellen White.  I analyze the arguments that the critics make--they fail.

A true analysis on your part would find and acknowledge the errors as well as the good in a subject.

If one were to do the whole subject then that is what one would do.  I only have so much time in a day.  So, since I cannot know it all (and no one does--especially the critics who never, ever point out the good) I can only analyze the quality of the argument and the facts associated with the claims made by the critics.

I have never seen an acknowledgment of any errors or wrong doing on the part of Ellen White by any SDA defender or by anyone within the SDA church during the 50+ years I was a member.

Actually, it is admitted even by Ellen White that she's not perfect and on one occasion relied upon what others told her.  No one has ever claimed infallibility for her, or by her.

Your assertion about 'ghetto slang' in reference to my words is as inaccurate as your assumption about my name.

Whatever.

this is the second time you have assumed information about me with out knowing me.

ROFL!  You still haven't apologized for lying about me either.  The critics never do that either.  As for your name, you talk just like one of my critics on another forum.  There wouldn't have been any confusion if you'd come out of the closet and use your real name and/or initials like I do. Perfect love casts out all fear. 

 

We can all see that assumptions rate highly with you and have a high likely hood of forming the foundation for much of your research on the plagiarism of Ellen White as well.

Bunk!  A simple look at the work presented at http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html proves that to be a bald-faced lie.  But, the critics will never do that because they'd rather maintain the lie without knowing the truth--less cognitive dissonance that way.

[djconklin]

In actual fact, numbers 3,4 and 5 would be interpreted as apostasy.

Actually, neither #4 or % would be apostasy at all.  We have no way of knowing why one hasn't come to church in awhile--could be a transportation problem.  Nor, do we ask why you want/need to have your name removed from the books.  As for #3 it could be outright heresy.  For instance, if a member believes that he is Jesus Christ. Or, an adulterer.

This is according to my participation on church boards while a member of the SDA church.

Which one?  Where?

Do you agree that there is no provision for an SDA member to transfer membership to another denomination?

You can always ask for your name to be removed from the books.  When we left the Methodist church we didn't have to make a request to have our membership transferred.  I don't know of any denomination that would do that--they'd have no control over the other denomination to their accepting the transfer. Now if you are a shoplifter and wish to transfer your memebership to a Lutheran church up here in Roseville, I know of one that will accept you with open arms--they've done it for others, why not you too!

[djconklin]

The alignment of SDA basic doctrine with basic Christian doctrine is tenuous at best.

Most Christians and most Christian denominations believe in the Bible (FB#1), the Trinity (FB #2), God the Father (FB #3), the Son (FB #4), the Holy Spirit (FB #5), Creation (FB #6), the nature of man (FB #7), the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ (FB #8), Salvation (FB #9), can't imagine to many disagreeing with #'s 10 and 11, the church (FB #12), catholicity of the church (FB #14), the Baptists and some others will agree with us on baptism (FB # 15), no Christian would disagree with the Lord's Supper (FB # 16), can't imagine anyone disagreeing with Marriage and the Family (FB #23), the Second Coming of Christ (FB #25), and the New Earth (FB #28).  I believe that covers the basic Christian beliefs as I said.

The terminology of the SDA fundamental beliefs and the supporting talk are designed to sound like the rest of Christianity but in reality there is a wealth of insider meaning to almost all of the language.

Have fun proving it--let's see how well you do on #1.

for instance: please explain how it is that SDA's claim to have avoided the errors espoused by the Christian belief in the trinity yet they claim to belief in the Trinity as common ground with other Christian believers.

Nice try at deflection.  But since the sentence is contradictory within itself and I have come to the conclusion that since the critics can't even tell me the truth on simple stuff (like #2), then why should I trust their judgment and analysis on the far more complex?

How many SDA's believe that they should not believe and should never say that they are saved?

None.  What they were taught is not OSAS.  From FB #9: "Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment."

That is according to the writing of Ellen White.

BUNK!  See previous.

[djconklin]

Today's whopper:

44.  A Solemn Appeal (1870), p. 173  "Let's see now, youth are worthles, and Christians are animals. What a wonderful outlook on humanity!"

Quote doesn't exist.

[djconklin]

I'd love to see your page by page analysis of both books.

The pdf file is 856 pages long; it will cost you $30.   Email me and I'll tell you how to get it.

I guess he isn't that much in love with the truth.

[djconklin]

#45 made on 10/10: "even some SDA researchers have concluded that she offered very little that was new"

[djconklin]

46. "She was trying to point you all toward christ instead you worship her;" (10/15/2009)

[djconklin]

#47. She copied The Great Controversy from JN Andrews. (10/17/2009)

48. "Ellen G. White copied extensively from this book (Wylie's History of Protestantism) and claimed it was a revelation from God!" (10/17/2009)