"Traditional Adventists" label should be "Seventh-day Adventist"

[Your Neighbor]

I object to the new title. We have been stripped of OUR CHURCH name, Seventh-day Adventist.
We have been marginalized. Thanks EGW dislikers. 1844 dislikers. IJ dislikers. 3AM dislikers.

[TrustAndObey]

We're working on it YN, and I totally agree!

[mva1985]

I agree the forum name should be "Seventh Day Adventist".

[Jon0388g]

Yes I agree. There is no such thing as a 'Traditional Adventist".


Where/who is this being rectified? This forum should rightly remain as the "Seventh-day Adventist" forum.


Jon

[TrustAndObey]

Yes I agree. There is no such thing as a 'Traditional Adventist".


Where/who is this being rectified? This forum should rightly remain as the "Seventh-day Adventist" forum.


Jon

Some of the higher-ups made the call to remove Seventh-day Adventist.

It's being worked on however. Just be patient.

[TrustAndObey]

Didn't I hear once that people would hate the name Seventh-day Adventist (from EGW writings)?

It certainly isn't US that does though, eh?!

[Endium]

I agree with this. At first I thought the adventist forum was gone altogether. "Traditional Adventist" does not clearly state that we are seventh-day-adventist.

[Bourbaki]

That's the camp I belong to.

[PROPHECYKID]

The name is a degrading one. There are no traditional and progressive and moderate adventist. Adventist is Adventist. It's either you are one and agree with the church beliefs or you are not one.

[Your Neighbor]

I suppose a new icon to replace "http://www3.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Seventh-Day-Adventist.gif" will be "TA." (That sure beats PMFA, though.)

[Bourbaki]

The name is a degrading one. There are no traditional and progressive and moderate adventist. Adventist is Adventist. It's either you are one and agree with the church beliefs or you are not one.

The greater degrading fact is that there are accepted members of the Seventh-day Adventist church that loathe Ellen White and the Investigative Judgment and believe that A. Graham Maxwell (http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm) is a fine Christian gentleman.

[TrustAndObey]

1Th 5:20 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Th&c=5&v=20&t=KJV#20)Despise not prophesyings.

The everburning question is why stay?

Of course they're going to hate her because if they believe her, then we need to obey God. Some people don't want a Lord. They just want a Savior and a life filled with empty sins.

There are verses in scripture about souls loathing God's law.

Did you know that just about every word used to describe God in scripture is also used to describe His law?

[TrustAndObey]

Their view is salvation by works and not the gospel of peace. Paul said, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." Romans 12:18. The apostates don't believe these words from Paul. If they did, they would separate from the Adventist fellowship. They justify their unbelief by thinking of the great good that would result if they can overthrow Ellen G. White and the Investigative Judgment. They have a better chance of doing that from within than on the outside.

I agree, and there are plenty of words to that affect that have been posted here from EGW. She said the problems would come from within.

I see it all the time!

Bourbaki, my old computer crashed in December and I had a document I had done that showed how all the words used to describe God also described His law. Anyway, it's lost so I'm working on making a new one.

It feels really good to be diving into the Word today. It's been a long time since I've really done that!

[TrustAndObey]

Oh....I was in a debate with someone recently and the verse where Christ told us to do the will of His Father came up.

The person I was debating with said that the will of the Father is just to believe in Christ (do you see the big circle I see?).

I'm finding a lot of verses about the law being His will. I had a document with all of that on there too at one point. This is a refresher course for me today for sure!

[Your Neighbor]

Let your voices be heard here: http://christianforums.com/t7131221-theft-of-the-name-seventh-day-adventist.html

[Bourbaki]

Let your voices be heard here: http://christianforums.com/t7131221-theft-of-the-name-seventh-day-adventist.html

Why? What makes you think that you could persuade the administrators of this forum to favor real Seventh-day Adventists above those who call themselves Adventists but who spend their lives attacking Ellen G. White and the Investigative Judgment?

The Dmoz directory (http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Denominations/Seventh-day_Adventists/Chats_and_Forums/) describes this forum as “A Catholic managed Christian message board seeking to unite all Christians as one body.” Do you really believe that true Seventh-day Adventists who believe that Catholicism is typified prophetically by the city of Sardis (http://everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?p=4511#p4511) will be favored above those Adventists whose sympathies are with the mainstream Christian Church?

[TrustAndObey]

YN, I appreciate the efforts, but I think it's going to take more than talking to the Admin here. It's going to require involvement from our church.

[mva1985]

What if we just went with SDA Forum?

We already use "SDA" for the religious icon.

[TrustAndObey]

What if we just went with SDA Forum?

We already use "SDA" for the religious icon.

I would be "okay" with it (not thrilled) but too many people confuse that with "LDS" for whatever crazy reason!

[CaDan]

The issue is very simply this: Who has the right to use the term "Seventh Day Adventist" to describe its goods and services in "Conducting Religious Observances and Missionary Services"? There is exactly one entity in the United States who can do so--the General Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventists.

[TrustAndObey]

CaDan, could we use SDA instead? Most churches are Adventists; it merely means looking forward to the second advent of Christ.

Or why not "7th Day Adventist"?

[CaDan]

CaDan, could we use SDA instead? Most churches are Adventists; it merely means looking forward to the second advent of Christ.

Or why not "7th Day Adventist"?

Potentially. Answering these questions, however, drifts into the realm of "paying work,"* because they are kind of complicated.

There is also the potential of obtaining a license to use the mark from the GC. Again, this drifts into the realm of "paying work."*

---
* "Paying work" usually means having to use my real name and write letters on real paper to real people.

[TrustAndObey]

Potentially. Answering these questions, however, drifts into the realm of "paying work,"* because they are kind of complicated.

There is also the potential of obtaining a license to use the mark from the GC. Again, this drifts into the realm of "paying work."*

---
* "Paying work" usually means having to use my real name and write letters on real paper to real people.

I don't think we'd have to pay you, I think we could do this ourselves.

[CaDan]

I don't think we'd have to pay you, I think we could do this ourselves.

The "we" here is actually LeeD's corporation that owns CF--for some reason the name escapes me right now.

[OntheDL]

Potentially. Answering these questions, however, drifts into the realm of "paying work,"* because they are kind of complicated.

There is also the potential of obtaining a license to use the mark from the GC. Again, this drifts into the realm of "paying work."*

---
* "Paying work" usually means having to use my real name and write letters on real paper to real people.


Hi,

Please drop the word traditional from the forum title since there is no denomination with that name.

SDA GC does not claim trademark on the name 7th-day Adventist. Why can't we use that name for our forum?

[CaDan]

Hi,

Please drop the word traditional from the forum title since there is no denomination with that name.

To some extent, the current name is a placeholder pending a decision on a final name for the forum.

SDA GC does not claim trademark on the name 7th-day Adventist. Why can't we use that name for our forum?

That is a question that will take real work to answer. Without "paying work," it is difficult to determine whether replacing the spelled-out words "Seventh Day" with the abbreviation "7th Day" would be a sufficient defense to a Lanham Act claim.

I have to repeat--this is not a matter of who is orthodox and who is not with respect to the 28 Fundamental beliefs. This is a matter of who may use the name "Seventh Day Adventist" as a matter of trademark law.

[TrustAndObey]

And why wasn't this ever an issue before the Progressives and Formers left this forum?

[Bourbaki]

The issue is very simply this: Who has the right to use the term "Seventh Day Adventist" to describe its goods and services in "Conducting Religious Observances and Missionary Services"? There is exactly one entity in the United States who can do so--the General Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventists.

Technically you are correct. Mere tithe paying members of the Seventh-day Adventist corporation don't have a legal right to call themselves Seventh-day Adventists unless explicitly given that right by the corporation. So how about "Believers in Seventh-day Adventism" as a forum name?

[TrustAndObey]

Technically you are correct. Mere tithe paying members of the Seventh-day Adventist corporation don't have a legal right to call themselves Seventh-day Adventists unless explicitly given that right by the corporation. So how about "Believers in Seventh-day Adventism" as a forum name?

BEAUTIFUL!

[Bourbaki]

It is difficult to determine whether replacing the spelled-out words "Seventh Day" with the abbreviation "7th Day" would be a sufficient defense to a Lanham Act claim.

The General Conference Corporation has filed for a restraining order seeking to prevent Walter McGill (http://everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill/) from deceiving the public in his use of the name Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and any name similar to Seventh Day Adventist Church. The corporation's lawsuit reads like a slam-dunk to me. See http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill/SDAvMcGill.htm

[mva1985]

Technically you are correct. Mere tithe paying members of the Seventh-day Adventist corporation don't have a legal right to call themselves Seventh-day Adventists unless explicitly given that right by the corporation. So how about "Believers in Seventh-day Adventism" as a forum name?
Very interesting....

[CaDan]

The General Conference Corporation has filed for a restraining order seeking to prevent Walter McGill (http://everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill/) from deceiving the public in his use of the name Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and any name similar to Seventh Day Adventist Church. The corporation's lawsuit reads like a slam-dunk to me. See http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill/SDAvMcGill.htm

Okay, somebody now owes me about $4.00 in fees to PACER for pulling the docket sheet and some of the filings in this case. ;)

Anyway, as far as I can tell, there has been no injunction (preliminary or otherwise) entered in the McGill case. There is a pending motion for summary judgment regarding, among other things, the validity of the GC's trademark.

[TrustAndObey]

Okay, somebody now owes me about $4.00 in fees to PACER for pulling the docket sheet and some of the filings in this case. ;)

Anyway, as far as I can tell, there has been no injunction (preliminary or otherwise) entered in the McGill case. There is a pending motion for summary judgment regarding, among other things, the validity of the GC's trademark.

We have a charity fund, we'll pay you out of that (thank you for doing that). :)

What about Bourbaki's suggestion: "Believers in Seventh-day Adventism". That names US, not our church. Freedom of speech at its finest!

[Rhapsody]

I agree, it would make a lot more sense to me if it were just "Seventh-day Adventists".
I couldn't even find either sections because I was looking for something starginwith an "S" :D

[CaDan]

I agree, it would make a lot more sense to me if it were just "Seventh-day Adventists".
I couldn't even find either sections because I was looking for something starginwith an "S" :D

Yes, it would. But the GC is pretty aggressive about protecting its trademark.

I don't begrudge the GC for protecting its trademark for two reasons. First, there are some really strange people out there who have claimed to be Seventh Day Adventists or offshoots from the organization. Have a look at the "Strong City" group, for example. Second, the GC has a valuable investment in the good name of its subsidiary entities, especially hospitals and such.

[Bourbaki]

Okay, somebody now owes me about $4.00 in fees to PACER for pulling the docket sheet and some of the filings in this case. ;)

I would have only charged you $3 for the latest update to the case. Judge James Todd, Federal Court of the Western District of Tennessee, has rescheduled the three-day jury trial to begin June 2, 2008.

[CaDan]

I would have only charged you $3 for the latest update to the case. Judge James Todd, Federal Court of the Western District of Tennessee, has rescheduled the three-day jury trial to begin June 2, 2008.

Does that include copies of the summary judgment memos? :D

[mva1985]

Yes, it would. But the GC is pretty aggressive about protecting its trademark.

I don't begrudge the GC for protecting its trademark for two reasons. First, there are some really strange people out there who have claimed to be Seventh Day Adventists or offshoots from the organization. Have a look at the "Strong City" group, for example. Second, the GC has a valuable investment in the good name of its subsidiary entities, especially hospitals and such.
I agree with you.

Thanks for the work you have put into this.

[TrustAndObey]

Yes, it would. But the GC is pretty aggressive about protecting its trademark.

I don't begrudge the GC for protecting its trademark for two reasons. First, there are some really strange people out there who have claimed to be Seventh Day Adventists or offshoots from the organization. Have a look at the "Strong City" group, for example. Second, the GC has a valuable investment in the good name of its subsidiary entities, especially hospitals and such.

I do not blame them for ONE second for yanking the logo. There were people here using it that taught a very contradictory message to the one taught in/by the church.

Nope, I don't blame them one bit.

[djconklin]

How about "SDA Forum" or "SDA believers"? I don't like the 'ism suggestion.

[woobadooba]

Potentially. Answering these questions, however, drifts into the realm of "paying work,"* because they are kind of complicated.

There is also the potential of obtaining a license to use the mark from the GC. Again, this drifts into the realm of "paying work."*

---
* "Paying work" usually means having to use my real name and write letters on real paper to real people.

Dan, you are full of it.

Granted, The GC MAY HAVE expressed that they didn't want the logo used in here, but since the name remained thereafter that tells me that they didn't have an issue with this forum using it.

So don't feed us with this nonsense that the GC is respoinsible for the change. We are much smarter than that, Dan! We know who the real culprits are!

By the way, I hope you realize that since you have made the claim that the GC is responsible for this, if it can be proven that they aren't, then you will be guilty of libel!

[CaDan]

Dan, you are full of it.

Granted, The GC MAY HAVE expressed that they didn't want the logo used in here, but since the name remained thereafter that tells me that they didn't have an issue with this forum using it.

So don't feed us with this nonsense that the GC is respoinsible for the change. We are much smarter than that, Dan! We know who the real culprits are!

By the way, I hope you realize that since you have made the claim that the GC is responsible for this, if it can be proven that they aren't, then you will be guilty of libel!

I have pointed out that the GC has registered trademarks and that it is somewhat aggressive in protecting them. As far as I know, the GC has not demanded that CF cease using the term "Seventh Day Adventist," although there was an earlier request to cease using the "book and flame" logo. If I have given that impression, I apologize.

And, yes, as you imply, this decision was made in connection with the decision to split the forum. As long as one forum housed everyone who claimed an attachment to Seventh Day Adventism, we were in a situation analogous to SDA Kinship. However, once CF started to have to make decisions about who qualified and who did not qualify to be members of certain forums, we began to look more like the situation in Perez.

Is the current naming situation good? No, it isn't. It also isn't necessarily permanent.

[CaDan]

Discussion being moved to a single thread here: http://christianforums.com/t7135126-the-thread-for-discussing-the-forum-name-change.html