Talk:Restorationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
To-do list for Restorationism: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Grammar check
  • NPOV compliance (streaks here and there)
  • Formatting
  • Proper wikification
  • Fact checking and sourcing

Contents

[edit] Seventh-Day Adventism

There is debate on the talk page to Seventh-Day Adventist Church as to whether that church is Restorationist or Protestant. The Restorationist article says that the Seventh-Day Adventist church was created by Restorationists. I am confused about what the classification should be. Is there anyone who can give a explanation on this topic? After all, this religious database: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htm clearly states that Seventh-Day Adventists are Restorationist. Rob.saberon (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rob: Restorationism is a subset of Protestantism. Does that clarify matters for you?75.71.67.2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is incorrect. It also refers to earlier movements within the pre-reformation RC church. Fremte (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References within 7th Day Adventists

These require fixing. The listing at the end of the article shows that these are incompletely formatted. Also, it is unclear why a sequence of so many references is required. Can this be shrunk to a few, and properly formatted please. Have a look at Template:Cite book for info. Thanks! Fremte (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old conversation

Man this article is awful. Completely written from a prejudicial viewpoint, there is no NPOV here at all. The article makes even the term "restorationism" appear highly pejorative and even demeaning to any sect or denomination that is not decidedly mainstream Protestant or Roman Catholic. This article seems to have a lot of good information but it needs a complete NPOV rewrite. --Solascriptura 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The re-written section on the LDS is not an improvement, in my opinion. I would like to have comments especially by the LDS wikipedians. Doesn't that paragraph express a rather biased, even proselytizing perspective? Whereas, the paragraph it replaces was, in my opinion, neither criticism nor adulation but simply a description appropriate for the article's context. Mkmcconn 19:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That replaced paragraph used to read:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sought, as the Campbellites did, to restore original Christianity: but they were much more pessimistic about the state of Christianity. The Great Apostasy was of such disastrous consequence, the Mormons believed, that a new Prophet and Apostle was required in order for God's Kingdom on earth to be re-established. They claimed that their founder, Joseph Smith, was just such a prophet.
Please compare and comment Mkmcconn 19:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an LDS member, but I see and agree with your point. I think the previous version was better.

TexasTwister 07:18, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the paragraph. The deleted paragraph used to read:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded on the notion, pessimistic to some, that a complete restoration was necessary. Fundamental truths taught in the original Church, once partially or completely lost, could not be known again with certainty without access to the original source(s). Power to speak authoritatively and act in the name of Christ, apparently had been severed by the killing or banishment of the original Apostles. The Great Apostasy had apparently been of such disastrous consequence as to leave the earth bereft of essential truth and power. Man would remain in the dark, since independent resumption of authority was impossible. The only consistent remedy, according to precendents set in the Old Testament, was that God would reveal truth and grant power directly to a Prophet.
In 1820, a fourteen year old boy was perplexed by the choice between many religions of the day. Sensing he would never be able to resolve the issues of salvation by himself, he finally appealed to God by prayer. His humble inquiry was met by power. God the Father, and Jesus Christ himself directly answered that no church then on earth had sufficient truth or power to lead to salvation. The boy was Joseph Smith, Jr. He would be the Prophet of Restoration.

Mkmcconn 14:38, 9 Feb 2004

[edit] Seventh Day Adventists

Most of the sections about religions briefly discuss the history of the religion. But the SDA section has been completely mangled to just say that they don't believe they're restorationists. This doesn't seem appropriate to the article. Also, the new grammar is atrocious. (e.g., "Another words..."?)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious Tolerance.org classifies Seventh-Day Adventists as Restorationist: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrrest.htm Rob.saberon (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit circular, though, since the religioustolerance article cites Wikipedia as its source. However, Seventh Dayism is very typically cited among "restorationist movements" in the sense described in the article (before the addition of the medieval material). And I think there's plenty of evidence that the term isn't usually odious to Adventists; for a passing example: a Publisher's Preface to "The Great Controversy" says, "About the Author" (the founder/prophetess of Seventh Day Adventism) —
Her restorationist writings showcase the hand of God in Seventh-day Adventist history ISBN 1605063053
— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crumbling definition

By the addition of the middle ages material, the article is falling apart. With the definition assumed by the new material, will every movement of dissent and reform be called "restorationism"? The new material and lead bury the far more notable 19th century restorationist movements. Please consider a disambiguation page, or a sub-section. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this recommendation. The term Restorationism has a particular meaning within the framework of Chrisitianity and it centers on the 19th century movements. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who added the historical info. We must realize that familiarity with the modern ideas does not cause the older to be ignored. Frankly, I hardly think that the inclusion of this section means "every movement" would need to be included. That's an over statement! The use of the term restoration was picked up from the historical info by the 19th century people. However, if someone wants to go to the trouble of putting the older info in a seperate article named appropriately that would be okay, maybe Medieval Restorationism ?. Perhaps this article should be then labelled Modern Restorationism ? It is not okay to eliminate the historical info though and I don't think you intended to do this. Restorationism has a long pedigree and to be accurate, the info from the recent and older movements must be easily seen both seperately and together. Fremte (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"Restorationism" can certainly have a more generic reference - wherever there is an attempt to restore something that has been disturbed or lost, the word is perfectly descriptive. But there is, after all, a difference between a description and a descriptive label; and in this case, the prominence of a highly descriptive label has been subverted by a more generic description. I'm not arguing that the material you've added should be removed from Wikipedia, Fremte; on the other hand, the material doesn't seem to belong here - and it certainly should be positioned in the article in a manner that more accurately represents its proportionate use in modern English terminology. To allege as you have that, the label "Restorationism" applies with approximately equal significance to either the Nineteenth century or to the Medieval situation, misrepresents the facts.
But I'm not contesting that when Christians in any age attempt to restore something damaged, they can be described as "Restorationists" in a sense analogous to what is described in this article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the unequal significance re the 2 time periods. The 15-16th century situation is much more significant in terms of the impact on history, governance, and western civilization The newer ideas have significance religiously, and may be dear to the hearts of those directly affected, but little impact beyond. History did not begin in the 19th century. (You have offered your opinion, this is mine, and is backed up by facts, no doubt as you would hold that your's is). I think, though, this is a side issue; and as I have said, I am not against a reasonable re-organization of the info, as long as it does not detract. Finally, the idea that every little movement that smacks of restorationism would have to be included in the article is a large over-statment. Nothing of the kind. (As an aside, I am enjoying our little debate, it is always good to be able to discuss the issues in an open and respectful manner -- Thanks!) Fremte (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We are dicussing two different things. Academically, there was a Restorationist movement that is acknowledged to have been in the 19th century; that is fact. What Fremte is talking about may be labeled restorationism (notice the small "r"), but it has nothng to do with Restorationism. It is not that there is a crumbling definition, but that there is nothing in common between to the movement and an event with the Holy Catholic church. Is there any scholar that begins the discussion of Restorationism with a discussino about a rejeuvenation within Catholicism? I know of not one, but my knowledge is finite. How about anyone else? --Storm Rider (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an over interpretation StormRider. The small versus large "r" has nothing to do with this. There is absolutely a movement of some disparate groups in 15th-16th centuries identified as Restorationism. The Latin term that translates is "Renovatio", and is used in the writings of the times, which is translated as "restoration" and "renewel" in the sense from the Latin of returning to a previous unsullied and uncorrupted practice of Christianity as was in ancient times, i.e., apostolic and pre-Nicea. The capitalisation of words in older writings is unusual, but many nouns and significant words have capital letters, much as the German language does with all nouns today (Wiederherstellungbewegung is the German for Restorationism). I have the understanding that the others in this discussion might have the recent Protestant (?American) movements as their touchstone, whereas, those steeped in European history have others. The various movements are identified as Restorationist by both people at the time and by historians. Again, however, there is no barrier from me for clarifying the older and newer movements involving different time periods and motivations. Is this not the right solution? Would make all happy? Fremte (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I.E., make 2 articles if you would like to, with referrals between - this one is perhaps too lengthy already. Fremte (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"Renovatio"? Wouldn't that be Renovationism? No, wait, that's Russian Orthodoxy.Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Scholarly research identifies Restorationism as unaffiliated religious movements that believe that they are restoring pristine, or original Christianity, sometimes referred to as Christian primitivism. What you are talking about in the middle ages has nothing to do with scholarly research and is original research. No references support this being part of Restorationism. If there is not evidence to support your position within two weeks I will delete the material. You are free to start another page to cover your topic, but do not use the term Restorationism; it does not apply and no academic would use such term. I suspect that with further research you will find an appropriate title. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split section

Split of Restorationism (middle ages) is complete I think. Regardless of your belief abuot the exclusivity of the use of the term restorationim as recent only, a check of the references for the section that is now another article will show otherwsie. Some text changes in Restorationism may be required. May I respectfully suggest you review the policy WP:OWN. I find your approach (this is the second time) aggressive Storm Rider. Fremte (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fremte, thank you for your counsel. I may be abrupt, but seldom when there is not someone insisting on pushing the boundaries of academic mainstream. Your position is outside of the mainstream academic thought and historical application.
For example, you use for your main reference to support this application of the term "Restorationism" Tuchman's historical narrative, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. Historical narratives are not the first place one should go to support an academic claim. You are attempting to stretch the term Restorationism so broadly as to include anything that encouraged a renewal in history and in Christianity. That position is not supported by academics or scholars. This does not mean that the Catholic church has not undergone several periods of significant renewal or a searching for a more holy form of governance and teaching. These topics are valid articles, but not under the heading Restorationism. It is a subtopic of the history of the Catholic church. It is not not Restorationism. Restorationism has a very definite meaning and definition that is easily found in any encyclopedia.
Furthermore, Restorationists did not create this definition. It was created by academics and scholars to describe a collection of religious movements. In closing, my commitment is to accuracy and proper application of reputable references. In this context your proposition fails. I would also add that your new article title fails; no historian recognizes that period as Restorationism even though scholars may use descriptors as to "restore" the Catholic church to what it once was. I believe you fundamentally do not understand this area of religious history. I would suggest you spend some time asking questions of academics and scholars; it would be an enlightening discussion. I do not speak without having done the same thing. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separate branch

Restorationist groups frequently consider themselves to be historically unrelated to other branches of Christianity, except prior to that juncture at which the Great Apostasy is thought to have taken place. This belief is depicted for example by the dotted line of the graphic that appears at Category:Restorationism and treating it as a separate "branch", distinct in some sense from Protestantism, is also widely conventional throughout the wiki.
What is the best way to express this explicitly but very briefly, in the introduction, without introducing an over-generalization? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)