Opinion of Pope Francis

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BTW: Doug Batchelor's commentary on him after he became pope is almost laughable, the way he employs conspiracy theories and documents that are proven to be fake, just to support the traditional SDA eschatology.

If one abandons the historicist eschatology with the Roman Pontiff in the role of Antichrist, then a major pillar of Adventism is knocked down.  It's why the various Millerite denominations can't abandon it.

BTW, I think I've mentioned here before my own views on the four kingdoms of Daniel, so I'll limit myself to saying that find fault with traditional Protestant historicism as being too Western centric. The fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 in my view was not Rome but the Parthian Empire, which was the last non-monotheist realm to rule Babylon.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Without historicism and the treatment of the Papacy as the Antichrist, there is no basis for the doctrine of 1844 being when Jesus entered the Heavenly Sanctuary and began the Investigatory Judgment.

Rome as the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 is pretty much the standard interpretation. Most other interpretations treat Daniel 2 as prophecy written after the fact as propaganda during the Maccabean revolt. But I personally find Rome to be an unconvincing candidate. Nebuchadnezzar never literally ruled the world, nor was it even the only large realm of its day, so the statements that he did rule the world have to be interpreted as figurative, referring to the fact that his realm was powerful enough that he bowed to no other earthly realm or ruler. Rome never controlled Nebuchadnezzar's capital of Babylon, nor much of his realm. The only sequence that preserves Daniel 2 as genuine foretelling and fits history is Neobabylonia, Medio-Persia, Greece/Seleucia, and Parthia. Then if one takes the "kingdom that will never be destroyed" as representing monotheism, the successors to the Parthians can be viewed as all part of that one kingdom.  However, it requires taking a Universalist approach, which explains why traditional Christian theologians could never accept it. However, if Christianity rather than monotheism is viewed as the kingdom that never fails, then since Christianity has never controlled Babylon nor the core of Nebuchadnezzar's realm, then Daniel 2 is a failed prophecy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(Then again, many Adventists like to pretend that Sabbath-keeping was a major tenet of the Reformation, as evidenced by Ellen White's blatantly false claim in The Great Controversy that the Waldensians were Sabbath keepers.)

It's probable that she was misled by the fact that one of the names the early Waldensians were called by their opponents was "Sabbatini", but that was due to their rejection of cloth or leather shoes as unnecessary luxury and hence their practice of wearing either sandals or sabots (wooden shoes). I doubt Ellen knew any foreign languages, and even if she did, Old Occitan certainly wasn't one she learned.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can only guess why that hymn uses Assyria rather than Babylon, but scansion likely is a reason since Assyria is four syllables while Babylon is three.

While only the SDA has the IJ, all the Millerite sects I'm aware of depend upon historicism in their theology.

Since the dream of Daniel 2 was initially given to Nebuchadnezzar, I consider Babylonians and not the Israelites to be the focus. Besides, the fourth kingdom is described as being weakened by internal division. That certainly does not describe Rome in the time of Jesus. Also the transitions between the Neobabylonians, the Medo-Persians, and the Greeks were all fairly sharp and quick. Rome's rise was gradual, so it's hard to see the Greco-Roman temporal boundary as corresponding to the division between bronze and iron. By contrast, the Parthian supplantation of the Greek Seleucids was quick, but they suffered from division for some time before being smashed by the Sassanids.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, Neo-Assyria did predate Neo-Babylon and was the first Mesopotamian realm to expand well beyond Mesopotamia, so it's not a total failure to say it was the first to rule the world, just a failure in follow Daniel 2, assuming that's what that hymn is supposed to do.