Skip to content


  1. Bea
    26 October 2012 @ 7:19 pm

    Wonderful news.  Despite members from the extreme right commenting such wrath – this is a brave, assertive vote that is the right action.

  2. Ervin Taylor
    26 October 2012 @ 7:56 pm

    Truth and justice won out over fear and fundamentlism.  This Southern California Conference of SDA has the future on its side.  Those opposing this action would apparently rather live in the Middle Ages. 

  3. Barry Wecker
    27 October 2012 @ 12:53 am

    Brother Joy,
    Once again, you comments are filled with exclamation marks and capital letters indicating the intensity of your feelings on this issue.  I have great concern about your understanding of the character of God.  Since we generally reflect the character of the God that we worship, I suspect that you worship a God who threatens threatens to kill those who do not obey the letter of his laws and rules; a harsh, arbitrary, unforgiving God.  Certainly not the one that Jesus came to reveal.  Are you not able to accept those of us who believe that God's Spirit calls both men and women to serve him in ministry?  Can you not recognize that diversity of perspective makes for a healthy church?  Are you so sure that you are right and those of us who support ordination without regards to gender are wrong?  Please spend some time reading how Jesus related to those who had different understandings than he. 

  4. Ceci
    27 October 2012 @ 12:57 am

    I praise God for the courage of the Southern California Conference.  The Holy Spirit is leading and we must not ignore him/her anymore.  

  5. Andreas Bochmann
    27 October 2012 @ 2:14 pm

    The way they came to their conclusion is noteworthy:

    • Bible study
    • prayer
    • reflection
    • surveys

    How could they have acted otherwise, if all these methods pointed to their conclusion?  Just imagine what it would have meant, to vote against Biblical conviction, spiritual persuasion, personal conscience and their constituency (just to be loyal to expectations of the World Church leadership)!

  6. Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
    27 October 2012 @ 2:51 pm

    I would like to see the Bible Study texts that they used which led them to take such a decision.  Last time I checked, the book of the gospel according to Obama just wasn't there.

  7. Allen Nash
    27 October 2012 @ 9:28 pm

    I am not from S. Calif. However let’s open this with one verse that is generally misapplied. This is the KJV with the Strong’s Concordance numbers indicating the Greek words from which they were translated, which then of course are defined.
    The passage actually says if ANY not if any male. The word “man” should be “any person.” That would be a literal translation. If in your city, state, country it is not culturally acceptable for some class to serve as a bishop then your region should not do so. However if in your region of the world women are accepted as having the abilities to think, to speak, to counsel, to evangelize, to nurture, and to teach, and have been called by God as evidenced in their work then it is right for them to desire the office of a bishop. Why would we deny such a call from the Holy Spirit?
    If you disagree with this reading brother Joy or Sister 22Oct1844, I would welcome a thoughtful review of evidence. Notice the absences of heat and the presence of light in my comments. Please respond in kind. I am willing to be taught from the Word.
    1Ti 3:1  This is a trueG4103 saying,G3056 If a manG1536 desireG3713 the office of a bishop,G1984 he desirethG1937 a goodG2570 work.G2041
    εἴ τις
    ei tis
    i tis
    From G1487 and G5100; if any:

    • All4Him
      27 October 2012 @ 11:46 pm

      The quote 1 Tim 3:1  "if any" should be read in context with 1 Tim 3:2 which goes on to say "husband of ONE WIFE" which is quite clear….

      • Allen Nash
        28 October 2012 @ 4:03 pm

        "Husband" is from the Greek word G435 a primary word. We are directed to compare this with G444, which is from G435 the countenance from G3700; manfaced, that is a human being—a being with a human face. The word husband has to do with one who has a human face not limited to being male. So one being considered for the office of bishop must be the spouse of ONLY one spouse—a husband and wife or a wife and husband.
        Certainly we cannot think that the “husband of one wife” statement limits those who are bishops to those who are married to one wife in the strictest terms. If so we must change policy to state that if a pastor who has lost his wife in death must step down from his role.
        This writing was given in a setting of male dominance. It remains so to this day in that region, at least to a large degree. In some cases young girls are ambushed because they promote education for girls. Local culture does affect application of principles.
        The statement of 1 Tim. 3:2 is the statement of a rule—one wife for a male bishop. The principle would be one spouse only. If stated in a male dominated setting then one wife. If stated in a setting that recognizes we are all equal in Christ then one husband-wife relationship, and if otherwise qualified either could serve as the bishop.
        You may disagree with my understanding, but I hope you accept that I have explained my heartfelt belief. Do not ridicule me if you disagree. I will not ridicule you. I do welcome your explanation as you understand it. Let’s talk to each other not past each other.

        • All4Him
          28 October 2012 @ 7:25 pm

          G435 States an'-ayr; a prim. word …..a man, individual male, fellow, husband, man, sir.  This defines the Y chromezome I believe.

  8. Allen Nash
    27 October 2012 @ 10:00 pm

    Brother G.A. Joy,
    I notice you sign your post as:
    Gailon Arthur Joy
    Are you saying you are a reporter for A.U.? I only know of one A.U. Are you claiming to represent an educational arm of the church? By signing as you have you suggest you are speaking for an organization. Would you please state that organization if you are in fact officially representing such?

  9. All4Him
    28 October 2012 @ 1:12 am

    Ok Tim so in 1 Tim 3:5 we are also to believe that the "man" can't rule his own house…how can he take care of the church of God is only cultural too?  Was Gen. 3 :16 repeating of God speaking only for that culture and era also? 

  10. All4Him
    28 October 2012 @ 1:42 am

    I'll tell you after you give birth…..

  11. Allen Nash
    28 October 2012 @ 3:29 pm

    Now we are getting somewhere. Now we are starting to talk about the scriptures. May I suggest however that we put even a hint of sarcasm aside and make our goal to understand scripture and each other as brothers and sisters of the same body? This is not about proving who is right. It is about learning what is right.
    When we post let’s do it in the spirit of learning rather than announcing. I think we can all tell the difference if we step back and think about it.
    When the young people who started our church studied it was about learning right, not about being right. In this spirit they were able to cover a lot of ground—scriptural learning in a relatively short time.
    Love you brothers and sisters

  12. Bea
    28 October 2012 @ 5:20 pm

    Allen -I appreciate your sensitivity and care as well as insisting Scripture be the foundation of the resolution of WO in the SDA denomination.  You mentioned "when the young people who started our church studied it was about LEARNING RIGHT….".

    I am veering off WO merely to highlight an example of what happened in 2002 after our esteemed theologian Dr. Raymond Cottrell (1912-2003) stated he agreed with Desmond Ford's interpretation of the investigative judgment.  Jan Paulsen, then GC president, addressed 45 World SDA Leaders, stating that even though Cottrell's interpretation of the IJ is according to Scripture, the SDA denomination will continue to follow EGW's interpretation to maintain "HERITAGE AND IDENTITY" of the SDA denomination.

    The WO topic is one of many throughout the 150 years that the leadership has chosen to maintain the traditional umbrella of this organization. 

    • Stephen Ferguson
      16 November 2012 @ 7:52 am

      I guess that is the moment when dynamic religious movements become orthodox Churches.  The early Church arrived at this moment some time ago, when it became the Papacy.  Has the SDA Church arrived its own time, when tradition trumps all?

  13. Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
    28 October 2012 @ 6:04 pm

    Can Bea please verify where she got this from: "Jan Paulsen, then GC president, addressed 45 World SDA Leaders, stating that even though Cottrell's interpretation of the IJ is according to Scripture, the SDA denomination will continue to follow EGW's interpretation to maintain "HERITAGE AND IDENTITY" of the SDA denomination."

    Is there any documented proof of this being said or actioned?  Or is it just the usual hearsay?

  14. Bea
    28 October 2012 @ 10:25 pm

    Title:  SDA GC President Jan Paulsen's Address to 45 worldwide SDA church leaders  "The Theological Landscape"   He discusses  Glacier View 1980 specifically mentioning Desmond Ford's IJ interpretation.  Jan Paulsen's 2002 Key Note Address is specifically dealing with Raymond Cottrell' s 2002 interpretation of the investigative judgment according to EGW. If JP indicates Cottrell's IJ interpretation as being more aligned with Scripture, how can he also state "I say we just learn to live with it, with the proviso that the church, in its teachings, programs, activities, must at all times be visibly loyal to our Heritage and our Identity, and never give just cause to the charge of having 'gone astray'".  In other words, stay with the status quo rather than get in alignment with Scripture????????

    Do you see how easy it is to apply the same technique with WO? – And in fact it has been applied at this very GC Session!

    To read the theological areas of his address – (key in church, subjects, SDA GC President Jan Paulsen's Address to 45 WorldWide church leaders.

    It also can be found in the GC archives as well.

  15. Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
    29 October 2012 @ 3:26 am

    Dear Bea

    What you're saying is not what Jan Paulsen said.  Maybe you misunderstood what was said or perhaps want to draw your own conclusions.  If you get your information from then they aren't telling the truth.  It seems Glacier View today is still alive and kicking today.

  16. Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
    29 October 2012 @ 3:28 am

    typo – last line is: It seems Glacier View is still alive and kicking today.

    • Ervin Taylor
      30 October 2012 @ 4:36 am

      Does Mr (or is it Ms?) October mean the "Glacier View" as reported by Biblical scholars who were present and knew that there was a majority agreement in principle with Desmond Ford's view of the Investigative Judgment (i.e., that the church's traditional view could not be supported by the Bible) or the "Glacier View" invented by the administrators, primarily the father of the present GC president, who could not allow the truth of what happened at Glacier View to become widely known?

      • Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
        30 October 2012 @ 5:47 am

        Majority in favour of Desmond Ford's view?  At Glacier View? That's quite ambitious but it simply isn't true.

        From what I can see, even here on AT, is that Ford's views positing that: IJ is wrong; Ellen White is wrong; OT is metaphor; literal seven day creation week is wrong, the flood; among others, are all well propagated here, as can be regularly seen.  I won't be surprised if the WO and theistic evolution issue comes from his table as well; but that remains to be seen.  It is understandable that he was/is a guru to some and that he fills the gap for Ellen White detractors.

        It seems Glacier View is still alive and kicking today – from what I can see.

      • Stephen Ferguson
        16 November 2012 @ 7:53 am

        Probably the same group of administrators producing our WO studies.

  17. Tapiwa Mushaninga
    29 October 2012 @ 7:17 am

    I believe there is a counterfeit equality that is being talked about. If someone desires a post God did not ordain for them (pun intended) then that is not equality but rebellion. Lucifer, Korah and co all fought for the equality that many here espouse but will be dissappointed to know that they is indeed hiearchial order in heaven. I have always said ontological equality does not mean duplication of responsibilities.
    Radical egalitarianism is not biblical but is a western human construct and is imposing itself on the bible.

    One astute writer says (she is female)

    Unlike radical feminists, who reject Scripture entirely, and reformist feminists, who adopt a hermeneutics of suspicion based on a perceived patriarchal bias in Scripture, evangelical feminists on the whole claim to consider Scripture as authoritative, inspired and inerrant. For this reason they cannot simply dismiss scriptural passages that do not conform to their egalitarian commitment, nor can they expand the Christian canon or say Paul or other writers of Scripture were in error. Their major interpretive option is therefore to find ways to interpret biblical passages along egalitarian lines, and, where this proves difficult, to postulate a “center of Scripture” with regard to gender roles that allows them to set aside as culturally relative or otherwise inapplicable passages that do not support evangelical feminism. The result is at times strained exegesis, and at other times unlikely interpretations that seem to be driven more by egalitarian presuppositions than by an inductive study of the text."

    There are many who say the bible is suppotive of WO but such can only come to such a conclusion by using a HER meneutical approach! I still maintain that the onus is on those who support WO to prove conclusively from the bible that ordination is God ordained (again with the puns)

  18. Allen Nash
    29 October 2012 @ 1:54 pm

    back to the topic

    Thank you “All4Him” for sharing your observation. What you have written is true. We are also directed to compare G435 with G444, which is the manFACED thought. Using words is only one part of the formula to find truth. If we stop at G435 then we are left with the problem of what to do with the male pastor who has lost his wife to death. Must he step down since the passage requires he be the husband of one wife?
    Does it seem to you that the point of Paul’s statement was that only a man should be a bishop? Is there any indication in any of Paul’s writings or in history that there was a movement at that time to call a woman to serve as a bishop? I find none. The culture of that region would not lend itself to that. Do we have record of men, even leaders of God’s people having more than one wife? Yes, for sure.
    In the light of context I must conclude that G444 manFACED is more in keeping with what Paul is talking about. IF in fact Paul decided to address a question that was not being asked (Should a women be a bishop?) I wonder why. IF Paul is making a rule that a pastor MUST be MARRIED where is a second witness to this?
    It seem like there are three possibilities for this passage:

    1. A bishop must not be married to more than one spouse.
    2. A bishop must be married or he/she cannot be a bishop
    3. Only a male can be a bishop

    Since there is no evidence of a movement to call a female to be a bishop, and since that region of the world in that time and in the present does not allow a woman to lead, get an education, uncover her face, etc. it is not likely the point of this passage deals with the last two options.

  19. All4Him
    29 October 2012 @ 7:14 pm

    Allen what Paul is trying to get across is that a Bishop/Elder should be a Male who is of good report that has shown by the long list in 1 Tim 3:2, 1 Tim 3:3, 1 Tim 3:4, 1Tim. 3:5, 1 Tim 3:6 and 1 Tim. 3:7. 

    If not why would he say in verse 2 "Husband of one Wife" right at the start?

    Where is a second witness of this?  1 Tim 3:12 where Paul states it again for decons…

    Allen there WERE priestess/goddess in other religions of the time but NOT in Jewish/Christian religion.

    This dovetails with a quote Ellen White wrote:

    Shepherds who fail at home will fail at churchHe who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry, he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account. In his service church there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home, will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God in the.—Manuscript Releases 6:49

    • Kevin Riley
      30 October 2012 @ 12:43 am

      So why do we focus on taking certain parts literally – 'male', 'husband' – but happily ignore so much else?  Paul tells Timothy to 'appoint' elders, but we elect them; Paul says they must be 'rulers of households', only ever married to one wife, keeping their children under control, and, if we want to get really literal, old men, all of which we are happy to either ignore or consider cultural details we can overlook.  If we applied each part of Paul's rules literally, how many – even at GC level – would survive?

      The central question is proabably whether Phoebe was a deacon and Junia an apostle as Paul seems to state in Romans (more texts we prefer not to read 'literally'), since if they were holding ordained positions, the whole argument that women cannot be ordained obviously fails.  Historians are increasingly saying that this is likely – some will go so far as saying 'proven' – and if so, however we interpret Paul's words, to keep his theory in line with his practice will require something other than a complete denial of such roles for women.

      If you take into account the practice up until very recently of stating general cases – even in law – in the masculine gender, something the Greek language lends itself to  very well, most of your arguments fail to hold, even when it comes to Ellen White.

      • Stephen Ferguson
        16 November 2012 @ 7:59 am

         "If we applied each part of Paul's rules literally, how many – even at GC level – would survive?"

        I agree, not many.  Forget all the other requirements, not many pastors (and many Church members at all for that matter) have obedient children who remain in the Church.  I know ex-GC President Paulson has talked about his own son leaving the Church.  By Paul's criteria, he was not and is not fit for office.  Not sure about Pres Wilson.  

        "If you take into account the practice up until very recently of stating general cases – even in law – in the masculine gender, something the Greek language lends itself to  very well…"

        And English even.  Many of our laws are written in the masculine gender, even though the intention is to cover both genders.  For example as merely an illustration, in my own daily work as a lawyer in my own state, the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) at section 10(a), "words denoting a gender or genders include each other gender."

  20. Bea
    29 October 2012 @ 8:31 pm

    Why does the Bible have to be explained away by EGW? The Bible is perfect on its own. EGW was not a wonderful example of motherhood in the way she treated her children  (ex. farmed her child out for five years).  Where does this fit in with "shepherds who fail at home will fail at church"?

    By the way, if you take into consideration the time frame of Cottrell's 2002 interpretation, the fifty year history leading up to 2002, and the myriad of academia that through the years agreed with his IJ interpretation – it created a huge dilemma at the GC! Within that same year Paulsen addressed  the 45 world leaders carefully arranging his words in what leadership calls "administrative speak".  The success of it is clear – the rank and file are not aware of the underlying message.  This tactic can be applied to any subject including WO.

    • Kevin Riley
      30 October 2012 @ 12:46 am

      An appeal to unity and 'brotherly bonds' does a lot to keep the church in line.  It also conveniently avoids having to meet challenges, but allows us to keep giving our answers – even if they don't answer the question. We mastered the political art of ignoring objections, giving our own answers, and then saying 'I have answered your question, so stop asking' long ago.  It's a pity, because very often we would have been better off actually dealing with the issues, because they never go away until you do.

  21. Allen Nash
    30 October 2012 @ 3:48 am

    I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
    1 Timothy 3:1-7 does deal with the qualifications of a bishop. We agree about that.
    By listing the good qualities of a bishop verse after verse does not however address the issue of gender.
    The single unresolved issue for me is this: It is the Holy Spirit who chooses who should have which gift. He has called all to go into the entire world. Matt. 28:19-20 is not for men only. The Royal Priesthood [1 Peter 2:9] is not for men only. The entire nation was called to take the place of the tribal priesthood. All are called.
    We agree there was no issue within the Christian Way about women serving as pastors. You asked why did Paul mention the marriage issue? It clarifies a bishop should not have multiple spouses.
    If your understanding means the bishop must be a male and only a male; then he must be married to one wife, and anyone who is not married to a wife is disqualified to be a bishop. It can’t be both ways. So a wife who passes away automatically disqualifies the unmarried male from serving. Isn’t this a little silly? When the male only reasoning is followed through it flies in the face of reason.
    I understand your sincerity and desire to live by the Word of God. Each passage must fit with the overall theme of the Word. All are equal in the site of God and we have voted to affirm this as a church long ago in statements of belief #14 & 17. All are called to serve and be served regardless of gender as well as many other differences.
    What does the prophet say will happen in the last days?
    The Day of the Lord
    Joel 2:28-29 NIV
    28 “And afterward,
    I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
    Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
    your old men will dream dreams,
    your young men will see visions.
    29 Even on my servants, both men and women,
    I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
    To you it may seem plain that 1 Tim. 3:1-7 nails down that only males are chosen and gifted by the Holy Spirit to serve in pastoral ministry. The proof however is in the facts. There are places on this earth where women carry the pastoral ministry load because the Holy Spirit has called them and men are not able to serve due to government controls.
    We do live in the last days. Why don’t we agree with the Holy Spirit and let policy agree with our voted doctrinal teachings?
    Is it wise for us to refuse the call extended by the Holy Spirit? Do we know better than He?
    Jesus is coming soon. May we all be found working together and encouraging each other in  His service.

  22. All4Him
    30 October 2012 @ 9:54 am

    Joel 2: 28 uses the words …. "your daughters shall prophecy" (5012) naba, naw-baw, to speak or sing by inspiration.  Now look where Paul uses it in Act 2:17 and Acts 2:18 in the NT.  (4395) prof-ate-yoo'-o in which it states TO FORTELL EVENTS, divine, speaks under INSPIRATION, exercise the PROPHETIC office….

    Ellen White was such a daughter who passed the Biblical test of a Prophetess and did just as the Bible predicted.  She did not do the duties of a pastor baptism, to marry others, frunerals ect.  Nor did she consider herself ordained. 

    There is a difference between JLW and EGW…. 

  23. Bea
    30 October 2012 @ 1:44 pm

    All4Him –  "Ellen White was such a daughter who passed the Biblical test of a Prophetess and did just as the Bible predicted."

    The 1919 top-secret Bible Conference of high-level church officials to determine what the Church should do – renounce EGW's claim of a prophetic gift, or whether the Church should continue covering up the problem.  They placed the minutes of the meeting in a plain paper bag that was hidden for 50 years (per order of GC Pres. Daniels) – discovered in 1974.  The account was released in Spectrum in 1979.

    • Stephen Ferguson
      16 November 2012 @ 8:02 am

      I don't believe the 1919 Bible Conference suggested Ellen White wasn't a prophet.  Rather, those who actually knew her, especially ex-President Daniels, tried to deflate the myths about her prophetic gift, and bring her back down to earth.  However, he and others who knew her best lost the debate, and were sidelined by a younger, more militant generation who took over the Church.  

  24. Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
    30 October 2012 @ 2:39 pm

    If Bea is telling the truth then what evidence is there of this secret meeting except it being hearsay or perhaps a lie?  I have noted that Bea has brought this supposed secret meeting of 1919 up a few times recently and wonder if this is not a ploy to once again use lies to attack Adventism as many are accustomed to.

    • Elaine Nelson
      30 October 2012 @ 9:42 pm

      If someone truly wants the minutes of the 1919 Bible Conference, it takes less than a minute to find on the internet; which is one of the great benefits of the internet:  researching almost any subject;

      The 1919 Bible Conference Minutes

      The 1919 minutes proves SDA leaders have known for over ninety years that EGW was a fraud.

      After clicking this link you have the choice to read  PDF or DjVu
      This link gives all the minutes dates.

  25. Bea
    30 October 2012 @ 4:21 pm

    I am sure the GC archives will hold the 1919 Bible Conference documents – I am not sure how easily available this is to the membership.  There is a wealth of information, however, I also have read your entries and would dare to say you only believe what comes out of the red books/spirit of prophecy.  Indeed, despite several opportunities  through the decades since 1919 – or 1974 the church seems to be satisfied in keeping  its constituency oblivious.  22oct1844 (the day of the great disappointment), if you confine yourself to EGW you will not change your mind regarding my supposed "lies or use of heresay".  Did I hear that the current GC president admonished the membership to only read what is sold at the Adventist Book Centers? 

  26. All4Him
    30 October 2012 @ 7:39 pm

    Bea you are right to discredit EGW if your final goal is for the ordination of women.

    When read in context it's clear what she felt the God given role of the shepherds of the home and the church to be male. They shove her under the church bus by saying…

    –she is only speaking of events in her day (yet much of what she has said is still showing true)
    –she copied other authors( yet the NT holds much of the OT…)
    –she did not have a prophetic gift it's all a lie

    Yet these same people say she is prime example of a women showing headship, the founder of the church, an example of a ordained minister.  I beg you take some time to read all of what she wrote in context for the picture is not a fuzzy as some claim. 

  27. Bea
    31 October 2012 @ 12:45 am

    All4Him – 1.  "they shove her under the church bus by saying…."  2. "Yet these same people say she is a prime example of a woman showing headship, the founder of the church…."

    This is the schizophrenic behavior of the church in dealing with Ellen G. White. After 1974 when 50 years had expired and the 1919 Bible Conference meeting minutes were found, the church proceeded to tread softly regarding EGW.  The Clear Word has quoted her without the quotation marks.  Pastors are minimalist in speaking of her in the pulpit or at least couch their words carefully.  The general membership are aware of her plagerism but at the same time worship her and give her a lot of leeway.  Fascinating intrigue where Adventism is dancing carefully around the great elephant in the room with no room for historic investigation – we're happy with "heritage and identity"   and enjoy the financial returns on her books.

  28. Trevor Hammond [22oct1844]
    31 October 2012 @ 7:12 am

    Elain Nelson posted a link to The 1919 Bible Conference Minutes above which doesn't say what Bea is saying.  Where in the minutes is there a decision to hide from the church anything regarding Ellen White and that this information must be kept secret?  What was 'uncovered' in 1974?  I can only say this is just hearsay and lies as they cannot substantiate these serious allegations.

    From what I have gathered I do know that in 1919 women weren't ordained as Pastors.  They had other important roles to complement the preaching of the Advent Message – IJ and all.  The compromise crept in later, in some quarters especially, when a few academics tried to railroad the Church; but then historically, as a church, we have always had Ellen White detractors amongst us.  What I have also noticed is that ever since many in our pulpits and church structures have tried to downplay the writings of Ellen White as valuable messages received through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by her receiving of the Gift of Prophecy, the church has stagnated.  The church in America is a good example of this.  Worldiness and false doctrines have crept in and are being forced on the church.  If the writings of Ellen White were taken more seriously and not neglected so much as we see today, I am convinced that the church would not be in the condition we are in now.  I'm sure Elaine Nelson can provide all the Ellen White resource links – being so familiar with them and all.

    Those theologians trying to spin WO as a scriptural mandate are really attacking the word of God itself.  The danger is that false doctrines have a way of intoxicating its subscribers and their position and condition only worsens as they get drunk.

  29. Allen Nash
    31 October 2012 @ 1:59 pm

    Thanks again for sharing your views:
    You say:

    “She did not do the duties of a pastor baptism, to marry others, funerals etc.  Nor did she consider herself ordained.”
    Do we understand that the issue in your thinking is for a woman to be ordained as a pastor so she can perform the functions you have listed? The denomination authorized me to conduct baptisms before I was ordained. [That was over 30 years ago.] A local elder can conduct a funeral. A justice of the peace can perform a wedding.
    We agree that in the last days the gift of prophecy—to speak with inspiration will be given to daughters. It is the speaking of God’s Word that is the important thing. It is here lives are changed. Is it not a side job to conduct weddings, funerals, and baptisms. These are ceremonies. The substance is in proclaiming the Word.
    I cannot understand how we can agree that a female can be gifted by God to serve in the prophetic role but not recognized for a lower role. There is an order to best, better and lesser spiritual gifts. EGW served as a minister to the world church not simply one congregation.
    Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
    1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
    1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew …
    You say that Sister White did not consider herself to be ordained. I am not familiar with such a view. Use this link to view what can be seen in a number of homes where she lived.

  30. William Noel
    31 October 2012 @ 2:21 pm

    After seeing the intensity of emotion in your comments, I can only hope that your devotion to the Gospel and introducing people to our loving God is just as intense. 

    My church has an ordained, female elder.  A few weeks ago I had the privilege of being on a home visit with her and to observe how the Holy Spirit has empowered her for ministry.  It was a real blessing to watch her get to the heart of the issue with the wife.  If God can empower her in that way, I am confident that ordaining any woman who is gifted for a pastoral role should be granted the human recognition we call ordination.  I am also convinced anyone who would opposed that ordination has a very limited concept of God and His power.

  31. Allen Nash
    31 October 2012 @ 11:27 pm

    You will need to copy the link as I see it is not working as a hyperlink.

  32. All4Him
    01 November 2012 @ 2:01 am

    I cannot understand how we can agree that a female can be gifted by God to serve in the prophetic role but not recognized for a lower role….

    For the same reason per Biblical example of no women being priest yet they were prophets

    12 men were choosen by Christ to serve as apostles 1 Co 12:28 (first apostles, secondary prophets)

    Choose Wise Men—For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.

    Acts 6:3, Acts 6:4, Acts 6:5, Acts 6:6

  33. Truth Seeker
    02 November 2012 @ 1:36 am

    Something I have not yet seen in a discussion about the insubordination of certain Conferences with respect to WO. What does it say about the women who agree to this farce in spite of the decisions of the GC in two Sessions and the Fall Council?

    Of course we know pretty much what it says about the Conference Presidents, all men, who have led out in this totally unacceptable action.

  34. Allen Nash
    02 November 2012 @ 4:09 am

    • The apostles were all chosen from those who were witnesses of the personal ministry of Jesus on earth.
    • The Choose Wise Men quote has to do with choosing the quality of men not that only a man should be chosen. It is a mankind statement. The particular passage mentioned—Acts 6 has to do with choosing deacons if you please to serve food.
    • In Acts 8 one of those deacons without mention of further ordination was sent by the Holy Spirit to share and baptize, and by the church to preach. His ministry was affirmed by the church when Peter and John were sent to support his work.
    • Be careful about launching Bible examples as the basis for our policy. Teaching is the basis and examples show what was done. Based on Bible examples there would be no deaconesses. Church leaders would have multiple wives, etc…
    • Please review the 1990 GC Session action. It opened to women ordination as a local elder and extension of the call to pastoral ministry without ordination. The church has not slammed the door on women serving as pastors. It has simply failed to vote to affirm them in the same way as men.

    At issue for many is that our policy does not affirm by ordination those who have been given the spiritual gifts by the Holy Spirit to pastor. What is the obstacle to affirm their spiritual gifts? Do we say they don’t do good work? No we simply state that they were born as women. In so doing we ignore our doctrine of equality in service and to be served, which was voted long ago at the GC Session.

    If I am wrong about what was voted in 1990 and 1995 I would be happy to be corrected.

  35. All4Him
    02 November 2012 @ 9:38 am

    Be careful about launching Bible examples as the basis for our policy. Teaching is the basis and examples show what was done. Based on Bible examples there would be no deaconesses. Church leaders would have multiple wives, etc…

    1 Timothy 3:2 clearly show that Paul was directed to state that the leaders of the church should be "husband of one wife" not multiple ones. 

    It was mentioned that the EGW Quote only mentioned the quality of men not men themselves… It is quite clear what is said in the following two quotes when both genders are mentioned then ONE specific one is mentioned for the pastor/shepherd….

    The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.

    Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598

    There are many fields of service God has opened for women to serve and thier work is greatly needed and appreciated.  It is about service and submission not power and position.  Did God ignore the "doctrine of equality" when he asked for males to be brought to the altar?

  36. kurt nurse
    15 November 2012 @ 2:25 pm

    Let us look at the earthly sanctuary GOD gave to Moses; it was a pattern of the heavenly one. GOD gave the priestly ministry to males only.
    The ordination of women as pastors is a great rebellion against GOD. Next,the keeping of  Sunday as a rest day with in our church will come. I am so sad to see the road the SDA church is heading. Please repent 

    • William Noel
      15 November 2012 @ 3:31 pm

      If it is not the will of God, it will fail.  If it is, it will succeed and there will be nothing you can do about it. 

      Caiphas, the high priest who presided ofer the trial of Jesus, made a similar observation.  He thought the death of Jesus would end what he saw as a growing rebellion.  History shows how wrong he was.  So I ask you to watch and see what happens, then reconsider your opinion accordingly to make sure you are not standing in opposition to the will of the Holy Spirit. 

    • Kevin Riley
      15 November 2012 @ 10:51 pm

      A male-only priesthood seems to make nonsense of the idea of the priesthood of all believers.  We have never equated our pastors with priests – probably because they aren't.

      • All4Him
        15 November 2012 @ 11:57 pm

        Ellen White states in a prior quote about being the shepherds of the home being shepherds of the church-it seems that she has tied the roles of a husband and a pastor together quite often…..

        As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ.  Pastoral Ministry page 98

        • Kevin Riley
          16 November 2012 @ 12:11 am

          But she doesn't say 'as priest in the church'.

          • All4Him
            16 November 2012 @ 5:10 am

            Yes, yet she specifically uses the male gender when it comes to leadership/shepherding of the church throughout her writings….

          • Stephen Ferguson
            16 November 2012 @ 8:14 am

            She was herself in a position of leadership and she was herself shepherding the Church through her writings.  You can't hang your hat too much on male gender pronouns, which are often used in many languages, including English, to mean both genders.  For example, 'mankind' isn't all the males in the world, but all the human beings in the world.  

          • All4Him
            16 November 2012 @ 9:44 am

            Stephen please show me how the two quotes from 5T are to mean "mankind" rather then male….  These are clear and direct….not a instance of male gender pronouns misquoted.

        • Stephen Ferguson
          16 November 2012 @ 8:12 am

          Exactly Kevin.  She is obviously talking about a priest-like role in the home.  If she was talking about priests in the Church, then she would have been undoing centuries of the Reformation, which followed a priesthood based on tradition and Apostolic Succession, and doing away with Luther's key belief in the Priesthood of All Believers?

          Was Ellen White doing away with the Protestant doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers?  I doubt it.  Moreover, technically pastors are priests – but so are all members of the Church – men and women both.  We are all priests, a royal nation of priests and kings.  

    • Stephen Ferguson
      16 November 2012 @ 8:08 am

      Sorry, but a key message of Christianity, and the whole debate in Acts 15, is that the Jewish monopoly, including Levitical priesthood, has been done away with in Christ by universalism.  By this logic only circumcised men can be pastors, as only circumcised men were appointed apostles.  

      This is a Roman Catholic argument, which tries to substitute the Jewish Levitical priesthood with its own priesthood.  They substituted the notions of circumcission and genetic descent from Aaron with the notion of Apostolic succession through the laying of hands.  

      One of Martin Luther's key concepts was the notion of priesthood of all believers.  To reject WO is to accept the authority of the Papacy.  To accept Roman Catholic notions, then all of our pastors are disqualified from office, as they don't have uninterupted succession through the laying of hands back to the Apostles.

      I'm a Seventh-day Adventist Protestant – what are you – a Seventh-day Adventist Papist?

      • All4Him
        16 November 2012 @ 9:40 am

        So Stephen what did she mean (earlier post on this artical) with the October 5, 1905 quote from the Review and Herald dealing with Acts 6 and following "we need to study this plan, for it is approved of God…we need to folow His Word"?  This is not a Roman Catholic argument but a teaching that mirrors God's Word. 

        The role of the shepherd/husband is also refered to in 1 Tim. 3:5……EGW mirrors this in her quote in a earlier post.

        If Gen. 3:16 is no longer in effect you would think that God's Word would state it….