NAD Year end meetings takes an initial position:

[ClubV12]

Tom says,

"You simply do not know what you are talking about."

uh, yeah, about that... something to think about Tom.

[ClubV12]

How does one KNOW they are being led by the Holy Spirit? We hear it a lot from people, that we need to be led of the Spirit alone. I agree, what we need to understand is HOW to discern what spirit is guiding us!

The devil has a counterfit for everything and that includes the "feeling", the deeply sincere "feeling" that you are being led by the spirit. Which one? The Holy Spirit or another spirit?

By applying the principles of the word and the testimony. Once you leave even ONE principle behind or disregard it, you place yourself on Satans ground. You will not even beware of which spirit is leading in such a case. This is the danger posed by rebellion, what ever form it may take. However good and righteouss it may appear. You cannot ignore Gods principles of law with any safety.

[Tom Wetmore]

Club, I think we have to be very, very careful in trying to make that assessment about others. The Jewish leaders doubted Jesus was who he said he was. They were certain. Based on their careful study of Scripture and the testimony of the prophets that he could not possibly be the Messiah. The doubted what he said and what he did to the point of accusing him of getting his power to cast out demons from Satan himself. That prompted one of Jesus' harshest rebukes, saying that to doubt and reject the work of the Holy Spirit is not just a sin of great magnitude, but one that risks being unforgivable.

That to me is a huge caution flag to not judge another with regard to whether they are properly aligned with God. And it deeply distresses me when others presume to know who is on good terms with the Holy Spirit and who is not. I do not wish to risk offending the Holy Spirit that may be truly guiding them as much or more than I think it is guiding me. Do understand that by offending the Holy Spirit by rejecting those that are in fact being lead by the Holy Spirit we block the very avenue by which the Holy Spirit can reach us.

Let me relate to you something that happened a while back at a critical juncture on the whole WO controversy. A very significant decision was being considered. The body in question very earnestly took time for everyone to pray for guidance before discussing it and again broke for a season of prayer before voting. The vote was very strongly different from what leadership of another part of the Church thought was correct. The message was conveyed to them of the earnest effort of repeated prayers and the apparent Christ like spirit of the discussion the preceded the vote. The sense of those there was of the clear presence of the Spirit of God. But very disturbing was the response given by leadership of the other part of the Church. The blunt answer was that in their opinion the Spirit of God may have been present, but they were certain that the Spirit of God was not in the vote that was taken with which they disagreed.

That gave me a chill of great disappointment to hear that. I think Jesus was disappointed too, just like He was when the Pharisees also caused him of not acting by the Spirit of God.

[ClubV12]

Tom says,

"Club, I think we have to be very, very careful in trying to make that assessment about others."

I concur, these are very serious matters and great caution is advised. I have presented some principles that may be a helpful guide. It's a classic case of rebel or freedom fighter? With both sides asking for Gods blessing!

As for myself, I am applying the principle of honoring and obeying leadership until I have clear light to do otherwise. I believe that is a safe position to take in this hour of confusion.

We could post a number of statements where Auntie Ellen says she does not believe the G.C. is the voice of God and hasn't been for a long time. I hear such statements somewhat frequently in my little Church. We could also post plenty of statements where she fully and without reservation supports the G.C. and leadership in general. At times even when she knows they are wrong! Statements like, they are the highest authority on earth.

How will we know what to do? Very, very careful and serious consideration must be given to that question.

[olger]

I'm sorry, you are wrong Tom. The G.C. never voted to ordain women, nor was Ellen White ever ordained.

She never Pastored a Church, never baptized anyone, never ordained anyone.

Your position goes against the White Estate, and myself.

You have an opinion, I have an opinion. We could list a pile of documents supporting either side, and still, people will believe what they want to believe. These issues have been rehashed many times over, there will never be a definitive answer for anyone.

The SPIRIT of the law Tom, THAT is the problem!!! Lawyers will ALWAYS find a loop hole. The NAD has found one and digging furiously. The SPIRIT of the laws intention is that the NAD will work in harmony with the G.C.

They have not, they have ignored the G.C. and disallowed the appointed committee to fulfill it's mission.

NAD changed the wording in their documents to reflect a position where either men or women could be ordained. The G.C. told them to change it back. They did. Then they changed it again! The "wording battle" has been going on for many years. NAD is clearly in violation of ignoring the authority of the G.C. Has been for years....

I agree with this post.

[CyberGuy]

Tom says,

"Club, I think we have to be very, very careful in trying to make that assessment about others."

I concur, these are very serious matters and great caution is advised. I have presented some principles that may be a helpful guide. It's a classic case of rebel or freedom fighter? With both sides asking for Gods blessing!

As for myself, I am applying the principle of honoring and obeying leadership until I have clear light to do otherwise. I believe that is a safe position to take in this hour of confusion.

We could post a number of statements where Auntie Ellen says she does not believe the G.C. is the voice of God and hasn't been for a long time. I hear such statements somewhat frequently in my little Church. We could also post plenty of statements where she fully and without reservation supports the G.C. and leadership in general. At times even when she knows they are wrong! Statements like, they are the highest authority on earth.

How will we know what to do? Very, very careful and serious consideration must be given to that question.

One has to be careful when they follow non biblical principles about who can be conference president.

Here are some traditions that are not biblical.

1. Conference president has to have a beard.

Notice all conference presidents in the early SDA church had a beard.

2. Conference presidents have to be clean shaven.

Notice during the 60's to the 90's our conference presidents were clean shaven as beards was associated with the hippy movement and the free love movement.

3. Conference presidents have to be ordained.

Since only a man can be ordained on The GC policy then only a man can be conference presidents.

4. Unions voted to ordain regardless of Gender therefore a women could be conference president within that Union.

Given Time I am sure the GC and the world church will correct this and at the very least make to that a man or woman can be conference president OR Union OR division or GC President.

It is interesting how over time who can be conference president has changed based on hair on the face or lack of hair on the face and now Gender.

Really people is this really such an important issue that we show lack of respect and love for each other on these forums.

Church policy changes every five years. Some minor changes and some major changes.

For instance. How retirement is calculated is difference in each division. No unity there.

How much a pastor is paid is different in Each division.

No Unity there either.

When we were missionaries in Africa my dad was paid $7000 per year when in the USA he was paid 4 times that amount. Inflation was high and the currency was devalued to a third its rate twice making all imports three times more expensive. Yet the income was not increased. If not for the savings my dad had from the sale our our house before we went to the mission fields we could not have lived there for long.

My point no fairness in the salaries between division. All that is policy and not biblical.

Yet if the people complained to their divisions is it fair that they be called rebels?

You seem to put Ted Wilson and the GC people up on a pedestal but remember they are just flawed human beings. We can point out errors they are making and call attention to it and you call us rebels for doing so.

I would have much more respect for Ted Wilson had he not compained for the GC president position for four years among the world church.

If the world church had chosen Ted Wilson without his lobbying for that job I would have much more respect for the man. But he is nothing more than a politician to me because of his lobbying for the job.

[ClubV12]

As James White noted when setting policies for the new Church structure. Not every detail of our endeavors is covered in the bible. Smoking is not specifically mentioned but by applying principles we can conclude it is forbidden. We apply the principles and if we find that our ideas are not in opposition to the bible, they may be considered lawful.

Leaders have been appointed based on solid bible principle. We are told to honor and obey them. They, and Sister White, recognized that not all rules and laws work the same in every land. Practical, common sense needs to be employed in the decision making process.

There was a time when the G.C. found itself in a "micro management" situation. The early Church had the same problem, as did Moses before them! The solution was to spread the work and responsibilities to a wider group of people. 70 Elders in Moses case, deacons and such in the early Church, Conferences for the G.C.

In all cases there was a chain of command that needed to be respected. Moses was the "Supreme Court", under God obviously. The early Church was bound to honor and obey the G.C. as the "supreme court". The G.C. of our time is the "highest authority on earth", we as a people, are biblically bound to honor and obey that authority. So long as it does not conflict with a plain and clear "thus saith the Lord". A principle Paul also recognized, while he honored and obeyd the G.C. of his time.

Dialog, expressing ideas, exploring needed change were issues Moses, the early Church and we have all faced. There is a process for change that must be followed, honor and respect for authority must be maintained.

Lest you find yourself murmuring, complaining and your tent pitched next to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Consider very carefully how you protest.

We should honor and respect the leader of our people REGARDLESS of how he was elected, regardless of what we think of his policies.

Paul honored and respected a clearly corrupt High Priest simply because the bible told him to honor the leader of his people.

[debbym]

2 questions emerge,

do we put the concept of masculine authority over feminine authority above the work of the holy spirit,

or is the Spirit in submission to the concept of masculine authority over female authority.

it seems some believe if the Holy Spirit works through feminine authority over masculine individuals then God is subverting males.

apparently some males feel their masculine authority is violated if a feminine person is in a position of authority.

and apparently some males find their spiritual experience is not in any way hindered or stressed or violated if a feminine person is exercising leadership.

if spiritual leadership and spiritual authority is through the power of the Holy Spirit and not through the power of the flesh in any way, why is there a conflict.

if i am reading words that lead me to know, love, and serve God better, i may not know the gender but i can be lead through the Holy Spirit just that same whatever the source.

when a leader is leading my relationship to the Voice of the Holy Spirit is what is significant, not my emotions relative to femininity or masculinity.

i suspect this showing up as an emotional issue.

[ClubV12]

Debbym says,

"do we put the concept of masculine authority over feminine authority above the work of the holy spirit,"

We hear that a lot. I'm not sure what that means, help me out here.

Are you suggesting those who oppose W.O. are not led by the Holy Spirit and those who DO support W.O. are led the Holy Spirit?

Are you suggesting that each of us, independant one from another, should be led by the H.S. and every man should do as he/she feels see's fit?

Are you suggesting the H.S. does not lead those who are appointed to leadership?

What does it mean when people say that? Does it mean it's OK to ignore the Church Board because YOU are being led by the Holy Spirit and they aren't? OK to ignore the Pastor? OK to disregard the requirements of Church membership or baptism?

What DOES this being "led by the Holy Spirit" actually mean?

[olger]

I think it is a biblical issue at its heart Deb. I confess however, I have seen much more emotive 'reasoning' among liberals when it comes to this topic. Such is the curse of liberalism - also in the political realm.

But, back to the biblical aspects. If we say that the Bible doesn't mean what it says regarding male leadership, then we have just given ourselves permission to be editors of the Word.

If the statements regarding female submission in Corinthians are cultural, then the rebuke against tongues and incest with your father's wife can also be cultural. We have given ourselves permission to 'edit' the Word.

We can go to Leviticus 20 where it says a man shall not lie with another man (sexually) and edit that out of the Bible - after all we are the editor. That is what is happening currently - pro-gay individuals are inventing new interpretations of these passages, saying "well that doesn't mean what it says.." They - in their foolish pride - have become editor of the Bible.

Rightly dividing the Word of truth leads to life, taking away from the Bible leads to unspeakable consequences, according to Jesus Himself.

Rejoice in the Truth!

G

[Tom Wetmore]

All paths lead to homophobia for you , don't they? Amazing actually!

[BobRyan]

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2013/10/31/fraternity-welcomes-woman

[CoAspen]

Well, not really amazing, just samo-samo!

[olger]

All paths lead to homophobia for you , don't they? Amazing actually!

Thanks for your suggestion, Tom. In answer, no it doesn't. Just one point along a binary decline. According to NYT, polyamory is the next big thing.

rejoice always!

G

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

All paths lead to homophobia for you , don't they? Amazing actually!

Thanks for your suggestion, Tom. In answer, no it doesn't. Just one point along a binary decline. According to NYT, polyamory is the next big thing.

rejoice always!

G

"According to" prognostications have more often been wrong than right.

Life and the issue at hand is far more complex than a simple binary path of decline.

[phkrause]

IMHO this was all a "done deal" the moment Daniel Jackson took the helm of the NAD and his "little talk" to the LSU faculty about punishing pastors that dared to speak up against by-faith-alone-evolutionism at LSU.

So Bob are you accusing the president of the NAD of something?

[olger]

Jackson is absolutely complicit. That is obvious.

[Naomi]