WO issue not only in SDA church

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The LDS church is right in the midst of the Women's Ordination conflict.  And it seems a WHOLE lot more contentious than in the Adventist church.

 

I've been reading the comments of my LDS friends who are posting on Facebook.  Apparently the Mormon equivalent of the SDA General Conference Session is being held now.  And one of the big issues is letting women be involved in the various "male only" meetings.

 

Some women have abided by the wishes of the church Elders and Prophet, and do not attempt to gain any footholds in the ministry; while others have challenged the entry into the temples, and succeeded in getting seats in the assembly.

 

It's really rather interesting.  Some of the men took photos of the "event" where the ladies were seated amongst the men, and posted comments - and not one was retaliatory or condemning in nature.  But whether that's because the LDS men do not fear having women in their midst, or because they do not want to publicly state their anti-WO views is not known...

 

But it's fascinating to watch, against the backdrop of the SDA WO issue - the Adventist church is light years ahead of the LDS church in this issue.  (Not sure if pro-WO SDA women did any activism, such as the Mormon ladies picketing the church..)

[hch]

But Seventh-day Adventists should be presenting to the world the correct view on this issue.

 

Not following the lead of churches that do not stand firmly on the Bible.

 

"Rightly dividing the word of truth"

 

Will there be any women in the 144,000?

And it is written:

Revelation 1:6 "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father;

to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

Revelation 5:10 "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."

Either there are no women among the redeemed cited above

or there is something that we do not understand about the "role of women in the Remnant Church"

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

hch, there is absolutely NO need to be posting the same thing to two different threads... when that is done, the posting begins to smack of spamming..

 

The purpose for *this* thread was to point out the fact that the SDA church is not the only denomination to be experiencing the issue of WO in the church...

 

it has absolutely nothing to do with the 144,000...

[Kevin H]

But Seventh-day Adventists should be presenting to the world the correct view on this issue.

 

Not following the lead of churches that do not stand firmly on the Bible.

 

"Rightly dividing the word of truth"

 

The problem is that there are 3 camps or arguments. One camp supports women's ordination, but they are in churches which do not stand firmly on the Bible. They are the arguments that the second camp, those who oppose women's argument, look at and limit the discussion to those arguments and equate supporting women's ordination with liberal theology and their lack of a firm standing on the Bible. However the third camp is that in recent decades there has been more knowledge of the Bible. The understanding of the significance of the blue thread in the clothes that the Pentateuch commanded the people to wear. Other Old Testament arguments that I am not proficient enough in to clearly share. The debate over women's ordination in Jesus' day and the story of Mary and Martha in light of that debate. Studies in the Acts and writings of Paul, such as the linguistics of Pricilla and Aquila. Finally, the big key texts used against Women's Ordination has some major contextual problems (both linguistic and cultural) that indicate that those who use them against ordaining women are taking the texts out of context and is akin to using the thief on the cross story to say that the dead go right to heaven.

[hch]

hch, there is absolutely NO need to be posting the same thing to two different threads... when that is done, the posting begins to smack of spamming..

 

The purpose for *this* thread was to point out the fact that the SDA church is not the only denomination to be experiencing the issue of WO in the church...

 

it has absolutely nothing to do with the 144,000...

 

I never imagined that repeating myself could smack of spamming.

But rather that If a post gets missed on one thread a similar post on a different thread may get noticed.

 

And of course, there is the question

why it is necessary to start a new thread on a topic that has several threads already?

Is there a need of 53 threads on Woman" Ordination?

 

And addressing the issue rejected

 

Does the composition of men and women priests in the 144,000 have anything to do with WO?

 

It is written:

 

Matthew 6:10  "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

 

Is God's will in Heaven to have women priests different in earth before the saints go to Heaven?

 

Matthew 16:19  "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:

and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:

and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

Is that to say if we do not allow women priests on earth, God will not allow them in Heaven?

 

So is the teaching of the LDS supposed to guide the SDA?

Or is the Bible our guidebook?

 

If the Bible is our guidebook,

what difference does it make

what is going on in other religious groups?

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Here is why it is relevant what is happening among the LDS and other Christian subgroups, other religions and even among secular people. The prophet Joel quoted by Peter at Pentecost said that the spirit will be poured out on all flesh. That excludes nobody. The metaphor is the outpouring the latter rain. Jesus also described God causing the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike. The response to rain varies as we all know. Rain can sustain life or destroy it and everything in between. It depends on the substance of what it falls on. Of people, some dance in the rain, others huddle under umbrellas, afraid to get wet.

In real terms, the spirit is moving on the earth. That people all over the earth are opening up to consider the role and status of women should tell you something. There will be wide variance in response. I think we should pay attention.

(And to understand why your 144,000 quote is off topic and unhelpful, see my response in the other thread.)

[Sojourner]

Bear in mind that the LDS consider their priesthood to be the continuation of the Levitical Priesthood, none of which were female. So its a much bigger change for them than anyone else. Still, they openly suggest that any time the book of Mormon is in conflict with the Christian Bible that the Book of Mormon over rules it.

[hch]

Here is why it is relevant what is happening among the LDS and other Christian subgroups, other religions and even among secular people. The prophet Joel quoted by Peter at Pentecost said that the spirit will be poured out on all flesh. That excludes nobody. The metaphor is the outpouring the latter rain. Jesus also described God causing the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike. The response to rain varies as we all know. Rain can sustain life or destroy it and everything in between. It depends on the substance of what it falls on. Of people, some dance in the rain, others huddle under umbrellas, afraid to get wet.

In real terms, the spirit is moving on the earth. That people all over the earth are opening up to consider the role and status of women should tell you something. There will be wide variance in response. I think we should pay attention.

(And to understand why your 144,000 quote is off topic and unhelpful, see my response in the other thread.)

 

But alas I failed to click on the follow button when I posted there

and though I have waded through 8 pages of current topics

I could not find the "other thread" of which you speak.

 

Should I stumble upon it, I will read how to forebear from casting my unhelpful pearls abroad

[Tom Wetmore]

(You have highlighted a reason to not spam multiple topics with the same message...) The topic in questioning the WO right next to this one and is the one you just posted a response in to the very point. But I think you knew that already...