When was this over turned?

[Stan]

“Resolved, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry” (Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1881).

 

[Ron Lambert]

It has never been overturned. Some anti-WO people claim that the resolution was referred to the General Conference Executive Committee, which then "did not act on it." However, as Tom Wetmore noted, two of the men who comprised the three-man executive committee at that time, a few years later signed the credential the General Conference issued to Ellen G. White, identifying her as an "ordained minister." So they in fact did act on it. After that, dozens of "licenses to preach" were issued to women--listed in Appendix C of Daughters of God. Since it does not appear that Ellen G. White was ordained by the laying on of hands by men, evidently they recognized that God had ordained her.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Ron Lambert

[Stan]

The thing that I have never seen talked about, I could have missed it, was denying female leaders, IRS tax benefits of Ordained Ministers, if they would not ordain..  

 

Later, I understand, other than Ordained Ministers, could qualify for the tax benefit.

 

All those in favour of continuing to use the ecclesiastical structure for the Church, initiated in the 3rd Century, as developed by the Church of Rome, should vote NO.

Keep on encouraging those to recognize the authority of the Pope by voting no to this issue. 

 

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

[Stan]

Those who want to revert back to the NT days, where every believe is a Minister.. should vote Yes.

[Kevin H]

I see a lot of politics involved that go back to the 1888 General Conference, the acceptance of the Trinity, the 1919 Bible Conference/1923 General Conference and the book Questions on Doctrine.

The ideas used against Jones and Wagner (Today they work like lawyers to make Jones and Wagner not be the enemy but believing just like them anyway). Either wanting to return to the non-Trinitarian views or even if they grudgingly accept the trinity because Elder Andresen did visit Mrs. White to ask her if she indeed became a Trinitarian and left that visit a Trinitarian himself. But in the book "Questions on Doctrine" our representatives gave a half answer to the question about who Jesus was. Elder Andresen correctly pointed out that it was only a half answer and reminded them of the other half of the answer.

A couple of popular preachers included Elders Washburn and Wilkinson,  never accepted the trinity. Many liked their theology but would balance what they taught with the information that Elder Andresen gave thus there was an uneasy accepting of the trinity. They latched on to the half of the truth about Jesus that was missed in Questions on Doctrine and have made this into the whole truth.  The half of the truth they focus on is Jesus' humanity and his victory through works. They are demanding that the church either gives up the trinity or if they don't give up the trinity to only see that half truth about Jesus that they have been teaching.

They also like unquestioning obedience. They like to give a quote that they like and expect you to just obey. They don't like the issues that Elder Daniels and W. W. Prescott brought up in 1919. They want the 1923 General conference to become the norm and even more intense as they would like us to follow the views of Elders Washburn and Wilkinson in 1923 instead of the more moderate Fundamentalist views of Stephen Haskell that most of the church followed in 1923.

If they can get headship theology and submission into the church's agenda, Then they can get this equal but lesser view of Jesus and end up having us submit to their version of Adventism.