Phoebe, a leader in the New Testament Church

[Mark Leslie]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

So the RCC have it correct is what I hear you saying!

 

I don't know what you mean, but as the adage goes, even a stopped clock is right at least twice a day.

[B/W Photodude]

5 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

The Godhead itself is based on the concept of "Headship Theology".  In fact, the earthly marriage is patterned after the Headship construct found in the Godhead.  

If you look at the "social structure" in heaven, there is very much a situation where some are leaders and some are followers. Even the angels were under the leadership of Lucifer and delighted to do his bidding. The problem came when Lucifer became jealous of his own role of being under someone else and rebelled. Headship is very much a part of heaven and earth (including the earth before the fall). There are excellent sermons on line that give even more examples of pre fall headship. 

It is even codified into the 10 Commandments for children and if you meditate on the 10 commandments as we are instructed to do, you will find many situations of headship with instructions to respect and follow those in leadership. Supposedly, EGW was the prophet and "ordained" as a minister with some even calling her the founder of the church (I do not subscribe to all those sentiments), but when the "leadership" sent her around the world, she submitted to their requests. And I believe she was blessed for it, I know I am because some of her very good books were written while over seas.

So, I find all this turmoil over women's ordination concerning because, even though many claim the Holy Spirit "called them", I do not see it and it more in the model of behavior displayed by Lucifer. 

All that said, there are many traits of character on either side of the headship relationship that needs to be developed and others that need to be overcome. But the lure of power is a very strong attractant to a sinful heart."Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[B/W Photodude]

On February 26, 2018 at 11:49 AM, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

The very idea of a woman spending thousands of dollars going through college and seminary with the sole goal of being a woman in a male-dominated UNDERPAID field is ludicrous and nonsensical.

That's funny right there! Many women spend equal numbers of thousands of dollars on college/grad school degrees in Women's Studies only to get out and complain that there are not enough women in the STEM fields! So, after all that education, they become qualified to ask, "Do you want fries with that!"

While the numbers of men in the universities is now much less than women (40-60 ratio), the men seem to be choosing fields where they can actually get paid well.

("That's funny right there" is just a redneck saying! Thanks, Larry the CableGuy!) 

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

So, I find all this turmoil over women's ordination concerning because, even though many claim the Holy Spirit "called them", I do not see it and it more in the model of behavior displayed by Lucifer. 

Finally we have the 'truth'! The above quote says the poster know the minds and hearts of others, in this case women, and calls them out as being followers of Satan. To model the behavior of someone is trying to be like that person/being. I will just say it, such an belief being attributed to women doing Gods work on earth, I find utterly disgusting and uncalled for. I will let others read the post and decide for themselves just who is exhibiting the distasteful  behavior.

[CoAspen]

Needs repeating.....

Quote

One thing already said numerous times before that I alluded to above... The evidence of the call of God to ministry. That would be a supremely important Godly purpose. It is one of the most significant  things that is identified, based on Scripture and EGW’s writings,  as proof of the call to ministry as a prerequisite to ordination. Souls brought to Christ in baptism.  It is applied to men claiming a call to ministry before they can be ordained.  Yet for all the women that have brought many souls to Christ in baptism, it is ignored by those that are unwilling to approve of women as ministers. As if it never happened. Ever.  Blind to the obvious. TW 3/7/18

 

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

Of course this statement is utterly ridiculous. The Godhead itself is based on the concept of "Headship Theology".  In fact, the earthly marriage is patterned after the Headship construct found in the Godhead.  The marriage is said to be a microcosm of community and of society itself. Astute individuals can see the obvious extension to the Church hierarchy. As far back as the Garden, we see that God Himself first approached Adam after the Fall. Not each of them together - but Adam. "Adam, where are you"? 

Adam was the leading representative of Earth. He was the one held responsible. The same is true today in the Church. Anything stated otherwise is simply, heresy.

I am not going to dignify the rest of your post with an answer.

Mark Leslie, Your statement is true for Muslims or Augustinian/Calvinists and maybe some other religions or sections of Christianity. However we are Seventh-day Adventists and this is not true for Mrs. White's view of the law and the issues of the Great Controversy.  For Mrs. White the law of God is self sacrificing/self renouncing love.  Her view of the trinity has each member is submission to the other with none taking submission without giving it to the others. Her view of Satan's lies is that Satan claims that God is lying when he says that he lives by the law of self sacrificing love, that there is actually a hierarchy, that God has imposed a law upon us that is NOT a reflection of his character, that he does NOT keep and that therefore God's law is hostile to us as it allows God to be a tyrant.

Now religions such as the Muslims and the Augustinians/Calvinists agree that God is a tyrant, but that he is a benevolent tyrant who only cares for us to have the best. He is a loving tyrant. Yes he does not keep his law of self sacrificing love/self renouncing love, that is only imposed on creatures because God knows what is best for his creatures. But to Mrs. White's philosophy this would make Satan win the great controversy.

As for your quote of God addressing Adam; don't forget that that means "mankind" and that God was addressing both of them with the question (according to Hebrew scholars talking about the syntax.)

[B/W Photodude]

You are starting to remind me of my ex-wife. Always saying I said something I didn't!

Quote

The above quote says the poster know the minds and hearts of others, in this case women, and calls them out as being followers of Satan.

I in no way said I knew anyone's mind as that is not even possible. I am not yet ready to claim being on a level with God as it is even an accomplishment Lucifer was unable to do.

I also did not use the name "Satan." I tend to see Lucifer/Satan in three stages - pre-sin, struggling with sin, and given over to sin. Lucifer is to me still in the range of redeemable. Simplistic maybe, but I still see him as able to turn back to God. God likely said to him "turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die." And so, at this time, disobedient members of the church to what God wills are still able to repent and return. 

I have seen many postings castigating Ted Wilson over the ordination issue, but no one in the WO movement will acknowledge that the church as a whole voted and by continuing to be disobedient and fomenting of rebellion that they are disobedient to God thru disunity. And they cannot see it. It is like where Jesus said that they would receive a belief so that He would not have to heal them so they could be saved.

There are examples in the Bible where someone came along and claimed to be speaking on behalf of God. "He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him." I Kings 13:18

What I clearly wrote was "So, I find all this turmoil over women's ordination concerning because, even though many claim the Holy Spirit "called them", I do not see it and it is more in the model of behavior displayed by Lucifer." And I will stand by it. It has nothing less than amazed me the things done in the church in recent years. I will not start naming off the different pastors and their misdeeds. But what I do believe is that the Holy Spirit does not call people into positions that create chaos and division. I also do not believe that what is happening in the church right now in the NAD is anything at all inspired by God and in fact seems specifically designed to draw the attention of the church away from what it's duty in these times should be.

Quote

I find utterly disgusting and uncalled for. I will let others read the post and decide for themselves just who is exhibiting the distasteful  behavior.

You can be as disgusted as you want. I prefer not to be disgusted, but more saddened by what I see being done to the divisions of what is western civilzation – NAD, European, and Australian divisions. These divisions are seriously not doing the work that has been given to us. We do not even come close. I fear for those in these divisions and down to and including myself for is going to be required of us in the day of judgement. And for those who from this day and age fail and are judged, there will be a fearsome penalty to be paid in the lake of fire. Jesus talked about those who dreamed of seeing what the disciples got to see. But I would submit that all thru history, people have dreamed of being where we are today with the knowledge that we have. Can you not imagine how enviable a position we are in, to be standing at the doorway of eternity with the knowledge we have and how disappointed the "kings and priests" will be when they judge those who failed to use wisely all the gifts we have been blessed with, because it was just "more important" to get into power struggles for control of the church. That kind of behavior belongs in the back hallways of the church of Babylon, not in God's church.

I do realize that many will not like what I said, but then that is the way it goes when you have a divide. And don't forget, Jesus noted that He did not come in peace, but with a sword.

[B/W Photodude]

30 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Your friend, Crying Larry K does that for you.

You can do better than that! Actually, I have never heard a sermon on WO by Larry K.

30 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I have not seen any women here acting anything like Lucifer.

I was not speaking of any women "here."

30 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

What a hole you have dug for yourself this time my friend. 

Actually, I have not dug myself any holes.

Not saying I made any points with anyone, but that is life.

It is not a popularity contest!

[B/W Photodude]

13 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

You cannot discern the thoughts and intents of anyone's heart here.

I think I very clearly stated that I could not and did not read anyone's heart. I also noted that behaviors were consistent with someone else's.

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Only God's Word does that, and each person from god's Church must read it, and come to that kind of conclusion for themselves.

So, if I read God's word and come to a conclusion that isn't to your liking, I am wrong?

18 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

 ...  well, take a look at your signature for more info.

Better yet, read my post again slowly and carefully, then read the caption under my profile name!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

So, if I read God's word and come to a conclusion that isn't to your liking, I am wrong?

nope... *anyone's* conclusion based on subjective analysis may or may not be right.  I guess it's all in the manner in which a conclusion is presented, as to whether or not anyone else will come to the same conclusion, or be swayed by one's announced conclusion.

just imho

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

"I think" is quite right, because you certainly dont appear to know. You could have said a hundred sentences like that and each one you write will just dig you in your hole deeper. NO Woman ON THIS FORUM is acting like Lucifer, as you have asserted. In a subject like this; you just come across as a bully to women yapping at them like the Angry Rooster for being satanic solely on the basis of them being a woman, and wanting to do church the way they think they should.

Not really sure what your problem is Wanderer. "I think" was just a manner of speaking and was a suggestion that you read my post and see what I did write. Sorry you are struggling with it, but I can't fix everything for everybody. But happy fantasizing about me being in a hole anyway!

Actually, my Bible says we all act like Satan, which is worse than Lucifer. But God loves us anyway and is trying to save us.

[B/W Photodude]

I know I promised in a different post to not support Fulcrum7 anymore, but an article has appeared there which is a worthwhile read along with the comments. Unfortunately, some guys here on Adventistan are bound to get their knickers in a twist reading it.

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2018/3/23/adventist-journey-1972-style

[Gregory Matthews]

Folks, can we cool the talk a bit?

As to Adam:

*  Yes, in Genesis, the word Adam is often used for humanitiy, both males and females.

*  Yes, I give Adam, the male, primary responsibility for the condition that we are now in, as I think Mark Leslie said.  However, I do disagree with much that was said in that post.

As To the article in Fulcrum 7 that  Photodude  cited:

*  In that article, many words were devoted to the idea that females exceed in many areas when compared with males.

*  At one point in the article, it was pointed out that males are developing low sperm counts.

*  Well, on the contrary, I will suggest that females do not have as high a sperm count as to males!

NOTE:  In order to make the above statement, I have twisted what was actually stated in the Fulcrum 7 article.  I  just  found it funny that the article did decide to introduce sperm count into an article that is listing numerous areas in which  females exceed men.  So, do not take what I said above as to the absolute truth as to what was in the article.

 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  In order to make the above statement, I have twisted what was actually stated in the Fulcrum 7 article.  I  just  found it funny that the article did decide to introduce sperm count into an article that is listing numerous areas in which  females exceed men.  So, do not take what I said above as to the absolute truth as to what was in the article.

I know you were having a bit of fun with the article, but they were also looking at other things besides feminist influences such as general state of health. There is a wide range of ideas as to why the health of the young men in America is deteriorating. Inactivity and too much gaming certainly adds to the problem. The fear that children had over being out by themselves and stranger danger had as huge impact. Diet sure made a difference. Not many people are pointing fingers at the meat industry and the amount of hormones going into meat production, but I suspect it weighs into men's health and sperm counts along with earlier maturing ages of young girls. Girls are also know to reach puberty earlier when there is no father in the home. Absence of father has not figured into the health of boys that I have read other than no exercise and sitting around with a sedentary life and poor diet.

One source of the problem could be, but it is a raging debate at present: https://www.anabolicmen.com/soy-and-testosterone/

[Gregory Matthews]

   

 

[CoAspen]

The topic was about Phoebe, yet the denigration of women in general and those seeking to be pastors, continues. We then get the 'play with words' in order to say, "I didn't say that". We have a little to much protest asthe obvious of that actuality . Greg I remember history when people stood around silent about issue/s. Since it seems to be okay for that to be repeated over and over, I will continue to voice my displeasure.

 

[Mark Leslie]

On 3/27/2018 at 7:07 PM, CoAspen said:

The topic was about Phoebe, yet the denigration of women in general and those seeking to be pastors, continues. We then get the 'play with words' in order to say, "I didn't say that". We have a little to much protest asthe obvious of that actuality . Greg I remember history when people stood around silent about issue/s. Since it seems to be okay for that to be repeated over and over, I will continue to voice my displeasure.

 

Thats funny. The motivating factor behind the WO push is the use of the passage about Phobe, so lets be honest here.  And, even its true that someone "denigrates women", (Not saying anyone has) as you say - it still doesn't take away the fact that Womens Ordination cannot be demonstrated Biblically, either in principle, or in practice. WO guys just like to turn it into something that it is not. "All those against WO are woman bashers", then if you state your protest against it, you become a woman basher. Its an age old tactic called a straw man argument and WO proponents have used it from day one.

And by the way, I havent seen you silent at all. I have seen some pretty strong disapproval - and outright condemnations in your own posts.

 

 

[Mark Leslie]

On 3/7/2018 at 6:22 AM, Tom Wetmore said:

The whole of Mark’s dismissive condemnation is also, IMHO, a disingenuous indication of unwillingness to actually engage in the effort to seriously consider the wealth of information, and evidence from Scripture and EGW, and evidence of Gods calling of women, that supports women in ministry and leadership in the Church.  It is a fallacious reductionsitic argument frequently employed by opposers. It puts blinders on and makes it sound like absolutely nothing else has been said on the topic. It leaves out context. It pretends that whatever narrow point is targeted by the observation is the only and best point in support of the issue at hand.

One thing already said numerous times before that I alluded to above... The evidence of the call of God to ministry. That would be a supremely important Godly purpose. It is one of the most significant  things that is identified, based on Scripture and EGW’s writings,  as proof of the call to ministry as a prerequisite to ordination. Souls brought to Christ in baptism.  It is applied to men claiming a call to ministry before they can be ordained.  Yet for all the women that have brought many souls to Christ in baptism, it is ignored by those that are unwilling to approve of women as ministers. As if it never happened. Ever.  Blind to the obvious. 

Tom, I dont agree that I have been "dismissive".  I have put a lot of time and thought into this subject. I have stated clearly my reasons for rejecting WO. I don't think anyone can call my responses or position “dismissive”.

I do not believe that your statement "disingenuous indication of unwillingness to engage" is accurate either, to say nothing of the fact that you assume my level of understanding of this subject. It is amazing the patience that those concerned with the forcing of the WO issue have shown while carefully setting forth demonstrable facts as to why.

What I think you really take issue with is my (our) unwillingness to see things “your way”. In that assessment, you would be correct. However it is not without a rational and systematic approach to the question of Women's Ordination. It certainly isn't because of a "disingenuous indication of unwillingness to engage". Care has been taken countless times explaining why we reject it - and the reasoning is Biblical.

Finally, you have misstated a material fact. Not once has anyone that I know of (Respected theologians, and leaders in the Seventh Day Adventist Church) have ever said that women should not be in ministry in the church. It has never been said that women cannot take leadership roles. Leading one to Christ, or in healthful living for example, is in fact,”leading”. Leading a Sabbath school class, is a leadership role, for example. We have women leading specialized ministries and outreach programs in our church. None of this has ever been condemned as far as I can see. These are obvious facts. Therefore, It doesn't appear to me that WO proponents are concerned about women ministering, but rather that they cannot be ordained. What you do is muddy the waters, and confuse the issue. Ministry and Ordination do not equate to the same thing, so lets be honest here. Its not about “ministering” at all.

There is virtually no mention or platform describing the necessity of women ordination being crucial to the development of outreach, which is the primary function of the church. The reason is that it would be ludicrous to attempt such an argument for the simple fact that women are not denied the opportunity to serve the Lord in any means to reach the lost. The fact is that Pastorship or Eldership over the Church is not a requirement to be an active participant in the forwarding of the Gospel. If women would focus on that, and if men in support of WO would focus on that there would be absolutely no time left in a day to worry about “titles”.

What has been stated is that Women in Pastorship and Eldership positions cannot be demonstrated Biblically, neither in principal, nor in practice. It simply cannot. Do women pastor? Yes they do, because ultimately leading someone in right living for the Lord is, in fact, “pastoring”. However, that is a distinctly different role than that of being in the position of Pastor or Elder over the flock itself – regardless of whether or not the term “ordination” is appreciated.

Women's Ordination in either of the two roles as Pastor or Elder over the flock is neither Biblical in principle, nor is it Biblical in practice.

I think all of this has been enunciated, repeated and reiterated multitudinous times.

As a final note to your suggestion of reading the article by Darius Jankiewicz, I took time to do that today. I thought that surely there must be something compelling in the article that could lead a critical thinker to give cause for pause - after all, there was so much ballyhoo about it. However, It was anticlimactic. I got the impression that the author doesn't appreciate the difference between research, and speculation. I was disappointed. You should be too because although it may make you feel good, it is not flattering to your position as a serious treatise in support of the subject of WO.

One thing I can say was good about it. The first paragraph was a nice, quick outline of the book of Romans!

[Tom Wetmore]

Thanks for reinforcing my points. Dismissive indeed...

Only one further response...

4 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

What has been stated is that Women in Pastorship and Eldership positions cannot be demonstrated Biblically, neither in principal, nor in practice. It simply cannot. Do women pastor? Yes they do, because ultimately leading someone in right living for the Lord is, in fact, “pastoring”. However, that is a distinctly different role than that of being in the position of Pastor or Elder over the flock itself – regardless of whether or not the term “ordination” is appreciated.

Covered numerous times already, including Biblical evidence regarding the role ( and "position", although that is a distinction without a difference) of women as elders and pastors... While not specifically "Biblical" there is this from Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 322, regarding pastors "over the flock itself" [your words] (although I would contend that "over" is the wrong word choice for the role in question...) - 

"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." [emphasis added]

And from Acts of the Apostles, p. 162...

"At a later time the rite of ordination by the laying on of hands was greatly abused; unwarranted importance was attached to the act..."  I would only add to that by expanding the verb in both clauses to the present tense as well.

 

[Mark Leslie]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Thanks for reinforcing my points. Dismissive indeed...

Only one further response...

Covered numerous times already, including Biblical evidence regarding the role ( and "position", although that is a distinction without a difference) of women as elders and pastors... While not specifically "Biblical" there is this from Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 322, regarding pastors "over the flock itself" [your words] (although I would contend that "over" is the wrong word choice for the role in question...) - 

"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." [emphasis added]

And from Acts of the Apostles, p. 162...

"At a later time the rite of ordination by the laying on of hands was greatly abused; unwarranted importance was attached to the act..."  I would only add to that by expanding the verb in both clauses to the present tense as well.

 

Maybe you should re-examine the definition of "dismissive".  I, and the majority of others familiar with this debate have listened to and weighed all of the arguments in favor of WO. Therefore, your belief to the contrary is unsupported. As others have accused us of doing, you are pretending to know both our examination of the topic, and our motives. I can tell you our motives. We don't want Gods Church destroyed. There you go. Now you know. No more need for guessing.

One thing I did appreciate, a most astute comment in your post - language I fully agree with: You said the role is, and I quote "...not specifically "Biblical...".  You are correct. It is not.

In any event,  you have mischaracterized Mrs Whites writings - as WO proponents are wont to do. Reminds me of people taking Bible verses out of context, thereby causing divisions and misunderstandings.  A careful reading of those partial quotes from Mrs White that you so skillfully extracted  are incomplete without the rest of the chapter in which they occur.

A repeat of a comment in my earlier post bears repeating:

5 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

Do women pastor? Yes they do, because ultimately leading someone in right living for the Lord is, in fact, “pastoring”. However, that is a distinctly different role than that of being in the position of Pastor or Elder over the flock itself – regardless of whether or not the term “ordination” is appreciated.

And that is precisely what Mrs White meant and this can be further supported by her understanding of Church leadership in many of her other writings.

Out of context statements do a fine job of creating doubt in the minds of the uninitiated, I'll give you that.

[Gregory Matthews]

To state what I have stated before:  The Biblical issue is not about ordination of females.  Rather it is the role that females should have in spiritual development.

In an earlier post, Mark Leslie said in a quote below:

I will suggest that her comment is not fully accurate.  I will illustrate.  How many people against female ordination would support Dr. Roberts as the President of the South Eastern California Conference if she would agree to be issued the credentials of a Commissioned Minister?

Many, even if not all, opposed to the ordination of women are against women in specific leadership roles.  Some do not want women on the platform in any capacity.

 

Finally, you have misstated a material fact. Not once has anyone that I know of (Respected theologians, and leaders in the Seventh Day Adventist Church) have ever said that women should not be in ministry in the church. It has never been said that women cannot take leadership roles. Leading one to Christ, or in healthful living for example, is in fact, ”leading”. Leading a Sabbath school class, is a leadership role, for example. We have women leading specialized ministries and outreach programs in our church. None of this has ever been condemned as far as I can see. These are obvious facts. Therefore, It doesn't appear to me that WO proponents are concerned about women ministering, but rather that they cannot be ordained. What you do is muddy the waters, and confuse the issue. Ministry and Ordination do not equate to the same thing, so lets be honest here. Its not about “ministering” at all.

[CoAspen]

Quote

We don't want Gods Church destroyed.-ML

One can then be lead to believe, based on prior rhetoric, that having women 'ordained' to be leaders in the church, pastor a church, leader over men including the .org is 'destroying Gods Church'. What is always missing in such an argument, is that Christ never spoke about a .org when refering to His Church but rather to those that followed Him. The RCC, however, does teach that Christ did just exactly that when speaking to Peter. That is the basis of their theology and is has crept in the the SDA .org from time to time...'headship'. I find it very interesting that after all we have taught about  'following after the beast', with the meaning being used most often to describe the RCC, there are some choosing to do that within the .org however unwittingly or just ignoring the parallels.

[CoAspen]

The bigger issue to me, is that man seems to believe, he the human, has the sole right to 'ordain'.......

 ordain1 make (someone) a priest or minister; confer holy orders on.

Again, humans desiring to take the role of God  in leading others to Him. Did Christ not come to destroy that myth? Would He walk down the isle to congratulate those who condemn the women claiming to be following the voice of God and bringing others to Him? ( fruits of their labor) I, for one, am not going to interfere with the leading of the HS. Talk about 'out of context', is that not the usual happening with human interpretation of scripture when desiring to prove a certain point. 

I wonder how many people really believe God is in control or that humans have to help Him......in order that others will have 'correct' understanding?

[CoAspen]

Wanderer.....you argue a point that was not being addressed. We/I are taking about 'womens ordination', under the quise of 'headship' being the rule.

[B/W Photodude]

11 hours ago, Mark Leslie said:

In any event,  you have mischaracterized Mrs Whites writings - as WO proponents are wont to do. Reminds me of people taking Bible verses out of context, thereby causing divisions and misunderstandings.  A careful reading of those partial quotes from Mrs White that you so skillfully extracted  are incomplete without the rest of the chapter in which they occur.

Taking EGW out of context has been happening since the days of QOD. Here is a quote I posted in another thread:

 Froom wrote up the initial set of replies to Walter Martin’s initial set of questions. Twenty pages in length, they were handed to Martin at the next meeting, and he stayed up till 2 A.M. that night going over them. Those of you who have read in Leroy Edwin Froom’s books (Movement of Destiny is a good example) will know that Froom was an expert at marshalling words to say what he wanted them to say. As Elder Ralph Larson so ably pointed out in Documentary Fraud [FF-261, Froom could even take bits and pieces from a collection of Spirit of Prophecy quotations-and make them say exactly the opposite of what they originally said) He was a master at subtle verbal restatement.
 

< https://adventistan.com/forums/topic/72558-desmond-ford-a-relook/?tab=comments#comment-770465 >

The quote came from:

https://heraldsofthemorn.com/tag/m-l-andreasen/

This is one of the reasons I do not like compilations of quotes from EGW. They put her name on the book, but the sentiment or argument was not hers.

FWIW, I am sure that people have been misquoting EGW since the beginning of the church, but the book QOD seems to have had a serious impact on the church and could even be said to have been the original inspiration for a number of heresies.