Leaderboard

What qualified E. White was the Work of the Holy Spirit in her and through her. What qualifies men to serve in the Lord's work is the same. We may grow up as boys and girls looking up to men and women who have been great leaders and aspire to serve as they served. How mistaken that boys should say because i am a boy i can serve the Lord like this or that great man, but there there are no women leaders so no girls can serve like i can. The harvest is great the laborers are few enough. No hand should be on anyone discouraging them from stepping into the labor for souls in every level of responsibility.

Jackson, I simply remind you of the great number of studies that this denomination has done and the consistent result is that it has remain divided. As an example, consider the world-wide study that began after the 2010 General Conference. Briefly, the overall result of those studies was a conclusion that the Bible and EGW neither clearly required nor clearly prohibited the ordination of women. In a sense the position of the SDA denomination is that it is simply a matter of policy that women should not be ordained. If you want to know more about the results of those studies, read the literature that has been posted. Such will be much more comprehensive that anyone could ever post here. My personal opinion as I have often stated here is: 1) Ordination is not the fundamental Biblical (or EGW) issue. 2) The Bible says very little (perhaps nothing) about the ordination of either men or women. 3) Yes. I am aware that the Bible does mention people having hands laid upon them and God asked to give them grace to perform a spiritual mission. But, ordination is more than simply this. We do that when we Commission men (Yes we commission men.) and women. 4) Rather, the fundamental Biblical issue is the role that women should have in spiritual nuture. 5) Either women should have such a public role, or they should not. 6) If women should not have such a role, they should not be local elders and deacons/deaconesses. 7) If women should not have the role of a local Conference President, as policy says, they should not be a General Conference Vice-President as has happened. 8) If women should not be a local Conference President, one should not have been the President of the Iowa Conference as happened, for a short period of time many years ago. 9) In my personal opinion, God has demonstrated, both during World War 2 and in China during present times, that women can take spiritual leadership. 10) As a denomination, the religious world can not understand how we would have a female as a co-founder and yet attempt to deny ordination to women. I agree with this. I would have to reject, which I do not do, EGW in the role that she took in the development of our denomination if I were to take the positon that others have taken against the role that females should have.

See: http://atoday.org/why-were-we-silent/

If there is no risk when revealing a true, very personal experience, then it has less impact on those with whom it might resonate and help. Most people have worries, fears, and things that have happened to them that they would like to share, but are afraid that maybe: 1. no one will listen 2. no one will care 3. nobody else will understand Those are very real and understandable concerns. If one doesn't care what others think about a deeply personal experience, then why bother to share it at all? The element of "risk" gives the listener (or reader) a way to connect on a deeper level with the person who is sharing. Sharing an extremely personal story isn't the same as sharing a recipe for, say, making ice cubes.

Jackson: Probably few understand that great number of women who have had major roles in spiritual nuture. The following URL will list many of them. http://www.adventistwomensministries.org/index.php?id=58 Included in the list is the woman who was, for a short period of time, the President of the Iowa Conference. Her name was Flora Plummer (1862 - 1945). Are you also aware that Phyllis Ware once served as a Conference President, again for a short period of times, and more recently?

i have not been reading this thread, and glanced through it today. I hope you will be ok HCH, as time rolls on, and what you have believed is not proven as you expect.

That's not an accurate representation of what we've said. Many for decades have been saying terrible things about Mr. Obama. Nothing new. Some details are distinctly yours, but it is your very peculiar method of prophetic interpretation which really stands alone. As others have noted, it is very convoluted and heavily relies on circular reasoning. In other words, it isn't reasonable.

See: http://atoday.org/my-take-the-non-immortality-of-the-churchs-soul/

The authoritarian point of view is deeply ingrained in our society. When we look at our political structures in Canada and the United States, even though we have both had federal systems, for almost 230 years in the US and for almost 150 years in Canada. Yet many people think that somehow the federal authority is the boss of the states or provinces. Many citizens of both countries do not realise that the states and provinces are sovereign within their area of jurisdiction. Here in Canada, when a province does something that people in other provinces don't like, one often hears comments like "the Prime Minister (the federal leader) shouldn't allow province X to do that", ignorant of the fact that the federal PM isn't the provincial premiers' boss, just like the US president isn't the boss of the state governors. It's the same with the church, many members think that the conference president is the boss of the church congregations, that the union president is the boss of the conference presidents, that the division president is the boss of the union presidents, that the GC president is the boss of everyone. When a district pastor is elected conference president, it's seen by many as a promotion; when a conference president is elected union president, it's seen as a promotion, etc. Maybe this attitude comes from the business world where a president is the boss of the VPs, who are the bosses of regional managers, etc. Or maybe it comes from people's view of the military where there is a Commander-in-chief and a "chain of command". I don't know. On SdA sites in the last week or two, I've seen members refer to the unions as not respecting the "chain of command" as if such a thing exists in the church.

I believe God. Sakkot blessings. Today is the First Day of Sakkot (Tabernacles) - a sabbath of rest. PS: Did you know? Sakkot was a 7days Feast. Then there was another Feast - The 8th Day (which was also a sabbath of rest. I never knew that, while I was an Adventist. Leviticus 23:34 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'On the fifteenth of this seventh month is the Feast of Booths for seven days to the LORD. 35 'On the first day is a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work of any kind. 36 'For seven days you shall present an offering by fire to the LORD. On the eighth day you shall have a holy convocation and present an offering by fire to the LORD; it is an assembly. You shall do no laborious work. (Lev 23:34 NAU) They were to "dwell in booths" for 7 days - to remember the wandering. On the 8th day, they no longer dwelt in booths - because they WERE HOME - just as we will be one day, at the 8th millennium - on this earth.

HCH said, or quoted another person as saying, below: I am totally confused by his statement: 1) Yes, one Hebrew word for lightening is "baraq." But, according to Youngs that word is never translated in the book of Isaiah as lightening. 2) The Hebrew word translated as "heights" in Isaiah 14:14 in NEITHER "baraq" nor "bama." Rather the Hebrew word used there is "bamah." 3) Yes, the two words differ by only one letter. But, that makes them two different words with different meanings. E.G. In the English language there is a major difference between the words Cat and Cato. They only differ by one letter. But they are not the same. 4) The English words heaven and heavens have been translated from multiple Hebrew words. None of those words are either the Hebrew words "baraq" or "bama." 5) I doubt that HCH claims and substantial knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. But, I will suggest that he should have investigated more deeply the source of the passage that he cited/referenced. 6) That passage, as HCH referenced it, is both confusing and factually lacking.

And the world is still Flat !! Roundness is an illusion! Bible proof...."four corners of the earth"!!!