Woody Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Wow! Your entire theory relies upon a scratch that is on one document. How did that scratch get there? No one knows yet you build a theology on it. Amazing. Wonder what a jury would think of that one. You've provided no evidence of this supposed scratch. Yet you have the nerve to poo poo the evidence shown where there are no scratches. To scratch or not to scratch - that is the question. I propose that if Ellen White knew there was a scratch on her document - she would not have carried it like she did all of the other credentials. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Who ordained her and when Woody? Your entire theory ignors the mountain of other evidence. The word AN as well as ORDINATION are crossed out on one of the three (NOT eight as you claim) documents that have been posted. Why are those words crossed out?
Woody Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Who ordained her and when Woody? Your entire theory ignors the mountain of other evidence. When you tell me who ordained James White then I will tell you who ordained Ellen White. James White held a much higher office in the church structure than Ellen did - so SURELY we MUST know who ordained James. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Woody Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 The word AN as well as ORDINATION are crossed out on one of the three (NOT eight as you claim) documents that have been posted. Why are those words crossed out? You make a lot of claims with little evidence and a lot of imagination. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Woody says, "I will tell you who ordained Ellen White." No, you won't. Another misstatement concerning the facts of this case. You don't know who ordained her, cannot prove it ever happened and have zero reliable evidence to show it happened.
Woody Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Just tell me who ordained James White and I will promise to tell you who ordained Ellen White. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 The 1885 document, "ordination" is crossed out.
Woody Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 The 1885 document, "ordination" is crossed out. I assume you are sincere. Please tell me who did this if it is true as you say. And tell me why and when. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 You can see the document on this thread, look closely and you will see the word "an" has been modified to read "a" and the word "ordination" has each individual letter with a single line drawn through it. As John317 has mentioned in variuos threads over time the church has no official document or position to recognize a prophet, which the churh of course officially recognizes Ellen White to be. In accordance with the by-laws and constitution of the official organization one cannot be paid from the TITHE unless they hold a specific office authorized to receive those and other other funds from the Conference. Which made it necessary for Ellen White to have some official document or title. There are three levels of ordination: Deacon, Elder and Pastor. Deacons and Elders have ONLY LOCAL AUTHORITY under their immediate Pastor. Adventist Pastors by right of ordination have WORLD WIDE authority. They can serve in Australia, Africa or anywhere else with no further or additional documentation as a "Minister". A local Elder or Deacon cannot, they are limited strictly to their local church in their official capacity. Ellen White needed a world wide commission, hence, a license as a "Minister" was required. One can be a Minister without being ordained, as we see in the case of Ellen White. Back to the document: I have no idea WHO did it, but it is pretty clear WHY they did it. They recognized the paper work was not accurate in terms of "ordination" but no other forms are available to cover "prophets".
ClubV12 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 This WORLD WIDE ability to serve given to a Pastor is WHY TED and NAD are amiss in their request to issue "local ordination". There is no provision within the church for a "local" ordained Minister. If TED ordained such a Minister that persons calling would remain in question, only applicable to TED, nowhere else. This defies the basic meaning of an ordained Pastor, one set aside by God to serve His church. His church is BIGGER than TED or NAD, His church is world wide. A man is called to serve God "world wide" or he isn't. What TED and NAD CAN DO is ordain a LOCAL "Elder" at most, but not a Minister. This is why the GC rejected that proposal, it would fundamentally change the meaning of what a Pastor does, serve God in all respects and in all places, with no limits on his authority from one country to the next.
CoAspen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Quote: Reality check, Ellen White is a red herring on the issue of ordination of women AND ordination by man or God. She was a prophet, her personal status is unequaled by anyone else in the Adventist church living or dead. ,,,but OK, lets beat this dead horse issue some more. We have THREE certificates, that's it, thats all we got. The suggestion that surely there must be more has no basis in fact, where are they? The weight of evidence is NOT clear on this issue and never will be. WHO were the men that actually, physically laid hands on the PROPHET to ordain her? It is inconceivable that would not be recorded somewhere by somebody. A passing comment, a footnote in a book or pamphlet, at the very least "hear say". We got NOTHING, not even a whisper. And yet, we know what she had for breakfast, what she planted in her garden, descriptions of the horses she owned. We even know what some of her traveling companions ate for dinner (bear meat in one case)!!!! Her life, find toothed comb, no stone unturned, NO WAY somebody wouldn't comment on her physcial ordination! Red herrring,,,, What does Sister White have to do with whether we should ordain the next graduatng class of Andrews University if they step forward and declare they have been called of God to the Ministry? If they are truly called of God, why do they need anybody to ordain them anyway? Just go right to work then, no worries. Or, is there actually some purpose to being physically ordained? Of course there is... Do I hear an Ostrich....the question is....how deep does an ostrich bury its head?
Woody Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 You can see the document on this thread, look closely and you will see the word "an" has been modified to read "a" and the word "ordination" has each individual letter with a single line drawn through it. As John317 has mentioned in variuos threads over time the church has no official document or position to recognize a prophet, which the churh of course officially recognizes Ellen White to be. In accordance with the by-laws and constitution of the official organization one cannot be paid from the TITHE unless they hold a specific office authorized to receive those and other other funds from the Conference. Which made it necessary for Ellen White to have some official document or title. There are three levels of ordination: Deacon, Elder and Pastor. Deacons and Elders have ONLY LOCAL AUTHORITY under their immediate Pastor. Adventist Pastors by right of ordination have WORLD WIDE authority. They can serve in Australia, Africa or anywhere else with no further or additional documentation as a "Minister". A local Elder or Deacon cannot, they are limited strictly to their local church in their official capacity. Ellen White needed a world wide commission, hence, a license as a "Minister" was required. One can be a Minister without being ordained, as we see in the case of Ellen White. Back to the document: I have no idea WHO did it, but it is pretty clear WHY they did it. They recognized the paper work was not accurate in terms of "ordination" but no other forms are available to cover "prophets". I'm sorry but I have too much respect for Ellen White to believe that she would be a party to fraud by accepting, carrying and signing fraudulent credentials. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
CoAspen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Do we have a record of who 'layed hands on' and who they touched, did they write it down, were they a reliable source, who witnessed it and can it be verified they were present, etc, etc, etc for and past dead and buried 'ministers', 'pastors', etc and if so or not, how come no one remembers??? Getting a little silly, isn't it!
ClubV12 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Not silly at all, just the facts. There is no proof she was ordained because she was not ordained! When you get some proof, lets see it. So far, you got nothing. The documents are by no means false or fraudulant. She was indeed issued credentials as an Adventist Minister. We have left the main topic SO far away, following this red herring trail I'm afraid the thread has been murdered. Ellen White's status as a prophet has little or nothing to do with whether women should be ordained or not.
Moderators Bravus Posted November 29, 2011 Moderators Posted November 29, 2011 Hang on. You said 'ordained' is scratched out on *one* of the documents Woody posted. You also said there are 3 or 4 of them. It only takes *one* document to show she was ordained. That standard of evidence has very convincingly been met. Truth is important
ClubV12 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 ....the red herring that wouldn't die. Maybe we need a NEW thread that actually deals with orginal topic. What we have Bravus, is an anomaly. One of the documents has ordained crossed out. Now this raises an interesting question. Was her ordination suspended at some point and then later re-instated? For what cause? It's a very serious thing to have that happen to a Minister. For the answer we need to consider the rest of the evidence. She herself never claimed to be ordained. We have NO reports of ANY kind by ANYBODY claiming she was ever ordained. Since early on in her experience as a prophet she was accompanied by various individuals who recorded virtually every detail of her life, for the rest of her life. Not a SINGLE WORD, in thousands of pages of documentation about her being ordained. THAT defies logic on a grand scale. Point of clarification: I hope no one thinks this a discussion concerning Ellen White being called of God and "ordained" by that authority. She certainly was a prophet in all respects. One can be called of God, a lay Pastor, preacher, evangelist, man or woman without being ordained or even recognized by man in any capacity. But you can't receive tithe as a source of income without some kind of official earthly recognition.
Woody Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Club - I believe that the supposed cross out on the ONE credential out was done many years after her death. Some activists will not give up. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 An interesting theory Woody!! Do you have any idea why this might be done? Something even close to evidence? How many years after 1885 would this have taken place? AFTER her death or while she was living? It wouldn't be the first time an idea like this has been presented with many other various documents concerning Ellen White. We DO know of a few cases of documents that were "slipped" into some drawer or conveniently placed to appear as if lost and then "discovered". Sometimes the forgeries or false documents were not discovered right away, it took some serious work, investigation and time to figure it out. Genuine forged letters, revealed and proven to be forgeries for instance doesn't happen overnight. As I recall in one case somebody actually went to jail over an issue like this! These kinds of things are done by those with a serious agenda against Ellen White that are willing to go to extreme lengths to discredit her. Nothing new there, "celebrities" and important people have to be very vigelant about this sort of thing. The records, from early on in her ministry, were carefully watched over and gaurded. It is doubtful this document was altered because of the intense security surrounding her work. But following your logic, may I propose, why an alteration at all? Lets throw out there the possibility that ALL the Minister documents have been altered or even forged. That the credibility of those in charge of security was SO lax and irresponsible none of the official records can be trusted. :)
Stan Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 The real question needs to include. LEADERSHIP. How are the men doing This action is not about female ordination. What we need is vision, too many places have a ZERO growth, and yes those places hAe men for a leader.... Deal with the real issue of leadership. If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com
ClubV12 Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 You know, for ME, this is not a "game", I don't have some need to "win" or "loose" this discussion. As with MANY discussions on this forum it is nothing more than a search for truth, sincerely. I want to PROVE all things, hold fast that which is good. Most folks "want" to believe in others so badly they are willing to leave reason and logic at the door and simply believe whatever their friend says. This may be a Christian web site, but it's still the "internet". I don't believe anything I read on the internet without thinking about it first! I DID believe Ellen White was ordained when this thread started. A reasonable, logical review of the puported evidence fails to "prove" that. I would accept as standard less than "reasonable doubt". I would accept a preponderance of evidence. But there are to many glaring and obvious issues that cannot be resolved.
Moderators Bravus Posted November 29, 2011 Moderators Posted November 29, 2011 The point is, I think, that given how ambiguous the evidence is, no-one (yes, including me) should be making strong claims in either direction. I don't think anyone is in a position to say definitively, beyond reasonable doubt that she either was or was not ordained. My own view is that on the balance of probabilities (the lesser standard of evidence required in civil cases) she was, but I'm not dogmatic about it. To some extent I agree with you, ClubV12, that 'was EGW ordained?' is a red herring: she was anomalous. I personally don't find the texts adduced to forbid women's ordination to be compelling, because they are being pulled out of context. Texts about women not speaking in church are right next to texts about women covering their heads in church, and some want to apply one without the other? Truth is important
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted November 29, 2011 Administrators Posted November 29, 2011 You can see the document on this thread, look closely and you will see the word "an" has been modified to read "a" and the word "ordination" has each individual letter with a single line drawn through it. I shall now weave a conspiracy theory for you, since wild-eyed speculation literally making something of nothing seems to be perfectly acceptable and sufficient to prove whatever you want to believe. Set aside any rational thought. No need to worry if it makes sense or not. That standard is not needed any more. I have looked carefully at the original in the White Estate vault. The marks are in pencil. Why pencil and not pen? How often do you hear of Ellen White as the pencil of inspiration? If the strike out were intended to be definitive and have meaning as an unchangeable judgment wouldn't pen been a better choice. Why does only one have those marks? Why did she never write a single word about her disagreement or at least discomfort with being called an ordained minister in all those 30 year before she died? I submit that the answer is obvious. She didn't put those marks on that one certificate. It was put on the document many years after Ellen White died. It was put there by someone unaware of the other certificates or 30 years worth of annual listings in the SDA Yearbook. They did it because they were adamantly opposed to women in ministry. They sincerely wanted to discredit what had been done by the GC those many years ago. The mark if done in ink would have been more easily forensically dated as being done in the 19th century. Ink ages and can be determined what kind of pen was used, making it easy to date. To make it look authentic it would have to have been done by a fountain pen and ink of the era. FInding a believable one would not be easy. But a pencil would work perfectly since pencils haven't really changed all that much in the last couple hundred years. It would be more difficult to forensically date when the marks and the hope would be that everyone would assume it was Ellen White that did it. There you have it. That's my story and I am sticking to it. Quote: =ClubV12]As John317 has mentioned in variuos threads over time the church has no official document or position to recognize a prophet, which the churh of course officially recognizes Ellen White to be. In accordance with the by-laws and constitution of the official organization one cannot be paid from the TITHE unless they hold a specific office authorized to receive those and other other funds from the Conference. Which made it necessary for Ellen White to have some official document or title... Actually the constitution an bylaws of the General Conference say no such thing. The use of tithe is in the working policies which can be changed by the GC Executive Committee. It is not restricted as you suggest even in the working policy. The credentials are also described in the working policies. There was absolutely nothing that prevented the GC Committee from coming up with any official credential they needed to describe whatever they deemed appropriate for Ellen White. It absolutely did not have to be a ministerial credential. They could have done what is done now and have an administrative credential to cover anyone not clergy. Or they could have created a messenger or prophet credential. Nothing prevented them from doing so. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted November 29, 2011 Administrators Posted November 29, 2011 This WORLD WIDE ability to serve given to a Pastor is WHY TED and NAD are amiss in their request to issue "local ordination". There is no provision within the church for a "local" ordained Minister. If TED ordained such a Minister that persons calling would remain in question, only applicable to TED, nowhere else. This defies the basic meaning of an ordained Pastor, one set aside by God to serve His church. His church is BIGGER than TED or NAD, His church is world wide. A man is called to serve God "world wide" or he isn't. What TED and NAD CAN DO is ordain a LOCAL "Elder" at most, but not a Minister. This is why the GC rejected that proposal, it would fundamentally change the meaning of what a Pastor does, serve God in all respects and in all places, with no limits on his authority from one country to the next. You are confused. At Annual Council the NAD did not ask for local ordination of ministers. It was simply about working with the defined ministry designation they already had, including commissioned minister. Commissioned minsters already do exist and are only able to function within their own division territory. A president of a conference only functions within their own territory during their term of office. "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
CoAspen Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 The real question needs to include. LEADERSHIP. How are the men doing This action is not about female ordination. What we need is vision, too many places have a ZERO growth, and yes those places hAe men for a leader.... Deal with the real issue of leadership. Well.....I reckon that being fallible humans, men are doing what men do, some good some not so good. So if it is about leadership, then we are talking about men only. I don't know how we can properly judge that without being 'inside'. So, for me, the issue would be how to improve leadership. We know that many areas are served by a minister with multiple churches, so why not add to their numbers. Who else could that be besides women? Of course, we then get into funding of more pastors and how to accomplish that. The issues would seem to be never ending. So back to step one! Instead of spending the time, which is money, on this study, perhaps the focus should go back to how best do we spread the gospel in what many believe is a limited amount of time. I would wonder if we really believe that since this 'study' is going to take several years. Is the organization more interested in managing, ascertaining total correctness, defining the box or getting on with the 'work'? No judgement implied here, but questions that bother me. Rather than studying procedural issues, ie, women ordination, step out in faith, put the guidance of the church in Gods hands, spread the Good News, using all available methods to accomplish that. If God can use a conniving Balaam and his donkey, why are we worrying about ordination of men or women.....are we too full of ourselves??
Recommended Posts