Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Rossw]

Ellen White had found a growing feeling among some of the American workers that the wives of Seventh-day Adventist ministers should, in Australia, wear the ring. She said Americans could make their position clear by stating that “the custom is not regarded as obligatory” in their country, and added: 4BIO 196.1

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I don't know how else to explain the significance of Mrs. White participating in a Methodist marriage ceremony.   Sorry that it seems to be as clear as mud to you.

 

 

You have to remember that Green Chochoa rejects all evidence except for "proof texts" telling what Methodists did is not a proof text. We just had a go-around with this earlier. Moses commanded the Hebrews to wear a clothing with tassels that contain a blue thread and to think of the law. These are the colors found in the full outfit of the priests. and archaeology shows that in the ancient culture this would have been recognized by people traveling in caravans that the person is a priest. But because we do not have a proof text of this we have to assume that Moses and the Hebrews were completely ignorant of this aspect of their culture. Thus when living at the word's major junction of trade routes if someone in a caravan were to mention everyone having this sign of being a priest the Hebrew must have responded "No, This is only for me to think about my God's law, not about me sharing it with you. it is just a pain in the neck that you travelers keep asking us that. Moses picked this design out of the blue with no knowledge of what it means to you and I wish that he had picked a different color so that you would stop bothering us with your questions."

In Jesus' day the ordination of women as rabbis was a topic of concern. There was the protocol as to who sits and stands in both the Synagogue and when a Rabbi was otherwise sitting down to teach. However because we don't have this in a proof text, we have to assume that despite the Bible saying that as his custom was  and Jesus going to worship on Sabbath , we have to assume that Jesus was too ignorant of what was going on in the synagogue service and it's protocols. We have to assume that Jesus, Mary and Martha was ignorant of the debate over women sitting at a rabbis feet. we have to assume that Mary was ignorant as to what it meant to sit at a rabbi's feet and that despite growing up in the Synagogue that she too was ignorant as to what the protocol was to when lay members would stand and that some Rabbis believed that women should just do hospitality tasks, like wise because we don't have a proof text telling us otherwise we must assume that Martha was ignorant of what she was protesting. Thus we are not allowed to be influenced by this debate and the cultural implications. We have to believe that if Jesus and Mary really knew what was going on that Mary would have stood with the laymen, or that Jesus would have asked her to stand with the laymen. We must practice what Mary and Jesus would have done had they not been ignorant of the debate and protocol and not do out of ignorance what they did.

The Greek language structure of having in all but one place as a husband and wife it is Aquila and Priscilla. However 100% of the time as a ministry team it is Priscilla and Aquila which indicates that Priscilla was the leader and Aquila her assistant, just as it was at one time Barnabas and Saul, then later Paul and Barnabas. But  because we only have examples of this both inside and outside of the Bible and not a proof text saying it we need to assume that the Bible writer was ignorant of the Greek language structure and what it implies. We can't read the language structure into the text, but have to read it if the writers were not ignorant of the language structure and that it was just a sad coincidence that as a ministerial team it becomes Priscilla and Aquila.

In 1881 the General Conference decided to ordain women and sent the motion to committee to have it implemented (Much got lost when sent to committee to have implemented, The food for worms vision was when they had planned an evangelistic outreach that was sent to committee to apply and it was never applied. ) Likewise in the first decade of the 20th century when New York and the Atlantic Union wanted to ordain women, and General Conference President A. G. Daniels (who was hand picked and trained by Mrs. White) agreed that they should but asked them to wait a little bit because too many members thought that it was unbiblical to ordain women and he wanted some time to teach them that the ordination of women was indeed Biblical. We do not have direct comments from Mrs. White talking about this, we have to assume that she was ignorant of what the church wanted to do. Now she did write articles on women in ministry, but we have to assume that Mrs. White was ignorant that the church wanted to ordain women. That if she was aware of what was going on that she would have NOT written those articles about women in ministry but would have instead written against women's ordination. Those articles she wrote were written out of ignorance as to what was really going on in the church and thus an unfortunate mistake that they were written out of ignorance instead of her being aware in which case she would have written against ordination. We have to do what she would have done if she was not ignorant.

Green needs to have a righteousness by ignorance, We need only proof texts and outside of that we cannot use texts that are dealing with cultural situations, they are unbiblical to him. Moses, Jesus and the New Testament writers who talked about Priscilla and Aquila and Mrs. White all needs to be ignorant of what was going on around them.

[Rossw]

There was no Seventh-day Adventist minister in that area qualified according to the laws of Tasmania. All went off well. The rooms in the Lacey home were nicely decorated with ferns and flowers. There were ten members of the family present, and eleven friends of the bride who were invited guests. As they were in a British country, they were married with the wedding ring. 4BIO 195.6

----------

Ellen White was not qualified to perform the wedding and only clergy were only allowed to perform the blessing yet Mrs. White is all of a sudden qualified?

The logic isn't adding up.

[Rossw]

5 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

You have to remember that Green Chochoa rejects all evidence except for "proof texts" telling what Methodists did is not a proof text. We just had a go-around with this earlier. Moses commanded the Hebrews to wear a clothing with tassels that contain a blue thread and to think of the law. These are the colors found in the full outfit of the priests. and archaeology shows that in the ancient culture this would have been recognized by people traveling in caravans that the person is a priest. But because we do not have a proof text of this we have to assume that Moses and the Hebrews were completely ignorant of this aspect of their culture. Thus when living at the word's major junction of trade routes if someone in a caravan were to mention everyone having this sign of being a priest the Hebrew must have responded "No, This is only for me to think about my God's law, not about me sharing it with you. it is just a pain in the neck that you travelers keep asking us that. Moses picked this design out of the blue with no knowledge of what it means to you and I wish that he had picked a different color so that you would stop bothering us with your questions."

In Jesus' day the ordination of women as rabbis was a topic of concern. There was the protocol as to who sits and stands in both the Synagogue and when a Rabbi was otherwise sitting down to teach. However because we don't have this in a proof text, we have to assume that despite the Bible saying that as his custom was  and Jesus going to worship on Sabbath , we have to assume that Jesus was too ignorant of what was going on in the synagogue service and it's protocols. We have to assume that Jesus, Mary and Martha was ignorant of the debate over women sitting at a rabbis feet. we have to assume that Mary was ignorant as to what it meant to sit at a rabbi's feet and that despite growing up in the Synagogue that she too was ignorant as to what the protocol was to when lay members would stand and that some Rabbis believed that women should just do hospitality tasks, like wise because we don't have a proof text telling us otherwise we must assume that Martha was ignorant of what she was protesting. Thus we are not allowed to be influenced by this debate and the cultural implications.

The Greek language structure of having in all but one place as a husband and wife it is Aquila and Priscilla. However 100% of the time as a ministry team it is Priscilla and Aquila which indicates that Priscilla was the leader and Aquila her assistant, just as it was at one time Barnabas and Saul, then later Paul and Barnabas. But  because we only have examples of this both inside and outside of the Bible and not a proof text saying it we need to assume that the Bible writer was ignorant of the Greek language structure and what it implies.

In 1881 the General Conference decided to ordain women and sent the motion to committee to have it implemented (Much got lost when sent to committee to have implemented, The food for worms vision was when they had planned an evangelistic outreach that was sent to committee to apply and it was never applied. ) Likewise in the first decade of the 20th century when New York and the Atlantic Union wanted to ordain women, and General Conference President A. G. Daniels (who was hand picked and trained by Mrs. White) agreed that they should but asked them to wait a little bit because too many members thought that it was unbiblical to ordain women and he wanted some time to teach them that the ordination of women was indeed Biblical. We do not have direct comments from Mrs. White talking about this, we have to assume that she was ignorant of what the church wanted to do. Now she did write articles on women in ministry, but we have to assume that Mrs. White was ignorant that the church wanted to ordain women. That if she was aware of what was going on that she would have NOT written those articles about women in ministry but would have instead written against women's ordination.

Green needs to have a righteousness by ignorance, We need only proof texts and outside of that we cannot use texts that are dealing with cultural situations, they are unbiblical to him. Moses, Jesus and the New Testament writers who talked about Priscilla and Aquila and Mrs. White all needs to be ignorant of what was going on around them.

You know that's just more straw right?

[Kevin H]

Cindy Tutsch just found this statement when doing some research: Ellen G White "presided in the examination of 150 candidates, and ... baptized 18." --Arthur White, The Woman of Vision, p136.

[Green Cochoa]

10 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Cindy Tutsch just found this statement when doing some research: Ellen G White "presided in the examination of 150 candidates, and ... baptized 18." --Arthur White, The Woman of Vision, p136.

Either yourself, or Cindy Tutsch, has some issues, among them reading comprehension, if all is as you have alleged.  Here is the actual quote from that page.

Quote

James White reported concerning their Eastern tour:

We have, in this time [nearly three months], traveled by railroad 3,200 miles [5,120 kilometers], and by private conveyance 600 [960 kilometers]. Have held 140 meetings and preached 60 times, and have spoken more or less in nearly all these meetings. Mrs. White has spoken from half an hour to two hours in more than 100 of these meetings. We have assisted in the ordination of four ministers, and the dedication of one house of worship. Have presided in the examination of 150 candidates for baptism, and have baptized 18....

We leave for our good home in Greenville the fifteenth, where we hope to hear from friends (Ibid.).

No question, James and Ellen White were back in the harness again.

Some people look so hard for Ellen White to have done something they want her to have done, that "James White" suddenly morphs into his better half.

See this for yourselves here: http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=WV&pagenumber=136

You're not going to stump a Berean so easily!  However, back to the Bible--where is your "thus saith the LORD"?

[Kevin H]

Of course there are a bunch of "We" s in that quote that you want to interpret as "Me"s

But it does sound like she just found another reference to this one known quote. She has written on this quote before. Her post sounded like she just came across a new quote that she had been unfamiliar with. I agree with you it just sounds like a rephrasing of the one quote where you need to change the "We"s to "I" and "Me"

[Green Cochoa]

13 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Of course there are a bunch of "We" s in that quote that you want to interpret as "Me"s

But it does sound like she just found another reference to this one known quote. She has written on this quote before. Her post sounded like she just came across a new quote that she had been unfamiliar with. I agree with you it just sounds like a rephrasing of the one quote where you need to change the "We"s to "I" and "Me"

Perhaps some are unfamiliar with that English grammar.  I teach grammar.  What you are looking at is the informal (not grammatically correct, but a colloquial usage) omission of "I" in several key sentences there.  Some perceive it to be either a lazy form of speech or a more humble one, avoiding the overuse of the first person pronoun.   My mother frequently writes that way.  Anyone reading would understand that she refers to herself, in spite of the fact that English is only supposed to have "you" as an implied subject, as in "Stop!" ([You] Stop!).  For an example of something a person avoiding the use of "I" might say:

"Went to town today.  Got some vegetables.  Saw some people you might remember.  . . ."  It is understood that each of these sentences refers to the speaker as the subject.  Even in modern vernacular, such usage is not altogether uncommon.

As the paragraph in question is clearly labeled in terms of who did the reporting, we are not left to guess regarding the antecedent of the missing pronouns.

A very clear evidence that it is the "I" missing, and not a "we," exists in the paragraph itself.

"Have held 140 meetings and preached 60 times, and have spoken more or less in nearly all these meetings. Mrs. White has spoken from half an hour to two hours in more than 100 of these meetings."

Two separate persons are here represented, with a clear reference to "Mrs. White" for the second sentence, and the lack of "I" for the first.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

The Reaction to both of these incidents is yet again an effort to minimize what actually happened because a woman wAs involved.  Just like with Phoebe and Junia.  

[Green Cochoa]

36 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

The Reaction to both of these incidents is yet again an effort to minimize what actually happened because a woman wAs involved.  Just like with Phoebe and Junia.  

You have provided me some mirth today, thank you!  Minimize?  Ha!  I think I would like rather to maximize it to say that this custom of parental blessing should be instated in all Adventist weddings, as is customary in Asia already!  I think the minimizing is coming from others!  Really, Tom, do you think Mother Ellen should have turned a deaf ear on her own son's request just because such a thing was not customary or because she was not ordained?  Does the act suddenly elevate her to "ordained" status?  

No one is "minimizing" so much as that people are "wresting" the meaning they wish to extract from it.   Take it to mean whatever you want.  As for me, I will continue to base my doctrines on a plain "thus saith the LORD."

 

[Rossw]

30 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

The Reaction to both of these incidents is yet again an effort to minimize what actually happened because a woman wAs involved.  Just like with Phoebe and Junia.  

More straw. The statement "an effort to minimize" is not true. Much of the evidence is spun or falsified or misrepresented to help the pro-WO. Efforts to show the evidence is spun, falsified, or misrepresented is not an effort to minimize the role of women. We just happen to believe the Bible when it says...

Quote

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Knowing the Bible and Paul will not contradict we also recognize this scripture here...

Quote

3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of [a]overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine [c]or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

Tom, by your accusation you are really saying Paul is minimizing women. Knowing Scripture is God breathed you are accusing God of minimizing women.

Phoebe and Junia, although very likely active in the church, are not mentioned as elders or pastoral leadership. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, below:

I like your response.  A tip of my hat to you. 

If this argument of yours was not the weakest, there is no need of considering your weakest.  Scratch it off your list!

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw said, below: My first response was to believe that Rossw had twisted the meaning of what I said, even if not intentionally. In thinking about it further, perhaps I was not clear.

The law, and I did previously state this, required that clergy be registered in order to perform marriages in Tasmania. No present SDA minister was registered. Therefore, a Methodist minister, who was registered, performed the marriage ceremony. However, the attending people wanted an Adventist aspect to the ceremony, so Ellen White solemnized it by giving a prayer of blessing.

As I will tell you as an Adventist minister, who had performed many weddings, that prayer of blessing is an important part of any Adventist ceremony and it is desired by the couple who are being married to be said by a clergy-person. No, the prayer of Ellen White did not qualify her under the law of Tasmania to perform the ceremony. Such would have no logic at all, as has been said. But, it was clearly a clerical act and in line with what many people who have a religious ceremony desire to be done by a clergy person.

Rossw, thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity which now give me the opportunity to clarify.

 

Quote

Ellen White was not qualified to perform the wedding and only clergy were only allowed to perform the blessing yet Mrs. White is all of a sudden qualified?

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, thank you for your actual citation to your reference.

The central issue is who is implied by the use of the word "we."

In context, three (3) people were involved--James White, Ellen white and Andrews.

So, who is implied when it states that "we" baptized eighteen?

According to grammar, as I understand it, could imply any set of two of the three, or it could imply all three.  I am willing to grant you that the reference cannot beconclusively said to say that EGW actually baptized anyone.   It does not say that she did not, however.   But, that is a valid point in saying that we cannot, with certainty, say that she did.

However, let us look at a part of the actual statement that I have quoted below:

Within a context that cites EGW as speaking many times, I have to believe that she also participated in the examination of the ministers and the dedication of a church--all of which are functions of ordained clergy.

We have assisted in the ordination of four ministers, and the dedication of one house of worship. Have presided in the examination of 150 candidates for baptism,. . .

[Rossw]

25 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw said, below: My first response was to believe that Rossw had twisted the meaning of what I said, even if not intentionally. In thinking about it further, perhaps I was not clear.

The law, and I did previously state this, required that clergy be registered in order to perform marriages in Tasmania. No present SDA minister was registered. Therefore, a Methodist minister, who was registered, performed the marriage ceremony. However, the attending people wanted an Adventist aspect to the ceremony, so Ellen White solemnized it by giving a prayer of blessing.

As I will tell you as an Adventist minister, who had performed many weddings, that prayer of blessing is an important part of any Adventist ceremony and it is desired by the couple who are being married to be said by a clergy-person. No, the prayer of Ellen White did not qualify her under the law of Tasmania to perform the ceremony. Such would have no logic at all, as has been said. But, it was clearly a clerical act and in line with what many people who have a religious ceremony desire to be done by a clergy person.

Rossw, thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity which now give me the opportunity to clarify.

 

Greg, I appreciate your graciousness and don't believe you pushed the issue any further then was needed. However I do feel Pam took the issue and continued running with it beyond the bounds of what was provable.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Good grief.  I merely posted what the Methodist ceremony of the time entailed because I thought it was interesting — and I thought it remarkable that Ellen White was allowed to perform part of that ceremony, as a non-Methodist.   

It's not me who is making an issue of this.

Give it a rest, why don't you...

addendum:  I'm done trying to be informative.  Done.  That's it.  Those who want to poke me with their verbal tridents can do so.  Go for it.  

[Tom Wetmore]

You are quite correct about who is making an issue of this.  It begs the question of why so much effort is being put into making an issue of it.  If it really is nothing at all, why not just shrug and yawn...

Much effort to make anything of no account that would support the idea of a woman doing even the smallest clergy thing...

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam, I thought that you raised a point that had value.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

12 hours ago, Rossw said:

Tom, by your accusation you are really saying Paul is minimizing women... 

Phoebe and Junia, although very likely active in the church, are not mentioned as elders or pastoral leadership. 

But they are.  Paul is by no means minimizing Phoebe.  Or Junia for that matter. The words Paul chose to describe Phoebe indeed put her in both of the roles of leadership and ministry.  Would you be surprised to know the founders of our Church published an article entitled "Woman as Preachers and Lecturers" in the July 30, 1861 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald that reached the same conclusion (one might say even more emphatically) about Phoebe as the Ministry article by Darius Jankiewicz as well as many of the other points we have raised in support of women in ministry?  Uriah Smith who was the editor a the time introduced the article by saying, "We consider the following a triumphant vindication of the right of the sisters to take part in the public worship of God. The writer applies the prophecy of Joel - "Your daughters shall prophecy," Etc., to female preaching; but while it must embrace public speaking of some kind, this we think is but half of its meaning. We have nothing to say upon what the writer claims to have been done by certain females. That to which the attention of the reader is especially called is the argument by which he shows that they have a right to do so, or any amount besides in the same direction."

[Green Cochoa]

What is most minimized here appears to be Paul's authority.  Ironically, people want to use their interpretations of what he wrote in two or three places in the Bible for more than Paul ever intended, to contradict what Paul explicitly said in many other passages.  Here are some of those passages being minimized:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  (1 Timothy 2:12)

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  (1 Corinthians 11:3)

This is a true saying. . . (1 Timothy 3:1)

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:2-5)

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.  (1 Timothy 3:12)

Why bother with arguing over whether or not Junia was a female apostle (which scholars know is ambiguous) while clearly ignoring these plain statements which are explicit?  It seems unfortunately clear that people prefer to read the Scriptures per their own biases and opinions than to accept it for what it says.  This also goes in stark contrast to what Mrs. White says we should do.  The following words might well apply.

The Bible should never be studied without prayer. The Holy Spirit alone can cause us to feel the importance of those things easy to be understood, or prevent us from wresting truths difficult of comprehension. It is the office of heavenly angels to prepare the heart so to comprehend God's word that we shall be charmed with its beauty, admonished by its warnings, or animated and strengthened by its promises. We should make the psalmist's petition our own, "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law." Temptations often appear irresistible because, through neglect of prayer and the study of the Bible, the tempted one cannot readily remember God's promises and meet Satan with the Scripture weapons. But angels are round about those who are willing to be taught in divine things; and in the time of great necessity, they will bring to their remembrance the very truths which are needed.--TSS 121, 122.  {CSW 38.2} 

[CoAspen]

God in a box could very well be the theme of the "anti WO" crowd....start to finish and still amazing to me!!!!!!

[Tom Wetmore]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

 

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.  (1 Timothy 3:12)

 

Explain how Phoebe, also identified by Paul as diakonos, the very same word he used in the verse above, satisfied the above qualification for a diakonos.  

[Rossw]

5 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

But they are.  Paul is by no means minimizing Phoebe.  Or Junia for that matter. The words Paul chose to describe Phoebe indeed put her in both of the roles of leadership and ministry.  

That isn't the part you would think Paul is minimizing women. This is the part where you accuse Paul of minimizing women...

11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first[h]created, and then Eve. 14 And it wasnot Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be[j]preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with [k]self-restraint.

 

[Rossw]

42 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Explain how Phoebe, also identified by Paul as diakonos, the very same word he used in the verse above, satisfied the above qualification for a diakonos.  

Easy, a slightly broad definition.

one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister

1. the servant of a king
2. a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
3. a waiter, one who serves food and drink

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/diakonos.html

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Rossw said:

That isn't the part you would think Paul is minimizing women. This is the part where you accuse Paul of minimizing women...

11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first[h]created, and then Eve. 14 And it wasnot Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be[j]preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with [k]self-restraint.

 

First of all linguists and historians point out problems with the popular interpretation of the text being used against women's ordination. they say that you are taking the text out of context of the chapters around them and the historical context of the writing and that there are other places where Paul apparently does not follow this advice. (such as with Pricilla and leaving churches in the care of the leading women of a community).  But how do you justify this interpretation with the ministry of Mrs. White? Mrs. White fails the superficial reading of this text (but fits the more careful reading.) Once again there appears to be an argument that Paul's words only apply to ordained women. That if they are not ordained then they are free to do what Paul apparently says they should not do, but that ordination draws a line in the sand that says they need to fit what they think Paul is saying.