Oregon Conference Admits it Will Ordain Women

[Asia Joe]

In clear defiance against GC policy, Oregon has approved to ordain 6 women. 

This is not a question whether you approve of women's ordination or not. This is an issue of rebellion. There are people in the church who believe we need to push the church into the 21st century. 

 

[Hanseng]

34 minutes ago, Asia Joe said:

This is an issue of rebellion.

Roll out the gay pride welcome mat. That's coming next.  The denomination has done little if anything to rein in the rebellion of these conferences.  In a recent obituary Pastor Rudy Torres has been lionized as a pioneer for female and homosexual inclusion. No coincidence. Women's ordination is more or less a done deal. Homosexuals are next. Gays hope to hijack the Pathfinders for homosexual advocacy. In the 1990s young men in their early 20s had AIDS. They were infected when they were ~10-12 years old, almost certainly through sodomy. Ellie Nesler murdered the man accused of molesting her son at a church camp. That's the future of Adventism. The church may not be Babylon. It can become worse than that, if there is such a thing.

[Asia Joe]

What is so puzzling to me, is that the GC has tolerated this in NAD. In the other 11 divisions this would have been dealt with swiftly. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gentlekpeopole, You can rant and rave all that you want to.  Butl, You do nto ulnderstand that actual issue.  Ordilnaltion of women in the North 
American Division is due to thae fact that in the NAD, lthe legal aulthority to ordain any person rests, it is clailmed, withl the Union Conference and not wiltlh any other SDA organization, including the General Conference.

[Gustave]

The General Conference appears to have something similar to SSPX going on - only in this case it's the liberal branch of the SDA Church that is seeking to normalize its agenda. 

[Asia Joe]

What is SSPX? 

[Asia Joe]

Quote

You don't understand that actual issue. 

To me the issue is that the GC voted on it 3 times in 3 sessions and it was no. If the Union can do what ever it wants, what was the point of voting on it?  And this is clearly a "what ever they wanted". The Union statement is so broad it could cover LGBT, even Trans people. There were no boundaries. 

It appears to me, that some people don't understand the limits of the Union.  Maybe that is how they justify the disobedience. 

Thank you for your insight Gregory. 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, Asia Joe said:

What is SSPX? 

SSPX (Society of St. Pius the tenth) is a Traditional Latin Mass group of ultra conservative Catholics who believe that the 2nd Vatican Council has several serious problems. They recently ordained some bishops against the explicit instructions of the Vatican. 

 

 

[Hanseng]

14 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

the General Conference

Are you saying that Union conferences can defy the world church with impunity? Specifically, two world conference sessions have voted down WO; yet Union conferences are free to ordain women without repercussion? If that's the case, it sounds like a poorly organized organization.

[Gustave]

If there is anything I've picked up spending time here the SDA Church is indeed a big tent. I'm thinking WO is akin to the Trinity in that members are welcomed and empowered to swing both ways and not be kicked out. I know that the majority of SDA's are in Africa and that's not the place WO would ever take hold. It's possible that liberal churches will adopt WO and sodomite Clergy as you say but the conservative side of the SDA Church will hold out. This sort of thing happened to the Lutheran Church as well as several others where there was a split. 

[Kevin H]

On 9/27/2026 at 1:21 AM, Hanseng said:

Are you saying that Union conferences can defy the world church with impunity? Specifically, two world conference sessions have voted down WO; yet Union conferences are free to ordain women without repercussion? If that's the case, it sounds like a poorly organized organization.

The union conferences were given the ability to choose ordination back in the 1800s. Some, back then, choose to ordain women, however, the General Conference did make a request for a temporary differentiation between male and female ordination. That men get the papers that include the word "Ordination" while women's papers get the same pay, with their husbands getting the same stipend as given to the wives of the ordained men, but that the women's papers omit the word "Ordained." That the women get ordination in the local church, but are allowed the same responsibilities as ordained pastors (although there tended to be an exception for certain administrative offices in the hagiarchy of the church). In other words, since the 1800s, our church has been ordaining women, but in a round about way. According to General Conference President A. G. Daniels (who came into office long after this practice was started) this round-about ordination was only to be temporary so that our members can become educated, but agreed that the unions had the right to ordain who they wish. 

Ellen White did NOT take this round about ordination option, but took the same papers as the men that included the word "Ordained." (Now, there is one copy, out of several copies over the years) where someone crossed out the word "Ordained." Now, when Mrs. White crossed out something, she would place her initials over the cross out. However, this cross out does not contain her initials. Critics of women's ordination argue that Mrs. White needed the paper with the word "Ordination" to get paid. However, other women who carried the papers that did not include the word "Ordained" got paid, got the same pay as the men who carried papers that carried the word "Ordained." Mrs. White could have carried the papers that did not use the word "Ordained" and still have gotten the same pay, so this argument does not fit the facts. 

The votes taken in the General Conference sessions has never changed this policy, but has been described as "kicking the can" further down the road while maintaining the same round-about ordaining women with paperwork that does not include the word "ordained."  What these "rebellious" conferences are doing is deciding to just be open and above board about the language of the paperwork, taking advantage of the powers the church gave them in the 1800s, and choosing to no longer fulfill a temporary REQUEST by the General Conference leadership. 

Why do so many of our members show a neurotic need to prove that we are good Baptists, and if we are not going to ordain women, then why didn't our leadership prevent the ordination of women from the start? Why did our pioneers and leadership set up a way of ordaining women without using the word "Ordained" which they said was only to be temporary?

[Asia Joe]

23 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Why do so many of our members show a neurotic need to prove that we are good Baptists, and if we are not going to ordain women, then why didn't our leadership prevent the ordination of women from the start?

Kevin thank you for this history lesson. 

Now why are some neurotic? Could it be that Seattle is becoming the lesbian capitol of America ? 

Could it be because there was a major revolt in the Oregon conference over LGBT issues? 

Could it be that many have lost all trust in the Oregon Conference? 

I can assure you, that 90% of the church strongly rejects this action and views it as disobedience. 

Additionally, there is no safeguards in the PUC statement that prevent ordaining LGBT or Trans. 

What could go wrong? 

[Gustave]

Kevin H, 

That was some very interesting history you posted there. I have a question on the last part of your last paragraph. Here is the section. 

Quote

Kevin H said: Why do so many of our members show a neurotic need to prove that we are good Baptists, and if we are not going to ordain women, then why didn't our leadership prevent the ordination of women from the start? Why did our pioneers and leadership set up a way of ordaining women without using the word "Ordained" which they said was only to be temporary?

What part was temporary? Ordaining women WITHOUT using the word ordained or actually ordaining women? 

[Kevin H]

40 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Kevin H, 

That was some very interesting history you posted there. I have a question on the last part of your last paragraph. Here is the section. 

What part was temporary? Ordaining women WITHOUT using the word ordained or actually ordaining women? 

In the western territories people such as Elder Loughborough ordained women. The New York Conference wanted to ordain women and the Atlantic Union approved the ordination of women. The General Conference said that while they were free to ordain the women, they requested that the women get the paperwork without the word "Ordained" until more of our members were ordained that it is Biblical to ordain women. From this history, which part would you say they understood to be only a temporary measure? 

If they did not want to ordain women they would have simply told Loughborough and the others and the conferences and unions that wanted to ordain women to simply not to, instead of setting up a system where we have always for all practical purposes ordained women only avoiding the word. Ellen White could have taken the paperwork without the word "Ordained" She could have written testimonies to Loughborough, the New York Conference, the Atlantic Union telling them that women's ordination was wrong and to send Daniels and General Conference leaders before him that we simply should not ordain women instead of setting up this way of ordaining women and avoiding the word. 

While some religions may argue over ordaining women, the issue in the Seventh-day Adventist church has always been whether we should be honest and open that we ordain women, or to ordain them in a round-about way avoiding the word but in fact doing the task? The purpose for hiding what we were doing was, according to Daniels, to allow to educate our members that it is Biblical to ordain women. The church has never decided to make ignorance, that our pioneers wanted to educate away from, to be a rule to be enforced on to the church.

[Gustave]

Quote

Kevin H said: In the western territories people such as Elder Loughborough ordained women. The New York Conference wanted to ordain women and the Atlantic Union approved the ordination of women. The General Conference said that while they were free to ordain the women, they requested that the women get the paperwork without the word "Ordained" until more of our members were ordained that it is Biblical to ordain women. From this history, which part would you say they understood to be only a temporary measure? 

The authority here appears to be coming from the General Conference and by the General Conference saying to wait until "more" SDA's were Ordained this tells me the General Conference would be the one who would identify what "more" constituted. As I said earlier, this is looking A LOT like the SSPX issue I've been following. If I were to word this in words familiar to me it seems that the General Conference issued a "dispensation" for certain conferences or what I thought SDA's called "Unions" to "sort of" allow for limited female clergy (if that's what you can call it) provided the word "Ordained" was not used in the context of anointing or whatever it is that is done by SDA religious Authority to do whatever they do in cases like this. In my Church Deacons, while not Priests, are still officially "Ordained". Granted I know nothing of this situation - just my own musings on a subject I know nothing about. 

[Kevin H]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

The authority here appears to be coming from the General Conference and by the General Conference saying to wait until "more" SDA's were Ordained this tells me the General Conference would be the one who would identify what "more" constituted. As I said earlier, this is looking A LOT like the SSPX issue I've been following. If I were to word this in words familiar to me it seems that the General Conference issued a "dispensation" for certain conferences or what I thought SDA's called "Unions" to "sort of" allow for limited female clergy (if that's what you can call it) provided the word "Ordained" was not used in the context of anointing or whatever it is that is done by SDA religious Authority to do whatever they do in cases like this. In my Church Deacons, while not Priests, are still officially "Ordained". Granted I know nothing of this situation - just my own musings on a subject I know nothing about. 

That is not correct Gustave. The General Conference leadership made a request. They recognized that they did not have the authority. Conferences and unions had worked with the request while waiting for the condition to be met to educate our members and then freely ordain women. Sadly, well over a century has past. Some education has been done, but the General Conference went to different topics and this has fallen by the way side. There were a few times that the General Conference brought up the idea of women's ordination but a careful (and official writings) looked at these votes and says that they only resulted decision to not make a decision at that time and to just leave things as they are. The way things "are" is that the conferences and unions have the right to ordain who they wish, but that they may wish to wait for more members to get educated in the fact that the ordination of women is Biblical. They are not bound to the suggestion. 

[Gustave]

What did the General Conference mean by "educating their members" At the time all this was going on wasn't the SDA Church decidedly anti-Trinitarian? I'm not seeing how the General Conference wouldn't have  been anything other than affirmative on W.O. - given they were pushing "The Personality of God" Doctrine, Christ becoming an angel, etc. 

Seriously, if a significant number of SDA's want to ordain as clergy women and open homosexuals who are in same sex relationships what can the General Conference do about it other than pout and put out indignant statements? 

[Gregory Matthews]

The varioius levels of the SDAChruch operte under a Constitution whilch also has w set of Bylaws.  The Consstsilltion is seldom changed, bult may be changed.  The Bylaws are often changed.  In the Unilted States, the SDA Church has registered wlith the governlment, in order tko be covered by the protections of law that apply to religious organilzations.  That process has included the ConstilltulIn the United kStates,

In the Unlited States, t he authority to authorize the ordination of SDA  clegy has generally lbeen given to the Union Conferences by their Constiltution.  In short, the  Local Conference recommends ordination and the Union Conference aplproves.  As an  example, my credentials cOme frkom teh Pacific Union kl
coknference aftere the Northern kCalifornia conference recommended such.

Under the procedure listed above, the General Conference is considered by many, including me, to not have the authority to tell the Union Ckonferences whom they can ordain. 

[Gregory Matthews]

As to the policy related to homosexual SDA Clergy, it is simply this:

Homosexuals may be ordained as SDA Clerlgy only as long as they remain celebate.  If they  do  not remain celebate their ordination will be revocked.  We do have some who do remain celebate.  We have revoked the ordination of some others  who did not remain celebate.

 

[Gustave]

7 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As to the policy related to homosexual SDA Clergy, it is simply this:

Homosexuals may be ordained as SDA Clerlgy only as long as they remain celebate.  If they  do  not remain celebate their ordination will be revocked.  We do have some who do remain celebate.  We have revoked the ordination of some others  who did not remain celebate.

 

That's the way it works in my Church as well. 

[Gregory Matthews]

As to other related ilssues:

*  All people who  wish to worshilpl in a lSDA congregation in peace, are welcomed to attend.  I p[ersonally know of some homosexuals who attend SDA Congregatios but are not members.

* Homosexuals who remain celebate are welcomed to be baptized and become mebbers.

8 There are a few ccases where a non-celebate homosexual has been baptized and allowed to become a SDA member.  Such is rare and a viiolation of policy.