Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex L. Walker]

Well, Di, I happen to agree with Paul. A womans place is to remain quiet. A woman should not be ordained and should NEVER be over a man.

[Johann]

Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.

Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?

Yes, customs vary. In many parts of the world it is only the woman who wears a wedding ring. Not so in Northern Europe. Here it is just as important that the man wear one too, because here it takes two to get married! In Sweden you use two rings, one for the engagement and a similar ring for the wedding. So if you only wear one ring there you are only engaged and not married - unless customs have changed there recently.

I have no idea which TM quotation you are referring to nor any Norwegian translation. That book was not available in Norwegian last time I checked, although Gospel Workers has been for many years.

[Gregory]

Yes, EGW said what she said.  I b elieve that she has been quoted accurately.  However, you will note that she said:

In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it . . .

Does her advice against a wedding ring remain for eternity and in all culutures?  Is it possible that our culture may have changed to the point were some should wear the wedding rding?

I understand that to mean that she said that there were situations where it was best to wear a wedding ing.

NOTE:  I do not wear a wedding ring.  My wife does not wear a wedding ring.


However, I believe that some of our members and some of our clergy are in situaitons where it may be best for them to wear a wedding ring.

If the time comes where I believe it would be best for me to wear a wedding riong, I will wear one.

[Johann]

Traditions vary. Did you know that when Martin Luther finally decided he'd take the nun Kathrine von Bora he had a most elaborate engagement? The wedding was nothing like it. We are told that it was unthinkable to cancel an engagement. It was just as binding as the wedding.

[Gregory]

Traditions varry:

One of our student missionaries in Korea, some years back, became engaged to a Korean woman.  Shortly before the wedding he returned to the U.S. for a short visit.  When he returned to Korea, he was accompanied by his wife, his old girlfriend whom he had married!

At that point the Korean woman became "dead meat," so to speak.  No Korean man woud consider marriage to a woman who had been rejected by an American.  The news of her rejection was quickly carried throughout the country among the SDA community.

As to his effectiveness as a student missionary. . . . . . .?

[Johann]

Traditions varry:

One of our student missionaries in Korea, some years back, became engaged to a Korean woman.  Shortly before the wedding he returned to the U.S. for a short visit.  When he returned to Korea, he was accompanied by his wife, his old girlfriend whom he had married!

At that point the Korean woman became "dead meat," so to speak.  No Korean man woud consider marriage to a woman who had been rejected by an American.  The news of her rejection was quickly carried throughout the country among the SDA community.

As to his effectiveness as a student missionary. . . . . . .?

Unfortunately this story is somewhat similar to what happened elsewhere within our Church. Weren't these men "blameless" as long as they were only "engaged"? Weren't they following the letter of the law? Afer all, is the man not a "head" and does not have to take the same consideration to a woman who in dignity is "lower" than the man???

How about an unmarried pastor who gets engaged to the daughter of another pastor. Shortly before their wedding is to take place he becomes aware of the availability of a better looking girl, whom he thinks will be a better minister's wife, so he cancels the wedding at the last moment. No problem as long as he is in the "head" position and females are to be subdued and submissive?

[Bob Pickle]

Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.

Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?

...

I have no idea which TM quotation you are referring to nor any Norwegian translation. That book was not available in Norwegian last time I checked, although Gospel Workers has been for many years.

"Some have had a burden in regard to the wearing of a marriage ring, feeling that the wives of our ministers should conform to this custom. All this is unnecessary. Let the ministers' wives have the golden link which binds their souls to Jesus Christ, a pure and holy character, the true love and meekness and godliness that are the fruit borne upon the Christian tree, and their influence will be secure anywhere. The fact that a disregard of the custom occasions remark is no good reason for adopting it. Americans can make their position understood by plainly stating that the custom is not regarded as obligatory in our country. We need not wear the sign, for we are not untrue to our marriage vow, and the wearing of the ring would be no evidence that we were true. I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems to be going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion. Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously; but let not our missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their influence one jot or tittle. If they are Christians, it will be manifest in their Christlikeness of character, in their words, in their works, in the home, in association with others; it will be evinced by their patience and long-suffering and kindliness. They will manifest the spirit of the Master, they will possess His beauty of character, His loveliness of disposition, His sympathetic heart" (TM 180-181).

When I showed the above to a young Norwegian back around 1993, he emphatically stated that part of it was missing from what I recall he identified as being the Norwegian edition. I recall, but not well, him saying that the "Not one penny" sentence was missing.

[Johann]

Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.

Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?

...

I have no idea which TM quotation you are referring to nor any Norwegian translation. That book was not available in Norwegian last time I checked, although Gospel Workers has been for many years.

"Some have had a burden in regard to the wearing of a marriage ring, feeling that the wives of our ministers should conform to this custom. All this is unnecessary. Let the ministers' wives have the golden link which binds their souls to Jesus Christ, a pure and holy character, the true love and meekness and godliness that are the fruit borne upon the Christian tree, and their influence will be secure anywhere. The fact that a disregard of the custom occasions remark is no good reason for adopting it. Americans can make their position understood by plainly stating that the custom is not regarded as obligatory in our country. We need not wear the sign, for we are not untrue to our marriage vow, and the wearing of the ring would be no evidence that we were true. I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems to be going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion. Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously; but let not our missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their influence one jot or tittle. If they are Christians, it will be manifest in their Christlikeness of character, in their words, in their works, in the home, in association with others; it will be evinced by their patience and long-suffering and kindliness. They will manifest the spirit of the Master, they will possess His beauty of character, His loveliness of disposition, His sympathetic heart" (TM 180-181).

When I showed the above to a young Norwegian back around 1993, he emphatically stated that part of it was missing from what I recall he identified as being the Norwegian edition. I recall, but not well, him saying that the "Not one penny" sentence was missing.

Don't you find it interesting that Ellen White also states clearly that she has no burden condemning those who with good conscience use the wedding ring? Since when has the Lord placed the burden on you than Ellen White did not have? Are you a greater prophet than Ellen White?

I have no idea who your Norwegian friend is, nor where he finds a Norwegian edition of a book which has never been published by our publishing houses in Scandinavia. Because Danish and Norwegian are quite similar languages, some of the Ellen White books have been published in one of these languages and not the other, but I have never seen TM in either of those languages. I worked as the sales manager of one of these publishing houses for a while, and have kept a good check on our publications since then, especially what concerns our ministers.

[Bob Pickle]

Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.

Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?

...

I have no idea which TM quotation you are referring to nor any Norwegian translation. That book was not available in Norwegian last time I checked, although Gospel Workers has been for many years.

"Some have had a burden in regard to the wearing of a marriage ring, feeling that the wives of our ministers should conform to this custom. All this is unnecessary. Let the ministers' wives have the golden link which binds their souls to Jesus Christ, a pure and holy character, the true love and meekness and godliness that are the fruit borne upon the Christian tree, and their influence will be secure anywhere. The fact that a disregard of the custom occasions remark is no good reason for adopting it. Americans can make their position understood by plainly stating that the custom is not regarded as obligatory in our country. We need not wear the sign, for we are not untrue to our marriage vow, and the wearing of the ring would be no evidence that we were true. I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems to be going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion. Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously; but let not our missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their influence one jot or tittle. If they are Christians, it will be manifest in their Christlikeness of character, in their words, in their works, in the home, in association with others; it will be evinced by their patience and long-suffering and kindliness. They will manifest the spirit of the Master, they will possess His beauty of character, His loveliness of disposition, His sympathetic heart" (TM 180-181).

When I showed the above to a young Norwegian back around 1993, he emphatically stated that part of it was missing from what I recall he identified as being the Norwegian edition. I recall, but not well, him saying that the "Not one penny" sentence was missing.

Don't you find it interesting that Ellen White also states clearly that she has no burden condemning those who with good conscience use the wedding ring? Since when has the Lord placed the burden on you than Ellen White did not have? Are you a greater prophet than Ellen White?

Johann, I do not understand why you are writing in this manner.

1. Ellen White's "no burden" comment applies only to non-Americans who are living in countries where the custom is obligatory.

2. She also tells that specific group to wear their rings if they can do so "conscientiously." What does the use of this word tell us regarding what the motive of the wearer should be?

3. What specific burden are you suggesting that I have that goes beyond what Ellen White plainly stated?

[Johann]

Neither do I understand you, Bob. I am not an American, and I am living in my own country, and I am stating that I was told by my conference president that we should wear wedding rings because that is the custom in our part of the world.

When I gave as a reason the words of A G Daniells quoting Ellen White, you immediately call him a liar. Other quotes by Ellen White or her son you keep arguing do not apply, so it seems like you are just condemning me by any means possible, even where Ellen White states clearly she is not condemning. And you even claim that some Norwegian friend of yours is telling you that TM has been altered here. So what are you fighting?

[Bob Pickle]

Neither do I understand you, Bob. I am not an American, and I am living in my own country, and I am stating that I was told by my conference president that we should wear wedding rings because that is the custom in our part of the world.

When I gave as a reason the words of A G Daniells quoting Ellen White, you immediately call him a liar.

I did not call him a liar, did I? I said he stated falsehoods at the 1919 Bible Conference. Only if those falsehoods were intentional would he be a liar, and I said nothing about them being intentional.

Other quotes by Ellen White or her son you keep arguing do not apply ....

There is only one quote by Ellen White on the topic, found at TM 180-181; SpTA03 6-7; 4Bio 196. That one is quite clear. What other quotes by Ellen White are you referring to?

As far as the quote by W. C. White goes, found on 4Bio 197, only if Mrs. Ingle was a missionary from a place where the custom was not considered obligatory would there be an apparent contradiction between W. C. White and Ellen White. What evidence do you have that Mrs. Ingle was from such a place?

Your previous statement:

My wife and I had a dear friend, who, together with her husband spent many years as missionaries to Madagascar. Most honest and sincere people. One day she told us that just before they left for the mission field, AGDaniells visited Denmark and had an appointment giving the young couple some good advise to follow on their way to the Mission Field.

   - Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words. Take the rings off when you go to America because our Brethren over there don't like them, and Ellen White supported them in stating they are not needed over there.

"Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia ...."

Where is there any evidence that Ellen White counseled missionaries to wear wedding rings where they were going? The only statement we have tells American missionaries not to wear wedding rings, even where the custom is considered obligatory.

[Murcielago]

This reminds me of the early Christian battle regarding food and circumcision. The folks in Jerusalem insisted that new converts must conform to the Jewish laws on these matters, but Paul told them that these little things don't matter. He told them that if they felt it was a sin to eat unclean food or not to be circumcised, then to them it was sin, but don't try to impose it on others, because to them it is not sin.

But here is my concession to reality. Religion is about appearance. Beards, hair, vestments, crosses, jewelry, no jewelry, makeup, no makeup, burkas, hijab... appearance is what defines many religious people. Deviation from what defines them is an attack on who they are. Others can't see what is in their heart, but their apparel is there for all to see. So they say that their appearance reflects what is in their heart. Does it? The Amish didn't want to change their looks because in appearing plain they wouldn't be noticed. Now their "plainness" is their pride and makes them a spectacle. Does the modesty of the Taliban make them a beautiful thing? No. Does the wearing of vestments and crosses make anyone more Christian than anyone else? No. Neither apparel nor lack of apparel make a person more Christian, it just makes them more dressed or less dressed. So in my opinion, if not wearing a ring makes one feel more Christian then by all means don't wear the ring. If that is what defines your Christianity, then by all means keep your identity, just like the early Christians who wanted to be defined by their food and circumcision.

[Johann]

A friend of mine has this statement on his FaceBook page:

God is more tolerant than all religions

What is your view?

[Johann]

A friend of mine has this statement on his FaceBook page:

God is more tolerant than all religions

What is your view?

Does he need our guidance?

[Murcielago]

A friend of mine has this statement on his FaceBook page:

God is more tolerant than all religions

What is your view?

Does he need our guidance?

Any organization that wishes to exert the authority of God over people must identify God has having given them His authority. Then they can do whatever it is they do in His name. Questioning them is questioning God, disobeying them is disobeying God, not being like them is not being like God, not having their intolerance is not having God's intolerance, leaving them is leaving God, joining them is joining God (on terms that God never set). In the end, we know what will happen,they will say say "but God! Look at everything we did in your name?! and he will reply "Go away from me you doers of evil deeds, I never knew you."