Print

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

[Johann]

EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:

I am not impressed by the falsehoods he stated, probably unintentionally, at the 1919 Bible Conference. That doesn't mean God didn't use him at other times.

Referring to your last question here below I'm tempted to ask you: Did that really occur? Was this just a false report by one of his enemies? How can you be sure, even if one of your trusted friends have assured you it is true?

   - 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.

Based on Tinka's quote, I would say that either Daniells never said this, or else Daniells was seriously mistaken at other times than just during the 1919 Bible Conference.

How can I trust either one of you since you did not even bother to read the whole quotation in the EGW Biography? To me it seems like you only read what pleases you - or what helps keep you dying raccoon alive!

It is evident that by her statement in 1909 Ellen White still supported the leadership of A G Daniells, in spite of what she had said in 1901.

But, and I may have missed something, the 1909 statement does not address the authority of the GC president. It addresses the authority of the GC Session, and perhaps the full GC committee as it is composed today, not that of a single individual. Am I correct?

Keeping that raccoon alive? You are correct that the 1909 statement does not address the president alone, but I feel your statement is a cheap way of getting around the point it would be a poor president if he does not have the support of his full GC committee behind him. So by her statement was EGW not supporting the people who still wanted A G Daniells to be their leader? If someone supports the present board of 3ABN would it not be because they also are supportive of the founder?

What I discovered at the 2005 CG session was even worse. I got this documented by a reporter. You realize that most of the matters voted on first go through a committee. It so happened in a nomination committee that a man came in and told the members that if they would bring a certain name to the floor - this was the leader of an important section within our Church - then someone would donate a certain huge amount of dollars to that particular cause. That donation would not follow any other candidate.

Did that really occur? Or was that just something an AToday reporter said?

See above! My source gave me sufficient details in support of the account that it made me shudder. You could have used some of the same details in your recent defense case. Perhaps you did?

[tinka]

How in the world will the justifyers change this writing to get around New Age Progression of the majority?? This was EGW  baptism that she writes of her belief, thought and feelings. SHE NEVER CHANGED FROM THIS ONE IOTA UNTIL SHE DIED AT 86. But look what all has been said and posted to justify against this:::

"Finally the day was appointed for us to receive this solemn ordinance. Although usually enjoying, at this time, great peace, I frequently feared that I was not a true Christian, and was harassed by perplexing doubts as to my conversion. It was a windy day when we, twelve in number, were baptized, walking down into the sea. The waves ran high and dashed upon the shore, but in taking up this heavy cross, my peace was like a river. When I arose from the water, my strength was nearly gone for the power of the Lord rested upon me. I felt that henceforth I was not of this world, but had risen from the watery grave into a newness of life.  {LS80 145.3}
     "My cousin Hannah made confession of her faith
                                                                            146
at the same time that I did. She wished to be baptized by immersion, but her father, who was not a Christian, would not consent to this although we urged him to do so. So she knelt before the altar and had a few drops of water sprinkled upon her head. As I witnessed the ceremony, my heart rejoiced that I had not submitted to receive sprinkling for baptism, feeling confident that there was no Scripture to sustain it.  {LS80 145.4}
     "The same day in the afternoon, I was received into the church in full membership. A young woman, arrived at the age of maturity, stood by my side and was also a candidate for admission to the church with myself. My mind was peaceful and happy till I noticed the gold rings glittering upon this sister's fingers, and the large showy ear-rings in her ears. I then observed that her bonnet was adorned with artificial flowers and trimmed with costly ribbons, arranged in bows and puffs. My joy was dampened by this display of vanity in one who professed to be a follower of the meek and lowly Jesus.  {LS80 146.1}
     "I expected that the minister would give some whispered reproof or advice to this sister, but he was apparently regardless of her showy apparel and no rebuke was administered. We both received the right hand of fellowship. The hand decorated with jewels was clasped by the representative of Christ, and both our names were registered upon the Church

Same thing with the women's movement to be ordained and certain ones back then pushing for "liberal movement" . Ellen White never changed her views even tho other found justifications. There should be no argument with it.  I could fill the posts up night and day of all writings but it still would do no good to those who want the "movement to agressive" I thought all was a ware of the actual movement against EGW.

And Alex I can understand why would not agree with EGW as you never probably really looked what the 3rd angels message was even to begin with.  And Believe it or not Miller was the Baptist that started it. and EGW was given the vision when two other men refused to give a message of truth and understanding. Read up on Miller you might find it to be very interesting. It's pure history. Then follow the scripture and timeline to where we are now as Miller came to change his belief.

[Johann]

Yes, Miller was a Baptist, even though for a while he became a Diest. When he returned from the war where death was close to him, he returned to his Baptist faith.

Miller records the experience: "Suddenly the character of a Savior was vividly impressed upon my mind. It seemed that there might be a Being so good and compassionate as to Himself atone for our transgressions, and thereby save us from suffering the penalty of sin. I immediately felt how lovely such a Being must be; and imagined that I could cast myself into the arms of, and trust in the mercy of, such an One."

May we all have that experience - because Jesus in coming soon!

[Gregory]

tINKA sAID:

. . .two other men refused to give a message of truth and understanding. Read up on Miller you might find it to be very interesting.

Tinka, you are one-half correct.

Hazen Foss refused to give the messages that he had recieved.  Page 66

William Foy recieved his first vision on January 18, 1842.  He had his second vision on Febuary 4, 1842.  Following that second vision he spent three (3) months in public ministry present the message that he had recieved.  He then quit for three months so he  could earn a living for his family.  Then he returned to public ministry and prsenting the messages of the visions again.  He recieved his third vision near the 1844 time.  He did not understand it in view of his beliefe that Christ was comming soon.  In his perplexilty he asked God to relieve him of the burden of presenting the messages of the visions.  NOTE:  HE did not refuse. That was done and he  began life as a Baptist minister.  See pages 488 - 490

NOTE:  The above is largely taken from: A.L. White, THE EARLY YEARS, vOL. 1, 1827-1862.   However, some of what I said above was taken from a book on the life of William Foy.

The book on the life of William Foy is:  THE UNKNOWN PROPHET, written by Delbert Baker, a name well-known in Adventism.  It is 160 pags in length.  You may access a review of that book at the following URL:

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/03/03/unknown-prophet

[tinka]

Didn't William Foy not take it because he feared him being  mulatto and he backed off for that reason as EW clearly states, He should have realized that God does the choosing as I believe the vision was taken from him. Finally he gave vision to Ellen White. I especially realized how when Holy Spirit went to Foy that should have let Christian people know that there should be no thought of race difference. And when one makes a difference it is definitely a sin. I was brought up to understand that and was very secure knowing all should be well with all races.

 Well lets just say technically your right but there was reasons that the men did not take to the task and even tho she did not at first want the task  she definitely made the The Holy Spirit regard her requests first before she would. I thought that was amazing. So I know how cautious she was (and humble) to do one thing that took on self vanity or self accomplishments pertaining to anything even what the church tried to instate her with or name her, or credentials they want to bestow on their own to her because she was that connected to Jesus and His message to last day people  and not man's bestowing "vanity to her in anyway and the  Angel and Jesus took her request that if she did this she would not be lost to "vanity" and lose eternity .  That is the most important thing she requested and all the rest comes after that from man and his want of progression and change. What is good then is still good now as her thought from visions flowed. 

That pact and extreme humble intelligence of EW made Holy Spirit protect her while the people moved on. She never changed or excepted credit that produced "vanity". Her "credentials came from Jesus" nothing else was accepted but she made no waves. So therefore I'm sure what ever man gave or church did above her council, they did on their own and-- sure documents or what ever laid in the dust somewhere. I don't believe she ever faltered except grew weak at time of complete grief and the loss of her husband or extreme illness or pain.

That was interesting reading for me and helped me go back and read again to try to overcome my grief.  What I would like to see from the opposite arguments one single place of direct comment of "ordained women" to preach in the pulpit and not the statement where she is referring to "women's service or labors". I really don't worry about it cause it just is not there.  and if the church goes in and does their thing again I will not agree with their direct changing of Biblical clear instruction, If you look closely to what I previously posted she also states the exact meaning of what Paul said and meant -- and straight away she definitely made point of.  Did everyone get that??

I have only read the EGWs writing on Foy and ususally don't pay attention to others opinions or thoughts or books as many 3rd parties are just hearsay or false stories that have been told on here about other comments but have kept that policy all my years of reading.

[Gregory]

Tinka, you are a student of history.  Read the book that I cited.  It is the best that there is on the life of William Foy.

Yes, there were racial concerns involved.  However, the primary issue was that Foy did not understand the 3rd vision.  It ran counter to what he believed. Foy felt that he could not preach something that appeared to him to be against the Bible.  Yet, he could not find it in his heart to reject the visions.  Faced with that problem he went to the Lord and asked God to take the responsibility away from him.  God did.

His request was not a rejection.  He had proclaimed the visions for 3 months at a time, twice.  He had done what God had asked him to do. 

It is easy for those of us who live 165 years later to point out the humaness in William Foy.  It may be easy for us to point to a weakness and say that he should have relied upon God to strengthen him and bring him to understanding. But, I would ask everyone here:  Would you have done as much as Foy did?  Would you have stopped earning your living to go and preach a strange message for three months and do it twice.  I cannot say that I would have had that level of faith.

Foy was not Foss, and I will suggest that we should recognize that.

[Gregory]

Tinka, here is what Tim Poirier once wrote about Foy:

In Spectrum’s August 1987 issue Tim Poirier’s “Black Forerunner to Ellen White: William E. Foy” summarized Baker’s research and included an interview with him on the subject.  Poirier wrote with the authority of the Ellen G. White Estate, then serving as its assistant secretary: “Recent research demands a revision of the traditional Adventist view of William Foy.  In the past Foy has been linked to Hazen Foss as one whom the Lord called to be a prophet but who refused the gift but refused the gift, giving God no alternative but to turn to “the weakest of the weak,” Ellen Harmon.  But Foy’s career is badly distorted by the link to Foss.  Unlike Foss, who refused to relate his visions, Foy, in sermons and tracts, shared what he had seen.”  Baker successfully cast Foy as a “John-the-Baptist figure who was given a limited assignment that he faithfully completed.”

Read the last sendtence:

NOTE:  The above is a paragraph from the article that I cited.

[Murcielago]

For reasons I won't go into right now, I believe it is inevitable that the GC will vote for the ordination of women. If/when that happens, Bob, do you intend to honour that as the will of God? Should an action of the GC be honoured as the will of God, even when one believes it is not?

I will speak about general principles. The NAD Working Policy says that the GC Session is the highest authority under God. I take that to mean that the GC Session is not above the Bible. And it really can't be, for that was a mistake that Catholicism made, putting church councils above the Bible.

If a GC Session voted to now keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, I would not honor that as the will of God.

The following quote from EGW is taken from the Church Manual page 31.

“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.”
9T 260.

[princessdi]

Snoopy, I have been reading as I haven't been here for a few days and looking for a "like" button!!!  thumbs up, Girl!!!    ann,  Excellent posting...that goes for Pastor Johann, Gergory, Murielago.  Kind of glad I wasn't here though, some of these posts are positively dangerous to my continued Christianity......LOL!!!

Maybe Miss Piggy has the answer...

[princessdi]

So Alex, I know you don't mean to take the word of Paul over the Word of God.  What is your position on all the women prophetess' appointed by God(because that who appointed prophets)?  Are you saying that God made a mistake when He appointed Deborah to be in political and spiritual authority over men...she was judge and prophetess. AND the only drama in that story came from the men!!!  Don't you think there has to be more to what Paul was saying rather than contradicting the very actions of God?

I have not posted on this thread in the last few day's because I think it has been a great debate! Both sides are bringinging out excellent points.

I have taken the position along with Bob, Gailon, and others that women should not be ordained.

I believe that some women would make better leaders then men. I agree!

But...the bottom line is its not biblical. Women are not to be in authority over men. The Apostle Paul is clear on this.

Just because some women may make better leaders does that mean we should abandon biblical principle?

[Alex L. Walker]

So Alex, I know you don't mean to take the word of Paul over the Word of God.  What is your position on all the women prophetess' appointed by God(because that who appointed prophets)?  Are you saying that God made a mistake when He appointed Deborah to be in political and spiritual authority over men...she was judge and prophetess. AND the only drama in that story came from the men!!!  Don't you think there has to be more to what Paul was saying rather than contradicting the very actions of God?

I have not posted on this thread in the last few day's because I think it has been a great debate! Both sides are bringinging out excellent points.

I have taken the position along with Bob, Gailon, and others that women should not be ordained.

I believe that some women would make better leaders then men. I agree!

But...the bottom line is its not biblical. Women are not to be in authority over men. The Apostle Paul is clear on this.

Just because some women may make better leaders does that mean we should abandon biblical principle?

Nope, Paul made his position clear time and time again.

I cannot believe many here except myself, Gailon, Bob, and Tinka are the ones who are biblically correct on our position.

[Murcielago]

I respect and appreciate people whose world is black and white. Simplicity is a virtue that removes the complications of life. When math consists of 1, 2, 3, but has no integers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are simple. When there is 1 choice instead of 10, decisions are easy. I know a young man who can only eat lunch at precisely 12:30pm, and he will not put a bite in his mouth if the clock says 12:29. That removes many decisions and choices from his life, but it is rather amusing when he crosses a time zone. The validity of time zones is called into question, in his agony, and that calls into question the validity of his own time zone as Greenwich Mean predates his. Then comes the nightmare of daylight saving... To harbour with folk who break their fast at 6:00am instead of 7, Raises feelings of fun and fear. But can he break from the mold?

[Alex L. Walker]

So you're suggesting we should ignore Bible principle and the requirements set forth by the Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy to fit the mode?

Lol. Then why not just change everything to fit our desires and wants? Women want to be ordained? Too bad. No woman is called by God to be a "pastor", or to be "ordained".

[Johann]

Confusion?

Let me make it clear that during my half century of ministry for the Lord I have never baptized a person wearing an ornamental ring. I have never in these discussions rejected the counsel of EGW on wearing ornaments or ornamental rings.

If only we'd read all of what is stated in the quoted material we would not have these heated discussions. Some of us read only the portions which seemingly support our preconceived views. Please read again this part of what tinka has already posted:

[YEARS LATER, W. C. WHITE, ON ELLEN WHITE'S REQUEST,
     RESPONDED TO AN INQUIRY FROM A MINISTER'S WIFE IN EDINBURGH,
     SCOTLAND, ON THE POINT:
        "NOW REGARDING THE QUESTION RAISED IN YOUR LETTER. THE WEARING
     OF A GOLD RING AS A MATTER OF ORNAMENT IS A USELESS PRACTICE, AND
     CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF DRESS
     AND APPAREL. THE WEARING OF A RING AS A TOKEN OF LOYALTY IN THOSE
     COUNTRIES AND AMONG THOSE PEOPLE WHERE SUCH A CUSTOM IS SO THOROUGHLY
     ESTABLISHED THAT DEPARTURE FROM THAT CUSTOM WILL BE UNIVERSALLY
     MISUNDERSTOOD IS, IN MY OPINION, QUITE ANOTHER MATTER, AND I THINK
     THAT IF YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE COUNSEL OF MEN AND WOMEN OF EXPERIENCE
     WHO HAVE LABORED IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IN INDIA, THE LORD WILL NOT
     COUNT IT TO YOU AS A VIOLATION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF WOMEN'S
     APPAREL.
        "POSSIBLY YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN THE STORY OF MY WIFE'S
     EXPERIENCE WITH THE WEDDING RING. WHILE SHE WAS ATTENDING BIBLE
     SCHOOL IN AUSTRALIA, I BECAME WELL ACQUAINTED WITH HER, AND WHEN THE
     TIME DREW NEAR FOR OUR MARRIAGE, I PROPOSED THAT IT BE IN TASMANIA
     AT HER FATHER'S HOME. REGARDING THIS SHE WAS NOT ENTHUSIASTIC, AND
     UPON INQUIRY, I LEARNED THAT HER FATHER HAD VERY DECIDED OPINIONS
     REGARDING THE DUTY OF THE WIFE TO WEAR THE WEDDING RING, AND MY WIFE,
     KNOWING THAT AMERICANS LOOKED UPON THIS MATTER DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
     BRITISH PEOPLE, SUPPOSED THAT I WOULD OBJECT.
        "SHE DID NOT CARE FOR IT PERSONALLY, BUT I PURCHASED A RING, AND
     WE WERE MARRIED WITH IT BECAUSE HER FATHER'S FAMILY AND ALL HER
     FRIENDS REGARDED IT AS ESSENTIAL. AFTER WE HAD BEEN MARRIED A FEW
     MONTHS, AND HAD SETTLED DOWN IN OUR HOME WHERE WE WERE WELL KNOWN,
     SHE LAID ASIDE THE RING, AND WHEN I ASKED HER WHY SHE TOOK IT OFF,
     SHE SAID IT WAS IN THE WAY WHEN SHE WAS WASHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
     BECAME OF THE RING, BUT SHE HAS NOT WORN IT SINCE. I THINK THAT IN
     THIS EXPERIENCE IT WAS HER DESIRE TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION OF PAUL
     WHEN HE WROTE, 'WHETHER THEREFORE YE EAT, OR DRINK, OR WHATSOEVER
     YE DO, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD.'
        "BY THE WEARING OF THE RING DURING THAT PORTION OF OUR EXPERIENCE
     WHERE ITS ABSENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN WONDERED AT, AND CAUSED UNNECESSARY
     PREJUDICE, AND BY LAYING IT ASIDE AS SOON AS THAT EXPERIENCE WAS
     TERMINATED, SHE HAS FELT THAT SHE WAS DOING THAT WHICH WOULD BEST
     SERVE THE CAUSE OF OUR MASTER."--DF 121, WCW TO MRS. W. E. INGLE,
     APRIL 14, 1913.]--DF 121.  {4BIO 197.1}

Notice the clear distinction made between ornamental and wedding rings in this letter EGW asked her son to write. He makes it clear that there are different customs in America and in other countries, and that the Brethren in these other countries should be consulted on what is appropriate there.

A few months after we came from America to work in Denmark in 1958 our conference president gave us "orders" to purchase and wear wedding rings. We did not have any, so we had to order them 4 years after we were married and we had the date of  our wedding in Berrien Springs back in 1954 engraved in the new rings.

I had noticed how certain young ladies had been staring at my fingers, and since there was no ring there had seemingly come to the conclusion I was not married, because this is the age old custom in Europe. If a married person takes off the ring that is a clear signal to some that the person does not feel an obligation to be faithful to the marriage vows and is prepared to have some "fun".

There is nowhere a statement by Ellen White where she cancels the instructions she gave to areas outside America. Let Ellen White speak for herself without you messing things up by telling her she must adhere to your private interpretation. As late as 1913 she tells her son to clarify the confusion and let people know where she stands. Has God given you a vision about canceling her instructions?

Again: This does not apply to her instructions about ornaments - in case you are still confused!

[tinka]

What is a ring if it is not an ornament? I am sure your answer will be a "symbol" a symbol you put on your finger for who? , you ? your wife? or to prove you made promises to God on your marriage ?or, why do you have to convince other people as they come up with their challenges of evil surmising. The marriage is between man and woman and promises to God and to ask his blessing while man and women take on their "vanity ornament??? EGW highly advised.. don't do it in good conscience to cause a stumbling block to someone else it wasn't worth the loss of eternity.  Thank you for your posting and your courtesy but I do know that the Holy Spirit did not give confusion for EGW to bongle up. You see "vanity" is a crucial thing to overcome and it will not enter in.  So who do you Please, God or man's surmising???

Actually, this is no different then the Catholics superseding what God has said with no confusion other then man's. 

So in your post above, why did they quite wearing it?? did you miss that point, it was for a better conscience of what was right as they bowed to please man's surmising at first...