Print

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

[Daryl Fawcett]

Why is all this mis-information going around in the first place?

What side of the WO issue is promoting this mis-information?

[Artiste]

Why is all this mis-information going around in the first place?

What side of the WO issue is promoting this mis-information?

It was very interesting, Daryl...when I watched the youtube video of the CUC voting session, several people there said that WO had been voted on in 1881.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Is there a link to this youtube video session?

Why is all this mis-information going around in the first place?

What side of the WO issue is promoting this mis-information?

It was very interesting, Daryl...when I watched the youtube video of the CUC voting session, several people there said that WO had been voted on in 1881.

[Artiste]

Is there a link to this youtube video session?

Why is all this mis-information going around in the first place?

What side of the WO issue is promoting this mis-information?

It was very interesting, Daryl...when I watched the youtube video of the CUC voting session, several people there said that WO had been voted on in 1881.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOo-mhNdpis

It's almost 4 hours long.  I heard some things there that I would almost consider blasphemous.

[Murcielago]

Why is all this mis-information going around in the first place?

What side of the WO issue is promoting this mis-information?

It can be somewhat confusing. Bob makes a pretty good case, but its hard to believe that many church leaders are that wrong on what should be a simple matter to clear up. In the context of this current squabble has the GC officially stated that the 1881 approval never happened? It would seem that they of all people should be able to provide definitive clarification to this.

[Artiste]

In the context of this current squabble

I wouldn't call this situation a "squabble", Murcielago.

It's a much more important subject than that.  But then maybe only Adventists think it is important.

[Murcielago]

In the context of this current squabble

I wouldn't call this situation a "squabble", Murcielago.

It's a much more important subject than that.  But then maybe only Adventists think it is important.

Among us Adventists there have been more than a few squabbles, spats, and such. Some far worse than this. I have no doubt we will survive this one as well.

[Artiste]

In the context of this current squabble

I wouldn't call this situation a "squabble", Murcielago.

It's a much more important subject than that.  But then maybe only Adventists think it is important.

Among us Adventists there have been more than a few squabbles, spats, and such. Some far worse than this. I have no doubt we will survive this one as well.

Again, I highly object this issue being called a squabble.

What a putdown to our General Conference president, who has been agonizing over it.

[Bob Pickle]

The elusive ST reprinting of the WO resolution still has not surfaced, but here is a little more info.

The Review reports are as follows:

• Dec. 6, 1881 - Covers 1st through 3rd meetings, Dec. 1-2, 1881.
• Dec. 13, 1881 - Covers 3rd through 4th meetings, Dec. 2, 1881.
• Dec. 20, 1881 - Covers 5th through 8th meetings, Dec. 5-9, 1881.
• Jan. 3, 1882 - Covers 9th through 17th meetings, Dec. 12-19, 1881.

The Signs reports are as follows:

• Dec. 22, 1881 - Condenses the reports of RH Dec. 6 & 13, 1881.
• Jan. 5 and/or 12, 1882 - Presumably one of these unavailable issues condenses the report of RH Dec. 20, 1881.
• Jan. 19, 1882 - Drastically condenses the report of RH Jan. 3, 1882.

Since the 1882 ST issues aren't available on the GC archives website, how is the Jan. 19, 1882 available? It happens to be in vol. 1 of the EGW ST articles. It is drastically condensed, and doesn't even bother to say that the resolutions were adopted, which they all were, unless I missed something.

The first paragraph states:

"From the concluding report of the business proceedings of the General Conference, we extract the following resolutions, which are of general interest."

Thus the first and last of the ST report reprints both make clear that they are simply reprinting portions of the official report in the Review. Therefore, the Review report is the official record, or a copy thereof.

[Murcielago]

In the context of this current squabble

I wouldn't call this situation a "squabble", Murcielago.

It's a much more important subject than that.  But then maybe only Adventists think it is important.

Among us Adventists there have been more than a few squabbles, spats, and such. Some far worse than this. I have no doubt we will survive this one as well.

Again, I highly object this issue being called a squabble.

What a putdown to our General Conference president, who has been agonizing over it.

I apologize for the putdown, as I certainly didn't mean it to be that. You are right. I know that hundreds of Church administrators are agonizing over it from both sides, as have many women who have been called by God to ministry, only to have the door slammed in their faces by men. To them also I apologize for using the word "squabble."

[Bob Pickle]

It can be somewhat confusing. Bob makes a pretty good case, but its hard to believe that many church leaders are that wrong on what should be a simple matter to clear up. In the context of this current squabble has the GC officially stated that the 1881 approval never happened? It would seem that they of all people should be able to provide definitive clarification to this.

The GC put out a statement yesterday that addresses this question: http://news.adventist.org/archive/commentary/2012/08/09/questions-answers-regarding-current-issues-of-unity-facing-the-church. I think the statement covers the major points pretty good.

The statement flat out states that the 1881 WO resolution was never adopted.

So why have so many gotten it wrong, over and over again? I think it is wishful thinking coupled with not reading the original documents by most, and not reading the original documents carefully by others. A case in point: One week ago a pro-WO administrator sent a questioner an explanation of why the resolution really was voted, stating that it was based on the ST report. But that same administrator sent with that explanation a copy of the RH report, not the ST report. Why? I doubt he had access to the ST report, and was just relying on what someone else had said.

Something within that communication makes me fairly certain that Monte Sahlin, the author of the "new studies" that started this thread, also didn't have a copy of the ST report, which report he relied on to make his case that the WO resolution had been adopted. In other words, I think his entire blog post was based on what someone else told him, not about what he actually read for himself. And if that is really the case, then his post could hardly be called "new studies," because whatever study was put into it was less than adequate and less than what would be expected.

So this whole experience should teach us once again: Don't take anyone's word for anything. Read it for yourself. After all, that's what the Bereans did.

But Bert Haloviak, who is pro-WO, has maintained in writing that the 1881 WO resolution was probably never voted. I think he works or has worked in the GC archives.

[Bob Pickle]

P.S. Someone should start a thread on yesterday's GC statement. The statements on women pastors in China is pretty interesting.

[Artiste]

You're right...what it said about the female pastors in China was very interesting.