"if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded"

Amen.

And some day these long held beliefs will be overturned as the Bible shows! Male headship is not Biblical the way it is portrayed.

The quinquennial meeting of the worldwide general conference has rejected WO three times.

"...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." ChL 1.8


How long will this worldly cultural view be "stubbornly maintained"?
The "straight testimony" is being given, must the Church be Shaken before this divisive rebellion can end?

And this proves that the rejection was not motivated by culture? No.

And this proves that the rejection was not motivated by culture? No. [/quote]


"...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." ChL 1.8


According to Sister White, you are advocating rebellion against the will of God!

Do you believe the SOP?

prodigal - you can proof text what you like. Perhaps you should take all that Sister White wrote, and perhaps you might get a different view. You can accuse me of rebellion if you like, but would that be truth or blindness on your part? Will God ever remove the GC from its position?

The Lord Jesus will always have a chosen people to serve Him. When the Jewish people rejected Christ, the Prince of life, He took from them the kingdom of God and gave it unto the Gentiles. God will continue to work on this principle with every branch of His work. When a church proves unfaithful to the word of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear important responsibilities. But if these in turn do not purify their lives from every wrong action; if they do not establish pure and holy principles in all their borders, then the Lord will grievously afflict and humble them, and, unless they repent, will remove them from their place and make them a reproach. {14MR 102.1} Read the whole manuscript.

As to 9T261, read the entire quotation. You find: 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. Did this occur in San Antonio? Can you clearly say no? Was there pressure put on delegates to vote a certain way? YES. The whole voting fiasco brings up doubt as to the voting of ones conscience. There are many who find the vote in San Antonio to be trusted as the true will of God because of the irregularities, and also for the fear of delegates loosing their jobs if they did not follow they conference president.

Call it rebellion if you wish? But if God's work is being suppressed, then who are the ones actually in rebellion?

The fact is that WO was voted down at two previous Quinquennial General Conference Assemblies. The vote in San Antonio should never have taken place. Each subsequent vote is another act of rebellion.

It is interesting to note that the decision to include such a vote in a Quinquennial Assembly, is made by a "few men". Something Sister White warned against.

So you are telling us that since the vote should not have occurred, then the vote is illegitimate? I agree, that a "few men" brought the vote forward, but for what purpose? In order for the General Conference to take away from the Unions that which belongs only to the Unions. The "No" vote actually maintains the status quo and Ted Wilson confirms. A "Yes" vote would have taken away the rights the Unions. It was in reality an attempted power grab by the GC.

Also notice the weasel-wording, the vote had nothing to do of whether there is a Biblical basis for ordaining women, that was already sustained by the TOSC. The vote was whether the "Divisions" could move independently, ignoring the fact that the "Divisions" do not even have the authority to choose who will be ordained as that is the perogative of the "Unions".

Who is really in rebellion? Who is really trying to grab power? Who is trying to control the people. As 9T261 says, 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.

Think of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, a type small group of men, All SDA leaders. Think of W.H. Reid, Roy Allen Anderson, and LeRoy Froom, a small group of men who have changed the doctrine of the church. Most probably a small group of men have been bending the control of the GC, which some of the people recognize.

APL, this discussion has been repeated many times on different threads.
I think we both know, neither of us will change the others mind. I have no wish to engender harsh words or feelings, there has been too much of that already.

My views on the matter are adequately represented by the words of Sister White below. Whether you accept them or find a way to make them of no effect is your choice.
May God guide us both into all Truth.


General Conference in Session Highest Authority

"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 should 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 .... God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work."--Testimonies for the Church 9:260, 261. – {ChL 1.8}

Yes - and you have ignored that there are a number of "one man" ruler now in the church. We have seen the intimidation of certain delegations. Vote against the "one man" and you may loose your job. Does that engender confidence in the validity of the vote? And TNCW injecting his opinion over the vote. The lack of the ability to vote without coming under scrutiny, again a threat to ones position. The rudeness of people against a former GC president. The evidence is there to question as did EGW in her day if the GC is the voice of God.

And recent news of the GC exerting their kingly rule over new areas of the church is truly frightening.

EGW is clear, When a church proves unfaithful to the word of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear important responsibilities. The SDA GC is not exempt.