Christ will probably come before they settle this matter. Do you suppose having former Catholics on the committee might be affecting the deliberations?

Bumping this to see if there will be any more voting, especially as the time of the GC Session approaches.

I think some of the questions are skewed nor do they allow for an unsure, a qualification, or not a qualification.

For example:
QUESTION 4: Do you believe if women’s ordination is approved it will make it easier for same-sex marriage advocates to agitate for acceptance within the church?

Acceptance? One could view sinners are accepted into the church. But what does acceptance mean? Does the question mean, celebrated, promoted, considered that nothing is wrong and sinful about it? "Acceptance" seems misleading and part of the homosexual propaganda for deriding.

Same-sex? Seems more like a political correct thing to say. Homosexual marriage would be more to the point. But what really is implied with same-sex is the feigned "equality" issue, and allowing future interpretation of bi, trans, multi, etc.

So yes, I believe women's ordination has to do with homosexuals infiltrating the church. For if one says that men should only be elders really means according to the culture of the day then it would follow that any prohibition against homosexuals really means according to that culture and today's culture is different.

A majority of the people who have expresssed their opinion to me in private against the ordination of women are either former Roman Catholics or come from areas where Roman Catholicism dominates.

But among those who have fully abbandoned their Roman Catholic traditions I find some of the most ardent supporters of the ordination of women.

This is just a view from my corner. Yours might be different.

Just a note to say that I have moved two other WO threads to the area of Maritime set up to discuss these type of topics with the exception of this one.

Bumping this to see if there are any others who would now like to cast their vote in this POLL.

Question #6 seems to be hard to answer. In the 1902 restructuring ordination was given to the unions. To push it up to the Division is a danger. In the early 1900s when some conferences submitted some women to the union for ordination, General Conference President A. G. Daniels recognized the union having the right. Now he made a suggestion to them to give just a little bit of time so that our members could get educated into knowing that it was indeed Biblical to ordain women, but the unions were free to accept or reject his suggestion. In the mean time the church had set up two different license paper, one with the word "Ordained" the other without the word, however, both were paid the same, both had most of the same responsibilities, both had the spouse receive the same compensation. It was basically ordaining women without the word, and again, according to A. G. Daniels, this was only supposed to be temporary until our members were educated into knowing that women's ordination was indeed Biblical; and that the union was free to accept the suggestion or not.

As for question #4, there may also be an underlying issue but still easy to answer. For both topics; women's ordination, and the same sex marriage; in the liberal churches where they don't really care much about what the Bible teaches, neither is a big deal. For we Seventh-day Adventists. our question for both issues is "Is this Biblical?" I understand the Bible to support women's ordination, and that it is Roman Catholic Tradition that has caused us to read things into the text that is not necessarily there, forget historical and cultural implications that support women's ordination. As we learn more and more about the Bible, it comes stronger for women's ordination. To us, each and every topic has the same question, are we being fair to the Bible or are we stuck in superstition and tradition at the expense of the Bible.

Evidence please. I never accept assertions without it.

How do you see the votes that have been cast?

Yes and No question are always hard to answer because one can't qualify their answer.

What if we don't agree with the ordination set up as it stands today?
What does it mean to be "ordained"?

In the church today, it seems ordination is a status of authority, not of spiritual leadership and work.

Therefore, the text "a woman should not usurp authority over a man" is interpreted as "a woman should not be ordained."

But we ignore that it is not good for a man to mentor and be a private counselor to a woman. The very fact that a man, with concern in his eyes, and sympathy in his voice is comforting a woman (albeit with Bible verses) is a snare, especially if her husband is a bit of a non communicating type.
A church here is still reeling from a male pastor who specialized in empowering young people, and took intimate interest in young girls.
Then there are a lot of women who don't want to "open up their thoughts" to a man, is also a problem.

There is a real need for God-fearing women in trained, spiritual leadership roles. Female shepherds for the women in the church.

Male leaders for the men, and boys. This is important! Young people- especially young males, need a strong spiritual male influence.


While women are not to take over, as in taking away from the men, the leadership roles,
women should be co-leaders. With the same respect and authority of a male leader.

For example -- I'm uncomfortable with the woman head pastor in college church. There is just something missing. However, having associate women pastors, in college churches is great!