Even a Woman

If you’ve taken a course in Adventist Church history, you may have heard about how God chose Ellen White to prophesy only after two men rejected their calling first. As the story is often told, after the Great Disappointment on October 22, 1844, a white man, Hazen Foss, was given the opportunity to share a prophetic message from God. But he stubbornly refused. Afterwards, God moved on to a Black man, William E. Foy, who likewise rejected this call. Because the men declined to share what they were shown by the Lord, God was then forced to use a woman. Oh, what a heartwarming moral: when God can’t get men, even a woman will do! 

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2023/even-woman

Thank you, keep preaching it!!!

Why aren’t we seeing these military chaplains featured on the cover of the Adventist Review as the lead story?




What difference who made whom, or who came first?

At this point, one is supposedly a mirror of the other.

And to know one is know the other.

Thus, by understanding our own limitations, we infer that our maker is no more omnipotent, omniscient, eternal or ever present than any of his creatures is.

As to Father Sarducci’s assumption of god’s invisibility, there are those who insist that just the opposite is the case, i.e., that everything we see reveals some aspect of our maker.

if so, we can experience nothing other than manifestations of our maker, even if it is as impossible to perceive all of its handiwork all at once as it is to completely comprehend an elephant just by touching his tail.

1 Like

I have read the account of Foss and Foy and I am pleased to hear that Foy did not refuse to present the message. But…I am very disturbed at the implication that God kept stepping down the ladder of acceptability until he finally got to a woman. That is truly disgusting. Unfortunately, it seems to still ring true…Ted’s unwillingness to allow women’s ordination is a stark example. But, why would we expect anything more from someone who’s only credentials came from a position of nepotism.


Yes, this is a very disturbing thing to see in male SDA leaders, and for good reason.

In Genesis 1 it is obvious that in number the ‘God(s)’ that created humankind as a ‘parable’ of Themselves wish to be seen as an ideal ‘Family’. So, you might ask, ‘Where’s the kid ?’

The ‘kid’ is the ‘. . . and . . .’ between ‘male . . .’ and '. . . ‘female’. The ‘kid’ is the ‘one flesh’ formed from both ‘male’ and ‘female’ DNA. The ‘kid’ is the ‘marriage’ of ‘male’ and ‘female’ expressed in ‘flesh’, and all together they are ‘ONE’ family ‘UN-IT’ of 3, just like the Creators wished to be understood. So, belittling any 1 or more member of that family unit representation in humanity also belittles the whole, united ‘God Family’. (Leave the 'LGBT. . . ’ issue out of this for now. As you will see, SDA males that claim to abhor such ‘physical’ conditions in others, are themselves more than willing to adopt a ‘spiritual’ condition of the same exact, lonesome ‘image’ of ‘spiritual unisex’ in order to get their own way . . . .)

As a woman, Ellen could not even vote, or in some cases own ‘property’ during her ‘Victorian Era’ lifetime. Women in her times were ‘property’. So, Ellen could not safely come right out and say it, but the ‘Son of God’ or ‘Seed of God’, in the case of the ‘Word of God’ who was ‘made flesh’, was represented in the human family ‘God’-parable by the ‘mother’ of a human family. It is obvious that ‘He’/‘She’ could not be the ‘Father’, since the Christ, ‘Him’-self, on Earth, referred to ‘Our Father, Who is in Heaven’.

( Like Jacob lost his beloved ‘ewe’, ‘Rachel’, near Bethlehem, in order to gain a ‘Son of my right’ (‘Ben -Jamin’), just so the ‘Our Heavenly Father’ of ‘born again’ ‘Christ-ians’ is forever, also, a ‘Heavenly Widower’ after gifting ‘Immanuel’ – ‘God with us’ – to humanity ‘from the foundation of the world’ in ‘spirit’, in ‘promise’, then 2,000 years ago at Bethlehem, and for the rest of eternity. )

So, how did Ellen make it clear that the position of the ‘Word’ of God which accomplished the desires of the ‘Father’ in ‘Creation’ was to be understood as the ‘female’ of a ‘married’ human family, who assisted Adam as an equal partner in ‘being fruitful and multiplying’ ?

See Patriarchs and Prophets page 34, then skip right over to page 46 and compare the 2 pages side-by-side, because they are meant to be. Ellen, the SDA ‘SOP’, uses the exact same ideas and terminology to describe the ideal ‘equal’ relationship between the Father and the Word, as she does to describe the ideal ‘equal’ relationship between the ‘sexes’ in the prototypical human marriage of ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’, and both marriages were for the purpose of re-creating, of ‘multiplying’, images of themselves in the universe. That means that that ‘Holy Spirit’ – which is mentioned in such miraculous Biblical ‘birth’ accounts concerning both DNA reproduction of ‘flesh’, and in the ‘born again’ process of reconceiving ‘minds’ ‘by beholding’ the Cross-scene – can only be represented in a human ‘married’ family ‘un-it’ of a minimum of 3 individuals . . . as being the ‘kid’. ‘Father-Kid-Mother’ – ‘At-one’, ‘as-one’.

So – just as I’ve seen others also refer to the cascading problems that arise among SDAs over a misunderstanding of this ‘family image’ of God – if any one member of a ‘family’ un-it (‘one-it’) is belittled by SDAs, the rest of the family will inevitably be, also.

The recent case of the anti-WO SDA pastor, Daniel Mesa, is living proof of how belittling the ‘mother’ – the ‘Word’ of both Creation and inspired Scriptures that became ‘flesh’ 2,000 years ago, as ‘God with us’ – then leads to belittling the ‘kid’ – the ‘Holy Spirit’ . . . all so that the ‘Father’ must lose not only ‘Rachel’, but his ‘Son of my right’, and ‘reign’ supreme as a Heavenly Widower over no other family at all as the lonesomest type of ‘ONE god’ possible.

The first and only time I witnessed a presentation by Mesa, he was trying to elevate the position of mere created ‘angels’ by twisting the ‘Word’ of Scripture – to make it seem so. . . just like ‘Lucifer’ in the ‘Great Divorce’ battle with the Christ ?

Tell me, where in the current SDA church – from the top, down – is the ‘Omega of Apostasy’ NOT proudly, blindly, destroying the ‘family’ ‘Image of God’ in humanity ?

If Danny Shelton could justly claim ‘Spiritual Adultery’ as an excuse for erasing his equal partner in creating 3ABN – the more talented Linda – from ‘compliant SDA’ circles, then why shouldn’t what SDA male leaders are doing to belittle women – and thereby preventing the Holy Spirit’s ‘born again’ process to make new ‘babies’ for ‘Our Heavenly Widower/Father’ to enjoy – be justly described as 'Spiritual LGBT. . . ’ ?

. . . because that is exactly what belittling women, belittling the ‘Word of God’ – and inevitably the ‘kids’ and the ‘father’ – is, Ted, Mesa, Council of Adventist Pastors . . . .

In attempting to prevent ‘Women’s Ordination’ from ‘infecting’ Christ’s own SDA church with further ‘flesh’-based issues like ‘LGTB . . .’, The ‘strong males’ of the SDA church have in effect become their own ‘enemies’ by bringing ‘Spiritual Unisex’ among ‘strong males’, themselves, upon the very SDA church they claim to want to save !

Be careful when fighting your demons that you do not become your demons. . . .

What a terribly lonesome religion !

Oh how I miss Father Sarducci…!!


With regard to the episode of Balam’s donkey, I’m reminded of the quip my pastor of 60 years ago offered, with tongue in cheek: “If God can speak through Balam’s ass, he can speak through you!” (This might not be as poignant outside of North America, where the animal is commonly referred to as an ass, rather than the more polite–in North America–donkey.) Surely we want to recognize God’s gift of ministry in whatever human form the Holy Spirit chooses to anoint. The matter of ordination, however, has become a sacrament for many Adventists, conveying far more authority than a simple acknowledgement of God’s call.

1 Like

The author puts the worst possible spin on the idea that God gave the vision first to a male. Yes it’s correct that Foy didn’t reject the call. But she uses Foss’ calling as an indictment of how we interpret God calling him. I’m not sure if she believes he was actually called. From what we know God did give him the version first. So was God being sexist?

Whenever we look at the identify (sex, gender, race, nationality, etc) as the primary filter or driver of how we interpret incidents or issues we’ll inevitably fall into dividing everyone into the neat little group them belong to and not judging an issue on its merits but on the identities of those involved, which is the most prejudicial and racist/sexist thing we can do.

This is the way it was taught to me in SS, in school and JMV’s (showing my age). It is ‘convenient’ for the church to teach this story, to add to the aura of EGW - God called two men, and when they refused They called the weakest of the weak.

I’m not sure if God called Foss & Foy. I am not even sure They called EGW.

1 Like

It’s hard for me to grasp that the male/female ordination issue is still a thing. Human traditions along this line and other traditions are everywhere, though. At an Episcopalian church service today (Saturday) there were both male and female priests, deacons and various other leadership levels in attendance. It was a big congregation so at communion there were several “stations” at which to receive the bread/wine - with one caveat: if you didn’t want to take communion and only asked for a blessing, you must get in a line with a priest serving, because deacons aren’t authorized to give blessings… DEACON- SCHMEACON!! Last week I was helping serve communion and gave a blessing to two little kids at the rail with their mom. I would have baptized them too, if asked. (Oh NO, they must wait for an Authorized person to do that). God must be laughing her head off at us.

1 Like

I was taught in every religion class that Gid chose “the weakest of the weak” to show that He could take the weaker sex even to be used by Him.

I love those 5 or 6 ordination certificates of hers. The anti-women-no-ordination men can’t have it both ways.

God must laugh at our silly sexist foibles.

He empowers for spiritual leadership whom He will. :slightly_smiling_face::slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.