Author Topic: General Conference Session Discussion  (Read 5631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Immanuel

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 1410
  • Jesus is My Judge
    • Emmanuel Institute of Evangelism
General Conference Session Discussion
« on: July 02, 2015, 07:54:43 AM »
Are the business sessions going to be streamed?

LindaRS

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 5177
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2015, 10:51:02 AM »
Business sessions are not streamed as far as I know. You can keep up with tweets at https://twitter.com/search?q=%23gcsa15&src=typd and https://twitter.com/gcsession.

Ted Wilson has been reelected as president of the GC.
O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jeremiah  10:23-24

Plain Adventist

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 157
    • In Search of Primitive Godliness
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2015, 10:56:08 AM »
Praise the Lord.
Amy Pavlovik ~~ “The strength and spirituality of the people of God are manifest by the distinctness of the line of demarcation which separates them from the world.” SW 17

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6417
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2015, 12:13:09 PM »

 That's a very good sign relative to future events as GC.
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

Dorine

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1213
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2015, 02:06:54 PM »
Praise God!
But this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press  toward the mark. Phil. 3:13,14

LindaRS

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 5177
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2015, 02:33:47 PM »
His reelection wasn't without some drama. His name was referred back to committee twice by, shall we say, disgruntled NAD delegates including the PA conference president. Then Elizabeth Talbot made a motion for the vote to be by secret ballot. That motion was voted down with a large majority. Now most everyone there will know who is against Wilson and is [almost certainly] pro WO. BTW, one of the members of the NOMCOM is Natasha Nebblett who is the president of GYC.

(Some of this information was gleaned from Spectrum, where, unfortunately, one is likely to find the story than on ANN.)  :'(
O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jeremiah  10:23-24

Dorine

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1213
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2015, 02:46:09 PM »
What is NOMCOM and what does that mean for the president of GYC. Showing my ignorance here but would like to know.
But this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press  toward the mark. Phil. 3:13,14

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 39619
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2015, 03:54:17 PM »
Nominating committee . What a blessing to have elder Wilson for another five years.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Dorine

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1213
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2015, 04:06:29 PM »
Thank you Richard. Of course. How obvious.  ::)
Does anyone know when they will announce the results of Wednesday's vote?
But this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press  toward the mark. Phil. 3:13,14

Lewis

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1639
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2015, 06:03:04 PM »
Nominating committee . What a blessing to have elder Wilson for another five years.

Amen

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6417
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2015, 06:33:55 PM »
His reelection wasn't without some drama. His name was referred back to committee twice by, shall we say, disgruntled NAD delegates including the PA conference president. Then Elizabeth Talbot made a motion for the vote to be by secret ballot. That motion was voted down with a large majority. Now most everyone there will know who is against Wilson and is [almost certainly] pro WO. BTW, one of the members of the NOMCOM is Natasha Nebblett who is the president of GYC.

(Some of this information was gleaned from Spectrum, where, unfortunately, one is likely to find the story than on ANN.)  :'(

If I am not mistaken and according to Dr. Neil Nedly, they can not turn the name back unless the person has been biblically disqualified. Sounds like the NAD made an attempt at a supreme court decision to override the law and go by its own rules.
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

Immanuel

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 1410
  • Jesus is My Judge
    • Emmanuel Institute of Evangelism
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2015, 07:31:41 PM »
Here is what the Church Manual says about nominating committee reports. This is directly in regard to the local church but I could find nothing in the General Conference Working Policy that gives a different procedure of objecting. The major difference is that there is not a first and second reading at the GC Session. I bolded the part that is relevant to today's objections.

Members may object to the nominating committee’s report and should present their objections in person to the committee before the second reading of the report by making an appointment through the chairperson or pastor.Or, at the time of the second reading of the report, a member may request that the whole report be referred without discussion to the committee for further consideration. It is the usual procedure for the chairperson to accept the referral. However, if the request becomes a motion, it is nondebatable and is decided by majority vote.

If the election is deferred because of objections, it would be a serious matter for those raising objections to fail to appear before the committee. The committee should give due consideration to the objections presented. If they are found to be justified, the committee should substitute new names for those to which objection was made. When the report is again presented, the church proceeds to vote on the report of the committee.

Trivial or groundless objections to any name should never be made, but if there are serious reasons that any nomination should be changed, these reasons should be stated to the nominating committee.


From the GC Working Policy (the copy I have is from 2008 so it is a little out of date) This addresses the issue that was brought up by Elizabeth Talbot regarding whether or not to have secret ballots. The policy is to have a voice or other "public" voting method unless otherwise voted by the delegates.

The election of officers and the voting on all matters of business shall be by viva-voce vote, or as designated by the Chair, unless otherwise requested by a majority of the delegates present.

There does not have to be necessarily a Biblical disqualification reason, though I believe it should be on Biblical grounds.

LindaRS

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 5177
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2015, 07:41:44 PM »
Thank you, Immanuel.

Ordination Truth has posted a short report about Ted Wilson's nomination and election. Pastor Ted Wilson Reelected.
O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jeremiah  10:23-24

John Erickson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 341
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2015, 08:04:31 PM »
Praise the Lord for such an overwhelming 90% vote in favor of Ted Wilson being lead servant for the next five years (hopefully less because Jesus will come!)

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the two delegates objecting were just being stinkers on purpose. It was an (inappropriate) way, to voice dissent and spit in Ted Wilson's face. It was as if it was a way to spit in his face. Again, just my opinion, I wasn't there, but given the NAD's rebellious tendencies I have to lean toward this conclusion at this point.

I don't want to celebrate to early, but is there anyone in this room that believes that WO will NOT be voted down after the landslide for Wilson today? I'm expecting at least 70-75% of delegates to vote no on W.O.
"Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen" Matthew 28:20

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6417
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2015, 02:50:54 PM »

Here is what the Church Manual says about nominating committee reports. This is directly in regard to the local church but I could find nothing in the General Conference Working Policy that gives a different procedure of objecting. The major difference is that there is not a first and second reading at the GC Session. I bolded the part that is relevant to today's objections.

Members may object to the nominating committee’s report and should present their objections in person to the committee before the second reading of the report by making an appointment through the chairperson or pastor.Or, at the time of the second reading of the report, a member may request that the whole report be referred without discussion to the committee for further consideration. It is the usual procedure for the chairperson to accept the referral. However, if the request becomes a motion, it is nondebatable and is decided by majority vote.

If the election is deferred because of objections, it would be a serious matter for those raising objections to fail to appear before the committee. The committee should give due consideration to the objections presented. If they are found to be justified, the committee should substitute new names for those to which objection was made. When the report is again presented, the church proceeds to vote on the report of the committee.

Trivial or groundless objections to any name should never be made, but if there are serious reasons that any nomination should be changed, these reasons should be stated to the nominating committee.


From the GC Working Policy (the copy I have is from 2008 so it is a little out of date) This addresses the issue that was brought up by Elizabeth Talbot regarding whether or not to have secret ballots. The policy is to have a voice or other "public" voting method unless otherwise voted by the delegates.

The election of officers and the voting on all matters of business shall be by viva-voce vote, or as designated by the Chair, unless otherwise requested by a majority of the delegates present.

There does not have to be necessarily a Biblical disqualification reason, though I believe it should be on Biblical grounds.


Not having studied the process I'm not sure that I understand this. The names were turned back but no reason was given? If the turning back would not have been rejected what then would have happened ?  Would there then be discussion as to why Ted Wilson would or would not be a good candidate for the next term? And then a vote?
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

LindaRS

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 5177
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2015, 03:12:12 PM »
CP, maybe the following will help. It is the text from Ordination Truth that I linked to above. It explains how they worked it.

_________________________________________________ _________________________

On Friday, July 3, 2015 by around 10:40 am the nominating committee was ready with its first report. At 10:57 word came that nominating committee was ready. Meanwhile, the General Conference secretary was able to complete his report. In due course, Pastor Ted N.C. Wilson was proposed to the delegates of the GC session to serve as president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in the new 2015-2020 quinquennium.

When Ted Wilson’s name was announced, there was a substantial audible positive reaction from the assembly across the dome. But a very unusual attempt to turn back the nomination came almost immediately. These attempts were all made by NAD or TED (Trans-European Division) delegates. Ray Hartwell, president of Pennsylvania conference lodged the first objection. He tried to refer the nomination back to committee. But rather than refer, the chairperson permitted the delegate to speak to the chair and secretary of the GC nominating committee to see whether his concerns had been addressed. They had. Then another delegate stood forth to offer the same objection. The same process was followed. Meanwhile, the assembled delegates grew increasingly unhappy with the obstruction as evidenced by their audible reactions to the NAD attempts and the rulings of the chair.

After those attempts failed, NAD delegate Elizabeth Talbot engaged in an extended attempt to have the vote be conducted by secret ballot in spite of the non-working electronic voting devices. Delegates rejected those motions.

Throughout these proceedings those present grew increasingly unhappy with the obstructive behavior of the NAD delegates. Finally, Larry Boggess, president of Mountainview conference (Columbia Union, NAD) moved that debate on the motion to elect Wilson be discontinued. The motion carried.

Vote was taken by card, not electronically. It seemed to those present that almost every card went up for pastor Wilson in every section, save two: in the locations where the NAD and TED delegations were located, the “yes” cards were almost not offered.

The response was overwhelming, approximately 90% voted in favor. The vote was a landslide. Ted N.C. Wilson has been reelected to the office of General Conference president!
O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jeremiah  10:23-24

LindaRS

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 5177
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2015, 03:18:07 PM »
We watched this afternoon's meeting on mission. Close to the end, they brought a Chinese couple who had both served time in labor camps for being Christian, along with their son. The couple are up in the 80's now, but I was so moved and impressed by the father. His face was beaming as he talked about God, about how Jesus is coming. We don't exactly what he said, since he speaks only Chinese and his son was translating. Both Ed and I were impressed by the look of joy and peace on the father's face.
O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jeremiah  10:23-24

Immanuel

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 1410
  • Jesus is My Judge
    • Emmanuel Institute of Evangelism
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2015, 03:27:57 PM »
The name nominated by the nominating committee and brought before the business session can only be voted on. No discussion can happen from the floor. All that can happen is that a delegate can request that the nomination be referred back to the nominating committee OR make a motion that the name should be referred back to the committee. Then the person or group of persons can appear before the nominating committee to voice their concerns about the nomination. The nominating committee then, after the objectors have stated their concerns and left, will consider whether or not the nomination should stand or if a different nomination should be made. If the nomination stands the nomination is brought back before the delegates for a vote, a simple yes or no.

What happened in this case is that there was a request that was made by some NAD delegates. The chair asked those who made the request to make it a motion. The key difference is that a request does not have to be voted on, it is just normally accepted by the chair. If it is a motion then the body votes on whether or not the name should be referred back to the committee. The NAD delegates did not want to make it a motion because they knew that the motion would be voted down and the vote on the nomination would proceed.

Some of the "news" outlets such as Spectrum and AToday spun what happened as though policy was being violated, but that is not the case. At the GC Session it is acceptable that the person objecting bring his/her objection to the officers of the nominating committee. They will hear the objection and decide whether or not the objection or concern has already been considered by the entire nominating committee. If they determine that the objection/concern was already heard by the committee, which is what happened here, then they will let the chair know that he can proceed with the vote. This is what happened and policy was followed.

The Spectrum crowd is upset because they wanted an opportunity to get the nomination changed. It was clear from the general reaction of the delegates that Ted Wilson would be easily reelected. The NAD delegates that were objecting probably thought they would have a better chance to get the nomination changed at the nominating committee level, but that did not happen.

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6417
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2015, 04:17:43 PM »

Thank you Linda and Immanuel. That was very instructive and helpful. I have never paid attention to the politics and how these things operate.  It sounds like nothing that the dissenting delegates could have done under any circumstances would have worked for them. They were desperate. I'm wondering what their protests were and would have been had they had their way. I can't think that they would have presented any other then the most ridiculous reasons  for overturning the nomination and therefore a vote on Ted Wilson as president. Am I seeing this correctly ?
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

Immanuel

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 1410
  • Jesus is My Judge
    • Emmanuel Institute of Evangelism
Re: General Conference Session Discussion
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2015, 04:29:55 PM »
Yes, that is correct. I think that they thought that on the nominating committee that maybe they would have a better chance to get the nomination overturned because it is a smaller body and there might be more people sympathetic to their cause. Short of clear evidence of some type of immoral or unethical action, which they did not allege and do not have,  I don't think they would have been successful.