Pacific Union and WO

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

Let me point out what happened in 2005 GC session.

Women were divorcing their husbands due to spousal beatings and the church was disfellowshiping these women for non biblical divorce.

The item before the GC session in 2005 was to allow divorce in cases of spousal beatings and the church could not disfellowship the women for that.

The african and latin american divisions would not allow that to pass so it was tabled.

However on Friday afternoon when most of the african and latin american delegates had left for home early the item was brought back by the north american and European division delegates. It passed with barely a legal quoarum.

The churches in Latin america and africa said they would not abide by this vote as it was unbiblical.

So you see here we have a vote voted by the delegates at the GC session and you have a portion of the church saying they will not abide by this vote.

You do not see Ted Wilson threatening action against these divisions do you? NO because these people are the ones who put him in office.

First, it was the 2000 Toronto GC session.

Second, it was not just Latino & African delegates that had left the area. The motion to rescind was rammed through by 150 delegates out of about 2,000.

Rejoice always,

G

You are correct. It was the 2000 GC session.

Time does fly

http://omega77.tripod.com/TorontoSession1.htm

[CyberGuy]

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE INTRODUCED—The Divorce and Remarriage Amendment was brought before the delegates on Monday morning, July 4 (GC Bulletin #8, p. 23).

It was introduced by a speech by Jan Paulsen, in which he stated that a commission had been appointed by the delegates at Utrecht (1995) to study into the matter; and, Paulsen urged the delegates to accept it. Otherwise they would be redoing what the commission has already done.

Mentioning that the recommendations of the commission had already been examined by the Annual Council, Paulsen said:

"But please, let us not now go back and do the work for which we five years ago appointed a commission. If we will see the work of the commission as something that we must now begin to open and examine and address as though the issue is coming raw before us at this time, I feel, brothers and sisters, that we are taking on a task that is really quite impossible to handle in this body.

"We will share with you all the information that we have. There are no secrets in respect to this. It’s all in the public domain. At Annual Council your union presidents and division officers and lay members of the General Conference Committee had opportunity to participate fully in the review of these matters, and felt satisfied that the way by which we are processing it in bringing it back to you as part of the Church Manual document does in fact satisfy and meet the action taken five years ago."—GC Bulletin #8, p. 23.

What he was discussing was only the single part of the many Church Manual revisions, dealing with the Divorce and Remarriage modifications. Nowhere else during the week do we find such an appeal being made about a certain section of the revisions. So, it would appear, the brethren were concerned to get this one pushed through.

Following Paulsen’s extended comment, more were made by various officers who declared that it was a good paper; that, to save expense, it need only be shared with delegates who wanted to see it, that an experienced committee had prepared it, and the General Conference executive committee and the Annual Council had approved it.

The document was then read by an officer, and immediately delegates began speaking from the floor. Delegate after delegate spoke in protest about one aspect or another of the document, until the end of the business meeting (GC Bulletin #8, pp. 23-24).

Amid the many protests, one delegate asked that the entire document be distributed to the delegates so they could personally read the Divorce and Remarriage modifications. The chair reluctantly said that this would take a lot of paper, and that it would be distributed to those who specifically requested a copy.

Frankly, they had to beg to be able to see the complete amended document they were being asked to vote on! The next day, it was given to them.

"Yesterday several delegates had requested that the original commission report be made available, and today delegate Gerald Winslow, who in 1995 made the motion to reconsider divorce and remarriage, moved to distribute the full report to the floor. Minutes later, that happened."—Session 2000 News, July 4, 2000.

One of the objections was that the Divorce and Remarriage changes would take the decision out of the hand of the local churches.

"Dan Jackson of the North American Division suggested that the document placed too much power with the conference/mission/field. ‘Local congregations are often in a better position to deal with these issues,’ he said."—Session 2000 News, July 5, 2000.

[CyberGuy]

THE DELEGATES DID NOT LIKE THE D&R MODIFICATIONS—The world church is now about 95% "foreign." Although Americans, Europeans, and Australians still control the top jobs at the General Conference in Silver Spring, Maryland, the reality of church membership is rather different.

This astounding fact especially reveals itself at the five-year Sessions. The great majority of delegates are conservative while those from the Western world are liberal. Although one may have the vote, the other has the power and the ability to sidestep the vote. We have observed trickery in recent Sessions. It happened again this year. More later on how this was done.

Both concerned changes in the Church Manual.

First, there was the Divorce and Remarriage amendment to the Church Manual.

When introduced, floor debate about the matter became extremely heated, as it was perceived by the foreign delegation that the liberals from the Western world wanted to push through something which would tend to weaken the divorce and remarriage rules of the church.

Aggravating the matter was the obvious fact that the same kind of slick, new theology talk was being offered as an excuse for why the changes were needed. To the foreign delegates, it all sounded like the kind of talk they heard in 1995 at Utrecht, when the North American Division uttered similar excuses for wanting to ordain women preachers.

CHURCH LEADERS FORCED TO SUSPEND D&R DISCUSSION—The issue became so heated that church leaders had to suspend the nominating committee, so its members could be present to speak to the issue on the floor of the assembly during most of Tuesday and Wednesday.

Ultimately, the amendment became hopelessly bogged down in debate and committee work, until President Paulsen stepped to the podium and said there had been enough of this, and the delegates needed to move on to other business. It had been debated for two days (Tuesday and Wednesday).

D&R TABLED TILL THE NEXT SESSION—So upset were the delegates about the matter, that they refused to deal with it.

So, with nearly the full house of delegates present, it was voted that the entire document, bearing in mind the concerns of the delegates, be referred to the Church Manual Committee. This effectively tabled it till the following Session.

"Delegates at today’s business session voted to return an amendment on divorce and remarriage, with delegate recommendations, to the Church Manual Committee for further revision. Barring a reversal in Thursday’s session, the document won’t be voted on until the 2005 General Conference Session in St. Louis, Missouri."—"Meet Me in St. Louis—Divorce and Remarriage Document Referred to 2005 Session," Session 2000 News, July 5, 2000.

Why did the reporter say, "barring a reversal"? Had he heard some of the plans. At any rate, the very next paragraph contained an ominous warning by the president of the extremely liberal South Pacific Division:

" ‘By default we voted to depreciate the authority of the Church Manual,’ said Laurie Evans, president of the South Pacific Division. ‘People might be frustrated and take this into their own hands, which would hurt the unity of the Church.’ "—Ibid.

The following paragraph gave the comment of a North American Division delegate: "I don’t want to live with this another five years."

The vote to send the document back to committee was made that morning. Calvin Rock took over the chair for the afternoon session and tried to bring it back, but the delegates voted once again to send it to committee. This, of course, would effectively kill it for the Session, since it was so late in the week and the delegates had already spent two days on it.

The liberals were clearly upset. It was Wednesday, July 5, and the divorce and remarriage amendment had been tabled for five years. Something had to be done, and fast, for Friday would be the last Business Meeting. What they needed was somone who lived in a remote corner of the earth to do something daring.

HOW A FEW LIBERALS OVERRULED NEARLY 2,000 DELEGATES—Garry J. Hodgkin is a large man, about 6 foot, five inches, and president of the South New Zealand Conference, part of the extremely liberal, pro-Fordite South Pacific Division. The delegates never heard of him before; they will never forget him in the future.

On Wednesday afternoon, July 5, the decision of whether to adopt the Divorce and Remarriage amendments to the Church Manual had been deferred for another five years, to the 2005 St. Louis (Missouri) Session.

On Thursday afternoon, mingled among the others lined up at the delegate microphone, was Garry J. Hodgkin. When it came his turn to speak, he mentioned simply that the next day he would move the rescinding of the divorce and remarriage amendment referral to committee. The chairman replied with a casual, "Is there a second?" Someone gave it, and that was it. The chair quickly turned to other matters, and few, if any, of the faithful recognized what had happened.

By parliamentary law, because he had made that brief statement on Thursday, he would be in a position to get the tabling motion rescinded the next morning on only a majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

Word passed around to key liberal delegates to be there early the next morning. But overseas delegates, and even their leaders, did not catch the significance of what was planned.

The next day, Friday, was the last working day of the week. Many delegates went to confirm their air tickets for their departure on Sunday, because there were rumors of an Air Canada strike and many were concerned. Others went shopping or were packing. (Some have suspected that the rumor was started to keep the delegates away from the Friday morning business meeting.)

That morning, as soon as the business meeting opened, Hodgkin was the second person to the microphone. He moved to rescind the Wednesday decision to table the Divorce and Remarriage Amendment. Someone else stood up and immediately seconded his motion.

The rescinding was passed with little opposition, for two reasons: First, it all happened so quickly that few understood what was happening. Second, there were only about 150 of the 2,000 delegates present! The rumor had accomplished its work.

Everything proceeded with a lightning speed, which only careful advance planning could have accomplished.

Immediately, Henrik Ingo stood up and moved to adopt the entire marriage and divorce amendment.

"After South Pacific Division delegate Gary Hodgkin’s motion to rescind was carried, Henrik Ingo of the Trans-European Division moved to adopt the amendment ‘as it now appears.’ "—Session 2000 News, July 7, 2000.

Someone immediately seconded it. As soon as the chair, Philip Follett, heard the motion, he confidently said that only a simple majority was needed to pass it (since it had been previously announced). It appears that he had been told what was about to take place.

A couple people had opportunity to speak, before someone moved to cut off all debate, even as another delegate stood at another microphone ready to propose an amendment to it! The motion was immediately seconded, cutting off all discussion.

With only a select number of 150 delegates in the auditorium, the motions passed with little opposition. A document that had been debated for two days and tabled for five years—had suddenly been revived and passed in, what one visitor said, was about 10 minutes.

"Delegates this morning rescinded Wednesday’s referral of the Divorce and Remarriage amendment back to the Church Manual Committee, and then voted by an overwhelming margin to adopt the document."—Session 2000 News, July 7, 2000.

All the complaints had been ignored, and the marriage and divorce modifications were enacted.

Never underrate the liberals. They are very clever.

Commenting on the enactment of the divorce and remarriage amendment, one church leader made this comment:

" ‘[The revision] is simply a change of language and a change of attitude—a more Christian attitude,’ said Mario Veloso, General Conference associate secretary."—Session 2000 News, July 7, 2000.

Significantly, even the General Conference president became involved. As soon as the marriage and divorce amendment was enacted, Jan Paulsen appealed to the delegates to not discuss the matter any more. —Yet the only reason for discussion would be to repeal the amendment. Paulsen apparently did not want that done.

"Following the vote, World Church President Jan Paulsen walked to the floor microphone and urged that no further debate be given to the divorce and remarriage document. ‘We have spent quite enough time on this one,’ he said."—Ibid.

Yet, if it took only ten minutes to enact it, later in the morning when the delegates arrived back, it would take only ten minutes to rescind the previous vote and table it again.

How do we know that approximately 150 delegates were in the auditorium? Several conservative delegates stood up and counted them. One of them was the arch-conservative, Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. Some liberals later ridiculed that count, declaring that there were probably about 500 there. But Pipim declared that there were only 150 present.

Hodgkin afterward admitted that he consulted with Laurie J. Evans, South Pacific Division president and Athal Tolhurst (another liberal Australian), as to how to draft his motions so they would be properly made. He also said he already had men in place (fellow liberals from Australia and New Zealand) to second both his motions

[Woody]

Very interesting. Cool how God's will is accomplished.

[CyberGuy]

It was the delegates from africa and latin americas faul. They were off watching the world cup soccor game and shopping rather than doing their job. So Gods will was accomplished by their not being there.

Would it not be cool if we could do the same for womens ordination. Problem is Ted WIlson will insist on a revolt to overturn that vote.

[Woody]

It was the delegates from africa and latin americas faul. They were off watching the world cup soccor game and shopping rather than doing their job. So Gods will was accomplished by their not being there.

Would it not be cool if we could do the same for womens ordination. Problem is Ted WIlson will insist on a revolt to overturn that vote.

Yeah. I imagine Ted would.

[teresaq]

No one has inflicted anything on you Olger, or your church...unless most in your church would prefer to have a female pastor. If all in your particular church think like you I would say you're pretty safe.

Oh, and hey, I understand the passing of WO in those two unions owes a great deal to the anti people. I believe they are heartily thanking you!! Want to consider changing tactics? You all might win then.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

Let me point out what happened in 2005 GC session.

Women were divorcing their husbands due to spousal beatings and the church was disfellowshiping these women for non biblical divorce.

The item before the GC session in 2005 was to allow divorce in cases of spousal beatings and the church could not disfellowship the women for that.

The african and latin american divisions would not allow that to pass so it was tabled.

However on Friday afternoon when most of the african and latin american delegates had left for home early the item was brought back by the north american and European division delegates. It passed with barely a legal quoarum.

The churches in Latin america and africa said they would not abide by this vote as it was unbiblical.

So you see here we have a vote voted by the delegates at the GC session and you have a portion of the church saying they will not abide by this vote.

You do not see Ted Wilson threatening action against these divisions do you? NO because these people are the ones who put him in office.

First, it was the 2000 Toronto GC session.

Second, it was not just Latino & African delegates that had left the area. The motion to rescind was rammed through by 150 delegates out of about 2,000.

I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly, Olger. You sound upset that beaten women will no longer be disfellowshiped for divorcing their husbands. Is that what you intended to come across?

[teresaq]

You will always get the mentally unstables coming out of the woodwork in heated religious or political arguments claiming they work for God.

God is dishonored by such actions.

Heated discussion is always going to be with us. Just lets not let it get out of hand. Back off and take a break from the discussion when you get to emotional over it.

[teresaq]

[CyberGuy]

[quote name="teresaq(sda

No intimidation there. To imply there was any is just wrong and misleading. [/quote"]You misunderstood my point.

I am saying that the behavior and arguments of at least some against WO had a large part to play in making people swing the other way.

[Gerr]

How can it be called rebellion when WO has never been declared wrong by the GC, just failure to recognize it? Do we follow the world church or the leader of the church....God? That I see is the real issue, as I have stated before, unity for the sake of unity not seeking all means and individuls to spread the Good News. Is God going to wait until the GC makes a decision of WO, one way or the other, or does He simply control through His H*S. Lets not bog down into, 'well, if the H*S is leading, then why did this... or that take place'. Does the H*S only lead corporately of individuly?

Are we making a statement that the GC Pres is the voice of God or is the H*S the 'voice' of God today? WO is simply bringing that question forward and has not been answered up to this point. Concentrating and taking sides of the issue is not the primary question....who should be in charge of, God or man?

Did not the world church vote WO down?

[CyberGuy]

which is greater Doctrine or policy.

Not to ordain is policy yet our doctrin is this.

14. Unity in the Body of Christ:

The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children. (Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Matt. 28:19, 20; Ps. 133:1; 2 Cor. 5:16, 17; Acts 17:26, 27; Gal. 3:27, 29; Col. 3:10-15; Eph. 4:14-16; 4:1-6; John 17:20-23.)

[CyberGuy]

which is greater Doctrine or policy.

Not to ordain is policy yet our doctrin is this.

14. Unity in the Body of Christ:

The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children. (Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Matt. 28:19, 20; Ps. 133:1; 2 Cor. 5:16, 17; Acts 17:26, 27; Gal. 3:27, 29; Col. 3:10-15; Eph. 4:14-16; 4:1-6; John 17:20-23.)

Our doctrine #14 says men and women are equal yet the churches in africa and Latin american pays women less then men to do the same work. We do not ordain women and in many parts of africa and latin america they do not allow women to be even pastors.

To not ordain women is just a policy. Yet it is in conflict with our doctrine. Which do we obey, Doctrine or policy?

Is it rebellion to obey our doctrine yet disobey our policy?

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Concentrating and taking sides of the issue is not the primary question....who should be in charge, God or man?

The above is the question!

Our only concern should be, are we in rebellion against God!

Are you suggesting that the GC/World church speaks for God over the leading of the H*S in our individual lives anf corporate lives? The church voted to put it aside, it has never said the Bible forbids!!

[Woody]

Just to clarify - the only person responsible and also in rebellion - is the man at the top - Ted. The buck has to stop with him. Look at the mess he created. He is in rebellion with our Fundamentals of Faith. He is rebellion against his church and peoples.

[Gerr]

Just to clarify - the only person responsible and also in rebellion - is the man at the top - Ted. The buck has to stop with him. Look at the mess he created. He is in rebellion with our Fundamentals of Faith. He is rebellion against his church and peoples.

Sorry, fellow liberal, but that's pure garbage to put the blame on the president. And I have no great fondness for T. Wilson. The GC in session voted down WO. The president is trying to uphold what the body voted on. Two unions are disregarding the will of the world church, and you're calling the president in rebellion? That's a serious charge, brother.

ESV | ‎Ro 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

ESV | ‎1 Co 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order.

This counself on health reform is probably also applicable to other reforms:

Keep Close to the People.--We must go no faster than we can take those with us whose consciences and intellects are convinced of the truths we advocate. We must meet the people where they are. Some of us have been many years in arriving at our present position in health reform. It is slow work to obtain a reform in diet. We have powerful appetites to meet; for the world is given to gluttony. If we should allow the people as much time as we have required to come up to the present advanced state in reform, we would be very patient with them, and allow them to advance step by step, as we have done, until their feet are firmly established upon the health-reform platform. But we should be very cautious not

130

to advance too fast, lest we be obliged to retrace our steps. In reforms, we would better come one step short of the mark than to go one step beyond it. And if there is error at all, let it be on the side next to the people. {CW 129.3}

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Just to clarify - the only person responsible and also in rebellion - is the man at the top - Ted. The buck has to stop with him. Look at the mess he created. He is in rebellion with our Fundamentals of Faith. He is rebellion against his church and peoples.

Sorry, fellow liberal, but that's pure garbage to put the blame on the president. And I have no great fondness for T. Wilson. The GC in session voted down WO. The president is trying to uphold what the body voted on. Two unions are disregarding the will of the world church, and you're calling the president in rebellion? That's a serious charge, brother.

ESV | ‎Ro 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

ESV | ‎1 Co 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order.

This counself on health reform is probably also applicable to other reforms:

Keep Close to the People.--We must go no faster than we can take those with us whose consciences and intellects are convinced of the truths we advocate. We must meet the people where they are. Some of us have been many years in arriving at our present position in health reform. It is slow work to obtain a reform in diet. We have powerful appetites to meet; for the world is given to gluttony. If we should allow the people as much time as we have required to come up to the present advanced state in reform, we would be very patient with them, and allow them to advance step by step, as we have done, until their feet are firmly established upon the health-reform platform. But we should be very cautious not

130

to advance too fast, lest we be obliged to retrace our steps. In reforms, we would better come one step short of the mark than to go one step beyond it. And if there is error at all, let it be on the side next to the people. {CW 129.3}

The question is WHOSE Governing authority. GC administration or the Union constituency in session.

No Kingly Authority in Seventh-day Adventist Church--God has not set any kingly power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church to control the whole body, or to control any branch of the work. He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men.--Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 236. {ChL 49.3}

A Council of Men--Not Just One Man--It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences. The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. The showing by the past leadership of the conference is not after God's order. There has been a work done of a character that has not been approved of God. The result we have before us in the ruins where once stood that large printing plant, [The Review and Herald Office in Battle Creek] with its expensive facilities . . . . {ChL 26.1}

When Ted starts to try to enforce his will on the larger body of Christ in the Pacific Union he is violating Ellen Whites council and there he is in rebellion.

[Woody]

Quote:

When Ted starts to try to enforce his will on the larger body of Christ in the Pacific Union he is violating Ellen Whites council and there he is in rebellion.

Exactly. It's interesting that the cons can charge US - those who support the Fundamentals and are opposed to discrimination and abuse of women - to be in 'rebellion' but act all pious and offended when we speak the truth about who is really in rebellion.

What a shame that the abuse of the anti-WO has to continue.

I suppose when you don't have the truth behind you - that you resort to such tactics.

[CyberGuy]

We shall see what Ted Wilson intends to do at the Fall Council in October. I have heard sbout 80 percent working at the GC supports Womens ordaination. Just Ted Wilson at the top is excercising such dictorial power they are afraid to speak out in favor of WO. That bodes ill to the excercising of free will within a church run by Ted Wilson.

I have heard tell that when he was compaining for the GC president in the years prior to 2010 GC Session he made promises to reighn in the NAD liberalism to the more conservative world church unions. We shall see how much truth is in those reports in two months.

[teresaq]

I see what you are saying Gerry, but I think we need to keep in mind that 1) those against are not being forced to accept women pastors. 2)These actions have the ability to force us all to look inside our hearts, to really search the scriptures, if we will.

That some will dig in their heels, be it on both sides, is what happens with any issue.

What I don't understand is why we choose to be confused about Sabbath keeping and religious liberty, but make such a big deal over WO. Perhaps we are not a people holding up the 10c law as we would like to believe and these two contemporaneous actions are showing us that.

[CyberGuy]

I see what you are saying Gerry, but I think we need to keep in mind that 1) those against are not being forced to accept women pastors. 2)These actions have the ability to force us all to look inside our hearts, to really search the scriptures, if we will.

That some will dig in their heels, be it on both sides, is what happens with any issue.

What I don't understand is why we choose to be confused about Sabbath keeping and religious liberty, but make such a big deal over WO. Perhaps we are not a people holding up the 10c law as we would like to believe and these two contemporaneous actions are showing us that.

At the pacific Union session they made it clear that any confernece who did not want to ordain women would NOT be forced to ordain. So for those that think that conferences will be forced to ordain that is not the case. Free will is the bases of this decision. You can if you want and do not have to if you do not want to ordain.

[Gerr]

The question is WHOSE Governing authority. GC administration or the Union constituency in session.

No Kingly Authority in Seventh-day Adventist Church--God has not set any kingly power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church to control the whole body, or to control any branch of the work. He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men.--Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 236. {ChL 49.3}

A Council of Men--Not Just One Man--It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences. The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. The showing by the past leadership of the conference is not after God's order. There has been a work done of a character that has not been approved of God. The result we have before us in the ruins where once stood that large printing plant, [The Review and Herald Office in Battle Creek] with its expensive facilities . . . . {ChL 26.1}

When Ted starts to try to enforce his will on the larger body of Christ in the Pacific Union he is violating Ellen Whites council and there he is in rebellion.

T. Wilson imposing HIS will? Did not the world church vote WO down? Are the unions the body or just a part of the body? What did the US president do when Gov. Faubus defied the mandate to integrate? Should the president just stand back and let every union or conference do their own thing? Where is the spirit of submission to higher authority?

[Gerr]

At the pacific Union session they made it clear that any confernece who did not want to ordain women would NOT be forced to ordain. So for those that think that conferences will be forced to ordain that is not the case. Free will is the bases of this decision. You can if you want and do not have to if you do not want to ordain.

Suppose the African Unions voted to have polygamy and "made it clear" that those against it are not being forced to accept it?

Free will?

[whbae]

The fact of the matter is not if a local conference can do some thing or not against GC policy.

The WO is just as important as keeping the Sabbath. No one so far has proven to me from the Bible that WO is alright or against God's will. All the quotations from the Bible are interpreted partially to fit their purpose by both sides. It is likened to a ring, if one places in the ear it becomes an ear ring, at the same time if one places on the nose it becomes a nose ring. I would like to see someone come up with a solid statement or evidence from the Bible so as no one can place in the ear or nose to suit their purpose.

Won