In another forum there is a discussion now between two Adventist workers, one of which was a delegate in 1990 and the other one in 1995. There seems to be some uncertainty among the delegates what they really had voted for.
Since we are human, there will always be some of that. In our constituency meeting in April I spoke a number of times against WO. I voted yes for a number of motions to amend motions. Then when it came time to vote for one of two main motions via secret ballot, I again voted yes.
After handing in my ballot, I then realized my mistake in not voting no for that main motion. But the vote wasn't that close that my one mistaken vote made a difference.
I find it interesting that one of these tells that after the vote he interviewed about 50 delegates. At least 50% of those he talked to indicated they had felt forced to cast the vote the way they did but had no choice since it was an open vote. They said their vote had been different if it had been a secret ballot.
Then why didn't they ask for a secret ballot? And so what whether it was a secret ballot or not? The men should be a man.
When I was a delegate in 1966 each Division had such a large number of delegates that they appointed just about anyone who was available to travel or happened to be in the vicinity. Later I was on the committee in two different countries so I could follow how the delegates were appointed. As our total membership increased the GC had to cut down the percentage of delegates, and were much more selective than before. I noticed that from then on a majority of the delegates were already members of the Division committee, and then a few more were hand picked, and the local conferences had no influence.
This is a strong indication that the Church is more and more ruled from the top, and not by the membership. The members elect their own church officers. The local church officers select the delegates to the conference elections, after getting an approval of the members. It is not easy to vote down the selection by the church officers in the average church.
The conference officers select the delegates to the Union session in all the geographic areas where I have worked.
Division officers are elected at the General Conference session, and are therefore, by some, regarded as officers of the General Conference.
In some areas there is no local conference any more, and in some instances a local conference is directly under the Division.
In a way each division has two presidents. There is the local one, who is often regarded as a vice president of the General Conference. In addition to that, at least some of the vice presidents of the General Conference who have their office at Silver Springs, are each assigned a world area as their responsibility. I know that at least in certain cases, these vice presidents have earlier served as Division presidents in the area of their present responsibility. Then they have secretaries as their assistants.
It varies greatly how the various General Conference presidents use their mandate. Some presidents rule by proxy and leave most of the responsibility to the person they have put in charge of certain areas. Other presidents make most the decisions themselves. These ignore the counsel of Moses and Ellen White. Are they true leaders?