So what does Abner's rebellion after David's coronation in Judah have to do with Acts 15 and 9T 260-261, and with legalese vs. eternal realities?
Gregory has publicly taken the position that if a union's constitution doesn't say that it can't go contrary to a GC Session, then that union has the right to go contrary to a GC Session, irregardless of Acts 15, Ellen White's comments on Acts 15, and 9T 260-261. Is his position sound?
In Acts 15 we have a contentious issue. How was that issue resolved? Representatives from all the churches came together to discuss the matter and decide the question, and their decision was expected to be followed.
"The entire body of Christians were not called to vote upon the question. The apostles and elders--men of influence and judgment--framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted by the Christian churches. All were not pleased, however, with this decision; there was a faction of false brethren who assumed to engage in a work on their own responsibility. They indulged in murmuring and fault-finding, proposing new plans, and seeking to pull down the work of the experienced men whom God had ordained to teach the doctrine of Christ. The church has had such obstacles to meet from the first, and will ever have them to the close of time." (LP 70-71)
A union that refuses to recognize the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes is falling into the same error as the "faction of false brethren" referred to in the above quote.
"But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.
"... God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority." (9T 260-261)
Before David was crowned king of all of Israel, there was no legal reason why 11 of the tribes couldn't have a different king, and a particular union may have no legal obstacle in their constitution against going contrary to a GC Session. But if Abner was engaging in rebellion as PP states, then unions can still be in rebellion even if their constitution doesn't prevent them from doing what they want to do.
The key question is whether God has made the issue plain. Regarding who should be the next king, even Saul admitted that David would be king, and Jonathan knew it too and didn't mind. Regarding whether a union can go contrary to a GC Session vote without a Scriptural mandate to do so, God has similarly made the issue plain in Acts 15 and 9T 260-261. Therefore, for a union to go contrary to a GC Session vote is rebellion just like Abner's actions were rebellion, irregardless of what that union's constitution allegedly permits.