Adventist Online

At 35:04 a WO proponent rudely interrupts the president of the World Church asking him to shut up and take his seat. These people have no respect for leadership and those in authority.   

see the rude interruption as 35:04 

Views: 952

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Actually, if you viewed the video, he still had the floor, legitimately.  She was attempting to silence him for her own agenda.  It was a violation of Robert's Rules of Order. You might want to explore those tenets as most governments are based on those principles.

Yes Heisenberg, she was most likely trying to silence Ted Wilson for her own agenda. On that we can agree. But even so, I don't believe she was rude, nor did she use a wrongful way of doing so.

However I maintain my position that we shouldn't add words to her mouth that she never said. We can speculate as to why she made the Point of Order. But we should not accuse her of telling Elder Wilson to "Shut up". I'm sorry but I just feel that such accusations fall under :Bearing false witness". Let's get the facts straight and present truthful accounts on what happened. Not twist them into something uglier.

If you violate Robert's Rules of Order to seize the floor when you don't like what your opponent is saying, it is very rude and completely out of order.  If you have ever served in a legislative body you might understand the gravitas of the disruption.

Under parliamentary procedure the ruling would be made on whether the speaker has exceeded his time limit or not.  Whether the person invoking the rule agrees with the speaker or not would be irrelevant.

Hmmm, even then I'm not so sure. Well I guess we can all watch the video and form our own opinion on whether it was rude or not.

But I'm sure even you agree with my point about how we should not be putting words in her mouth she never said.

I am glad to listen to you Grey, and I certainly agree that we should not put words into another person's mouth. The principle is a common one in Scripture :

"You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: you shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour." (Lev 19:15)


The irony, is WO proponents think it is okay to interrupt a President that is in office, giving a speech in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order and in doing so exercising the function of his office. Though, I bet, ironically, they would have no patience for things like this occurring.  They would silence of the President of the Church, but be bent out of shape about the interruption of the President of the United States, well, at least this one anyway.

At times assemblies agree to time limits, when the time limited is exceeded it is proper to invoke parliamentary procedure to force the speaker to yield.  I suspect that may have been the case here since the chair asked the member to withdraw question rather than ruling against her.  For anyone familiar with parliamentary procedure this was nothing out of the ordinary.  If Wilson had been delivering a sermon at a church service type setting then no interruption would have been acceptable.

I do not think anyone is saying she was not well within her"rights."  But in its context, it was inappropriate for the reasons I mentioned below in my other post. The evidence of this is the applause that followed along with the PUC presidents response. Both President Wilson and President Graham  seemed to demonstrate body language (rubbing of forehead for Graham and the controlled smile by Wilson) that mirrored the inappropriateness of the rule of order.

And if you had observed the rebuttal, the time limit was set in advance, and he the floor, and she decided to quash it anyway, which she had no authority to do.  But, then again, WO isn't about having authority, it is about seizing it at all cost.

I agree. It was done in bad taste and derision. This is the case for two reasons:

1. It ignored the gravity of the issue being addressed. It is not like this was your average administrative meeting.

2. Lack of respect for his position.  Even the children of the world know better than that. The lack of Christian piety is apparent.It is reminiscent of the spirit  the Jews had against Jesus  and the apostles in the book of Acts, Very sad.

I believe that interruption broke his heart. Nevertheless, Elder Wilson and the Pacific Union President handled the situation in a Christ like manner.


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service