Oct. 1980 Gc Sustainings And Opposing...

[Duncan]

http://www.lds.org/g...ficers?lang=eng

Click on the video link and you can see the whole gory story in all its glory...but does anyone know what happened and why they opposed? I feel kinda sick watching the event unfold and I don't mind people opposing but maybe yelling isn't the best way of doing it but they got their point across

Edited May 25, 2012 by Duncan

[Calm]

I believe the issue was the ERA.

Note: I am on my iPad and can't get the video to open, but the timing fits.

See here for the church's position on it: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-moral-issue

Edited May 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[alter idem]

Yes, it was about the Equal Rights Amendment. I believe Sonja Johnson was there in the Tabernacle and a few other women who supported ERA and they voiced their opposition to the President of the Church because of the Church's Stand against ERA.

[theplains]

Just out of curiosity I looked at the October 2011 and April 2012 sessions of the "Sustaining of Church Officers"

and I notice a common theme. The audience looks to be fairly large (10,000? maybe more?). Only a few seconds

is allotted after he wishes to know if anyone opposes.

I doubt he is really concentrating on the audience to see any dissenters. It seems he assumes 100% approval.

It's understandable that some yelled "no" in the 1980 conference ... they wanted to make sure they were recognized.

Regards,

Jim

[Calm]

Yes, it was about the Equal Rights Amendment. I believe Sonja Johnson was there in the Tabernacle and a few other women who supported ERA and they voiced their opposition to the President of the Church because of the Church's Stand against ERA.

Glad to see you on board, alter. You are never around enough.

[Calm]

Just out of curiosity I looked at the October 2011 and April 2012 sessions of the "Sustaining of Church Officers"

and I notice a common theme. The audience looks to be fairly large (10,000? maybe more?). Only a few seconds

is allotted after he wishes to know if anyone opposes.

I doubt he is really concentrating on the audience to see any dissenters. It seems he assumes 100% approval.

It's understandable that some yelled "no" in the 1980 conference ... they wanted to make sure they were recognized.

Regards,

Jim

I remember someone saying they have spotters who take any dissenters aside to discuss their issues. I don't know if he was right though, been too long since I attended a session (over forty years) and at the time I was more interested in other things....plus I couldnt really see over the benches unless I was standing up on them...which probably wouldn't have made Grandma too happy.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I have to say, I love how calmly and professionally, might I even say "maturely", that Elder McConkie handled it. It was touching how he also gently put his arm around the aging President Romney in a show of comfort. President Romney seemed a bit surprised. A good show of the sort of love that is shared among the brethren.

[CASteinman]

I have to say, I love how calmly and professionally, might I even say "maturely", that Elder McConkie handled it. It was touching how he also gently put his arm around the aging President Romney in a show of comfort. President Romney seemed a bit surprised. A good show of the sort of love that is shared among the brethren.

I noticed that too.

[theplains]

I remember someone saying they have spotters who take any dissenters aside to discuss their issues.

Thanks. Makes sense if the church set up this newer method.

..plus I couldnt really see over the benches unless I was standing up on them...which probably wouldn't have made Grandma too happy.

Just imagine if the President was looking at you too :-)

Jim

[Buzzard]

I was in the tabernacle at the 1977 Conference when as N Eldon Tanner was asking for a sustaining vote, a man stood up in the gallery and asked, loud enough that we could hear it across the tabernacle, if he had seen his negative vote. Pres Tanner said "No. Let me see it". The man continued standing and raised his arm, then Pres. Tanner did the same thing. Asked him to meet with Elder Hinkley and went on.

I don't think we have had a negative vote since 1980. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[blooit]

I have heard the story of this event, and was old enough to remember it, but I don't. The issue (I was told) was ERA. They are welcome to oppose, maybe even irreverently. It's almost funny now looking back this many years later.

[Blah]

I had never heard of this before. I love the fact that those opposing are invited to meet with a member of the Twelve to voice their concerns.

[Pahoran]

Yes, it was about the Equal Rights Amendment. I believe Sonja Johnson was there in the Tabernacle and a few other women who supported ERA and they voiced their opposition to the President of the Church because of the Church's Stand against ERA.

Thanks for that.

I remembered this event, but I didn't know it was because of ERA. I had assumed that it had something to do with the revelation on the Priesthood in 1978.

Did this silly stunt come before or after Ms Johnson's excommunication?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

It came afterwards and may not have involved her as one of the three, hard to tell from the way the article is written: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20078307,00.html

Johnson may be proudest of what happened at a recent Mormon convention in Salt Lake City when three women opposed a motion affirming the church president as a "prophet of God." "The brethren didn't throw them out or even hint at excommunication," she says. "I guess they didn't want another Sonia Johnson episode."

[Pahoran]

It came afterwards and may not have involved her as one of the three, hard to tell from the way the article is written: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20078307,00.html

Johnson may be proudest of what happened at a recent Mormon convention in Salt Lake City when three women opposed a motion affirming the church president as a "prophet of God." "The brethren didn't throw them out or even hint at excommunication," she says. "I guess they didn't want another Sonia Johnson episode."

Yes, it does sort of imply that she was not one of them. However, the inaccuracies are interesting. For example, the phrase "prophet of God" was not mentioned in the sustaining. The "recent Mormon convention" spoken of was actually the October 1980 General Conference.

Also, nearly two years before her excommunication in December 1979, someone ("Lord" Douglas Wallace or Byron Marchant, I forget which) had offered a negative vote when President Tanner was handling the sustainings. The negative vote was handled in exactly the same way: the person was invited to talk to (then) Elder Gordon B. Hinckley after the meeting. "The brethren didn't throw them out or even hint at excommunication," just as they didn't with Johnson's surrogates.

So perhaps Ms Johnson wasn't quite as important to the Church as she'd like to suppose.

And AFAICT, she wasn't even ex'ed for supporting ERA. She seems to have been ex'ed for opposing the Church. Note that she accepted money from Hugh Hefner and protested the dedication of the Bellevue Washington Temple.

I can't see any problem with her excommunication, myself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I remember it well- it was about the ERA, Sonia Johnson was I believe one of the dissenters. As I recall it happened at least one other time maybe in the following conference.

Being a newbie, I thought it was a routine thing!

[KevinG]

Given the sanctity the church handles disciplinary actions with the only time you will hear the details of an excommunication will be when the person reports their own experience. The church won't even publish details to defend their side of the story.

I expect several excommunicated Saints to become minor celebrities during the general election campaign. Especially those who were counseled by Bishop Romney.

[Kenngo1969]

I remember it well- it was about the ERA, Sonia Johnson was I believe one of the dissenters. As I recall it happened at least one other time maybe in the following conference.

Being a newbie, I thought it was a routine thing!

You must've thought, This is a heckuva church!

[Cobalt-70]

I don't think anyone would be excommunicated specifically for voting "no" on any sustaining vote. After all, this is supposed to be a real vote--or at least it was, early in Mormon history when the members sometimes rejected people nominated by Joseph Smith. What kind of a vote would it be if you are ex-ed for voting no?

[Vance]

So perhaps Ms Johnson wasn't quite as important to the Church as she'd like to suppose.

Yeah, but she went on to be world famous/renowned and remains so to this day.

Oh, wait.

[selek1]

Yeah, but she went on to be world famous/renowned and remains so to this day.

Oh, wait.

<Ouch!>

[DBMormon]

I really appreciated Elder Mcconkie's love for Bro. Romney as well as respect for the may voters. That was handles exactly the way I would think it should have been.

Why are the talks from this session available but not other sessions or years?

[Calm]

Why are the talks from this session available but not other sessions or years?

Not sure what you mean, but here are the links to conferences online: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/conferences?lang=eng Edited May 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I don't think anyone would be excommunicated specifically for voting "no" on any sustaining vote. After all, this is supposed to be a real vote--or at least it was, early in Mormon history when the members sometimes rejected people nominated by Joseph Smith. What kind of a vote would it be if you are ex-ed for voting no?

Who said you would? I must have missed that?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, it was about the Equal Rights Amendment. I believe Sonja Johnson was there in the Tabernacle and a few other women who supported ERA and they voiced their opposition to the President of the Church because of the Church's Stand against ERA.

I recall the incident. I don't believe Sonja was there in the Tabernacle on that occasion, although she was leading the charge for the activists against the Church's stance toward the ERA.

I may be wrong though. Memories do fade after that many decades.