mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 (edited) Very good question. It now seems to mean that everyone is supposed to consent to what the leadership does or proclaims braising their hands to the square. However, it's been my experience in the couple times I have witnessed it that someone from the stand is sent out to interview the person. I assume you were in some sort of general or area type conference.I hit the rep button by mistake. So if someone opposes a sustaining, they should be ignored and not interviewed- is that what you are saying? We should not find out what the problem is??? Why then sustain anyone at all?? Edited December 1, 2013 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 (edited) general conference. a teenage boy opposed. LDS security took him, he was eventually returned to his seat. i asked him what happened, he said that LDS security took him, took his photo, asked his name of his home ward, bishop etc. lectured him on showing respect. didn't really make it seem to me like sustaining is a process that allows for anyone to actually be opposed. if you oppose, they say it was uninamous. so why allow a vote to see who is opposed? what if the whole conference center raises their hands to oppose? Does it still appear to be unanimous in the affirmative! ?So some kid was fooling around and you took that to show church policy about opposing a sustaining of General Authorities? Really? Edited December 1, 2013 by mfbukowski
strappinglad Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 If you raise your hand in opposition, you will be interviewed before the vote is completed. If you are serious and not just contentious then your opposition will be noted. There is no guarantee that the calling will be rescinded just because it is opposed. If the opposition is because there is knowledge of unknown iniquity, then it is likely that the calling will be postponed or rescinded but it is still the authorities decision. You vote to sustain not to approve. 1
AndyDnom Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 I hit the rep button by mistake. So if someone opposes a sustaining, they should be ignored and not interviewed- is that what you are saying? We should not find out what the problem is??? Why then sustain anyone at all?? I am not saying they should be ignored. I am saying you shouldn't say something is unanimous when it's not. Why misrepresent what i said?
AndyDnom Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 So some kid was fooling around and you took that to show church policy about opposing a sustaining of General Authorities? Really? Why use the term "Some kid" and "fooling around" ? He was 17, and he was very thoughtful and nice, and he took his actions very seriously. He wasn't fooling around, he hoenstly opposed the people being presented for sustaining.I talked to him at length about his issues. But no one is addressing the question. Why was the sustaining moved to a different session when it was known that a group would oppose? Why say its unanimous when its not? Why have sustainings in name only? Why not just skip the whole thing, if you're not going to take it seriously.
Calm Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 Why was the sustaining moved to a different session when it was known that a group would oppose? CFR that this happened....don't feel a need to discuss a possibly nonexistent event.
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 (edited) But no one is addressing the question. Why was the sustaining moved to a different session when it was known that a group would oppose? Why say its unanimous when its not? Why have sustainings in name only? Why not just skip the whole thing, if you're not going to take it seriously.No one is "addressing the issue" because no one has a clue what you are talking about. If you have actually read the thread you would understand that SUSTAININGS ARE NOT VOTES. They are an opportunity for US TO show support for the person already called. It's already a done deal. That person has a calling. Period. If you know a reason why that person is not worthy to have a calling you oppose it. So your 17 year old knew that one of the General Authorities had a morality problem?? Or perhaps were drunkards? THAT is why one would oppose a sustaining. And you still haven't shown what you mean by "a sustaining was moved". What is that supposed to mean? It doesn't matter one iota what session the sustaining of GA's happens- they can do it anytime they like. Futhermore it doesn't matter if it is unanimous or not. The person is interviewed to see what they know about the person they have opposed. If they know nothing, they are correctly ignored. This is not a vote- this is not a democracy. It is an opportunity to support your leaders. If you do not support them- that doesn't cause them to not be your leaders. You vote with your feet. You can always leave the church if you don't like what is going on. No chains. Edited December 1, 2013 by mfbukowski
AndyDnom Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 CFR that this happened....don't feel a need to discuss a possibly nonexistent event. the event's not in question, and not a big deal. steve benson was organizing a mass protest, i'll go find the news write up
strappinglad Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 the event's not in question, and not a big deal. steve benson was organizing a mass protest, i'll go find the news write up And THAT is the heart of the matter !!!
AndyDnom Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 Well not sure I can answer that just took the test on good cult bad cult, noticed everyone else was getting scores in the teens and twenties, I on the other hand managed to nail down a 43% so I told my wife what everybody else was scoring! and she said so what did you get a 100%? Decided that being a poli sci major on the west coast at the tail end of the 1960's must have engrained a lot of cynicism in me. They used to spend a lot of time on mind and behavior control, so things kind of pop out at me, which others see in another light.Where is this test you speak of, and does this mean that you feel that "we" are a bad cult with this 43%?
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 (edited) the event's not in question, and not a big deal. steve benson was organizing a mass protest, i'll go find the news write upSo it WAS a big enough deal for you to go off on it, and now it's not. Uh huh. Edit: Holy cow the news is that we sustain our officers? Unbelievable. Edited December 1, 2013 by mfbukowski
AndyDnom Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 when did i "go off" on something? steve bensons mass opposition that he planned to do during conference is not a big deal. kind of a waste of time if you ask me. but why did the LDS leaders not allow them to oppose as is their right? and why do they say it is unanimous, even when it is not? You are derailing. Respond with requested documentation or leave the thread.
Calm Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 You made the claim, demonstrate that it actually happened..and tell us why the Church should be concerned about a nonMormon's opposition to its leadership in a session for members.
Stone holm Posted December 2, 2013 Author Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) I hit the rep button by mistake.So if someone opposes a sustaining, they should be ignored and not interviewed- is that what you are saying? We should not find out what the problem is??? Why then sustain anyone at all??You took my response out of context. I was responding to a post where the person said someone lifted their hand in opposition and got hustled out by security who then sent their comments back to the presiding person, they were then interrogated as to what Ward and Stake they were from and given a lecture about being respectful before being sent back in. My response was that in the few times I had witnessed it they sent someone from the stand to interview them. I then asked what type of meeting it occurred in and they said it was General Conference. No I think they should send someone to interview the person. If they are really handling the situation like that, and I am not saying that it was, then they really probably should consider dispensing with the ritual at General Conference. Edited December 2, 2013 by Stone holm
mfbukowski Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 You started with this: I think thats kind of weak that the LDS moved their sustaining session once they know there was a group of people who were going to oppose. Why do they fear democracy? if it's not a real sustaining, why have it?Then it all became this:the event's not in question, and not a big deal. steve benson was organizing a mass protest, i'll go find the news write upAnd as your evidence that the sustaining was not unanimous, you cite the presence of one 17 year old protester who didn't understand what a sustaining even is, as apparently you also do not, even though it has been explained to you again and again. I am out of this one.
Stone holm Posted December 2, 2013 Author Posted December 2, 2013 Where is this test you speak of, and does this mean that you feel that "we" are a bad cult with this 43%?Oops that may have gotten posted on the wrong thread. The survey was entitled good cult bad cult based supposedly on how much the organization controlled the person. I think the general perception was what the survey did was analyze the responder not the organization. I don't think you can judge an organization as good or bad merely by how many control mechanisms are built into its member relations. BTW, I believe that the True Church would always be considered a cult by the world.
Calm Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Since Andy has popped onto the board a few times since the CFR has been demanded, it appears he has chosen to leave the thread rather than provide the documentation or withdraw the claim.
Stone holm Posted December 3, 2013 Author Posted December 3, 2013 Since Andy has popped onto the board a few times since the CFR has been demanded, it appears he has chosen to leave the thread rather than provide the documentation or withdraw the claim.So what does happen when someone raises their hand in opposition at General Conference? Would you please CFR on what does happen?
Calm Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 I have no clue and never made any claims so you can answer the CFR for yourself.
mfbukowski Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 Since Andy has popped onto the board a few times since the CFR has been demanded, it appears he has chosen to leave the thread rather than provide the documentation or withdraw the claim.Sounds like a board violation to me.
Stone holm Posted December 3, 2013 Author Posted December 3, 2013 I have no clue and never made any claims so you can answer the CFR for yourself.Ah but you CFRed him right off the thread by challenging what he recounted. So if his version was incorrect, then you must know the correct version, it didn't sound from your last quote that it was just an informational CFR, but rather a truth challenging one. Leave the hard stuff to us please. A CFR doesn't have a philosophy.
Calm Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 Report me to the mods if you think asking someone to demonstrate the truth of a claim is the same thing as claiming that it is false.I made no claims myself, just asked him to prove his.
Recommended Posts