Dissenters Trying To Oppose Sustaining At Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

In their defense, the dissenters limited their noise to that specific moment.

 

Nevertheless, it was anything but silent.

 

And silence is the order of the day in a typical LDS worship service except for certain prescribed times such as hymn singing, the uttering of an audible "amen" at the end of prayers or talks and unusual occasions such as the giving of the Hosannah Shout at dedications of temples and, occasionally, other structures.

 

Edited to add: I just realized that the above are all expressions of unity, the opposite of dissent.

 

I must also compliment President Uchtdorf on his cool handling of the situation.

 

I quite agree with this.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

"Obviously it didn't work that way this time."

And yet they expressed their opinion that their approach was demonstrated to be valid to the point that they would have more people joining them next time.

So in your opinion, what was it that they wanted to accomplish by their method?

[Thinking]

And silence is the order of the day in a typical LDS worship service except for certain prescribed times such as hymn singing, the uttering of an audible "amen" at the end of prayers or talks and unusual occasions such as the giving of the Hosannah Shout at dedications of temples and, occasionally, other structures.

 

Don't forget the moderate laughter.

[mormonnewb]

if they truly felt they would not be noticed without shouting out, one wonders what their object was in going to the session in the first place if not to make a strident and annoying spectacle of themselves. Dissent can be registered in meeting with individual stake presidents, which is what they were ultimately advised to do anyway.

 

In the previous GC, Elder Lynn G. Robbins told us that 70s are not supposed to pass along our messages to the Brethren, but rather that they are supposed to pass along the Brethren's message to us.  Would it be any different with SPs?  Shouldn't they also be "facing" in the right direction?

 

 

 

“Which way do you face?” President Boyd K. Packer surprised me with this puzzling question while we were traveling together on my very first assignment as a new Seventy. Without an explanation to put the question in context, I was baffled. “A Seventy,” he continued, “does not represent the people to the prophet but the prophet to the people. Never forget which way you face!” It was a powerful lesson.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/which-way-do-you-face?lang=eng

 

The Brethren have made it quite clear that they will give us our opinion when we need to have one.  That's why they redirect our letters to them back to our local leaders.  Certainly, they aren't doing this so that the local leaders can then send the letters back to the Brethren to voice our concerns.  The letters are sent back to local leaders so that local leaders can tell US what the Brethren have declared on the matter.

 

In truth, I think that the whole sustaining vote thing is a waste of time because it's not a vote anyway.  It's simply a show of loyalty.  "Do you agree with what we have already decided for you?  Or would you like to face the stares and vitriol of your friends, neighbors and family?"  That being said, if they want to go through the charade, then no one should complain when someone exercises the non-choice they were given.

 

That's why my wife and I don't give our children a "sustaining vote" about school attendance.  They are going whether they like it or not.  But if we put it up for a vote, we would expect to get at least one very loud, "Noooooo!"  It would be silly for us to then get mad at that child for being disrespectful and disruptive.

Edited June 3, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Scott Lloyd]

In the previous GC, Elder Lynn G. Robbins told us that 70s are not supposed to pass along our messages to the Brethren, but rather that they are supposed to pass along the Brethren's message to us.  Would it be any different with SPs?  Shouldn't they also be "facing" in the right direction?

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/which-way-do-you-face?lang=eng

 

The Brethren have made it quite clear that they will give us our opinion when we need to have one.  That's why they redirect our letters to them back to our local leaders.  Certainly, they aren't doing this so that the local leaders can then send the letters back to the Brethren to voice our concerns.  The letters are sent back to local leaders so that local leaders can tell US what the Brethren have declared on the matter.

 

In truth, I think that the whole sustaining vote thing is a waste of time because it's not a vote anyway.  It's simply a show of loyalty.  "Do you agree with what we have already decided for you?  Or would you like to face the stares and vitriol of your friends, neighbors and family?"  That being said, if they want to go through the charade, then no one should complain when someone exercises the non-choice they were given.

 

That's why my wife and I don't give our children a "sustaining vote" about school attendance.  They are going whether they like it or not.  But if we put it up for a vote, we would expect to get at least one very loud, "Noooooo!"  It would be silly for us to then get mad at that child for being disrespectful and disruptive.

It's always going to come back to the question of what is the purpose for the expression of dissent. If it's to force capitulation by the leadership, no won't be fruitful, no matter how vocal they get during worship services.

[HappyJackWagon]

It's always going to come back to the question of what is the purpose for the expression of dissent. If it's to force capitulation by the leadership, no won't be fruitful, no matter how vocal they get during worship services.

Scott, you truly don't seem to understand this concept and I'm not sure why. It is unhealthy for a community to request for a sustaining/dissenting vote and then ignore it. Or worse, treat dissent as a disloyal attempt to "force capitulation by the leadership." Either there is value for asking for sustaining/dissenting vote or there's not. If there's not, they should stop the charade. If there is value, then they should take the dissent into consideration.

[Kenngo1969]

Scott, you truly don't seem to understand this concept and I'm not sure why. It is unhealthy for a community to request for a sustaining/dissenting vote and then ignore it. Or worse, treat dissent as a disloyal attempt to "force capitulation by the leadership." Either there is value for asking for sustaining/dissenting vote or there's not. If there's not, they should stop the charade. If there is value, then they should take the dissent into consideration.

I think Scott understands much better than you give him credit for.  In the case of "Any Opposed," who ignored it?  President Uchtdorf noted the dissent and invited dissenters to address their concerns with local (stake) leadership.  I hate having to be the one to break this to you, but the way sustaining votes work is, the only way a vote in opposition would make any difference is if a majority of those asked to sustain someone to a calling were opposed.  That was clearly not the case in this instance.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

I think Scott understands much better than you give him credit for.  In the case of "Any Opposed," who ignored it?  President Uchtdorf noted the dissent and invited dissenters to address their concerns with local (stake) leadership.  I hate having to be the one to break this to you, but the way sustaining votes work is, the only way a vote in opposition would make any difference is if a majority of those asked to sustain someone to a calling were opposed.  That was clearly not the case in this instance.

Wrong.

 

They way it works is when someone oposes the presiding authority meets with the individual(s) to ascertain the reasoning for the dissenting vote. It doesn't matter if it's 1 vote or 1000. It's judged by the merits of the opposition, not the numbers. If 1 person opposes a person because they have a legitimate concern about worthiness it doesn't really matter that everyone else who is unaware of the problem sustains the individual. It takes courage for the 1 to stand up and opose. On the other hand, if 1000 members opposed but had no good reason, that wouldn't make any difference.

 

In short, it's not about numbers, it's about the merit of the opposition. Leaders won't know the merit of the opposition if they don't meet or speak with the individual who opposed. If they pawn it off on another leader who has no decision making ability, then it's the same as ignoring completely. That's how it works.

[Kenngo1969]

Wrong.

 

They way it works is when someone oposes the presiding authority meets with the individual(s) to ascertain the reasoning for the dissenting vote. It doesn't matter if it's 1 vote or 1000. It's judged by the merits of the opposition, not the numbers. If 1 person opposes a person because they have a legitimate concern about worthiness it doesn't really matter that everyone else who is unaware of the problem sustains the individual. It takes courage for the 1 to stand up and opose. On the other hand, if 1000 members opposed but had no good reason, that wouldn't make any difference.

 

In short, it's not about numbers, it's about the merit of the opposition. Leaders won't know the merit of the opposition if they don't meet or speak with the individual who opposed. If they pawn it off on another leader who has no decision making ability, then it's the same as ignoring completely. That's how it works.

 

If I were a Mudville City Police officer, and I happened to know that Brother Hickenlooper had attempted to patronize a prostitute the Saturday night before I was asked to sustain him as a member of the Bishopric of the Mudville First Ward,  that would certainly be relevant to his fitness to serve in that calling, and I would have no qualms about casting a vote in opposition in that instance.   However, by your logic, apparently, and by that of "Any Opposed," the Brethren are not worthy to serve in the positions to which the membership was asked to sustain them.  Apparently, you all know something that the rest of us don't.

 

And I note that you ignored my question as to who ignored "Any Opposed's" opposition.  Just because you don't like the manner in which that opposition was addressed doesn't mean it was ignored.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

 

If I were a Mudville City Police officer, and I happened to know that Brother Hickenlooper had attempted to patronize a prostitute the Saturday night before I was asked to sustain him as a member of the Bishopric of the Mudville First Ward,  that would certainly be relevant to his fitness to serve in that calling, and I would have no qualms about casting a vote in opposition in that instance.   However, by your logic, apparently, and by that of "Any Opposed," the Brethren are not worthy to serve in the positions to which the membership was asked to sustain them.  Apparently, you all know something that the rest of us don't.

 

And I note that you ignored my question as to who ignored "Any Opposed's" opposition.  Just because you don't like the manner in which that opposition was addressed doesn't mean it was ignored.

Kenngo, read more carefully.

 

1- I described how pawning off the discussion of opposition on a non-decision maker is the same thing as ignoring. You can disagree with it, but I did answer you.

 

2- I'm not a part of "any opposed" so be careful of your assumptions about what I believe regarding the worthiness of the brethren. I'm making the larger point that people are not pariah simply because they dissent. It is a practice enshrined in the D&C and 185 years of church practice. I don't know what anyone else is aware of regarding the worthiness of GA's and I also acknowledge that definitions of worthiness will vary amongst people. While most will agree on your  prostitutee example there are many other areas, not necessarily drawn out in a TR interview that people could feel impact a person's worthiness. That is for them and the presiding leader to discuss.

[Rain]

Wrong.

They way it works is when someone oposes the presiding authority meets with the individual(s) to ascertain the reasoning for the dissenting vote. It doesn't matter if it's 1 vote or 1000. It's judged by the merits of the opposition, not the numbers. If 1 person opposes a person because they have a legitimate concern about worthiness it doesn't really matter that everyone else who is unaware of the problem sustains the individual. It takes courage for the 1 to stand up and opose. On the other hand, if 1000 members opposed but had no good reason, that wouldn't make any difference.

In short, it's not about numbers, it's about the merit of the opposition. Leaders won't know the merit of the opposition if they don't meet or speak with the individual who opposed. If they pawn it off on another leader who has no decision making ability, then it's the same as ignoring completely. That's how it works.

If they have legitimate concerns about worthiness couldn't the interview be done on a stake basis as well? If the concern really is legitimate then it SHOULD go on up the line - I recognize that things don't always make it up the line.

So that makes me wonder. If there are legitimate concerns about the prophet being unworthy, just what happens?

[HappyJackWagon]

If they have legitimate concerns about worthiness couldn't the interview be done on a stake basis as well? If the concern really is legitimate then it SHOULD go on up the line - I recognize that things don't always make it up the line.

So that makes me wonder. If there are legitimate concerns about the prophet being unworthy, just what happens?

Information doesn't generally flow upstream. A SP doesn't have direct access to the Q12 or First Presidency. I'd be curious to hear if an exception is made in the event of dissenting votes. Otherwise the SP can tell the Region authority who can then tell the area authority 70 who can then report up to the Q12 who would report to the FP. That's a lot of steps that would require each participant to pass up an accurate message. I wonder if anything could be lost in so many translations.

[thesometimesaint]

If they have legitimate concerns about worthiness couldn't the interview be done on a stake basis as well? If the concern really is legitimate then it SHOULD go on up the line - I recognize that things don't always make it up the line.

So that makes me wonder. If there are legitimate concerns about the prophet being unworthy, just what happens?

 

The Stake is the initial arbiter of worthiness for any Melchizedek Priesthood holder. 

[rodheadlee]

So that makes me wonder. If there are legitimate concerns about the prophet being unworthy, just what happens?

God kills him. Er, um, I mean takes him home.

[Gray]

I think Scott understands much better than you give him credit for.  In the case of "Any Opposed," who ignored it?  President Uchtdorf noted the dissent and invited dissenters to address their concerns with local (stake) leadership.  I hate having to be the one to break this to you, but the way sustaining votes work is, the only way a vote in opposition would make any difference is if a majority of those asked to sustain someone to a calling were opposed.  That was clearly not the case in this instance.

 

Well, there's no way to know how many would "oppose." It's not like a vote is counted around the world - it's just those few thousand people in the building at the time.

[JLHPROF]

Well, there's no way to know how many would "oppose." It's not like a vote is counted around the world - it's just those few thousand people in the building at the time.

 

And one would presume that anyone willing to make the trip to Conference from around the world is a TBM through and through.

Or is REALLY looking to raise a public stink...

[JLHPROF]

So that makes me wonder. If there are legitimate concerns about the prophet being unworthy, just what happens?

 

God kills him. Er, um, I mean takes him home.

 

Pretty much.

D&C 43 also tells us that even if he doesn't die/get taken home but loses the right to receive revelation for unworthiness, the prophet still maintains the right to appoint his successor (to prevent any would be prophets making stupid claims).

 

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

 

Even if he lost the right to revelation for unworthiness, the prophet still gets to name a successor, assuming that he isn't taken home without doing so leaving the worthy senior to take over.

Edited June 3, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

 

If I were a Mudville City Police officer, and I happened to know that Brother Hickenlooper had attempted to patronize a prostitute the Saturday night before I was asked to sustain him as a member of the Bishopric of the Mudville First Ward,  that would certainly be relevant to his fitness to serve in that calling, and I would have no qualms about casting a vote in opposition in that instance.   However, by your logic, apparently, and by that of "Any Opposed," the Brethren are not worthy to serve in the positions to which the membership was asked to sustain them.  Apparently, you all know something that the rest of us don't.

 

And I note that you ignored my question as to who ignored "Any Opposed's" opposition.  Just because you don't like the manner in which that opposition was addressed doesn't mean it was ignored.

Kenngo 1969 is absolutely right.

 

The sustaining of Church officers is not a referendum or a popularity vote, and it is misguided to regard it as such.

 

I earlier made the point that the stake president represents the general Church leadership to the Church members within his jurisdiction. I now repeat that with emphasis:

 

The stake president represents the general Church leadership to the Church members within his jurisdiction.

 

Perhaps one of the more pervasive errors in the Church is to undervalue the priesthood authority and power of local-level leaders. A typical stake president is just as capable of and just as empowered to hear the complaint of an opposing voter as is any general Church officer.

 

Is delegating this duty to stake presidents a way of ignoring a negative vote? I submit that there is no way you can know such a thing from any observable fact. If a member has solid and legitimate evidence that a Church officer is guilty of wrongdoing that would make the officer unfit to serve, it stands to reason the stake president would make that known to those who preside over and direct him, and the matter would be passed on through the proper channels. (Perhaps current or former stake presidents on this board, if there be any, will confirm this.)

 

If, on the other hand, as seems to be the case with this most recent episode in general conference, the complaint is "I oppose all of the First Presidency and apostles because they won't accept homosexual behavior," we can be fairly safe in assuming that isn't going anywhere, no matter the level of Church leadership at which the complaint is voiced. Why? Because this pertains to an established matter not subject to the changing whims of a fickle society.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The stake president represents the general Church leadership to the Church members within his jurisdiction.

 

Perhaps one of the more pervasive errors in the Church is to undervalue the priesthood authority and power of local-level leaders. A typical stake president is just as capable of and just as empowered to hear the complaint of an opposing voter as is any general Church officer.

But the problem is the sustaining of general officers is beyond his stewardship.

It's true that a Bishop or SP is capable of hearing a complaint but my question is what kind of power do they have to address it. They can send it up their chain (through 4 or more people) until it gets to the decision maker. That's a lot of bureaucratic red tape.

 

 

If, on the other hand, as seems to be the case with this most recent episode in general conference, the complaint is "I oppose all of the First Presidency and apostles because they won't accept homosexual behavior," we can be fairly safe in assuming that isn't going anywhere,

Is that the stated reason Any Opposed gave? Or are you assuming? I don't know.

[JLHPROF]

The sustaining of Church officers is not a referendum or a popularity vote, and it is misguided to regard it as such.

 

I earlier made the point that the stake president represents the general Church leadership to the Church members within his jurisdiction. I now repeat that with emphasis:

 

I've always felt that the sustaining votes were not about the person being sustained, but about the peoples willingness to sustain the people God puts in place.

It is representative of our faith, not the person's worthiness.

The prophet is already called, ordained, and God's representative.  Whether we sustain or don't sustain them is not about the prophet, but about our willingness to follow God.

 

Now, there are exceptions to this - like in Nauvoo when the Church members refused to sustain certain GA's of dubious character who ended up being excommunicated eventually.

 

So who knows, perhaps it really does go both ways.  But I don't think the prophet can be removed by common consent from holding the keys.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, there's no way to know how many would "oppose." It's not like a vote is counted around the world - it's just those few thousand people in the building at the time.

At every stake or ward conference I have ever attended, a standard matter of business is to conduct a sustaining of local and general Church officers. Presumably, any negative vote at such a gathering would be taken up with the dissenter in private after the meeting, and any legitimate concern would be passed up the line through appropriate channels.

 

If anything, you are more likely to have your dissent recognized (and attention given later to your grievances) at a stake or ward conference than if you show up at general conference and do it there.

 

Perhaps the takeaway point from all of this is that the most efficient way to register dissent is to approach one's own stake president, as that is the individual to whom the dissenter will be referred anyway.

[Gray]

At every stake or ward conference I have ever attended, a standard matter of business is to conduct a sustaining of local and general Church officers. Presumably, any negative vote at such a gathering would be taken up with the dissenter in private after the meeting, and any legitimate concern would be passed up the line through appropriate channels.

 

If anything, you are more likely to have your dissent recognized (and attention given later to your grievances) at a stake or ward conference than if you show up at general conference and do it there.

 

Perhaps the takeaway point from all of this is that the most efficient way to register dissent is to approach one's own stake president, as that is the individual to whom the dissenter will be referred anyway.

 

That's probably true, yes. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

At every stake or ward conference I have ever attended, a standard matter of business is to conduct a sustaining of local and general Church officers. Presumably, any negative vote at such a gathering would be taken up with the dissenter in private after the meeting, and any legitimate concern would be passed up the line through appropriate channels.

 

If anything, you are more likely to have your dissent recognized (and attention given later to your grievances) at a stake or ward conference than if you show up at general conference and do it there.

 

Scott, that's a good point. We do sustain in Stake and Ward Conferences. I still question the liklihood of a concern being passed up the chain all the way to those in authority to make changes.

[Scott Lloyd]

But the problem is the sustaining of general officers is beyond his stewardship.

Who says it's beyond his stewardship? It's something that is required in stake and ward conferences, so how can it be beyond his stewardship?

 

It's true that a Bishop or SP is capable of hearing a complaint but my question is what kind of power do they have to address it. They can send it up their chain (through 4 or more people) until it gets to the decision maker. That's a lot of bureaucratic red tape.

 

 

 

That's your own assumption. Again, the notion that it won't be referred to the appropriate individuals is an assumption you can't substantiate from observable fact.

 

Is that the stated reason Any Opposed gave? Or are you assuming? I don't know.

 

Someone here on this board very recently (and you can find it as easily as I can) documented that one of the individuals did meet with his stake president (who was very patient with him) and eventually did have his name removed. And it was over the matter of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

 

Edited to add:

 

See posts #143 and 147 from readstoomuch in this thread.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I've always felt that the sustaining votes were not about the person being sustained, but about the peoples willingness to sustain the people God puts in place.

It is representative of our faith, not the person's worthiness.

The prophet is already called, ordained, and God's representative.  Whether we sustain or don't sustain them is not about the prophet, but about our willingness to follow God.

 

Now, there are exceptions to this - like in Nauvoo when the Church members refused to sustain certain GA's of dubious character who ended up being excommunicated eventually.

 

So who knows, perhaps it really does go both ways.  But I don't think the prophet can be removed by common consent from holding the keys.

If I understand correctly, an officer cannot serve without the common consent of the people. But if it is the people who are wrong, I'm fairly confident the Lord would reject them and not the prophet.