Dissenters Trying To Oppose Sustaining At Conference

[Kenngo1969]

I'm old enough to remember the antics of the ERA crowd. When it came time to vote, they shouted out, "No, because of ERA!"

As has been noted here, they were duly ignored.

Ignored by the masses, sure.  Ignored by, e.g., The Salt Lake Tribune?  I doubt it.  I think they were invited to meet with one of the Brethren afterward, no?

[Kenngo1969]

That is incorrect. The press is allowed inside for all sessions. There's even a press room at the back behind glass, even providing munchies. ...

Kewl!  I'm a blogger.  Can I apply for a press pass?

[Sevenbak]

I imagine anyone can apply.   Getting one??  ;-)  Call Public Affairs.  They would have the criteria.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Sevenbak

[Scott Lloyd]

Ignored by the masses, sure.  Ignored by, e.g., The Salt Lake Tribune?  I doubt it.  I think they were invited to meet with one of the Brethren afterward, no?

It's news to me if they were. Perhaps you know something I don't.

I don't how you'd document that at this point. It has been about 40 years ago now.

 

Edited to add:

 

I stand corrected. It happened in October 1980, and it has been preserved on video.

 

I think I may be remembering at least one other occasion. I don't have a specific memory of this one, where Elder McConkie stood up and said:

 

Elder McConkie: President Romney, it appears that there are three negative votes. This is to advise those so voting that they may meet with Elder Gordon B. Hinckley of the Council of the Twelve following this session. Thank you.

 

Lucky Elder Hinckley, Huh?

 

On the occasion or occasions I remember, the shouters were simply ignored.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I imagine anyone can apply.   Getting one??  ;-)  Call Public Affairs.  They would have the criteria.

Some Church departments these days seem to be treating bloggers as well as or better than mainstream media, particularly where the bloggers seem more specialized and, well, friendlier to the objectives of the department. I have in mind Family History and Church History, in particular.

[Scott Lloyd]

And of course, you would simply give all of those allegedly-contradictory teachings to us straight ... right?  I mean, you wouldn't be running them through the "Filter of Jim" first, would you?  You would never do that.

Nor would they be apt to be wrenched from their doctrinal context or tainted with spin or slant. Just pure, unalloyed truth.

Yessiree, I'm certain of it.

[Kenngo1969]

Nor would they be apt to be wrenched from their doctrinal context or tainted with spin or slant. Just pure, unalloyed truth.

Yessiree, I'm certain of it.

You and me both, Mister!  You and me both!

[Kenngo1969]

Some Church departments these days seem to be treating bloggers as well as or better than mainstream media, particularly where the bloggers seem more specialized and, well, friendlier to the objectives of the department. I have in mind Family History and Church History, in particular.

Couldn't hurt to try, then, I suppose, but I confess: Really, what I'm mostly interested in is a comfortable spot from which to have a bird's-eye view of Conference ... and those free num-nums.

 

P.S.: One or more of the folks over at Times And Seasons has been known to live blog the event for those with limited or no real-time access to it.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I'm old enough to remember the antics of the ERA crowd. When it came time to vote, they shouted out, "No, because of ERA!"

As has been noted here, they were duly ignored.

 

 

Ignored by the masses, sure.  Ignored by, e.g., The Salt Lake Tribune?  I doubt it.  I think they were invited to meet with one of the Brethren afterward, no?

 

 

It's news to me if they were. Perhaps you know something I don't.

I don't how you'd document that at this point. It has been about 40 years ago now.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng#watch=video.

 

Ye Olde Internet: It's a wonderful thang (uhhh, sometimes). 

Edited March 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[mormonnewb]

The press will notice everything especially if there is a picture of it. I think that this protest is not about something tangible but it is more about dissent for the sake of dissent. It is a way to cause trouble as the standing in line was for last year. The problem with the lds church is that it is a small church, a community of people who have somewhat close ties with each other. And the lds have always been admired for their close intra-community ties. So, any demonstration that shows a fracture in these close ties will get pubicity. It will show that the lds church is not  a unified church but is experiencing fractures and this does get noticed. Even if these fractures  are sponsored by members who may have left the fold already.

 

 

Heaven forbid that the saints might have different opinions on things!  The horror of it all!

 

I hate to break it to you, but it goes with the territory.  If we want to be the "one true Church," then we are going to have to make way for ALL of God's children; and five or six dozen of them may not see things alike.  It's one of those pesky facts of life.

 

In fact, it's one of those things you might see firsthand if you join the rest of us in this messy business of being part of the flock (as opposed to just shouting for conformity from the Internet bleachers).

Edited March 9, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Storm Rider]

Heaven forbid that the saints might have different opinions on things!  The horror of it all!

 

I hate to break it to you, but it goes with the territory.  If we want to be the "one true Church," then we are going to have to make way for ALL of God's children; and five or six dozen of them may not see things alike.  It's one of those pesky facts of life.

 

In fact, it's one of those things you might see firsthand if you join the rest of us in this messy business of being part of the flock (as opposed to just shouting for conformity from the Internet bleachers).

 

Ah, yes.  Only when we have an "acceptable" difference of opinion is it acceptable to express it; otherwise all those opinions that go against "our" chosen viewpoint need suppression.  Newb, do you really read what you write on different threads and see the starkly different, conflicting standards you express?

[why me]

Heaven forbid that the saints might have different opinions on things!  The horror of it all!

 

I hate to break it to you, but it goes with the territory.  If we want to be the "one true Church," then we are going to have to make way for ALL of God's children; and five or six dozen of them may not see things alike.  It's one of those pesky facts of life.

 

In fact, it's one of those things you might see firsthand if you join the rest of us in this messy business of being part of the flock (as opposed to just shouting for conformity from the Internet bleachers).

I think that you misunderstood. There is nothing wrong with raising a hand in disagreement. No one is concerned about that. However, to abuse the system and organize a dissent by having people raise their hands to protest the decision about ordaining women to the priesthood would be a problem, espeically if most of the people with a raised hand are not members in good standing. Or to encourage members who disagree with the leaderships decision regarding the ordaination of females to lie to their bishop for their reasons for wanting to go to the conference, In other words, protest for protest sake is not the way to go.

 

Would you be in favor of a baptist meeting where exbaptists, wayward baptists would organize a protest where they attended the baptist conference just to cause a disruption or to exploit a policy of membership sustaining other members for leadership positions? I don't think so.

[DJBrown]

Was reading a blog on this by Dr. Peterson earlier. Sorry I don't have a link. Does anyone have more info on this?

 

I think this protest will backfire in a big way.  Members of the church love General Conference, and I think anybody disrupting it in this way will do themselves no favors among the membership.

[Avatar4321]

Heaven forbid that the saints might have different opinions on things!  The horror of it all!

 

I hate to break it to you, but it goes with the territory.  If we want to be the "one true Church," then we are going to have to make way for ALL of God's children; and five or six dozen of them may not see things alike.  It's one of those pesky facts of life.

 

In fact, it's one of those things you might see firsthand if you join the rest of us in this messy business of being part of the flock (as opposed to just shouting for conformity from the Internet bleachers).

I thought we were the one true church because we taught the truth and because God leads us. I had no idea that to be the true church we would have to embrace people who want to disrupt sacred events to campaign against truth and encourage them to lie to their leaders to do so.

can you explain to me how we can encourage members to lie and become a standard of truth?

[rpn]

As I see it, the problem is that people who are no longer members don't have any voting right anyway, and much of the sympathetic to OW/Dehlin crowd has already resigned.   So if they take a ticket and show up to do so, they are basically trespassing.

 

Members who obtain tickets with the intention of giving them to this group are the ones who are putting their TR (to you sympathize or affiliate with, honest in your dealings), or membership in question, which would not be true if they simply opposed during the sustaining process.

 

Members who obtain tickets in response to this call and attend for this purpose also appear to be sympathizing, which again would put them crosswise in a way that simply BEING opposed and so voting would not necessarily do.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's news to me if they were. Perhaps you know something I don't.

I don't how you'd document that at this point. It has been about 40 years ago now.

 

Edited to add:

 

I stand corrected. It happened in October 1980, and it has been preserved on video.

 

I think I may be remembering at least one other occasion. I don't have a specific memory of this one, where Elder McConkie stood up and said:

 

 

Elder McConkie: President Romney, it appears that there are three negative votes. This is to advise those so voting that they may meet with Elder Gordon B. Hinckley of the Council of the Twelve following this session. Thank you.

 

Lucky Elder Hinckley, Huh?

 

On the occasion or occasions I remember, the shouters were simply ignored.

Just bumping this to alert everyone that I have added to my post.

 

Edited to add:

 

It is interesting that at least for the next few conferences, when it came time to sustain the Church officers, only newly called people were identified by name. Otherwise, the wording was this:

 

There have been no changes among the General Authorities since the last general conference. It is therefore proposed that we sustain all of the General Authorities and general officers of the Church as at present constituted.

 

It appears they may have been trying to greatly shorten the procedure to afford the ERA disrupters less opportunity to shout out.

 

I did watch the video from April 1982. Someone in the congregation shrieked again, but President Hinckley just continued on and ignored the person, even before she was done shouting. There was no invitation for her to meet with anyone afterward.

 

This is more consistent with my memory of the conference sessions I saw during that period.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this protest will backfire in a big way.  Members of the church love General Conference, and I think anybody disrupting it in this way will do themselves no favors among the membership.

But DJBrown, don't you realize how universally the ERA protesters who shrieked out during  the general conference sessions in the early 1980s are held in honorable remembrance by faithful Latter-day Saints to this very day?

Edited March 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

As I see it, the problem is that people who are no longer members don't have any voting right anyway, and much of the sympathetic to OW/Dehlin crowd has already resigned.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "much" but I don't think that many OW/Dehlin supporters have actually resigned.

 

That's not to say that I think as members they should be disruptive at conference.  I think shouting out "no" is a ridiculous idea.  I remember, as a young boy, watching conference on TV and hearing the ERA supporters shouting.  I don't think this method will help their cause or win them any support among members.

 

And it's rude.

[KevinG]

I would love to see the brother in charge of the session where a dissenting vote appears reply with. "We note that the sustaining is not unanimous, and encourage all those who cannot sustain their leaders to meet with their Bishops and Stake Presidents to express their concerns. Local leaders upon counseling these members should share the concerns with the General Authorities in the area so any legitimate concerns can be noted and considered."

[cinepro]

I used to wonder how, exactly, "common consent" works.  Apparently it's like a North Korean Election.  Who knew?  

 

Don't take this thread down Godwin's pothole!

[cinepro]

Would you be in favor of a baptist meeting where exbaptists, wayward baptists would organize a protest where they attended the baptist conference just to cause a disruption or to exploit a policy of membership sustaining other members for leadership positions? I don't think so.

 

How about faithful, believing, tithe-paying Baptists who honestly don't sustain the leadership on certain issues?  Why would it be odd for them to attend a church-wide conference in which the members are asked whether or not they sustain the leaders and then to honestly show that they don't by the asked-for sign?

 

What's the worst that could happen?

 

Actually, that's the best that could happen.  If we had a bona fide Villaraigosa moment in Conference, I would die from laughter.

 

"Let me do that again..."      

Edited March 9, 2015 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

I would love to see the brother in charge of the session where a dissenting vote appears reply with. "We note that the sustaining is not unanimous, and encourage all those who cannot sustain their leaders to meet with their Bishops and Stake Presidents to express their concerns. Local leaders upon counseling these members should share the concerns with the General Authorities in the area so any legitimate concerns can be noted and considered."

 

Oh that would be amazing...but it will never happen.  They even fudged the report on the Manifesto vote, pretending the vote was unanimous when not only did some abstain, but some voted no.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would love to see the brother in charge of the session where a dissenting vote appears reply with. "We note that the sustaining is not unanimous, and encourage all those who cannot sustain their leaders to meet with their Bishops and Stake Presidents to express their concerns. Local leaders upon counseling these members should share the concerns with the General Authorities in the area so any legitimate concerns can be noted and considered."

This is not a bad idea.

 

And, if this form of protest is seriously anticipated in conference, it might be advisable to precede the sustaining of officers with a sermon given by one of the Brethren -- Elder Oaks would be good, perhaps, or Elder Christofferson or President Packer -- explaining and teaching the concept of common consent in the Church, what it is, what it is not, and so forth.

 

Thereafter, anyone who yells out or acts out inappropriately during for the purpose of general protest during the sustainings would be identified in the perception of most everyone there as abusing the process.

 

Here, by the way, is an Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on the subject.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

 

How about faithful, believing, tithe-paying Baptists who honestly don't sustain the leadership on certain issues?  Why would it be odd for them to attend a church-wide conference in which the members are asked whether or not they sustain the leaders and then to honestly show that they don't by the asked-for sign?

 

 

 

Is that what we do when we sustain someone?  Are we essentially saying 'I agree with everything they say or do' or are we simply saying 'I agree that he (or she) is called of God'?

 

Honest question.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that what we do when we sustain someone?  Are we essentially saying 'I agree with everything they say or do' or are we simply saying 'I agree that he (or she) is called of God'?

 

Honest question.

And a good one.