Dissenters Trying To Oppose Sustaining At Conference

[mikegriffith1]

Hmm. The commenters at the above link are loosely tying this group to Jeriilyn Hassel Pool, who is affiliated with the Ordain Women group. She is also part of FMH ("Feminist Mormon Housewives") and the "Rational Faith" blog.  

 

Some of the comments about her are fairly venomous, which is unfortunate, unproductive, and unbecoming.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

You could tell their hearts were not in the right place when they resorted to shouting "No" to express their dissent, instead of just raising their hands when "any opposed" were invited to raise their hands. You don't shout out your vote at a general conference.

 

If these folks want women to be ordained, why don't they simply start their own church and ordain all the women they desire?

[tonie]

instead of just raising their hands when "any opposed" were invited to raise their hands.

Call for reference ortherwise known as CFR.

CFR that President Uctdorf instructed that each sustaining be by uplifted hand. Likewise that each opposing expressing be by uplifted hand

[Scott Lloyd]

Any new reports

THREAD NECROMANCY ALERT

[Kenngo1969]

CFR that President Uctdorf instructed that each sustaining be by uplifted hand. Likewise that each opposing expressing be by uplifted hand

 

 

 

He may not have done so specifically on this occasion, but anyone who has been through more than a handful of sustaining votes in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knows how opposition customarily is manifest, and otherwise manifesting opposition is, in my opinion, nothing more than a cheap attempt at publicity.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

Call for reference ortherwise known as CFR.

CFR that President Uctdorf instructed that each sustaining be by uplifted hand. Likewise that each opposing expressing be by uplifted hand

I checked general conferences going back to October 2013.

There has not been a literal call for voting by the uplifted hand for at least that long. However, the standard wording includes at least one instance each conference of the familiar "contrary, if there be any, by the same sign." That would indicate uplifted hand, as in each instance, the voting in favor was done by that sign.

Perhaps the Church leadership has quietly dropped the directive that voting be by uplifted hand. If so, I would be interested to see that documented somewhere.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

He may not have done so specifically on this occasion, but anyone who has been through more than a handful of sustaining votes in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knows how opposition customarily is manifest, and otherwise manifesting opposition is, in my opinion, nothing more than a cheap attempt at publicity.

I think that's pretty obvious, regardless of current protocol or procedure.

[mormonnewb]

So how were they supposed to manifest their non-sustaining votes? There is no way that Pres. Uchtdorf could be expected to pick them out of a sea of thousands.

[sunstoned]

So how were they supposed to manifest thIeir non-sustaining votes? There is no way that Pres. Uchtdorf could be expected to pick them out of a sea of thousands.

I agree.  I did not feel expressing their vote vocally was disruptive. Nor do I think it was seen to be disruptive by Mr. Uchtdorf.  He acknowledged their votes and moved on.

[Thinking]

If these folks want women to be ordained, why don't they simply start their own church and ordain all the women they desire?

 

Perhaps some of them believe that with enough pressure, the policy will be changed. Revelations have been received in the past following pressure.

[Scott Lloyd]

So how were they supposed to manifest their non-sustaining votes? There is no way that Pres. Uchtdorf could be expected to pick them out of a sea of thousands.

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. Edited June 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree.  I did not feel expressing their vote vocally was disruptive. Nor do I think it was seen to be disruptive by Mr. Uchtdorf.  He acknowledged their votes and moved on.

From his pulpit behavior, I don't know how that could be ascertained. If he found their manner of expression disruptive he would not be apt to indicate so then and there. To do so would be yet more disruptive.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps some of them believe that with enough pressure, the policy will be changed. Revelations have been received in the past following pressure.

I'm not aware of any revelation from God that has come about as a capitulation to open and defiant opposition [edited to add from Church members] to the anointed servants of God. I can, however, think of some apostate schismatic groups that have stemmed from such a thing.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

I'm not aware of any revelation from God that has come about as a capitulation to open and defiant opposition to the servants of God. I can, however, think of some apostate schismatic groups that have stemmed from such a thing.

 

Oh, come on.  That's splitting hairs.

Members of the Church have been calling the Manifesto a "revelation" for years.  Those that are slightly more educated state that it stemmed from a revelation (as Pres. Woodruff stated).  And it was definitely received as capitulation to open and defiant opposition.

Not that that makes the revelation false however.

 

Additionally, the vast majority of the changes to the temple endowment and garments (that some assume are inspired changes, although we have no record of that) came about as the result of capitulation to complaints from the membership as well.

 

And if enough members threatened to stop baptizing their children because they hated the immersion aspect, I would wager we'd see sprinkling come into practice eventually.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, come on.  That's splitting hairs.

Members of the Church have been calling the Manifesto a "revelation" for years.  Those that are slightly more educated state that it stemmed from a revelation (as Pres. Woodruff stated).  And it was definitely received as capitulation to open and defiant opposition.

Not that that makes the revelation false however.

 

Additionally, the vast majority of the changes to the temple endowment and garments (that some assume are inspired changes, although we have no record of that) came about as the result of capitulation to complaints from the membership as well.

I thought it would be inferred from my post, but I meant open and defiant opposition from members of the Church to the servants of God.

 

Besides, the Manifesto was not capitulation. President Woodruff declared he would have defied the U.S. government and all the powers of hell it had been the will of God that he do so. So if anyone capitulated, it was God Almighty -- a notion that seems quite weird and risible, to say the least.

 

And if enough members threatened to stop baptizing their children because they hated the immersion aspect, I would wager we'd see sprinkling come into practice eventually.

 

 

This seems only slightly less likely than the Church providing temple sealings for homosexual "marriages" -- which means not likely at all.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

This seems only slightly less likely than the Church providing temple sealings for homosexual "marriages" -- which means not likely at all.

 

Yes, because nobody is complaining about immersion baptism.

The same with OW - only a very small percentage of members support ordaining women.

 

Now imagine we reach a point where 70% of members are annoyed that women aren't being ordained.

I guarantee if we got to that point that ordination of women would begin.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, because nobody is complaining about immersion baptism.

The same with OW - only a very small percentage of members support ordaining women.

 

Now imagine we reach a point where 70% of members are annoyed that women aren't being ordained.

I guarantee if we got to that point that ordination of women would begin.

And I'm just as confident the Lord would reject the people before He would submit to them forcing His will on this or any other matter.

 

Of course, that wouldn't destroy the Church, because the promise is the gospel and the priesthood will never again be taken from the earth.

 

There may be a lot of excommunications, however.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

And I'm just as confident the Lord would reject the people before He would submit to them forcing His will on this or any other matter.

 

Of course, that wouldn't destroy the Church, because the promise is the gospel and the priesthood will never again be taken from the earth.

 

There may be a lot of excommunications, however.

 

Hey Scott -- can you give one historical example of where what you have described actually occurred?  

 

Plus -- why would the Church bother to poll and survey members about various issues if the leadership didn't care about their views?  The 1990 changes to the temple ceremony were, as I understand it, the direct result of 1) low attendance numbers and 2) surveys sent out to find out why people were not going to the temple.  Changes were made based on those survey results -- and I'm sure a lot of prayer.

[readstoomuch]

So Don Braegger, one of the people who was with the organization supporting the protest, met with his stake president.  It sounds like the stake president was very kind and supportive of the right for people to oppose or at least think about why they are supporting their leaders.  So, way to go stake president!  

 

Then of course Don comes out of the closet about his own homosexuality and his LGBT issues.  From what I gathered he does`t believe that he is doing anything wrong morally and doesn`t plan on repenting.  His protest is about social issues and his own homosexuality was the reason he was shouting out at conference his protest.  He is removing his name from the records of the Church to beat the Stake President from excommunicating him over his moral issues.   I don`t know if others had the same reasons, but these protests over social issues and women and the priesthood do not seem proper to me.  Especially, when they disrupt conference in some way.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey Scott -- can you give one historical example of where what you have described actually occurred?  

 

Of course not. There has never been a scenario in this dispensation where the rebellion of the covenant people has been so intense and widespread that God has had to reject us as a people or where mass excommunication has been necessary. I hope and pray that there never is such a scenario. I don't expect there will be.

 

Plus -- why would the Church bother to poll and survey members about various issues if the leadership didn't care about their views? 

 

As a part of fact finding.

 

Over on the Word of Wisdom thread, I made a post pointing out that fact finding and pondering followed by sincere inquiry in prayer followed by earnestly watching and waiting for divine communication and then acting accordingly has been the pattern for receiving divine revelation from the dawn of this dispensation if not before. I also said in that post that such divine communication is not always written down and published; in fact, I daresay in most cases it isn't.

 

But I see a definite distinction between what you describe here and strident and harsh political pressure tactics by those trying to force their will.

 

I should think such a distinction would be obvious to a reasonable mind.

 

Edited to add:

 

When you called for "one historical example," I assumed you meant in this dispensation.

 

Of course, the great apostasy is one instance in which the Lord rejected the people due to their rebellion, necessitating the restoration of the gospel and priesthood keys and authority in the latter-day dispensation.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So Don Braegger, one of the people who was with the organization supporting the protest, met with his stake president.  It sounds like the stake president was very kind and supportive of the right for people to oppose or at least think about why they are supporting their leaders.  So, way to go stake president!  

 

Then of course Don comes out of the closet about his own homosexuality and his LGBT issues.  From what I gathered he does`t believe that he is doing anything wrong morally and doesn`t plan on repenting.  His protest is about social issues and his own homosexuality was the reason he was shouting out at conference his protest.  He is removing his name from the records of the Church to beat the Stake President from excommunicating him over his moral issues.   I don`t know if others had the same reasons, but these protests over social issues and women and the priesthood do not seem proper to me.  Especially, when they disrupt conference in some way.  

Interesting "rest of the story." Thanks for sharing.

 

The journalist in me prompts me to ask if you can document this, however.

[Avatar4321]

I would point out that the new testament clearly shows the rejection of the Jews for the gentiles. Of course we know it will be reversed in this dispensation.

[readstoomuch]

Interesting "rest of the story." Thanks for sharing.

 

The journalist in me prompts me to ask if you can document this, however.

He posted in the MormonStories Facebook group.  I am not supposed to have a link or take a screen shot, so I guess you`ll have to believe me.  I used to try and bring some balance to that group, but it is an impossible task.  It is now a postmormon/exmormon group.  There is an occasional voice of reason, but mostly not.  All the podcasters and people going through discipline or such end up posting there.  I can`t say all of the podcasters always sound negative.  They are sometimes advertising their products.  For example Dan Wotherspoon will occasionally be on there, but he is definitely not a vitriolic sort of person.  I still follow it.  It is the place to see where the other sides issues are, though it is sort of like wading through a dumpster trying to find something good to eat.  

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

This is nonsensical.

 

You're arguing that 1- It is inappropriate for someone to raise their voice in opposition, 2- If they didn't think they could be seen raising their hand they shouldn't have attended at all because 3- they were only looking for attention/publicity.

 

If the church is going to ask for oposing votes as directed in the D&C then people are free to oppose. If they fear they won't be noticed it would be reasonable to have them stand up or speak out to ensure they are noticed. They didn't do this in a disrespectful or distracting way. They opposed and then sat down.

[tonie]

 

 

Besides, the Manifesto was not capitulation. President Woodruff declared he would have defied the U.S. government and all the powers of hell it had been the will of God that he do so. So if anyone capitulated, it was God Almighty -- a notion that seems quite weird and risible, to say the least.

 

 

Except it was the members who decided to end polygamy.

 

Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

 

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

 

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage,.. or, ... cease the practice?

 

This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it;

Edited June 1, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

I'm not aware of any revelation from God that has come about as a capitulation to open and defiant opposition [edited to add from Church members] to the anointed servants of God. I can, however, think of some apostate schismatic groups that have stemmed from such a thing.

 

Except the original statement was about "pressure". You added your own words to create an intent that may not have been intended.

 

Either way, I think, it might be safe to say that at least one revelation came as a result of "pressure". I would say that the revelation to extend the Priesthood to all worthy males came about due to "pressure"; that pressure being the affect of the Priesthood ban on Church in Brazil.