Dissenters Trying To Oppose Sustaining At Conference

[tonie]

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.

 

 

For the sustaining of the 1st Presidents and the 12 Apostles, those in favor and those opposed where ask to "manifest it"; No call for the uplifted hand.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

If they didn't think they would be noticed by raising their hands, then obviously, the behavior of going to the meeting to register their dissent would be problematic, even ineffectual,  -- unless their intent was not just to register dissent but to make a public spectacle in doing so. I strongly suspect that it was.

[Scott Lloyd]

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;

I don't get from this that he was empowering the congregation to make the decision. Rather, the decision had already been made. The question he put to them was by way of reasoning with them, an effort to get them to understand the will of the Lord in the matter.

 

Where in this sermon is there an indication that he was empowering them to decide, by vote or whatever means, the future course of the Church?

Edited June 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Your response is a non-sequitur. The revelation on the priesethood did not come about "as a capitulation to open and defiant opposition from Church members to the anointed servants of God."

[ttribe]

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

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

You're really sensitive about that concept, aren't you, ttribe?

[Scott Lloyd]

For the sustaining of the 1st Presidents and the 12 Apostles, those in favor and those opposed where ask to "manifest it"; No call for the uplifted hand.

I held open the possibility that they've dropped the "uplifted hand" directive. I've indicated that, if so, I'd be interested to see some documentation to that effect, since the voting is almost never manifested in any other way.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

You're really sensitive about that concept, aren't you, ttribe?

 

I was kidding around with you, Scott (hence, the dead horse "smiley").  I figured you'd be up on the fact that the Supreme Court issued an important ruling today that demonstrated the continued struggle with the "reasonable person" concept.  No need to get defensive.

Edited June 1, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

I was kidding around with you, Scott (hence, the dead horse "smiley").  I figured you'd be up on the fact that the Supreme Court issued an important ruling today that demonstrated the continued struggle with the "reasonable person" concept.  No need to get defensive.

No need to infer defensiveness.

[HappyJackWagon]

If they didn't think they would be noticed by raising their hands, then obviously, the behavior of going to the meeting to register their dissent would be problematic, even ineffectual,  -- unless their intent was not just to register dissent but to make a public spectacle in doing so. I strongly suspect that it was.

Of course they went to dissent. How else would they do it? There is no other way. So they have 2 options dissent in a respectful way that some people feel is a spectacle or agree by default of not making any dissent. It's a no win situation with you. Perhaps the church could provide additional ways to dissent for the millions of members who aren't in the conference center but in a way that the dissent is noted.

[Calm]

http://anyopposed.org/about/

 

The sustaining vote at General Conference is the only doctrinally approved method of providing feedback to the LDS church leadership. Concerns raised to a bishop or stake president do not travel up the priesthood chain. 

 

 

We encourage those who vote in opposition to stand and audibly state “opposed” at the appropriate moment when opposing votes are called for, loud enough to be heard but not screaming.  Historically, votes were taken orally whereby the audience would shout their “yay” or “nay.”  We do not wish to make a disruption or to ruin General Conference for anyone, but we do seek to vote our conscience as is our right as members of the LDS church.

 

From a comment:

 

We have shown that opposing is a viable option. Naturally we expect that there will be more participants in Oct.

 

A viable option for what.  The attempt was to talk to a General Authority iirc, they were told to talk to their bishops and SPs which they knew they could do before but believed that was fruitless.

 

So how was this a successful viable option that having more participants in Oct will make even better?

Edited June 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

http://anyopposed.org/about/

 

For me, this issue isn't at all about whether or not members of the right to oppose sustaining, or that it was done vocally.  Like you have references, what these people did was well within the realm of acceptability.

 

Where i think this group got it wrong was to oppose the sustaining of leaders because they do not like some of the teachings of the church.  I don't personally believe that this is the purpose of sustaining or opposing those who are called.  

 

Obviously these people disagree.

[Calm]

It would seem the sole purpose of their existence is to demonstrate to others that there exists dissent since they have already discounted any value in going to see bishops and SPs.

[tonie]

I don't get from this that he was empowering the congregation to make the decision. Rather, the decision had already been made. The question he put to them was by way of reasoning with them, an effort to get them to understand the will of the Lord in the matter.

 

Where in this sermon is there an indication that he was empowering them to decide, by vote or whatever means, the future course of the Church?

 

Read the quoted material again.  It is very self-evident.

[Scott Lloyd]

Read the quoted material again.  It is very self-evident.

I'm afraid I'll have to disillusion you: It is definitely not self-evident.

 

I'll repeat the question: Where in this sermon is there an indication that he was empowering them to decide, by vote or whatever means, the future course of the Church?

[tonie]

Your response is a non-sequitur. The revelation on the priesethood did not come about "as a capitulation to open and defiant opposition from Church members to the anointed servants of God."

 

Your response was the non-sequitur.  You moved the goal post.

 

The Church was under "pressure" on what to do about what to do in Brazil.

[tonie]

I'm afraid I'll have to disillusion you: It is definitely not self-evident.

 

I'll repeat the question: Where in this sermon is there an indication that he was empowering them to decide, by vote or whatever means, the future course of the Church?

 

 

I have shown you what the Prophet said; I will not stand in the way of you claiming God capitulated.

 

The answer to your question is here.

Edited June 1, 2015 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

I have shown you what the Prophet said; I will not stand in the way of you claiming God capitulated.

 

The answer to your question is here.

No the answer is not there. There is nothing there to indicate that President Woodruff was giving them the power to rescind what he had already declared or to negate his decision as Church president. It won't do to point to the quote and declare your assertion "self-evident" when it is not.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your response was the non-sequitur.  You moved the goal post.

 

The Church was under "pressure" on what to do about what to do in Brazil.

I did not "move the goal post." The challenge I issued from the beginning was to show where the Church had knuckled under to strident protests and demands and political pressure from members of the Church.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course they went to dissent. How else would they do it? There is no other way. So they have 2 options dissent in a respectful way that some people feel is a spectacle or agree by default of not making any dissent. It's a no win situation with you. Perhaps the church could provide additional ways to dissent for the millions of members who aren't in the conference center but in a way that the dissent is noted.

I suppose this gets into what the purpose is for the sustaining of officers. Is it to give a public platform to dissenters? Or is it ratify or reject the placement of officers in their positions? If it's the latter, it would take far more than a handful of dissenters to do effect a rejection, vocal or not.

[JLHPROF]

I did not "move the goal post." The challenge I issued from the beginning was to show where the Church had knuckled under to strident protests and demands and political pressure from members of the Church.

 

And the changes to the temple ordinances and garments are the most obvious answer.

The ending of polygamy and the priesthood ban are also debatable as to if they can be included.

 

I mean, do we really think that President Kimball got up out of the blue one morning and said, "Hmm, today I think I'll ask about the priesthood ban" or that President Woodruff said "Well, polygamy is going great, but I'm going to ask about ending it anyway."

 

Now, in some cases these pressures led our leaders to seek revelation.

In some cases administrative decisions were made, presumably after prayer.

The point is, member complaints DO impact the course of the Church, even doctrinally.

[Scott Lloyd]

And the changes to the temple ordinances and garments are the most obvious answer.

So there were Church members staging protests on Temple Square or shouting "No!" during sustainings at general conference or going to the news media to complain because they didn't like the temple ordinances or garments? Can you document that?

 

The ending of polygamy ...

As I said earlier, President Woodruff declared later that he was ready and willing to defy the federal government and stay the course if that had been the will of God. And are you saying that Church members were protesting publicly and in the news media of the day because they didn't want polygamy to continue? Where's the documentation of that?

 

... and the priesthood ban are also debatable as to if they can be included.

 

 

If anything, the Church leadership resisted political pressure until the time was right, and the proximate cause, if one can be identified, for the coming of the revelation was the problem in developing nations with large numbers of members of African ancestry and the urgent need for priesthood leadership. That amounts to growing pains, not strident political pressure.

 

I mean, do we really think that President Kimball got up out of the blue one morning and said, "Hmm, today I think I'll ask about the priesthood ban" or that President Woodruff said "Well, polygamy is going great, but I'm going to ask about ending it anyway."

 

 

Of course not. No one is saying that.

 

Now, in some cases these pressures led our leaders to seek revelation.

In some cases administrative decisions were made, presumably after prayer.

The point is, member complaints DO impact the course of the Church, even doctrinally.

 

I think my wording was strident demands and protests and outside political pressure.

 

Responses on an internal survey taken by Church headquarters do not amount to that.

 

Edited to add:

 

My wording, to be precise, was "capitulation to open and defiant opposition from Church members to the anointed servants of God." Neither polygamy nor the priesthood restriction were ended due to that. Nor were the temple ordinances and garments changed as a result of it.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

I suppose this gets into what the purpose is for the sustaining of officers. Is it to give a public platform to dissenters? Or is it ratify or reject the placement of officers in their positions? If it's the latter, it would take far more than a handful of dissenters to do effect a rejection, vocal or not.

The answer doesn't really matter because you would view any dissent as some kind of grandstanding by the dissenters. You mention that the dissenters won't make a difference anyway because it would take more of them to make an impact. Maybe, but does that mean everyone should remain silent because they don't think they can make a difference?

 

It has previously been the practice that those who oppose a sustaining are then able to meet with the presiding authorities to discuss the reasons for the dissent. This pattern wasn't followed this last time. This would be like a Stake President referring someone to their EQ Pres. after they opposed a stake calling at conference. That EQ Pres has no authority to make any change should one be necessary though he would have better access to the SP than a Bishop or SP would have to the 1st Presidency. It's tantamount to simply ignoring an opposing vote. If that's the process going forward they should probably just stop asking for a sustaining vote. Those who opposed may have believed their dissent would give them an audience with a GA which would allow them the opportunity to make a difference. Obviously it didn't work that way this time.

 

It will be interesting to see how the issue of sustaining officers will be treated in the next conference. Will they change the session in which they ask in hopes of catching dissenters unaware? Or will they stop asking? Or will they continue to note the dissent and do nothing more about it?

[Scott Lloyd]

The answer doesn't really matter because you would view any dissent as some kind of grandstanding by the dissenters. You mention that the dissenters won't make a difference anyway because it would take more of them to make an impact. Maybe, but does that mean everyone should remain silent because they don't think they can make a difference?

 

Well now, it seems to me this goes to the very crux of the question that is being discussed in this thread.

 

Of course they have the right to dissent. The question is whether a sacred convocation should be turned into a platform for a noisy public protest as opposed to the mere indication (customarily by means of the uplifted hand) of one's opposition.

 

It has previously been the practice that those who oppose a sustaining are then able to meet with the presiding authorities to discuss the reasons for the dissent. This pattern wasn't followed this last time. This would be like a Stake President referring someone to their EQ Pres. after they opposed a stake calling at conference.

 

 

 

 

No, that is not an apt comparison. An elders quorum president does not possess the keys and authority that a stake president does. A stake president represents the general Church leadership to the Church members who live within his jurisdiction in a way that an elders quorum president could never do. There is a reason why they are referred to as "stakes of Zion." A stake in a very real way is a microcosm of the Church in a limited geographical area.

 

That EQ Pres has no authority to make any change should one be necessary though he would have better access to the SP than a Bishop or SP would have to the 1st Presidency. It's tantamount to simply ignoring an opposing vote. If that's the process going forward they should probably just stop asking for a sustaining vote. Those who opposed may have believed their dissent would give them an audience with a GA which would allow them the opportunity to make a difference. Obviously it didn't work that way this time.

 

 

So their designs to circumvent stake leadership and ignore the orderly administration of affairs in the Church were frustrated.  My, my. I feel their pain.

 

It will be interesting to see how the issue of sustaining officers will be treated in the next conference. Will they change the session in which they ask in hopes of catching dissenters unaware? Or will they stop asking? Or will they continue to note the dissent and do nothing more about it?

 

Who knows? I don't much care in any event.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

Of course they have the right to dissent. The question is whether a sacred convocation should be turned into a platform for a noisy public protest as opposed to the mere indication (customarily by means of the uplifted hand) one's opposition.

 

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

 

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