Dissenters Trying To Oppose Sustaining At Conference

[Calm]

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

those at anyopposed appear to care less about specific reasons for dissent being known and only care that dissent is seen as existing. See my previous post quoting their declaration of success and that more numbers would show up next conference regardless the direction to speak to their local leaders, an option they had dismissed as useless in their mission statement. Edited June 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

I know of one interesting instance in England where this happened with my grandfather.

[Scott Lloyd]

those at anyopposed appear to care less about specific reasons for dissent being known and only care that dissent is seen as existing. See my previous post quoting their declaration of success and that more numbers would show up next conference regardless the direction to speak to their local leaders, an option they had dismissed as useless in their mission statement.

So if, as Elder Christofferson has taught in general conference (see also here), unity is one of the three goals and components of a Zion society (the others being holiness and charity), it appears that the objective of this bunch is antithetical to that purpose; that is, contrary to promoting unity, they would highlight and sow the seeds of disunity.

 

Just sayin'.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I know of one interesting instance in England where this happened with my grandfather.

Would be interested to learn of it. Can you share?

[mfbukowski]

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.

"The gospel will never be taken from the earth" does not mean that it will not change.

 

Yes, I know the objections to that obviously, nevertheless the notion of an open canon can conceptually absorb a lot of changes, like that fact or not.

[HappyJackWagon]

So if, as Elder Christofferson has taught in general conference (see also here), unity is one of the three goals and components of a Zion society (the others being holiness and charity), it appears that the objective of this bunch is antithetical to that purpose; that is, contrary to promoting unity, they would highlight and sow the seeds of disunity.

 

Just sayin'.

Unity for the sake of unity accomplishes nothing. It must be unified in the proper cause, otherwise we would call Jonestown a zion society.

 

We have a fundamental disagreement about what dissent means. While I believe it can be, and often is negative and perhaps even sews disunity, in other cases dissent is the greatest form of loyalty to a person or organization because it causes them to become better. But this is ground we've already plowed so I'm out.

Edited June 3, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

"The gospel will never be taken from the earth" does not mean that it will not change.

 

Yes, I know the objections to that obviously, nevertheless the notion of an open canon can conceptually absorb a lot of changes, like that fact or not.

I think it would be better expressed that the gospel itself does not change but it's application might according to setting, circumstances and the will of God.

 

Take plural marriage, for example. It was instituted in this dispensation (one change) and then rescinded (another change). But the general principle (according to Jacob 2) is that the Lord will command it according to His will for the purpose of raising up seed, but the default condition is marriage between one man and one women.

 

Viewed in this light, it is easier to understand that there really was no change to the gospel.

[Scott Lloyd]

Unity for the sake of unity accomplishes nothing. It must be unified in the proper cause, otherwise we would call Jonestown a zion society.

 

The concept of a Zion society by definition presupposes that it would be far from "unity for the sake of unity" and that it would indeed be unity in the proper cause. (Bear in mind that the other two Zion components are holiness and charity.)

 

We have a fundamental disagreement about what dissent means. While I believe it can be, and often is negative and perhaps even sews disunity, in other cases dissent is the greatest form of loyalty to a person or organization because it causes them to become better. But this is ground we've already plowed so I'm out.

 

 

If it is dissent against what the Lord has decreed as right, it cannot be regarded as loyalty to Him. It would, in fact, be the opposite thereof.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

Would be interested to learn of it. Can you share?

 

In short (I'm leaving out a lot of details):

 

He was district president and had to call a new branch president in England. He was reviewing the branch records, and found only one member who was a full tithe payer at the time - a deaf / dumb brother. He extended the calling to this brother.  When the time came to sustain, about half the congregation opposed him because of his disability. My grandfather bluntly told those in opposition that they were not worthy to oppose on that basis and overrode them from the pulpit.

 

This brother served very successfully as branch president and eventually got many of the members back up to snuff with what they were supposed to be doing. There was also at least one miraculous instance that confirmed to the members that this good brother was the one who the Lord wanted in that position. It was a good repentance opportunity for many.

 

I consider it a privilege to sustain the leaders of the church. It would have to be a pretty clear problem for me to raise a hand in opposition. Mere disagreement doesn't merit that kind of response, which is why some who oppose then have to move on to a "they've gone astray" rationalization.

[mfbukowski]

I think it would be better expressed that the gospel itself does not change but it's application might according to setting, circumstances and the will of God.

 

Take plural marriage, for example. It was instituted in this dispensation (one change) and then rescinded (another change). But the general principle (according to Jacob 2) is that the Lord will command it according to His will for the purpose of raising up seed, but the default condition is marriage between one man and one women.

 

Viewed in this light, it is easier to understand that there really was no change to the gospel.

I am bilingual.

 

If I am teaching Sunday School, I would put it the way you have.

 

If I am discussing how philosophical arguments are structured, I would put it the way I have.

 

All sentences serve different purposes and the way they are structured is determined by the purpose of the sentence, and the audience to which one is communicating.   I think you probably know that very well. 

 

It's that old difference between "Mormon Studies" and the Correlation Committee again.

[mfbukowski]

I am bilingual.

 

If I am teaching Sunday School, I would put it the way you have.

 

If I am discussing how philosophical arguments are structured, I would put it the way I have.

 

All sentences serve different purposes and the way they are structured is determined by the purpose of the sentence, and the audience to which one is communicating.   I think you probably know that very well. 

 

It's that old difference between "Mormon Studies" and the Correlation Committee again.

AND

That is why I am glad I do not work for the church OR BYU, and I am convinced that is why there is so little use of secular vocabularies at BYU.

 

You and those guys have to be teaching "sunday school" 24-7, and it is completely understandable why you choose the vocabulary you do.  You have a responsibility to do so, and I honor you and the others for doing that.  I am sure that at times you and the others would like to let your "hair down" and just be good old Scott and not worry about spelling and grammar and as ee cummings would say "the syntax (sin-tax) of things".

 

But I honor you.  You do a great job at what you do here and at your work.

[mfbukowski]

For those who don't know ee cummings, here is the one I was referring to.   Just google him.   Amazing stuff
 

 

'since feeling is first who pays any attention to the syntax of things will never wholly kiss you;

wholly to be a fool while Spring is in the world

my blood approves, and kisses are better fate than wisdom lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry - the best gesture of my brain is less than your eyelids' flutter which says

we are for each other: then laugh, leaning back in my arms for life's not a paragraph

And death i think is no parenthesis'

 

Edited June 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

I am bilingual.

 

If I am teaching Sunday School, I would put it the way you have.

 

If I am discussing how philosophical arguments are structured, I would put it the way I have.

 

All sentences serve different purposes and the way they are structured is determined by the purpose of the sentence, and the audience to which one is communicating.   I think you probably know that very well. 

 

It's that old difference between "Mormon Studies" and the Correlation Committee again.

As much as I love and admire you, mfbukowski, I must do a bit of gentle push-back here.

 

This goes beyond being merely a matter of semantics or stiff or overly formal propriety. The gospel is unchanging, and to say that it is not, in any sort of context, runs the risk of inadvertently conveying falsehood.

 

Elder Packer (he was not "President" back then) said it another way:

 

 

There are principles of the gospel underlying every phase of Church administration. These are not explained in the handbooks. They are found in the scriptures. They are the substance of and the purpose for the revelations.

Procedures, programs, the administrative policies, even some patterns of organization are subject to change. We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time. But the principles, the doctrines, never change.

If you over-emphasize programs and procedures that can change, and will change, and must change, and do not understand the fundamental principles of the gospel, which never change, you can be misled.

 

I think this is an important -- and understandable -- point in any venue and needn't be watered down or rendered in imprecise -- even potentially misleading -- phrasing.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

AND

That is why I am glad I do not work for the church OR BYU, and I am convinced that is why there is so little use of secular vocabularies at BYU.

 

You and those guys have to be teaching "sunday school" 24-7, and it is completely understandable why you choose the vocabulary you do.  You have a responsibility to do so, and I honor you and the others for doing that.  I am sure that at times you and the others would like to let your "hair down" and just be good old Scott and not worry about spelling and grammar and as ee cummings would say "the syntax (sin-tax) of things".

 

But I honor you.  You do a great job at what you do here and at your work.

I assure you it is not a matter of teaching Sunday School 24/7. It is something of a perfectionist's zeal and quest to convey as precisely as possible, with as little chance for misunderstanding as possible, one's intended meaning. Formal or informal, I appreciate the richness, fluidity and versatility of language and what can be accomplished thereby.

 

Childhood friends will tell you that in my pre-teens, even on the playground at recess, I had a penchant for precociousness in vocabulary, so maybe it's a DNA thing.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

I assure you it is not a matter of teaching Sunday School 24/7. It is something of a perfectionist's zeal and quest to convey as precisely as possible, with as little chance for misunderstanding as possible, one's intended meaning. Formal or informal, I appreciate the richness, fluidity and versatility of language and what can be accomplished thereby.

 

Childhood friends will tell you that in my pre-teens, even on the playground at recess, I had a penchant for precociousness in vocabulary, so maybe it's a DNA thing.

Well, that says it all!

[mfbukowski]

In the fall, all the trees lose their leaves, but the forest doesn't change.

[strappinglad]

In the fall, all the trees lose their leaves, but the forest doesn't change.

True, but only if the forest is deciduous ... and not in Brazil.

[mfbukowski]

True, but only if the forest is deciduous ... and not in Brazil.

That's it!

 

We gotta go where nothing changes!

[Kenngo1969]

That's it!

 

We gotta go where nothing changes!

Who's gonna start building the spaceship?

[Avatar4321]

Who's gonna start building the spaceship?

NASA?