The Nehor Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 You might consider seeking to understand their position rather than just hurling insults. But don't take that as me supporting what they did - I don't. Nah. They have already convinced me they are not worth listening to. Listening to them would also be encouraging bad behavior. I learned not to do that through my interactions with small children. 2
Teancum Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Have you ever attended a conference session live when sustainings are conducted? The lights are raised so that the voting may be seen and noted. It is coy indeed to state or imply that this bunch had any other objective in mind than to attract media attention. I agree with jwhitlock. Their conduct is disgusting.Even with the lights raised how easy is it to spot four or five put of 25,000?
The Nehor Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Even with the lights raised how easy is it to spot four or five put of 25,000? Look at the pictures. They stood up and in their position in the conference center they are easily viewable from the stand. 1
Teancum Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 If they simply had raised their hands what would we think?Oh I am sure many would be wailing on and on as they are now.
The Nehor Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Oh I am sure many would be wailing on and on as they are now. I would probably still think they were doofuses but I would consider them polite doofuses. 2
Teancum Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 (edited) I don't think President Uchtdorf is as prone to carelessness -- or dishonesty -- as you apparently do.Wow. Poison. The well away Mr. Lloyd. Edited April 5, 2015 by Teancum
Teancum Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Ironically that is exactly my response to those defending these idiots.Like minds I guess.
Avatar4321 Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 That was hardly "shrieking". lolhow about weeping and wailing and mashing of teeth?
carbon dioxide Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 I would also point out that President Uchtodorf asked for those who sustained or opposed to "manifest it". He didn't even say "by the given sign" or whatever is usually said. Sure, silently raising the right arm is the tradition in the Church, but I don't think you can say these objectors did anything they shouldn't; they simply chose to vocally (and briefly) "manifest" it.Are you a lawyer? I think these people knew what he meant and I am sure you do as well. It was very immature of them to draw attention to themselves when those who voted to sustain did not draw attention to themselves.
Alora Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 I had to made an account because I had to give a reply... Remember people.. it is NOT a vote 1
The Nehor Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 how about weeping and wailing and mashing of teeth? Gnashing of teeth. 1
carbon dioxide Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 I had to made an account because I had to give a reply... Remember people.. it is NOT a voteCorrect. We just declare before God and the Church we sustain whom the Lord has called. Those that chose to not sustain are free to do so. They better start thinking of their excuses because it has been noted in the books in heaven. The Lord will ask for a clear accounting of it. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 shriekSHrēk/verbgerund or present participle: shriekingutter a high-pitched piercing sound or words, especially as an expression of terror, pain, or excitement."the audience shrieked with laughter" synonyms:scream, screech, squeal, squawk, roar, howl, shout, yelp; informalholler"she shrieked with fear"(of something inanimate) make a high-pitched screeching sound."the wheels shrieked as the car sped away"
strappinglad Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 I had to made an account because I had to give a reply... Remember people.. it is NOT a vote You are correct that it is not a democratic vote, because one " vote " in opposition can 'defeat' a candidate . Also a 75% 'vote ' against does not guarantee that a candidate will ' lose' However , if a substantial majority of the Church refused to sustain a new prophet, I'm reasonably sure the Lord would allow the 'vote' to rule, and let the consequences follow.
Alora Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Again its NOT a vote. For those of you unfamiliar with the process of a man becoming a Prophet of the Lord. The Twelve Apostles are also Prophets. They just do not individually hold ALL the "keys" or authority to preform ALL the ordinances and duties of the Priesthood of the Church, but together they do. Whereas the PROPHET holds ALL the "Keys/Authority" . When a Prophet dies the senior Apostle becomes the Prophet / President of the Church. Sooo Basically. The Lord has been preparing this man of earth to become His Prophet on Earth for MANY years. And during these years there have been many sustaining "votes" (which is saying you will support this person). I am SURE if there is a Prophet of the Lord on the Earth that the LORD does not approve of he would have been removed before he reaches the position of Prophet / President of the Church. We believe that the Prophets of God are called into Apostleship through prayer, the inspiration of the Lord to his Apostles and Prophet. AND if you are a member of the Church you believe in Modern Day Prophets and that they are the mouth piece of God and receive instruction and guidance for the Church and its member. SOO It comes full circle doesn't it? If you are a member of the Church, you believe and have a testimony of the Prophet hence.. you support him. 1
strappinglad Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 With every new Prophet there has been a " falling away". Some defections were more substantial than others. If Bro. Packer makes it , I predict there will be a large number of opposers or at least abstainers . The wagon keeps rolling along ,with or without the self appointed sustainers/steadiers.
JLHPROF Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 My opinion: 1. A non-sustaining vote is NOT the work of the adversary and it is wrong to think it is.2. We take a sustaining vote for a reason. It is not supposed or required to be always unanimous.3. I do NOT agree with the reason this group was opposing and consider their particular issues to be apostasy.4. As to the vocality - in the past votes have been reported as unanimous when they were not (as for OD1 for instance).Ensuring their vote counted might be questionable but is very understandable. 2
JLHPROF Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Missed it.but it makes me smile because if the adversary is going to such behavior to try to undermine us, which really has no real impact, you have to know we are getting under his skin and the Lord is about to do some amazing things. How is a non-sustaining vote from the adversary?
JLHPROF Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Yes, and there are also cases from the past where the brother at the stand moved forward calling the vote unanimous when the opposing "nos" where audible in the recording. Perhaps he didn't hear or see them. I will give the benefit of the doubt This has happened. It happened with the OD1 vote.
Duncan Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 I would love to know what happened in the lives of the naysayers to get to that point.
Popular Post GingerRed Posted April 5, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 5, 2015 I was there. I was sitting in section Plaza 1. I knew this was going to happen, so I was kinda watching for it. I also warned my roommate , who is not LDS, that this might happen. The dissenters I think were in section Plaza 3? So by turning around to look behind me , I could see and hear them. Yes they were loud. Yes they stood up, with their arms straight up. There was also a male voice somewhere several rows behind me, also shouting no. No they were not escorted out. I'm sure most people there had no clue what was going on. But I have no doubt the First Presidency and most on the stand, knew about it, since none of them looked surprised or startled by it. Pres Uchtdorf handled it very well 7
BookofMormonLuvr Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Again its NOT a vote. For those of you unfamiliar with the process of a man becoming a Prophet of the Lord. The Twelve Apostles are also Prophets. They just do not individually hold ALL the "keys" or authority to preform ALL the ordinances and duties of the Priesthood of the Church, but together they do. Whereas the PROPHET holds ALL the "Keys/Authority" . When a Prophet dies the senior Apostle becomes the Prophet / President of the Church. Sooo Basically. The Lord has been preparing this man of earth to become His Prophet on Earth for MANY years. And during these years there have been many sustaining "votes" (which is saying you will support this person). I am SURE if there is a Prophet of the Lord on the Earth that the LORD does not approve of he would have been removed before he reaches the position of Prophet / President of the Church. We believe that the Prophets of God are called into Apostleship through prayer, the inspiration of the Lord to his Apostles and Prophet. AND if you are a member of the Church you believe in Modern Day Prophets and that they are the mouth piece of God and receive instruction and guidance for the Church and its member. SOO It comes full circle doesn't it? If you are a member of the Church, you believe and have a testimony of the Prophet hence.. you support him.The Correlation Committee would be proud! Gold star.Query:Why is there a procedure in the D&C for removing the President of the High Priesthood- if in fact "if there is a Prophet of the Lord on the Earth that the LORD does not approve of he would have been removed before he reaches the position of Prophet / President of the Church" ?
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted April 5, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 5, 2015 (edited) I would love to know what happened in the lives of the naysayers to get to that point. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2365694-155/all-is-not-well-in-zion At least seven people rose in dissent as part of an action by a loosely organized group calling itself "Any Opposed?"Conversely, thousands of Mormons in the Conference Center silently raised their hands to show their support for the faith's governing First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.The opponents did not say more during the afternoon session, but one of those who stood, American Fork resident Don Braegger, said the group has a variety of concerns, including the perception that LDS history is rife with disturbing episodes, that the faith does not treat lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons fairly or offer wide enough roles for women.Unlike in the 1970s and '80s, when opponents were removed from General Conference after voicing "no" votes, Saturday's opponents remained for the rest of the afternoon meeting. The same old stupid nonsense (Joseph Smith was an evil polygamist/SSM/Ordain Women), but they have the right to vote opposed.At least the Church PR department has learned better than to give them further press by escorting them out. Pres. Uchtdorf's instruction that the talk to their Stake Presidents is a much better response. Edited April 5, 2015 by JLHPROF 5
BookofMormonLuvr Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 I would love to know what happened in the lives of the naysayers to get to that point. They are probably vile sinners that want to drink beer, smoke ganja, and chase women (or men or both)- and watch rated R movies and have 4 sets of earrings.That's my guess.
Recommended Posts