Inappropriate Conference Conduct

[carbon dioxide]

How is a non-sustaining vote from the adversary?

Not sustaining by itself does not mean the devil was involved.  Doing things to draw attention to what they are doing would point in that direction. 

[ERayR]

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.

 

Friends of yours are they? 

[JLHPROF]

Not sustaining by itself does not mean the devil was involved.  Doing things to draw attention to what they are doing would point in that direction. 

 

You'd think the devil was involved to read some of the responses here.

I both agree and disagree with it.  An uncounted vote might as well never have happened.  Whether we agree with their choice on how to ensure they were counted is another.  They deserve to be counted and not ignored as has happened in the past.  It would have been better if they could be counted AND not be disruptive but the Church has a history of ignoring disagreement until they have no choice.

Edited April 5, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ERayR]

You'd think the devil was involved to read some of the responses here.

I both agree and disagree with it.  An uncounted vote might as well never have happened.  Whether we agree with their choice on how to ensure they were counted is another.  They deserve to be counted and not ignored as has happened in the past.  It would have been better if they could be counted AND not be disruptive but the Church has a history of ignoring disagreement until they have no choice.

 

The problem with a dissenting vote, no matter how it is expressed, is that they are a very small minority.

[Avatar4321]

How is a non-sustaining vote from the adversary?

The fact that it's for show and to stir up trouble. If it was an opposition for the reason we have oppositions that's a different matter.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Friends of yours are they? 

 

Of course, we hang out at the tattoo parlor all the time, drinking our Mountain Dew, smoking Camels (menthol, of course, they're healthier), and talking about the latest episode of "Sister Wives".

[carbon dioxide]

You'd think the devil was involved to read some of the responses here.

I both agree and disagree with it.  An uncounted vote might as well never have happened.  Whether we agree with their choice on how to ensure they were counted is another.  They deserve to be counted and not ignored as has happened in the past.  It would have been better if they could be counted AND not be disruptive but the Church has a history of ignoring disagreement until they have no choice.

No vote is counted.  The sustaining is simply a public statement we personally make to God and the Church that sustain those that have been called.  We are given the option not to sustain.  If one is looking for recognition or a response, they should do it at the ward or stake level.  Nobody vote went uncounted because no count was done.

[Sleeper Cell]

Not sustaining by itself does not mean the devil was involved.  Doing things to draw attention to what they are doing would point in that direction. 

Not necessarily.  I am able to be an obnoxious jerk on my own. 

[JLHPROF]

No vote is counted.  The sustaining is simply a public statement we personally make to God and the Church that sustain those that have been called.  We are given the option not to sustain.  If one is looking for recognition or a response, they should do it at the ward or stake level.  Nobody vote went uncounted because no count was done.

 

But there is a purpose behind it.

1. "During the apostasy in Kirtland in 1837, Frederick G. Williams became estranged from the Church. A conference of elders in Far West refused to sustain him as a member of the First Presidency, and at a conference in March 1839 he was excommunicated from the Church."

 

2. 8 Oct. 1843 - The general conference refused to sustain Joseph Smith's motion to drop Rigdon from the First Presidency.  The Prophet refused to sustain Sidney Rigdon as a counselor, but through the merciful pleadings of Hyrum Smith and others, he was sustained. On that occasion the Prophet said: “I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have put him on me; you may carry him, but I will not.”

 

3. Brigham Young recognized that with the death of Hyrum Smith, William Smith had claim, by right of birth, to the seat of the Presiding Patriarch of the Church; and in recognition of that claim, ordained him to that position. William did, in fact, in the summer of 1845, issue several Patriarchal Blessings. But before he could be sustained in this calling, his rebelliousness had bloomed into full grown apostasy and the October Conference not only refused to sustain him as either Patriarch or Apostle, but in fact he was excommunicated.

 

The right to sustain or oppose is an important one, both when it is on the side of right AND wrong.

[why me]

The problem with dissenting because of church doctrine or for positions on gay marriage or OW etc is that the lds church is not a democracy. It is overseen by heavenly father and so, any human opposition to his rule would need to fail. And this is why that such sustainings and not sustaining are not about the positiions that heavenly father has taken but rather about the worthiness of his leaders which is roughly translated as living the commandments. So, if Monson was caught in a woman's bed that would be grounds for not sustaining him. But not because he and other leaders (under heavenly guidance) are against same sex marriage etc.

 

A democratic church ruled by human beings would certainly fold in the wake of umpopular doctrine. Even if 95 percent of the conference voted not to sustain the prophet based on OW or same sex marriage, it would fail. The voting is not a popularity contest nor is it a vote to change doctrine.

Edited April 5, 2015 by why me

[Duncan]

So, if the Church isn't a democracy which I get why do we even have the option of opposing?

[why me]

You'd think the devil was involved to read some of the responses here.

I both agree and disagree with it.  An uncounted vote might as well never have happened.  Whether we agree with their choice on how to ensure they were counted is another.  They deserve to be counted and not ignored as has happened in the past.  It would have been better if they could be counted AND not be disruptive but the Church has a history of ignoring disagreement until they have no choice.

Can you tell us about the history? A generalization without proof is not very helpful. I can see a time when such tactics will be very disruptive inside the conference center since a well planned protest is certainly possible. However such tactics as shouting out and hollering is a disruption. A silent hand raising would be more respectful.

 

Maybe the church should be governed from the audience. All those in favor of OW raise your hands...all those opposed? Those in favor won, the church will now have a female priesthood type scene will not happen. So,what is the purpose of such protests? Is it to bring the world to the church while members are enjoying a religious moment? It seems selfish to me. Why can't people be allowed to worship in peace? Why must conference become a political statement? And OW and same sex marriage are political positions since one is founded in feminisms and the other in identity rights. Also, such protests are doomed to fail because of church internal structure. And in answer to the protestors, it seems that the church is digging in its heels when it comes to traditional families etc.

[why me]

So, if the Church isn't a democracy which I get why do we even have the option of opposing?

As I said, if someone knows that any of these people have sinned in a major way and believes them unworthy because of it, one can raise their hands in unsustaining the leaders. It is the same on the local level. I can not raise my hand in a vote of unsustaining the bishop because he is a republican and does not support my politics. And this is what the protestors more or less did.

 

The church is not a democracy where we cast millions of votes on what the church should be and not be. It wouldn't survive such a process. I remember in the 60s there was a huge student movement called students for a demcratic society. They organized on many campuses and led the college sitins. However, a different group began to infiltrate the organization. It was called the progressive labor party (maoist) and their members began to take over chapters leading the organization in a different direction. Eventually, SDS was disbanded by the organizers and it fell into history. Too many divisions and hostilities. After sds disbanded some of its members formed the weatherman, which eventually became the weather underground, and they began a bombing campaign in america to end the vietnam war. So, a wonderful organization (sds) fell because the leadership was weak and morphed into many other forms. But sds was a politcal organization and not a church.

 

And this is what these protestors in conference want: to begin to sow the seeds of division. Divide and conquest is a good tactic for infiltration. It has happened to many other organizations that are led by political aspirations.

Edited April 5, 2015 by why me

[jerryp48]

The act IMO was about drawing attention to themselves. There are numerous sources of research on the web for the multitude of topics that don't get discussed in Sunday school. Do your research, search your heart, pray, choose your path, and then come to grips with it.

I'd be willing to bet that some if not most of the GAs don't know nearly as much about all the 'warts' of church history as do many contributors of this forum and others like it. I don't think it is a pre-requisite to their calling. I think if they got an answer from a GA it probably be 'hmmm I don't know' and they would storm away frustrated.

I gained my testimony through personal revelation long before I learned about all the 'problems' brought up by Any Opposed. Learning about all the weird unexplainable things was shocking for a time until I realized that it didn't change the reality of my personal revelation. If these guys have come to a different conclusion then they should move on. They won't get the answers from GAs. The GAs are too busy focusing on what actually saves souls.

[carbon dioxide]

So, if the Church isn't a democracy which I get why do we even have the option of opposing?

I believe records are kept in heaven of the things we say and do.  Our sustaining does not get written down by the Church but recorded in heaven.  This is one issue that Lord looks at when we are judged.  Those that sustained their leaders but then rejected what they said will have to give an accounting of that. Those that failed to sustain will get an accounting of that.  The option to oppose is so that we are given that opportunity to make a decision for the record.  They will have to explain to the Lord why they did not sustain them and they better have a great reason for it that the Lord will accept.   I don't see this action as just being tradition or cute exercise.  I think when all are judged, we will fully understand how serious this action was and we should not have taken it lightly.

[mormonnewb]

You'd think the devil was involved to read some of the responses here.

I both agree and disagree with it. An uncounted vote might as well never have happened. Whether we agree with their choice on how to ensure they were counted is another. They deserve to be counted and not ignored as has happened in the past. It would have been better if they could be counted AND not be disruptive but the Church has a history of ignoring disagreement until they have no choice.

Brilliant! I couldn't have written better (more sarcastic, caustic and offensive ... but not better).

I have no problem with the Church "not being a democracy," but is it supposed to be a communist totalitarian regime? Because only in those countries would anyone call for a vote and then want to punish those who voted against the party line.

And while I don't completely understand the purpose of common consent, it would seem to be a mechanism for allowing member input into important Church decisions. Now, if you don't want member input, then don't ASK for it!

My home is not run by common consent. It is run as a monarchy where the King and (mostly) the Queen make all of the important decisions. We don't take a vote as to whether the kids think we should buy this house or that one. They have not been "anointed" (by our lender) to make that decision, and so there "input" is irrelevant.

And if that is how the Church is to be run, then fine. But stop taking a vote in which there is only one acceptable way to vote. That makes a mockery of voting and leads me to be cynical about the process. And we all know how trusting I am normally. Hehe

[The Nehor]

I have no problem with the Church "not being a democracy," but is it supposed to be a communist totalitarian regime? Because only in those countries would anyone call for a vote and then want to punish those who voted against the party line.

 

No, it is an autocratic monarchy with Jesus as reigning monarch with all subjects having the right to accept or not accept the will of the king. It is not a vote to decide what is right.

 

Here is what Joseph Fielding Smith said:

 

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only on the grounds that he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold.”

 

Opposition can thus mean two things. Either you are refusing the will of God and severing yourself from the Kingdom of God or you are aware of a transgression that disqualifies a nominated person in which case you bring it to the attention of those responsible and allow them to make a decision based on that information.

[mormonnewb]

Speaking of inappropriate actions, did anyone see the tweet from BYU football Coach Atuaia?

"For those who oppose - go see your stake president then find me and oppose those beloved men in front of me and witness how I sin #realtalk" -- @coachatuaia

Real talk? Really? We now have our very first Mormon "thug." What's next? Corn-rows? Perhaps, he'll start giving "shout-outs" to his baby momma after the games? Or even better, he can start "sagging" (wearing his pants low around his waist so that his garments will be exposed).

But seriously, why does any opposition to our leaders cause SOME Mormons to lose their minds? (And let's be clear, threatening to beat people up on Twitter while identifying yourself as a coach at the "Lord's university" is pretty darn crazy)

My black brothers and sisters love us some President Obama. But you don't see us tweeting in death threats to Congress everytime they oppose one of his measures.

Likewise, we love us some Dr. King. Personally, I revere him as much as any man who has ever walked on this earth; with the notable exception of Christ, of course. But I am not running around the Church threatening to fight every saint who was opposed to the Voting Rights Act. And given that most of them are probably in their 80s and 90s, I THINK I can take them.

So, seriously, why do SOME saints take it so personally when their leaders are opposed?

[why me]

And if that is how the Church is to be run, then fine. But stop taking a vote in which there is only one acceptable way to vote. That makes a mockery of voting and leads me to be cynical about the process. And we all know how trusting I am normally. Hehe

It has always been common knowledge that the vote is on personal worthiness and not on politcs. However, since we have people who are now identifying with identitity politcs, postmodernity has come to the church. We do not sustain leaders based on politics and whether or not we agree with this doctrine or not. We sustain them because we have confidence in them. Thus, it is not a politcal democracy based on popular vote. As I said eariler 95 percent of the audience could have raised their hand in not sustaining the first presidency because of same sex marriage or OW and it would not make a difference. Unless of course, they were caught in a saturday night orgy. Now that would make the difference and a good reason for lack of confidence.

 

We need to understand the reason for not sustaining a leader. So, if your bishop is a republican, this is no reason for not sustaining him. If your bishop believes that women should hold the priesthood, this is no reason for not sustaining him if it is his own personal belief. But you can raise your hand, if you saw him coming out of a strip club last night.

Edited April 5, 2015 by why me

[why me]

My black brothers and sisters love us some President Obama. But you don't see us tweeting in death threats to Congress everytime they oppose one of his measures.

Likewise, we love us some Dr. King. Personally, I revere him as much as any man who has ever walked on this earth; with the notable exception of Christ, of course. But I am not running around the Church threatening to fight every saint who was opposed to the Voting Rights Act. And given that most of them are probably in their 80s and 90s, I THINK I can take them.

 

Here we are back to black issues and black rights comparison. You couldn't resist.   However, like the catholic church, the lds church is not a democracy where people sustain and not sustain according to political beliefs and social issues. Thus, the voting rights act does not apply, nor does whether or not a church leader supports fracking or climate change.

 

And why the racist talk as if you were performing in a 1940 hollywood movie? It is offensive.

Edited April 5, 2015 by why me

[Antoni]

"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."

 

if this is the case surely they must realise after the first few conference talks that perhaps they're in the wrong church/place? They also need to get outside their tiny little bubble and look at the WORLDWIDE church. Most over here won't have any idea what they were doing - and realistically most won't even have noted it as it was so brief. I only know what this little band of contentious scallywags "issues" are due to coming here!

 

It's good that it has happened and got people to think about what sustaining is actually about and to realise that we're not a democratic structured church. Again if they want that go off to one of the plenty of other ones out there. Oh wait they want to have their cake AND eat it. Sorry Heavenly Father doesn't allow that in His Church.

 

I'm praying for their stake Presidents as I'm sure they have better things to do than get caught up in this circus.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Antoni

[Antoni]

Here is what Joseph Fielding Smith said:

 

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only on the grounds that he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold.”

 

Opposition can thus mean two things. Either you are refusing the will of God and severing yourself from the Kingdom of God or you are aware of a transgression that disqualifies a nominated person in which case you bring it to the attention of those responsible and allow them to make a decision based on that information.

 

Quoting Joseph Fielding Smith as it deserves a second reading by us all.

[sheilauk]

In the short time I've been a member, I have never imagined that when I raise my hand to sustain that I'm voting for that person to have that calling.  I have always felt that what i was doing was agreeing to help that person in their calling, to support them and thereby SUSTAIN them!  I have never thought that i had a right to determine who was in any calling - I thought that was the Lord's right.  I have held various callings - I have always felt the Lord called me to them, not the men and I extend the same view to all others.  Maybe sometimes it doesn't work that way - that's okay - we are not perfect and men may make mistakes, but whoever has called a person, they have work to do and it is my obligation to decide whether or not to support them.  I raise my hand to commit to supporting them, whether or not I like them (and even whether or not i actually know who they are), not to vote them in.  Of course, I can decide not to sustain them, for whatever reason, but i should do so respectfully and I don't think doing so to make some sort of political point is appropriate.  I am also involved in politics and have taken part in many elections, including as a candidate and there is a difference.  There i have to work to get the support of the voters and then i have to represent them all, whether or not they voted for me.  They have no obligation to support me.  If they want to oppose me for political reasons, fine, that's how that works.  Not church.  In no other church have i had a vote/say in who does what - including who was my minister, nor have i ever been asked to sustain them.

Edited April 5, 2015 by sheilauk

[Scott Lloyd]

In the short time I've been a member, I have never imagined that when I raise my hand to sustain that I'm voting for that person to have that calling.  I have always felt that what i was doing was agreeing to help that person in their calling, to support them and thereby SUSTAIN them!  I have never thought that i had a right to determine who was in any calling - I thought that was the Lord's right.  I have held various callings - I have always felt the Lord called me to them, not the men and I extend the same view to all others.  Maybe sometimes it doesn't work that way - that's okay - we are not perfect and men may make mistakes, but whoever has called a person, they have work to do and it is my obligation to decide whether or not to support them.  I raise my hand to commit to supporting them, whether or not I like them (and even whether or not i actually know who they are), not to vote them in.  Of course, I can decide not to sustain them, for whatever reason, but i should do so respectfully and I don't think doing so to make some sort of political point is appropriate.  I am also involved in politics and have taken part in many elections, including as a candidate and there is a difference.  There i have to work to get the support of the voters and then i have to represent them all, whether or not they voted for me.  They have no obligation to support me.  If they want to oppose me for political reasons, fine, that's how that works.  Not church.  In no other church have i had a vote/say in who does what - including who was my minister, nor have i ever been asked to sustain them.

From this, I would say that sheilauk has a better understanding of how the Lord governs His Church than many who have spent a lifetime in it.

[Skylla]

This thread is done.

 

Skylla