Opposition And Ridicule

[thatjimguy]

I got this from ldsliving.com about someone who opposed during conference in 1977.

 

In more recent history, some Church members may recall instances of opposing votes cast in conference. The first opposing vote in the modern era occurred in 1977.

President N. Eldon Tanner, first counselor in the First Presidency, took the vote for the sustaining of the general officers of the Church. The conference record again records the incident: 

President Tanner: It seems, President Kimball, that the voting has been unanimous in favor of these officers and General Authorities, and we would ask those new members of the First Quorum of the Seventy to take their seats with their brethren, please.

Voice from the gallery: President Tanner? President Tanner?

President Tanner: Yes?

Voice from the gallery: Did you note my negative vote?

President Tanner: No. Let me see it.

Voice from the gallery: Up here.

President Tanner: Oh, up there. I’m sorry, I couldn’t see up in that gallery. We’ll ask you to see Elder Hinckley immediately after this meeting.

The voice from the gallery belonged to Byron Marchant. He objected over the Church’s stance at the time of not sustaining those of African descent to the priesthood. 

 

Then in 1978...blacks got the priesthood. 

 

 

So what are your views on this man? Visionary? Traitor? Nutcase? Bad guy? Good Guy? 

 

Source: http://www.ldsliving.com/story/78523-dissenting-votes-at-conference-everything-you-need-to-know

Edited April 4, 2015 by thatjimguy

[Calm]

Iirc, he has stated that he was a nonbeliever at the time. Consider the church a fraud (there is a conversation out there in cyberspace between him and the other who sought out media attention at the time).

Edited April 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[thatjimguy]

Decided to check up on that name. Looks like (if this is the same guy) he is quite a non believer. He writes books for UTLM and such. I did not have to go too far into the intro of a book he published in 1994 to get his viewpoints down.     http://sidneyrigdon.com/Roots1.htm

 

Don't know what to think about the only guy willing to stand up about it would be a non-believer. 

[Tacenda]

I can see why a believer turned non believer would do those things. Because if they don't think it's true, but family and friends do, they stand to lose everything. And they blame it on the church. I never understood anti's until my FC. Totally see why they can't leave it alone and they turn to be not so nice people, I don't like myself anymore. Feel like a total outsider-loser. I could c/p posts by so many people that worry they'll lose their families over this, so much anguish. There's a reason for certain behaviors out there.

[mormonnewb]

Decided to check up on that name. Looks like (if this is the same guy) he is quite a non believer. He writes books for UTLM and such. I did not have to go too far into the intro of a book he published in 1994 to get his viewpoints down. http://sidneyrigdon.com/Roots1.htm

Don't know what to think about the only guy willing to stand up about it would be a non-believer.

That should be SCARY for the saints (but it won't be). Someone without the light of Christ could see what none of the "righteous" could see.

Or more accurately, the non-believer was the only one who was willing to defy Church orthodoxy. It really should be possible to both believe that this Church is ordained of God AND that its leaders are MEN with agency ... to be wrong. The fact that one must lose faith in the Church to be able to clearly see that HF loves all of His children is the reason that I'm so happy that there are still Catholics, Baptists and even JWs out there. Because if the world had to depend on us to move towards a more equitable society, it would be in big trouble.

[The Nehor]

So what are your views on this man? Visionary? Traitor? Nutcase? Bad guy? Good Guy? 

 

Wrong to object unless he knew of misconduct on the part of those being sustained.

[mormonnewb]

Wrong to object unless he knew of misconduct on the part of those being sustained.

Denying the blessings of the temple and priesthood to worthy members based on now debunked theories isn't "misconduct"? Or must you do so while drinking ice tea to really qualify as being wrong?

[The Nehor]

Denying the blessings of the temple and priesthood to worthy members based on now debunked theories isn't "misconduct"? Or must you do so while drinking ice tea to really qualify as being wrong?

 

No, it isn't. It might be a mistake though I am not convinced of this but it is not an active violation of the commandments by the person being sustained.

[thatjimguy]

I can see why a believer turned non believer would do those things. Because if they don't think it's true, but family and friends do, they stand to lose everything. And they blame it on the church. I never understood anti's until my FC. Totally see why they can't leave it alone and they turn to be not so nice people, I don't like myself anymore. Feel like a total outsider-loser. I could c/p posts by so many people that worry they'll lose their families over this, so much anguish. There's a reason for certain behaviors out there.

 

What is "FC" and "c/p" please? (I looked up FC and got "Football Club")

[Tacenda]

What is "FC" and "c/p" please? (I looked up FC and got "Football Club")

I don't know how sincere this is, but it means faith crisis and cut and past.

[sheilauk]

FC is the standard abbreviation for a football (scoccer) club in the UK - as in MUFC - Manchester United Football Club and all the other clubs.

[thatjimguy]

I don't know how sincere this is, but it means faith crisis and cut and past.

 

 

Very sincere. Didn't know what those meant. Thanks.

[thatjimguy]

I can see why a believer turned non believer would do those things. Because if they don't think it's true, but family and friends do, they stand to lose everything. And they blame it on the church. I never understood anti's until my FC. Totally see why they can't leave it alone and they turn to be not so nice people, I don't like myself anymore. Feel like a total outsider-loser. I could c/p posts by so many people that worry they'll lose their families over this, so much anguish. There's a reason for certain behaviors out there.

 

The thing is, we all don't believe from time to time. That's why we sin. Also, Alma 32 is about not having a perfect knowledge of things. I guess I'm lucky, as a previous agnostic, no one judged me for speaking my mind. I just could state my doubts, and I sure did with my missionaries. It was because of it that I got to learn the right answers. It's too bad people feel like they can't speak their doubts openly that are brought up in the church. 

[strappinglad]

That should be SCARY for the saints (but it won't be). Someone without the light of Christ could see what none of the "righteous" could see.

Or more accurately, the non-believer was the only one who was willing to defy Church orthodoxy. It really should be possible to both believe that this Church is ordained of God AND that its leaders are MEN with agency ... to be wrong. The fact that one must lose faith in the Church to be able to clearly see that HF loves all of His children is the reason that I'm so happy that there are still Catholics, Baptists and even JWs out there. Because if the world had to depend on us to move towards a more equitable society, it would be in big trouble.

So, you are convinced that 1977 was the first time anyone in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 discussed the priesthood issue and that the opposition vote in 1977 was the catalyst for the change in 1978?

I remember that I chatted with my Stake President in his store shortly after the priesthood revelation . He asked how I felt about it. I replied that I was happy to hear it and that I always knew it would happen. I was in my early 30s at the time. I also noted that in a few small pockets of the Church, particularly in the South, that there was some opposition to the change. Imagine the situation re opposition if the announcement had come in the 1930s? Or the 1830's? The Lord has said , " If ye are not one , ye are not mine" . It looks like the Lord is willing to wait a long time for that 'oneness' to arrive. We are told that the true gospel will be preached to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. Ain't happened yet. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, and in some eyes, discriminating ones. Why, for example, have the vast majority if Chinese who have ever lived, been denied the opportunity to hear the gospel , in any way? Boy , I must be special. Then again, maybe I am on the wrong side of ' special '.

[Robert F. Smith]

Wrong to object unless he knew of misconduct on the part of those being sustained.

It's called "common consent," Nehor, and it is the law.  It is his privilege to fail to sustain people he believes to be in error.  The misconduct in this case might (in his mind) have been failure to ordain people who fit a certain racial profile.  Now, of course, he may have been in error.

 

In the "Far West Record," Joseph could not get a council to follow his recommendations.  They voted against his wish to get rid of someone.  Law of Common Consent again.  For good or ill.  Brigham always worried that the Mormon people played follow the leader, without knowing for themselves whether their leaders were inspired of God.  He wanted men to match the Rocky Mountains, men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not dependent on "borrowed light."

[Robert F. Smith]

So, you are convinced that 1977 was the first time anyone in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 discussed the priesthood issue and that the opposition vote in 1977 was the catalyst for the change in 1978?

In 1978, the subject had been under serious discussion (at the behest of Pres. McKay) for decades.  No one had been able to establish that it was a doctrine, although it was clearly a policy.  All that was needed was a revelation.  In addition, Jan Shipps has noted (what Apostle LeGrand Richards confirmed) that the new temple in Brazil was about to go online in 1978, and the Mormons there (as the population as a whole) were so mixed-race that it would be a nightmare trying to decide who should be ordained and go to the temple.  Lot a pressure.

 

..................................................................... Imagine the situation re opposition if the announcement had come in the 1930s? Or the 1830's? ..........................................................................................................................

1830s??!!!

Where has a big strappinglad like you been?  Joseph Smith and his brethren were already ordaining Black men then.  There was no racial restriction on who could have the priesthood.  That came in as a policy only after Joseph's death.  Some backsliders.

 

Also, Joseph was anti-slavery, and this caused problems for the Mormons in Missouri.  Part of the reason they were run out of town.

[rpn]

I thought it was handled quite well, and members would be really well served if they handled it as well.    It was an organized group online (that claimed they were not a group but simply facilitating the collection of tickets that members had received to attend and redirecting them to those who were willing to protest in the voting).   There was discussion about how it would be better to have people who had not resigned, as the only people who would get to talk to the assigned GA would be those who were still members in good standing.   There was instructions to bring a letter to the first presidency describing why you opposed  to give to the GA.   And there was a suggestion that since others in the past had only been acknowledged when they were vocal, the dissenters should stand and shout their opposition, so it would be noted.

 

The fact that Elder Uchtdorf acknowledged the votes, and then told those who opposed to see their SP shows that leaders decided to address the protest for what it was ---- not giving anyone an audience with GA's and making it really hard for the dissenters to continue to dissent without taking personal responsibility with their local leaders.

 

I could only hear a handlful of shouts, probably fewer than ten (eta news reports of five).

 

Online, the most feedback is about member's reactions.   It would have been better if members had simply ignored it (which they might have done had they known how this all came about and that it was designed to get attention and really had nothing whatever to do with members or their leaders, really).

Edited April 5, 2015 by rpn

[strappinglad]

1830s??!!!

Where has a big strappinglad like you been?  Joseph Smith and his brethren were already ordaining Black men then.  There was no racial restriction on who could have the priesthood.  That came in as a policy only after Joseph's death.  Some backsliders.

 

Also, Joseph was anti-slavery, and this caused problems for the Mormons in Missouri.  Part of the reason they were run out of town.

That is part of my point. It would have been nice if Joseph had announced that all males of all nations have a right to the priesthood .He didn't. Perhaps he saw no need. Had he known what future leaders would do he may well have issued such a statement. Perhaps his statement about the saints " shattering like glass" when confronted with some doctrines was prescient.

[mormonnewb]

So, you are convinced that 1977 was the first time anyone in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 discussed the priesthood issue and that the opposition vote in 1977 was the catalyst for the change in 1978?

I remember that I chatted with my Stake President in his store shortly after the priesthood revelation . He asked how I felt about it. I replied that I was happy to hear it and that I always knew it would happen. I was in my early 30s at the time. I also noted that in a few small pockets of the Church, particularly in the South, that there was some opposition to the change. Imagine the situation re opposition if the announcement had come in the 1930s? Or the 1830's? The Lord has said , " If ye are not one , ye are not mine" . It looks like the Lord is willing to wait a long time for that 'oneness' to arrive. We are told that the true gospel will be preached to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. Ain't happened yet. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, and in some eyes, discriminating ones. Why, for example, have the vast majority if Chinese who have ever lived, been denied the opportunity to hear the gospel , in any way? Boy , I must be special. Then again, maybe I am on the wrong side of ' special '.

What I am convinced about is that for a century Church leaders slandered people of African descent. It's one thing to deny someone entrance into your special club. It's another to make up FALSE reasons for doing so and to proclaim them to others.

For example, I am perfectly free to NOT invite my Jewish next door neighbor to dinner. Even if it's becuase he is Jewish. What is not okay is for me to run around and tell all my other neighbors that the reason I didn't do so is because Jews eat babies or that they are cowards (ie, less valiant in the pre-existence).

So even if God didn't like black people until 1978, he never said that we were cursed or cowards. That is stuff that Church leaders made up (as they freely admitted in the Church's essay on the matter).

If that isn't misoonduct, tell me what is. If a Church leader got caught watching porn, the saints would scream for his head. But when Church leaders perpetuated a LIE that, today, results in 30 MILLION African-Americans who will not even consider the truths of our wonderful Gospel, that's "no harm no foul," huh?

[The Nehor]

It's called "common consent," Nehor, and it is the law.  It is his privilege to fail to sustain people he believes to be in error.  The misconduct in this case might (in his mind) have been failure to ordain people who fit a certain racial profile.  Now, of course, he may have been in error.

 

In the "Far West Record," Joseph could not get a council to follow his recommendations.  They voted against his wish to get rid of someone.  Law of Common Consent again.  For good or ill.  Brigham always worried that the Mormon people played follow the leader, without knowing for themselves whether their leaders were inspired of God.  He wanted men to match the Rocky Mountains, men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not dependent on "borrowed light."

 

I too worry as Brigham did. Not because I believe the prophets are in error. That was not Brigham's concern either. He was worried the saints would disqualify themselves from exaltation due to relying on their leaders instead of revelation for themselves. Often this is twisted to mean that saints should criticize and question their leaders when the counsel was to get the will of the Lord so they can have confidence in their leaders and be taught from on high themselves.

[St. Bookmark]

I read a few weeks ago that the opose would happen and as I watch I looked at eyrings face you could tell he and a the others knew it was going to happen also uchdorf also knew. He did a great job of just playing it off.

I remember watching this happening before In the 70s, it seemed more like a suprise.

[JLHPROF]

I read a few weeks ago that the opose would happen and as I watch I looked at eyrings face you could tell he and a the others knew it was going to happen also uchdorf also knew. He did a great job of just playing it off.

I remember watching this happening before In the 70s, it seemed more like a suprise.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

What I am convinced about is that for a century Church leaders slandered people of African descent. It's one thing to deny someone entrance into your special club. It's another to make up FALSE reasons for doing so and to proclaim them to others.

For example, I am perfectly free to NOT invite my Jewish next door neighbor to dinner. Even if it's becuase he is Jewish. What is not okay is for me to run around and tell all my other neighbors that the reason I didn't do so is because Jews eat babies or that they are cowards (ie, less valiant in the pre-existence).

So even if God didn't like black people until 1978, he never said that we were cursed or cowards. That is stuff that Church leaders made up (as they freely admitted in the Church's essay on the matter).

If that isn't misoonduct, tell me what is. If a Church leader got caught watching porn, the saints would scream for his head. But when Church leaders perpetuated a LIE that, today, results in 30 MILLION African-Americans who will not even consider the truths of our wonderful Gospel, that's "no harm no foul," huh?

You are generally correct, of course, Newby, and the same applies to the Southern Baptist Convention -- which was much slower than the LDS Church in getting around to righting the wrongs.

 

However, I'm not sure that everything was just dreamt up by the LDS leaders.  Many grew up in the 19th century hearing such nonsense, and they believed it, and brought it with them as religious baggage when they became Mormons.  The same applies to the horrifically evil beliefs of Martin Luther in his writings against the Jews, calling for the burning of their synagogues, etc.  We do need to note the evil of such beliefs even as we admit that such was the temper of those times.  Fallible humans, even our heroic ancestors going back centuries, are quite often hidebound and stupid in ways which we find deeply embarrassing.  C'est la vie, Newby.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Bikeemikey]

Wrong to object unless he knew of misconduct on the part of those being sustained.

Why is worthiness the only grounds for a non-sustaining vote?

[The Nehor]

Why is worthiness the only grounds for a non-sustaining vote?

Because a prophet said so.