Opposition And Ridicule

[Bikeemikey]

Because a prophet said so.

Can you provide the reference for that?

[The Nehor]

Can you provide the reference for that?

“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.”

-Joseph Fielding Smith

[JLHPROF]

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

 

What other grounds would there be?

If they are worthy of the office they hold they should be sustained in that office.  Not sustaining someone who is approved of by the Lord to be in an office would put the sin/error back on us.

[mormonnewb]

What other grounds would there be?

If they are worthy of the office they hold they should be sustained in that office.  Not sustaining someone who is approved of by the Lord to be in an office would put the sin/error back on us.

 

What if the person suffers from a mental illness, like say, schizophrenia?  I don't think that is grounds for taking away someone's TR, but it MIGHT be something that should prevent them from being sustained as, say, Young Men's President.

 

Or what if the person generally has megalomaniac tendencies?  Every time, they've been appointed to some office, they have abused their authority.  I don't think that being a tyrant is cause for losing your TR (especially if the person genuinely means well, but just gets carried away), but it might be something that someone in authority should be aware of before handing over the keys to this person.

 

I can think of a few other examples, but I think you get the point.

 

And, by the way, I do agree that differences in opinion with regards to church policies shouldn't be, in and of itself, a reason to not sustain someone.  Even someone as naturally contentious as yours truly can see how such a standard is simply unworkable.  After all, even in a democracy (which the Church is not), we must sustain those with whom we might disagree.  In the Church, it should be no different.

[HappyJackWagon]

“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.”

-Joseph Fielding Smith

Guilty or wrongdoing could be interpretted many ways and is not limited only to transgression. I agree with the others that denying blacks the priesthood was a serious "wrongdoing". Today, there are other issues that could be considered "wrongdoings" for some people. If they feel there is a problem it would be appropriate for them to raise the issue. Maybe the authority will be able to explain why it is not a "wrongdoing" but if there is a perceived problem, it would seem there is a duty to raise it.

[The Nehor]

Guilty or wrongdoing could be interpretted many ways and is not limited only to transgression. I agree with the others that denying blacks the priesthood was a serious "wrongdoing". Today, there are other issues that could be considered "wrongdoings" for some people. If they feel there is a problem it would be appropriate for them to raise the issue. Maybe the authority will be able to explain why it is not a "wrongdoing" but if there is a perceived problem, it would seem there is a duty to raise it.

No. The quote makes it clear that by wrongdoing he means transgression of the laws of the church. He did not leave an option to broaden the scope as you do.

[HappyJackWagon]

No. The quote makes it clear that by wrongdoing he means transgression of the laws of the church. He did not leave an option to broaden the scope as you do.

 

“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.”

-Joseph Fielding Smith

I want you to note the comma. This can easily be read as  "wrongdoing," (end of clause) "of transgression of the laws (which is the next clause).

[ERayR]

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.

 

He didn't play it off.  He followed procedure.  The opposition was noted and they were given the contact person, their Stake President, to explain their opposition to. 

[ERayR]

What if the person suffers from a mental illness, like say, schizophrenia?  I don't think that is grounds for taking away someone's TR, but it MIGHT be something that should prevent them from being sustained as, say, Young Men's President.

 

Or what if the person generally has megalomaniac tendencies?  Every time, they've been appointed to some office, they have abused their authority.  I don't think that being a tyrant is cause for losing your TR (especially if the person genuinely means well, but just gets carried away), but it might be something that someone in authority should be aware of before handing over the keys to this person.

 

I can think of a few other examples, but I think you get the point.

 

And, by the way, I do agree that differences in opinion with regards to church policies shouldn't be, in and of itself, a reason to not sustain someone.  Even someone as naturally contentious as yours truly can see how such a standard is simply unworkable.  After all, even in a democracy (which the Church is not), we must sustain those with whom we might disagree.  In the Church, it should be no different.

 

Then by all means oppose and letyour bishop know of your concerns.

[The Nehor]

I want you to note the comma. This can easily be read as  "wrongdoing," (end of clause) "of transgression of the laws (which is the next clause).

Only if it is really bad English. There is no connecting word like "or" and the presence of the comma makes it a parenthetical clause. It is there to explain what is meant by wrongdoing.

[Robert F. Smith]

No. The quote makes it clear that by wrongdoing he means transgression of the laws of the church. He did not leave an option to broaden the scope as you do.

One has only to answer to one's conscience in making that decision.  Let the Holy Spirit guide.

[The Nehor]

One has only to answer to one's conscience in making that decision.  Let the Holy Spirit guide.

Actually, as in all things, one also has to answer to God.

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually, as in all things, one also has to answer to God.

Hey, Nehor, Jimminy Cricket taught me that I should always let my conscience be my guide.  Shouldn't I let that be my first priority?  Why would God take me to task for that?  Should I second guess my conscience?  Or would that be overthinking it?

[The Nehor]

Hey, Nehor, Jimminy Cricket taught me that I should always let my conscience be my guide.  Shouldn't I let that be my first priority?  Why would God take me to task for that?  Should I second guess my conscience?  Or would that be overthinking it?

Never take life advice from insects......even if they have a spiffy top hat.

Words to live by.

[JLHPROF]

"Conscience" is given a bit too much credit in my opinion.  Our conscience is created by environment and frequently leads us wrong.  God never does.

[Stone holm]

If personal non-worthiness is the only reason justifying a non-sustaining vote, and the vast majority of Mormons do not actually know the General Authorities personally -- doesn't that type of reasoning pretty much make the sustaining vote an empty ritual?  On the other hand, if the support of certain ideas, practices or ideology by a General Authority reflects on their personal worthiness in the eyes of all the membership -- then the ideological stance of a General Authority might actually reflect on their personal worthiness.  Given what we know of some of the recent excommunications, which admittedly is very little, it would appear that the Church's administrative body takes the view that certain ideas, practices and ideology by a member reflect on their personal worthiness for membership in the Church or Temple Recommends or exercising the Priesthood.  If that is the case, then if by his actions, statements or professed ideology a General Authority would appear to be a sexist, racist or bigot -- then the individual conscience of a member, might compel him or her to raise his or her hand to not sustain a leader on the basis of worthiness.   However, if they do raise their hand in a non-sustaining vote for such a reason then they are pretty likely to be in the process of either voluntarily or involuntarily exiting the Church.  It seems like the most sensible way out of this conundrum is to simply avoid the ritual altogether.

[Gray]

"Conscience" is given a bit too much credit in my opinion.  Our conscience is created by environment and frequently leads us wrong.  God never does.

 

The problem with conscience is the same with revelation - assuming that either constitutes a discrete message from God leaves one having to account for conflicting messages. 

[JLHPROF]

The problem with conscience is the same with revelation - assuming that either constitutes a discrete message from God leaves one having to account for conflicting messages. 

 

As I just said, I don't believe "conscience" to be from God.  Else everyone's conscience would not tell them such widely different things are right and wrong.  I truly believe conscience is created by environment and conditioning.

Now the "light of Christ", inspiration from the spirit, and the gift of the Holy Ghost should be consistent and unchanging.  If I get contradictions from those then more fasting and prayer would be in order.

[Robert F. Smith]

"Conscience" is given a bit too much credit in my opinion.  Our conscience is created by environment and frequently leads us wrong.  God never does.

That is all very well, but you and Nehor have not yet explained how we determine what God infallibly wants us to do.  Especially if we have to go against our conscience to do it.

[JLHPROF]

That is all very well, but you and Nehor have not yet explained how we determine what God infallibly wants us to do.  Especially if we have to go against our conscience to do it.

 

Because I believe in literal revelation, not just inspired spiritual feelings.

When God says verbally that "the sky is blue" I don't have to interpret that.  Do we really think when God told Nephi to murder Laban that Nephi just "felt" that was what God wanted him to do?  No.  They had a conversation that Nephi put on record.  He was asked to do something that went directly against his conscience.  God told literally told him to do it.  I believe when God speaks to man that he actually speaks to man.  At least sometimes.

Edited April 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

That is all very well, but you and Nehor have not yet explained how we determine what God infallibly wants us to do.  Especially if we have to go against our conscience to do it.

Yes I have. The Holy Ghost. Also called revelation.

[Gray]

As I just said, I don't believe "conscience" to be from God.  Else everyone's conscience would not tell them such widely different things are right and wrong.  I truly believe conscience is created by environment and conditioning.

Now the "light of Christ", inspiration from the spirit, and the gift of the Holy Ghost should be consistent and unchanging.  If I get contradictions from those then more fasting and prayer would be in order.

 

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng

 

"The Light of Christ influences people for good and prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost. One manifestation of the Light of Christ is what we call a conscience."

[JLHPROF]

https://www.lds.org/topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng

 

"The Light of Christ influences people for good and prepares them to receive the Holy Ghost. One manifestation of the Light of Christ is what we call a conscience."

 

Fair enough.  I overstated a bit.  No disagreement here.

But there is the other kind of "conscience" which is just as much a guiding factor for some people too.

Edited April 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

Fair enough.  I overstated a bit.  No disagreement here.

But there is the other kind of "conscience" which is just as much a guiding factor for some people too.

 

I'll agree with you that there are certain things about conscience that may be influenced by culture and upbringing. But on the other hand there are some things that seem to be universal. Normally developed people, for instance, experience distress when they see other humans being killed or tortured. A small minority seem to gain some pleasure from it (and often become lieutenants when genocidal regimes crop up). That natural reaction against killing people can be suppressed, but it seems to be a more or less universal. 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Because I believe in literal revelation, not just inspired spiritual feelings.

When God says verbally that "the sky is blue" I don't have to interpret that.  Do we really think when God told Nephi to murder Laban that Nephi just "felt" that was what God wanted him to do?  No.  They had a conversation that Nephi put on record. 

Revelation comes through the still, small voice or by impressions we have. Rarely, if ever, is it the literal, verbal, voice of God dictating exact scripture.

 

God and Nephi had a verbal conversation that is recorded as a verbal communication would be? Really? CFR.

This is how I recall the story.

 

 1 Nephi 4

 10 And it came to pass that I was ^aconstrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

 11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the ^aLord hath ^bdelivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had ^ctaken away our property.

 12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

"constrained" by the spirit doesn't sound like the literal voice of God.

The "spirit said" could be interpreted many ways. How many times have you used the rhetorical device of stating something like "the spirit told me to..."? Did you literally hear the voice of God as if telling you the sky is blue?

 

I don't believe for a second that this passage intends to teach us that Nephi had a verbal conversation with God. You are seriously overreaching here.