Adventists Vote To Deny Women’S Ordination

[JAHS]

"Seventh-day Adventists voted Wednesday not to allow their regional church bodies to ordain women pastors.

The vote at their 60th General Conference Session in San Antonio was 1,381 to 977. It was largely influenced by delegates from Africa and South America who often have more conservative views on women’s ordination than Adventists in other regions.

Tense discussions throughout the afternoon featured dozens of delegates voicing opinions for and against the question: “Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?”

 

http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2015-07/adventists-vote-deny-women-s-ordination

 

Amazing that people think they can know God's will on any doctrine simply by debating and voting on it. How can they know the majority is right about what God wants?  So much better to have prophets of God who can let us know what His will is.

Edited July 9, 2015 by JAHS

[Kenngo1969]

... Amazing that people think they can know God's will on any doctrine simply by debating and voting on it. How can they know the majority is right about what God wants?  So much better to have prophets of God who can let us know what His will is.

 

I agree: while I am convinced that those with ears to hear will hear and hearts to feel will feel, it's easier for those with earthly motivations to accept a result that comes from an allegedly-"sexist" (my term) voting bloc than it is to convince people that things are the way they are because that's the Will God has revealed through His living prophets.  After all, as hard as it is to change the sexist attitudes of a few hundred members of a voting bloc, that's still easier to do than to try to change the mind of the Lord of the Universe (or to convince people that He still speaks through prophets).

[Storm Rider]

Although I agree completely with the sentiment that we should be grateful to be led by a prophet when he speaks as a prophet; however, I do have concerns that we often go lacking that which we love and search after.  For example, we may criticize those groups from the First Councils to the current example of the Adventists voting on the will of God, but cannot we also fairly criticize ourselves for the same thing?  The Prophet does not speak and the apostles follow after; rather they vote and it must be unanimous or the guidance is rejected or at least put on hold. 

 

This type of voting seems to have gotten stronger over time in the Church, but voting was present in the early days of the Restoration also.  On one hand, we can say that this method helps to prevent from being mislead, but on the other hand, some of the prophets actions seem to have been delayed until such time as all of the Apostles finally were unanimous in their support (Blacks and the priesthood being a case in point). 

 

A Theocracy, something for which the LDS Church has been condemned by other Christians, is not a democracy and there is no voting or delays.  The Prophet speaks and we follow is the definition of a Theocratic organization here on earth and we definitely are not that.  We have an organization with checks and balances within the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  One may be the mouthpiece, but they are all recognized as prophets, seers, and revelators and they govern by unanimous vote. 

 

We may see a broader approach to voting in other groups, but we function in a similar manner.  Is my thinking off?

[JAHS]

Although I agree completely with the sentiment that we should be grateful to be led by a prophet when he speaks as a prophet; however, I do have concerns that we often go lacking that which we love and search after.  For example, we may criticize those groups from the First Councils to the current example of the Adventists voting on the will of God, but cannot we also fairly criticize ourselves for the same thing?  The Prophet does not speak and the apostles follow after; rather they vote and it must be unanimous or the guidance is rejected or at least put on hold. 

 

This type of voting seems to have gotten stronger over time in the Church, but voting was present in the early days of the Restoration also.  On one hand, we can say that this method helps to prevent from being mislead, but on the other hand, some of the prophets actions seem to have been delayed until such time as all of the Apostles finally were unanimous in their support (Blacks and the priesthood being a case in point). 

 

A Theocracy, something for which the LDS Church has been condemned by other Christians, is not a democracy and there is no voting or delays.  The Prophet speaks and we follow is the definition of a Theocratic organization here on earth and we definitely are not that.  We have an organization with checks and balances within the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  One may be the mouthpiece, but they are all recognized as prophets, seers, and revelators and they govern by unanimous vote. 

 

We may see a broader approach to voting in other groups, but we function in a similar manner.  Is my thinking off?

No we are not a theocracy, it's just that in our church there are only 15 prophets who collectively can receive inspiration and confirmation from God on a subject, while in other religions there are thousands of non-prophets who come to the vote with all their own opinions, personal agendas, and biases who in effect decide on something they want, influenced by popular opinion and culture, rather than what God wants. Because of this their churches are becoming more and more secular and further away from God's will. 

[Storm Rider]

 

Although I agree completely with the sentiment that we should be grateful to be led by a prophet when he speaks as a prophet; however, I do have concerns that we often go lacking that which we love and search after.  For example, we may criticize those groups from the First Councils to the current example of the Adventists voting on the will of God, but cannot we also fairly criticize ourselves for the same thing?  The Prophet does not speak and the apostles follow after; rather they vote and it must be unanimous or the guidance is rejected or at least put on hold. 

 

This type of voting seems to have gotten stronger over time in the Church, but voting was present in the early days of the Restoration also.  On one hand, we can say that this method helps to prevent from being mislead, but on the other hand, some of the prophets actions seem to have been delayed until such time as all of the Apostles finally were unanimous in their support (Blacks and the priesthood being a case in point). 

 

A Theocracy, something for which the LDS Church has been condemned by other Christians, is not a democracy and there is no voting or delays.  The Prophet speaks and we follow is the definition of a Theocratic organization here on earth and we definitely are not that.  We have an organization with checks and balances within the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  One may be the mouthpiece, but they are all recognized as prophets, seers, and revelators and they govern by unanimous vote. 

 

We may see a broader approach to voting in other groups, but we function in a similar manner.  Is my thinking off?

No we are not a theocracy, it's just that in our church there are only 15 prophets who collectively can receive inspiration and confirmation from God on a subject, while in other religions there are thousands of non-prophets who come to the vote with all their own opinions, personal agendas, and biases who in effect decide on something they want, influenced by popular opinion and culture, rather than what God wants. Because of this their churches are becoming more and more secular and further away from God's will. 

 

 

I have always understand the need for the keys of the priesthood to be held collectively in order that they are not lost; for that reason we have 15 individuals that hold the keys individually and collectively; however, only one exercises those keys at any one time.  However, the concept of voting, any voting, is a relatively new concept among prophets in the history of God's dealings with humanity.  Was there any voting among prophets during the time period prior to Christ sojourn on earth?  Was there any voting by Jesus and his apostles?

 

Voting, to my limited knowledge and understanding, did not begin to be a concept until after the Apostasy was in full bloom.  The keys were lost, prophets were not recognized and most of the gifts of the Spirit/priesthood were inactive on the earth.  The very first Councils used voting to determine what different members of the clergy felt was true or at least a more accurate summation of beliefs and doctrines.  For me, this process of voting has always been one of the biggest signs of the Apostasy.

 

My problem is I had always thought that "the" prophet talked to God and then he told the Apostles who then implemented and announced the revelation to the Church, but then I learned that in modern times I.e. during my lifetime, it seemed to evolve more into a voting process - the same process that I thought was so bad among the first Councils that I associated with the Apostasy.  The prophet was not acting like THE prophet that I had understood at one time we had. 

 

It did not set well with me when I learned that David O. McKay wanted to ordain Blacks to the priesthood and because Harold B. Lee (and possibly one other apostle of the time) did not support the action the action was tabled until 1978.  The goads a lot of people because it gives the appearance that the prophet does not speak with God or that what is said is not accepted as revelation until the entire body receives it unanimously. 

 

I have dealt with this process by doing a few things:

1. I don't criticize the process of voting found in other churches.  Whether we call them prophets or not the facts are that people vote on what God is supposed to have said.
2. I have realigned my thinking and accepted that our leaders vote on revelation without trying to understand why the change or at least the perception of change in my past thinking.
3. I acknowledge the blessing that though things may move more slowly than they would in a single prophet-theocracy, when things do happen that occur with the full support of each of the Brethren. 
4. I have re-contextualized the work of the prophet to focus more on holding the keys of the priesthood rather than being a penultimate source of revelation.

In truth I miss the days when my beliefs were simpler and without the need for clarifications, adjustments, re-contextualizing, etc.  I depend more on my own inspiration and relationship with the Spirit.  I am more distrustful of Church leaders in general; if I don't feel the Spirit then it really does not matter what they say I don't feel the need to accept it.  I also feel more vulnerable and that more is required of me to pursue truth and direction. There is much less black and white and significantly more grey when I look at the world.  I see God's hand in almost all religions and I am not nearly as committed to a single path; God is guiding each of human in their religious life. 

[Gray]

 

"Seventh-day Adventists voted Wednesday not to allow their regional church bodies to ordain women pastors.

The vote at their 60th General Conference Session in San Antonio was 1,381 to 977. It was largely influenced by delegates from Africa and South America who often have more conservative views on women’s ordination than Adventists in other regions.

Tense discussions throughout the afternoon featured dozens of delegates voicing opinions for and against the question: “Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?”

 

http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2015-07/adventists-vote-deny-women-s-ordination

 

Amazing that people think they can know God's will on any doctrine simply by debating and voting on it. How can they know the majority is right about what God wants?  So much better to have prophets of God who can let us know what His will is.

 

 

Discussion is part of the process of revelation. 

[Tacenda]

Although I agree completely with the sentiment that we should be grateful to be led by a prophet when he speaks as a prophet; however, I do have concerns that we often go lacking that which we love and search after.  For example, we may criticize those groups from the First Councils to the current example of the Adventists voting on the will of God, but cannot we also fairly criticize ourselves for the same thing?  The Prophet does not speak and the apostles follow after; rather they vote and it must be unanimous or the guidance is rejected or at least put on hold. 

 

This type of voting seems to have gotten stronger over time in the Church, but voting was present in the early days of the Restoration also.  On one hand, we can say that this method helps to prevent from being mislead, but on the other hand, some of the prophets actions seem to have been delayed until such time as all of the Apostles finally were unanimous in their support (Blacks and the priesthood being a case in point). 

 

A Theocracy, something for which the LDS Church has been condemned by other Christians, is not a democracy and there is no voting or delays.  The Prophet speaks and we follow is the definition of a Theocratic organization here on earth and we definitely are not that.  We have an organization with checks and balances within the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  One may be the mouthpiece, but they are all recognized as prophets, seers, and revelators and they govern by unanimous vote. 

 

We may see a broader approach to voting in other groups, but we function in a similar manner.  Is my thinking off?

No we are not a theocracy, it's just that in our church there are only 15 prophets who collectively can receive inspiration and confirmation from God on a subject, while in other religions there are thousands of non-prophets who come to the vote with all their own opinions, personal agendas, and biases who in effect decide on something they want, influenced by popular opinion and culture, rather than what God wants. Because of this their churches are becoming more and more secular and further away from God's will.

 

I have always understand the need for the keys of the priesthood to be held collectively in order that they are not lost; for that reason we have 15 individuals that hold the keys individually and collectively; however, only one exercises those keys at any one time.  However, the concept of voting, any voting, is a relatively new concept among prophets in the history of God's dealings with humanity.  Was there any voting among prophets during the time period prior to Christ sojourn on earth?  Was there any voting by Jesus and his apostles?

 

Voting, to my limited knowledge and understanding, did not begin to be a concept until after the Apostasy was in full bloom.  The keys were lost, prophets were not recognized and most of the gifts of the Spirit/priesthood were inactive on the earth.  The very first Councils used voting to determine what different members of the clergy felt was true or at least a more accurate summation of beliefs and doctrines.  For me, this process of voting has always been one of the biggest signs of the Apostasy.

 

My problem is I had always thought that "the" prophet talked to God and then he told the Apostles who then implemented and announced the revelation to the Church, but then I learned that in modern times I.e. during my lifetime, it seemed to evolve more into a voting process - the same process that I thought was so bad among the first Councils that I associated with the Apostasy.  The prophet was not acting like THE prophet that I had understood at one time we had. 

 

It did not set well with me when I learned that David O. McKay wanted to ordain Blacks to the priesthood and because Harold B. Lee (and possibly one other apostle of the time) did not support the action the action was tabled until 1978.  The goads a lot of people because it gives the appearance that the prophet does not speak with God or that what is said is not accepted as revelation until the entire body receives it unanimously. 

 

I have dealt with this process by doing a few things:

• I don't criticize the process of voting found in other churches.  Whether we call them prophets or not the facts are that people vote on what God is supposed to have said.
• I have realigned my thinking and accepted that our leaders vote on revelation without trying to understand why the change or at least the perception of change in my past thinking.
• I acknowledge the blessing that though things may move more slowly than they would in a single prophet-theocracy, when things do happen that occur with the full support of each of the Brethren. 
• I have re-contextualized the work of the prophet to focus more on holding the keys of the priesthood rather than being a penultimate source of revelation.

In truth I miss the days when my beliefs were simpler and without the need for clarifications, adjustments, re-contextualizing, etc.  I depend more on my own inspiration and relationship with the Spirit.  I am more distrustful of Church leaders in general; if I don't feel the Spirit then it really does not matter what they say I don't feel the need to accept it.  I also feel more vulnerable and that more is required of me to pursue truth and direction. There is much less black and white and significantly more grey when I look at the world.  I see God's hand in almost all religions and I am not nearly as committed to a single path; God is guiding each of human in their religious life.

Oh man, I second this! All in favor say I, I!

[JAHS]

 "Was there any voting among prophets during the time period prior to Christ sojourn on earth?  Was there any voting by Jesus and his apostles?"

 

Before Christ there was normally only one prophet on earth who represented God, so there were no others to cast a vote.

During Christ's time on earth there was no need to vote because He was here with us, to tell the saints in person was should be done.

 

It seems different dispensations have different conditions with regards to our accesibility to God. For example, the Bible tells us that no one should get divorced, but we allow divorce in our day, even for temple marriages. In a perfect world Jesus would not want anyone to get divorced. But there were and are times, as in the time of Moses, where divorce is allowed because of the "hardness of your hearts" (Mark 10:2-12).

 

Unfortunately in our day many people, including LDS Church members, have hardness in their hearts, and so, as in the day of Moses, God has allowed divorce, when deemed necessary, although it was never intended to be. I am thinking because of the hardness of our hearts in our day, God does not make Himself as accessible to us as He did in the past, even to the Prophet of the Church. The president of the church is not infallible. His faith is probably stronger than anyone elses, but he nevertheless still lives in this life by faith like the rest of us. So we have a quorum of prophets using their combined faith to receive inspiration from God about what He wants us to do. 

 

1.  "I don't criticize the process of voting found in other churches.  Whether we call them prophets or not the facts are that people vote on what God is supposed to have said."

 

But still they are not prophets of God. They may receive inspirtion for their own lives but are not authorized to receive revelation for all people on earth.

 

2.  "I have realigned my thinking and accepted that our leaders vote on revelation without trying to understand why the change or at least the perception of change in my past thinking."

 

The discussion and "voting" among the Apostles has been the process of the Church since Joseph Smith. .

 

"And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—"  (D&C 107: 27)

 

This may not be the same as Moses speaking face to face with God but that's what we have now. I don't think there is anything better anywhere else on the earth.

[hagoth7]

Voting was part of the original process.

Edited July 11, 2015 by hagoth7

[strappinglad]

And for those that have a problem with voting, google ' casting lots ' to see that it was a more random process. It took the human influence out of it and let God establish the outcome, at least by ancient thinking.

I wonder if it was acceptable to keep casting lots until the answer came that the minority view desired.

Edited July 12, 2015 by strappinglad

[theplains]

 

Amazing that people think they can know God's will on any doctrine simply by debating and voting on it. How can they know the majority is right about what God wants?  So much better to have prophets of God who can let us know what His will is.

 

 

The same thing happened with Declaration 2.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

 

"President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received

this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred

rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and

approved it (vote #1). It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who

unanimously approved it, (vote #2) and was subsequently presented to all other General

Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously" (vote #3).

 

Regards,

Jim

[Storm Rider]

Jim, 

I am not disagreeing with you, but I think it is important to recognize the difference between voting and sustaining a position.  Based upon what you have quoted above I am not able to recognize a vote when it could simply be the prophet asking for their support i.e. to sustain the revelation.  

 

This is an area where I tend to rain on the parade when the topic comes up in Church discussions.  A prophet, seer, and revelator is such when they act as such.  I don't believe we have had a seer in the Church since the days of Joseph.  We have had very few instances of prophets and revelators, but there are some.  In the present church our leaders tend to act in the capacity of inspired leaders rather than P, S, & Rs.  I think there are reasons for this;  on the one hand the reasons have to do with the membership and the condition of the world; and on the other, I lay at the feet of the leadership themselves.  

 

Honestly, I don't enjoy contemplating this last because it is unhealthy in such a medium as this.  I also loathe to lay blame at the feel of others when I find that I fall so far short of what is desired in needed of a disciple of Christ.  

[Okrahomer]

Theplains:

It really is quite a stretch to equate the SDA process with the LDS approach. You can read about the SDA process here: http://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2015-07-08/delegates-vote-no-on-issue-of-womens-ordination/

The LDS process presented the General Authority Quorums with a revelation.

A proposal was made that each quorum ratify the revelation.

The end result is that each of the Quorums did ratify the revelation.

The SDA system presented the 2,000+ delegates with a "motion" made by the North American SDA Churches.

There were several hours of pro and con presentations frequently interrupted with "point of order" statements--which sounds a lot like "debate."

Then there was a secret ballot.

The end result is that the "motion" was rejected.

When the results were announced, apparently applause broke out. This garnered a strong reaction from a retiring general Vice President:

"Ryan, who announced the final vote results, sharply admonished a group of Alamodome attendees who broke into applause at the outcome. '“There is nothing triumphal about this,” he said. “There are no winners or losers.'"

Edited July 13, 2015 by Okrahomer

[JAHS]

 

 

Amazing that people think they can know God's will on any doctrine simply by debating and voting on it. How can they know the majority is right about what God wants?  So much better to have prophets of God who can let us know what His will is.

 

 

The same thing happened with Declaration 2.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

 

"President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received

this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred

rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and

approved it (vote #1). It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who

unanimously approved it, (vote #2) and was subsequently presented to all other General

Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously" (vote #3).

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

As others have mentioned this was not voting it was sustaining and recognizing that it was God's will. 

 Gordon B. Hinckley described the event:

“There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. … Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. … Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”

 

This was revelation from God to all present; not voting. Approval means they wanted to make sure that all received the same revelation that it was from God. 

[ERayR]

 

 

 

The same thing happened with Declaration 2.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

 

"President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received

this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred

rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and

approved it (vote #1). It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who

unanimously approved it, (vote #2) and was subsequently presented to all other General

Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously" (vote #3).

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

As others have mentioned this was not voting it was sustaining and recognizing that it was God's will. 

 Gordon B. Hinckley described the event:

“There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. … Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. … Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”

 

This was revelation from God to all present; not voting. Approval means they wanted to make sure that all received the same revelation that it was from God. 

 

Edited July 13, 2015 by ERayR

[hagoth7]

This was revelation from God to all present; not voting. Approval means they wanted to make sure that all received the same revelation that it was from God. 

JAHS, to clarify, by using the word "voting" in my previous post relating to Matthias, I didn't at all mean to imply it meant the eleven apostles were merely giving their own opinion. I meant instead, based on the passage to which I linked, that each affirmed the name of the candidate they each one felt prayerfully impressed was being extended the call by God through inspiration.

Edited July 14, 2015 by hagoth7

[ERayR]

Has anybody notified OW?

[JAHS]

JAHS, to clarify, by using the word "voting" in my previous post relating to Matthias, I didn't at all mean to imply it meant the eleven apostles were merely giving their own opinion. I meant instead, based on the passage to which I linked, that each affirmed the name of the candidate they each one felt prayerfully impressed was being extended the call by God through inspiration.

[theplains]

This was revelation from God to all present; not voting. Approval means they wanted to make sure that all received the same revelation that it was from God. 

 

LDS sources that I have read show that revelation and policy is accepted by voting.  

 

I'll provide a few examples.

 

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church 

of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this

revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand.

Any opposed by the same sign.

 

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

 

(source: Official Declaration 2)

 

Other sources:

 

In 1908 in a general conference, President Joseph F. Smith read section 89 of the Doctrine and

Covenants—the Word of Wisdom. Then he, both of his counselors, and the President of the

Twelve all spoke to the same subject, the Word of Wisdom. Then a vote to accept it as binding

upon the members of the Church was unanimously passed.(2007, April, Boyd K. Packer, ‘The

Spirit of the Tabernacle,’ Ensign, May 2007, ¶ 43)

 

Conferences of this Church are far more than a convention where views are expressed or

policies adopted by vote, but they are assemblies where the mind and the will of the Lord is

manifest by His servants. The Church is not a democracy—it is a kingdom.(1992, October,

David B. Haight, ‘Successful Living of Gospel Principles,’ Ensign, November 1992, ¶ 5)

 

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have

preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may

receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood

has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful

brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for

divine guidance.

 

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly

accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising

your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

 

President Kimball, it appears that the vote has been unanimous in the affirmative, and the

motion has carried.

 

(source: Oct 1978 GC)

 

This rules out cultists of all kinds, false teachers and false leaders of every description, and

puts the Lord’s people on notice that there is but one clear directing voice in the Church,

and that is the voice of the prophet, seer, and revelator duly chosen by revelation and

accepted by the vote of the people in the general conference of the Church.

 

(source: Oct 1974 GC).

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JAHS]

 

LDS sources that I have read show that revelation and policy is accepted by voting.  

 

I'll provide a few examples.

 

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church 

of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this

revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand.

Any opposed by the same sign.

 

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

 

(source: Official Declaration 2)

 

Other sources:

 

In 1908 in a general conference, President Joseph F. Smith read section 89 of the Doctrine and

Covenants—the Word of Wisdom. Then he, both of his counselors, and the President of the

Twelve all spoke to the same subject, the Word of Wisdom. Then a vote to accept it as binding

upon the members of the Church was unanimously passed.(2007, April, Boyd K. Packer, ‘The

Spirit of the Tabernacle,’ Ensign, May 2007, ¶ 43)

 

Conferences of this Church are far more than a convention where views are expressed or

policies adopted by vote, but they are assemblies where the mind and the will of the Lord is

manifest by His servants. The Church is not a democracy—it is a kingdom.(1992, October,

David B. Haight, ‘Successful Living of Gospel Principles,’ Ensign, November 1992, ¶ 5)

 

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have

preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may

receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood

has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful

brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for

divine guidance.

 

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly

accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising

your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

 

President Kimball, it appears that the vote has been unanimous in the affirmative, and the

motion has carried.

 

(source: Oct 1978 GC)

 

This rules out cultists of all kinds, false teachers and false leaders of every description, and

puts the Lord’s people on notice that there is but one clear directing voice in the Church,

and that is the voice of the prophet, seer, and revelator duly chosen by revelation and

accepted by the vote of the people in the general conference of the Church.

 

(source: Oct 1974 GC).

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

It seems to me though that they are "voting" to sustain the decision or choice after it has already been made through revelation. They are not voting on who should be chosen or what should be done like in an election; like the Seventh Day Adventists did.

Edited July 15, 2015 by JAHS

[sunstoned]

No we are not a theocracy, it's just that in our church there are only 15 prophets who collectively can receive inspiration and confirmation from God on a subject, while in other religions there are thousands of non-prophets who come to the vote with all their own opinions, personal agendas, and biases who in effect decide on something they want, influenced by popular opinion and culture, rather than what God wants. Because of this their churches are becoming more and more secular and further away from God's will. 

Utah is close to a theocracy.  Very few things get through the Utah legislators without church approval.  The recent Utah liquor law insanely is an example of this.

[JAHS]

Utah is close to a theocracy.  Very few things get through the Utah legislators without church approval.  The recent Utah liquor law insanely is an example of this.

 

People like to throw around the word Theocracy when it comes to Utah politics, but it is nowhere near a theocracy. The state would be run by a prophet of God who gets direction directly from God on how the people should be governed.  No democracy; no elections and voting on things. The people would not care to have any voice, since they would all submit their will to God and live according to His commandments.

There are hundreds more examples of why Utah is not a theocracy compared to the few examples that might have had some influence from the church.