Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) Apparently, there were dissenting votes again during the sustaining at conference, but I didn't hear anybody call out, not that was audible on the microphones in the Conference Center anyway. Are they registering their vote by the uplifted hand like everybody else now? Is this going to be a regular thing, or will they lose interest now that it's no longer the spectacle it once was? Meeting with their stake president is something they can do most anytime; they don't have to do a negative vote in conference to be told that. Edited October 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Popular Post ksfisher Posted October 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 3, 2015 Apparently, there were dissenting votes again during the sustaining at conference, but I didn't hear anybody call out, not that was audible on the microphones in the Conference Center anyway. Are they registering their vote by the uplifted hand like everybody else now? Is this going to be a regular thing, or will they lose interest now that its no longer the spectacle it once was? Meeting with their stake president is something they can do most anytime; they don't have to do a negative vote in conference to be told that.I feel very sad that given the opportunity to sustain the Lord's chosen servants that any of our Heavenly Father's children would choose to vote no. Especially the opportunity to sustain new apostles. 5
mnn727 Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Yeah, noticed that also, sad that misguided people have to try to ruin things for others while they ruin themselves. 1
Popular Post CA Steve Posted October 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 3, 2015 What is the point of asking for an opposing vote? 5
Stroopwafel Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 What is the point of asking for an opposing vote? Thank you! 2
ksfisher Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 What is the point of asking for an opposing vote?"If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position."Handbook 2, 19.3 2
Popular Post JAHS Posted October 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 3, 2015 "If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position."Handbook 2, 19.3 I doubt very much that any of those opposing have any personal infomation about any one of the general authorities that would preclude him from serving. They just want to make a scene and hear bout it in the news. 5
Popular Post sethpayne Posted October 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 3, 2015 Apparently, there were dissenting votes again during the sustaining at conference, but I didn't hear anybody call out, not that was audible on the microphones in the Conference Center anyway. Are they registering their vote by the uplifted hand like everybody else now? Is this going to be a regular thing, or will they lose interest now that it's no longer the spectacle it once was? Meeting with their stake president is something they can do most anytime; they don't have to do a negative vote in conference to be told that. Um.... if they don't want to see dissenting voices then why do they even ask the question? Why not just say this is who's called and if you have a problem with it, contact your SP. 7
sethpayne Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Yeah, noticed that also, sad that misguided people have to try to ruin things for others while they ruin themselves. So the question is posed to the assembly if there is anyone opposed. Several people do oppose by simply raising their hands. How, exactly, is this ruining anything for anybody. If they don't want to see opposing votes then don't ask the darn question. 4
ksfisher Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Um.... if they don't want to see dissenting voices then why do they even ask the question? Why not just say this is who's called and if you have a problem with it, contact your SP.Who is saying that "they" don't want to see dissenting votes?
bluebell Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Um.... if they don't want to see dissenting voices then why do they even ask the question? Why not just say this is who's called and if you have a problem with it, contact your SP.It all depends on whether or not asking for a sustaining vote is also meant as a way for the person asking to ascertain whether or not everyone in attendance personally agrees with all doctrines and policies of f the church. If that's not the purpose for asking for a vote, then they probably don't want to see people using the vote for that reason. 1
DJBrown Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 What is the point of asking for an opposing vote? The same could be asked about the "war in heaven."
sethpayne Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Who is saying that "they" don't want to see dissenting votes? My question was rhetorical. Of course the Brethren want to see the opposing votes (if done politely without theater). In fact, they are bound by scripture to do so. But apparently some folks think that opposing a calling is somehow a moral failing or attempt to disrupt. 4
sethpayne Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 The same could be asked about the "war in heaven." kfisher, I present you with exhibit A
sethpayne Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) It all depends on whether or not asking for a sustaining vote is also meant as a way for the person asking to ascertain whether or not everyone in attendance personally agrees with all doctrines and policies of f the church.If that's not the purpose for asking for a vote, then they probably don't want to see people using the vote for that reason. Well, my question was rhetorical. They want to see opposing votes. But that aside, I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that the one who asks for sustaining or opposing votes is trying to figure out who agrees with the Church in a broad sense? I've always thought it was a very narrowly defined vote for each specific calling. BTW, and totally unrelated. When I was ordained a Teacher, there were two opposing votes. Two girls in my ward didn't like me very much. Anyway, the Bishop met with them all was well. Edited October 3, 2015 by sethpayne 2
Five Solas Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 I feel very sad that given the opportunity to sustain the Lord's chosen servants that any of our Heavenly Father's children would choose to vote no. Especially the opportunity to sustain new apostles.While I personally wouldn't take the trouble to attend an LDS general conference--I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation to decline an "opportunity to sustain the Lord's chosen servants"--because from my heart, I dispute those men in Salt Lake City, Utah are such. What is "sad" about someone being candid & vocal about how they honestly feel, ksfisher? What purpose do you imagine it serves if people keep their dissent to themselves? --Erik
SmileyMcGee Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 Yeah, noticed that also, sad that misguided people have to try to ruin things for others while they ruin themselves. so much arrogance in so few words. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 While I personally wouldn't take the trouble to attend an LDS general conference--I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation to decline an "opportunity to sustain the Lord's chosen servants"--because from my heart, I dispute those men in Salt Lake City, Utah are such. What is "sad" about someone being candid & vocal about how they honestly feel, ksfisher? What purpose do you imagine it serves if people keep their dissent to themselves? --Erik Your right to decline to attend. Unless you're a member we're not asking for your sustaining.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 4, 2015 Author Posted October 4, 2015 My question was rhetorical. Of course the Brethren want to see the opposing votes (if done politely without theater). In fact, they are bound by scripture to do so.But apparently some folks think that opposing a calling is somehow a moral failing or attempt to disrupt.We've had shown us the section of the handbook that gives the purpose of calling for an opposing vote. If the vote is given for some other purpose -- such as turning it into a media event to make a public protest against the Church or its leadership -- that strikes me as an abuse of the privilege. Yet the Brethren receive it in good faith, advising the dissenter(s) to meet with the respective stake president -- in accordance with the procedure given in the handbook.
Kenngo1969 Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 ... BTW, and totally unrelated. When I was ordained a Teacher, there were two opposing votes. Two girls in my ward didn't like me very much. Anyway, the Bishop met with them all was well. Did he change their minds? (sorry; Couldn't resist!)
Popular Post emeliza Posted October 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) I was glad to not hear anyone call out this time. Sustaining means you will support, doesn't mean you like the person even. The only time you wouldn't sustain is if you know of a reason that the person shouldn't have that calling. It isn't a popularity thing and it shouldn't be about doctrine. Edit: I should note that it doesn't bother me if some people don't sustain if they feel they have good reason. Just don't call out. On a side note, my daughter and I probably looked pretty odd today sustaining in our car and out in the front yard. We had to go to the store between sessions and didn't make it home until the end of the sustaining, so we just did it in our car. I realize we do this at our ward conference and don't necessarily need to during the actual GC, but I always feel better doing it. Edited October 4, 2015 by emeliza 5
bcuzbcuz Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 What is the point of asking for an opposing vote?If that is your stance, then what is the point of asking for a sustaining vote?
Five Solas Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Your right to decline to attend. Unless you're a member we're not asking for your sustaining.While that may be true - that's not what ksfisher wrote in the post I responded to. He didn't limit it to LDS members - he wrote it was "very sad" if "any" of our "Heavenly Father's children would choose to vote no." In LDS theology--that "any" would also include me. Do you think ksfisher is wrong, sometimesaint? --Erik Note - Edited to fix gender in pronoun usage. Afraid I put the *** in assumption on this one... Edited October 4, 2015 by Five Solas
strappinglad Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 My question would be, is the person presented set apart before the objections are dealt with? Is there lag time , like a 7 second delay ? I suppose that there could be a release post haste if something substantial came up but that would be quite embarrassing. As Happy Jack posted, I imagine a thorough PPI took place before the calling was made. For the historians in the crowd, has a calling ever been rescinded based on an objectors info.? I'm talking GA level and post 1904. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 4, 2015 Author Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) While that may be true - that's not what ksfisher wrote in the post I responded to. She didn't limit it to LDS members - she wrote it was "very sad" if "any" of our "Heavenly Father's children would choose to vote no."In LDS theology--that "any" would also include me. Do you think ksfisher is wrong, sometimesaint?--ErikRead for comprehension. I understood him perfectly. Edited October 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Recommended Posts