"the Voting Has Been Noted"

[Duncan]

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  For the historians in the crowd, has a calling ever been rescinded based on an objectors info.?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.

 

I'd imagine that were there any problems with brethren they were dealt with prior to a general conference

[rpn]

I was looking in a camera shot of the audience and I dont' know that anyone opposed.   I think they've just decided to say that from now on so that they don't make a big deal if there are dissenting votes.   And I think the Any Opposed crowd was interested in talking with a general authority and no one who is in this place wants to talk to their SP, so there isn't any point any more of a protest vote.

[ksfisher]

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?

 

--Erik

For the record, it would be nice if you'd edit your post and change the pronoun she to he. : )

[Scott Lloyd]

For the record, it would be nice if you'd edit your post and change the pronoun she to he. : )

I fixed mine. Sorry I was misled by Erik Five Solas.

[stephenpurdy]

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.

 

Exactly.  The people who are voting against sustaining the leaders don't understand the purpose of asking for a vote.

 

The purpose is if anyone has knowledge of the person being sustained . .. If they know that the person is participating in a lifestyle or activities which would make the individual unworthy for the calling.

 

-stephen

[Thinking]

Like I wrote previously,

I think the best way to oppose is to not show up anymore.

 

I think using the phrase "The voting has been noted" will eventually reduce the dissenters from opposing in general conference.

[Five Solas]

For the record, it would be nice if you'd edit your post and change the pronoun she to he. : )

Done.  My apologies--I demonstrated the a$$ in assumption...

 

--Erik

[ksfisher]

Done.  My apologies--I demonstrated the a$$ in assumption...

 

--Erik

No worries.

[why me]

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.

I think that it has to do with the nature of the vote. Now, it seems that people just vote no in order to make a statement. It is not because they believe that the GA has done something morally wrong: broke the word of wisdom, broke the law of chasity,was caught stealing by the dissenting member etc. Now it seems to be jjust a no vote for no reason except to protest against the church. I think that this is the big difference now and it shows a lack of knowledge why to vote no.

 

But I also think that there is something in the nature of people nowadays that makes them a little shallow. Maybe it is a sign that intelligence is lacking at present or that people have become somewhat lacking in depth.

Edited October 4, 2015 by why me

[mikegriffith1]

What is the point of asking for an opposing vote?

 

One reason is to give those who oppose the Church the chance to formally refuse to sustain the prophet and the apostles.

[sjdawg]

I have a slightly related question.  In this DN article Jeff Holland notes the process when he was called and set apart as an apostle.  

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3331/3/Elder-Jeffrey-R-Holland-21-LDS-Church-leaders-describe-how-they-were-called-to-the-Quorum-of-the.html

 

He says "In a rapid sequence of events that Thursday morning, President Hunter interviewed me at length, extended to me my call, formally introduced me to the First Presidency and the Twelve gathered in their temple meeting, gave me my apostolic charge and outline of duties, ordained me an apostle, set me apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, added a magnificent and beautiful personal blessing of considerable length, then went on to conduct the sacred business of that first of my temple meetings, lasting another two or three hours!"

 

Based on that it appears that Holland was ordained and set apart in advance of the sustaining vote taking place.   In my ward and stake I recall the sustaining vote being a prerequisite to being set apart in a calling or ordained to a new office.  Why is the process for an apostle different?

Edited October 4, 2015 by sjdawg

[Kenngo1969]

Based on that it appears that Holland was ordained and set apart in advance of the sustaining vote taking place.   In my ward and stake I recall the sustaining vote being a prerequisite to being set apart in a calling or ordained to a new office. Why is the process for an apostle different? [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969].

 

It's not, always.  I'm not familiar enough with administration in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to discourse at length about all of the circumstances under which this might take place, although one that springs to mind is if, say, a Bishopric needs to be reorganized, one of the people called into it is an Elder who, thus, needs to be ordained a High Priest, but it will be several months before the next Stake gathering of Priesthood holders where such actions are usually sustained.  In that circumstance, rather than waiting for those several months to reorganize the Bishopric, if found worthy, the brother called will be ordained.  Then, at the next Stake Priesthood meeting, his name will be presented along with the announcement that "Brother John Smith, who is currently serving in the Bishopric of the Backwoods First Ward, has been ordained a High Priest, and it is proposed that this ordination be ratified."  Whereupon the usual vote will be called for.  (Of course, Brother/Bishop Smith will need to be sustained by the members of his ward, as well.)

 

As to Elder Holland's circumstance, of course, I cannot speak to it.    (Perhaps his memory is playing tricks on him?  I was so profoundly affected by President Benson's Beware of Pride that I'd swear (If I were a swearin' man! ) that I can remember him delivering it personally, but he did not: It was read by President Hinckley.)

 

P.S.: Jeff?  Are you guys close friends or something?  Which reminds me of a funny story.  A few weeks before Elder Holland was called into the Twelve, I was in my parents' basement, which includes a small library.  I happened to notice my mom's 1963 Dixie College yearbook on the shelf, and I pulled it down and started thumbing through it.  I didn't know a lot about Elder Holland's background at the time, but apparently, he was a Big Man on Campus at Dixie that year, and I noted his picture in three or four places and said to myself, "Hmm.  That's interesting."  Then a couple weeks later after he was called into the Twelve, I told my mom, "Hey, Mom, you know, you went to school with him."  (By which I meant to say, of course, that they happened to be enrolled at the same time, not that they moved in the same circles. )  She was skeptical. "Oh, I did not!" she said, dismissing my assertion as mere leg-pulling.  "You did so," I replied, "and I can prove it!"  And I went downstairs, took the old yearbook off the shelf, turned to one of the three of four places where Elder Holland's picture could be found, showed it to her, and said, "He hasn't changed much appearance-wise in the last 30 years, has he?!"  So now, every time she hears him speak, she says, "Boy, my classmate, Jeffrey, did a good job, didn't he?"  Whereupon I reply, "But, Mom, his close friends call him Jeff."

Edited October 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[lowroom]

I would hazard that most Apostles are called from GA or other high level positions where no serious objections were brought forth in the many times they were sustained prior to being called to the apostleship - therefore an ordaining might be done before a sustaining.

Either way the right to object is clear. Could not a member object to the quorums as currently constituted because they do not believe the members of those quorums are correctly administering the church or are they only able to object on spiritual worthiness grounds?

I am not an objector personally but I defend the right to object as it is based in scripture.

[Buckeye]

Scott, I'm also puzzled by this post. If the dissenters are sincere, we should leave the matter to their local leaders. If they are not, why are you giving them the attention they seek by posting about the episode?

[sethpayne]

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.

 

Scott -- I guess I'm just not following you.  They raised their hands in opposition, right?  

 

Because if they didn't do anything more than give an opposing vote then how is that not "in accordance with the procedure?"

[Duncan]

Scott, I'm also puzzled by this post. If the dissenters are sincere, we should leave the matter to their local leaders. If they are not, why are you giving them the attention they seek by posting about the episode?

 

 

I would imagine that if there was really something going on it would get passed up the chain PDQ. You recall Elder George P. Lee and that whole thing about his situation and someone would have told someone else and it got back to the 1st Pres. and it was dealt with.

[Sleeper Cell]

I think that it has to do with the nature of the vote. Now, it seems that people just vote no in order to make a statement. It is not because they believe that the GA has done something morally wrong: broke the word of wisdom, broke the law of chasity,was caught stealing by the dissenting member etc. Now it seems to be jjust a no vote for no reason except to protest against the church. I think that this is the big difference now and it shows a lack of knowledge why to vote no.

 

But I also think that there is something in the nature of people nowadays that makes them a little shallow. Maybe it is a sign that intelligence is lacking at present or that people have become somewhat lacking in depth.

 

Personally, I’m fine with individual members being free to vote “no” on sustaining an individual for pretty much any reason they want, even a trivial reason (e.g.,  they didn‘t like his last conference talk), as long as the reason has something to do with that particular individual.  But the impression I get is that the dissenters would have voted “no,” no matter who was presented.  To me,  voting “no” as a vehicle of protest is an abuse of the sustaining process.

 

I would also make a distinction between someone who votes “no” on a few individuals (even as a vehicle of protest) and one who votes to “not sustain” all of the general authorities of the church.  It seems to me that making a formal public statement that you do not sustain a single one of the general authorities is virtually a form of resignation of one’s church membership.  Not saying that it should be treated as a formal resignation, but (in the unlikely event that such a dissenter actually discusses his “no” vote with his bishop/stake president),  I think it would be legitimate to ask him/her why the church should not interpret it as a resignation.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[mnn727]

so much arrogance in so few words.

So much truth you mean

[SmileyMcGee]

So much truth you mean

No...I meant arrogance.

[The Nehor]

So much truth you mean

No...I meant arrogance.

To be fair the adjectives are not mutually exclusive.

[SmileyMcGee]

To be fair the adjectives are not mutually exclusive.

To be fair, they're not adjectives

[Kenngo1969]

To be fair, they're not adjectives

I was wondering who gave you the other rep point.  I guessed it would be Brother Lloyd, and when I found out I was right I busted out laughing (which might not've been the most appropriate response here at work. ) 

[Scott Lloyd]

I was wondering who gave you the other rep point.  I guessed it would be Brother Lloyd, and when I found out I was right I busted out laughing (which might not've been the most appropriate response here at work. ) 

I know why I'm working on the Sabbath day, but why are you?

[Five Solas]

I know why I'm working on the Sabbath day, but why are you?

Neither of you are.  Sabbath was yesterday, Saturday.  Today is Sunday, a.k.a, Lord's Day in Christianity.  Let's please not go foisting first-day sabbatarianism on everyone, Scott.  You cause enough trouble...

;0)

 

--Erik

[Guest]

Thank you!

Is the "Thank You!", an indication of your vote or frustration of another kind? From what I have been seeing as of late is that soon find beating up on man who has given his life in support of others; sport!