"the Voting Has Been Noted"

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

So you will take the trouble to opine endlessly on Mormon-related topics, including (by your account) reading up on all manner of arcane Mormon writings, but you won't take the trouble to attend an LDS general conference.

What are you afraid of? Feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost, or just hearing our side without an EV spin controlling it?

 

[Five Solas]

So you will take the trouble to opine endlessly on Mormon-related topics, including (by your account) reading up on all manner of arcane Mormon writings, but you won't take the trouble to attend an LDS general conference.

What are you afraid of? Feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost, or just hearing our side without an EV spin controlling it?

 

I've missed you, Russell - how long has it been, two weeks?

;0)

 

--Erik

[SmileyMcGee]

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. )

Haha, I didn't even notice that. Thank you Scott!

[Teancum]

What is the point of asking for an opposing vote?

Indeed. If a dissent is not acceptable why ask? Why get all worked up as well if a handful dissent?

[Kenngo1969]

 

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

The company for which I work provides 24/7 service for which its customers pay handsomely (customers contact me (OK, us ) to have coordinates/directions to the destinations to which they would like to go downloaded to their GPS systems). While I would prefer that those customers not use our service today so as to give us all the day off, that, alas, is not realistic.  While most of the customers who utilize that service do so in order to be directed to other businesses that also should be closed on Sunday, not all of them do.  Indeed, some of them (not a lot, but some) request directions to churches.  I even had a guy a few weeks ago request directions to the Los Angeles, California Temple.  While I doubt he was LDS, and while I'm not sure what he was expecting to find if he'd gone there on a Sunday or a Monday (I believe it's closed Mondays, though some Temples are open Monday morning and afternoon, I believe), maybe the visitor's center is open 7 days a week.)  While why and where someone is traveling might make a difference as to how the Lord feels about any given instance of travel/operating a motor vehicle on the Sabbath, you know very well that Latter-day Saints are not akin to, say, the most observant Jews, for whom operating a motor vehicle on the Sabbath would be forbidden. 

 

While I might hope that a Latter-day Saint who subscribes to our service would demonstrate enough foresight to, e.g., have any destinations to which he might wish to travel on Sunday downloaded to his system on Saturday night, while that expectation might be reasonable in the vast majority of circumstances, exceptions do arise.  Sometimes, one's ox really does end up in the mire through no fault of his own.  In retrospect, I could, and maybe should, have requested Sundays off as a condition of my employment, but the truth is that I was desperate enough for a job with several months of an expensive lease still hanging over my head that I didn't want to jeopardize (even to a small degree) my chances of getting this job.  Chances are that I would have gotten it anyway, but hindsight is always, as they say, 20/20.

 

I do need to be much more vigilant about proactively doing the things that will help me keep the Spirit, including attending church services where and when I can (as well as other daily things).  But that said, now that I have a couple of months under my belt of which it can be said that Sunday has become (to my chagrin), in too many ways, simply another day, I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that the "Is-Church-Too-Overwhelming/Boring/Etc.?-Then-Simply-Take-a-Vacation-From-It!" crowd is nuts.  I can't imagine how someone voluntarily absenting himself from church for an extended period possibly could think he would emerge the better from such a "sabbatical."  I can't possibly see where those who think that way are coming from.  As Joni Mitchell once sang, "Don't know what you got 'til it's gone."

 

I should also note that, while I don't work on that side of the business (yet!), our service also includes Automatic Collision Notification, which will notify us if a vehicle possibly has been in a collision, and we will dispatch emergency services if we receive a response which indicates that they are needed (or if we do not receive any response after asking for one).  I worked as an emergency dispatcher for awhile, including, unapologetically, on Sundays.  Accidents, including serious ones, happen, even on Sundays.  If I subscribed to this service, I would take great comfort in the fact that someone could summon the appropriate help whenever I needed it, even if I could not.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[JAHS]

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.

"I think they've just decided to say that from now on"

 

That's a very good idea.

When you think about it how could they even know of all those who might be raising their hands in dissent who are not there in the conference center? When the D&C scriptures were written that call for the sustaining vote there weren't so many members of the church and most of them could all meet in one place and all be seen when the voting was happening. The church wide sustaining vote is more of just  formality now. It would still be effective and important on the local level. 

[The Nehor]

To be fair, they're not adjectives

I assume that fundamental error was the Lord's way of humbling me for being a pedant on the Sabbath.

[Russell C McGregor]

I've missed you, Russell - how long has it been, two weeks?

;0)

 

--Erik

 

Erik,

 

If I were ever to descend to the point where I would do anything as fundamentally non-Christian as to start obsessively hounding EV Protestants about their various doctrinal errors, historical problems and scriptural misreadings -- all of which would be parallel to your anti-Mormon proselytizing -- I hope I would at least take the trouble to listen to what they have to say for themselves.

[sjdawg]

 

 

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."

 

 

sure,  Jeff and I are good buds.

[Boanerges]

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.  

 Talk about mean girls....

[thesometimesaint]

"I think they've just decided to say that from now on"

 

That's a very good idea.

When you think about it how could they even know of all those who might be raising their hands in dissent who are not there in the conference center? When the D&C scriptures were written that call for the sustaining vote there weren't so many members of the church and most of them could all meet in one place and all be seen when the voting was happening. The church wide sustaining vote is more of just  formality now. It would still be effective and important on the local level. 

 

Every member has the right to object. So every member has the veto power. It just has to be a well substantiated veto.

[KevinG]

My wife mentioned that the Salt Lake Tribune reported that this was the first time in recorded Church history that someone voted in the negative during General Conference.  I rolled my eyes and told her it was done in the last few conferences.

 

My adult and teen children chimed in and said "do they not know what a sustaining vote is for?"

 

So I asked them what they thought it was for...  They each responded with a variation on "it means we are willing to support the person who is called, in their calling."

 

I replied,  "Yes.  It means we sustain the Lord's calling and will assist the person in it to the best of our ability, correct!"

 

Then one of my daughters asked why they did it.  I mentioned that it was a political statement by those who believe women should be ordained.  She replied.  Then why object to the leaders who were called.  It has nothing to do with that.

 

Yup!

[Stone holm]

What is the point of asking for an opposing vote?

 

Actually none.  The sustaining vote ritual as presently practiced is for the purpose of later being able to chastise the person for not sustaining a leader and by that is usually meant questioning whether something was truly inspired.  Have become somewhat cynical over this ritual over the years.  Although as a Stake Exec. Secretary I once experienced a Ward where nearly 50% of the Ward voted not to sustain a Bishop.  The upshot was a series of Church Courts where the Stake Presidency looked into why the Ward members weren't supporting the Lord's call.  Eventually they realized the Bishop was incredibly weak, then the search became when would be a good time to ease the Bishop out of office without making it look like a mistake had been made in not releasing him early.  You will have to pardon my tendency to look at the sustaining vote as something of a farce.

[Storm Rider]

Actually none.  The sustaining vote ritual as presently practiced is for the purpose of later being able to chastise the person for not sustaining a leader and by that is usually meant questioning whether something was truly inspired.  Have become somewhat cynical over this ritual over the years.  Although as a Stake Exec. Secretary I once experienced a Ward where nearly 50% of the Ward voted not to sustain a Bishop.  The upshot was a series of Church Courts where the Stake Presidency looked into why the Ward members weren't supporting the Lord's call.  Eventually they realized the Bishop was incredibly weak, then the search became when would be a good time to ease the Bishop out of office without making it look like a mistake had been made in not releasing him early.  You will have to pardon my tendency to look at the sustaining vote as something of a farce.

 

We all have weaknesses aplenty; you just tend to share yours more freely than most of us.  

 

I suspect the reality is that the vote has several layers of meaning.  If someone does not want to sustain the calling of an individual, then they should vote no.  As long as it is done in a respectful, peaceful manner I don't have any problems with it.  

 

As I recall even Joseph called some really terrible people to positions of authority - I am thinking of John C. Bennett particularly.  If you have something to say about an individual, then vote no and share your knowledge with the appropriate priesthood authority.  

 

However, if you don't know anything about the individual being called, then the sage advice is to hold your tongue if you cannot sustain the individual called.  

[mnn727]

Actually none.  The sustaining vote ritual as presently practiced is for the purpose of later being able to chastise the person for not sustaining a leader and by that is usually meant questioning whether something was truly inspired.  Have become somewhat cynical over this ritual over the years.  Although as a Stake Exec. Secretary I once experienced a Ward where nearly 50% of the Ward voted not to sustain a Bishop.  The upshot was a series of Church Courts where the Stake Presidency looked into why the Ward members weren't supporting the Lord's call.  Eventually they realized the Bishop was incredibly weak, then the search became when would be a good time to ease the Bishop out of office without making it look like a mistake had been made in not releasing him early.  You will have to pardon my tendency to look at the sustaining vote as something of a farce.

Stone Holm  I saw this in one Ward (as Ward Clerk) where the Bishop treated callings as a Business deal, kind of shook my faith a little. After moving to a new ward I saw (as Ward Exec Sec) an extremely faith filled Bishop pour out his soul to God over callings. The problem is not with the process, the problem (if any) is with the person doing the calling.

[Stone holm]

We all have weaknesses aplenty; you just tend to share yours more freely than most of us.  

 

I suspect the reality is that the vote has several layers of meaning.  If someone does not want to sustain the calling of an individual, then they should vote no.  As long as it is done in a respectful, peaceful manner I don't have any problems with it.  

 

As I recall even Joseph called some really terrible people to positions of authority - I am thinking of John C. Bennett particularly.  If you have something to say about an individual, then vote no and share your knowledge with the appropriate priesthood authority.  

 

However, if you don't know anything about the individual being called, then the sage advice is to hold your tongue if you cannot sustain the individual called.  

 

Yeah, that works for some people.  And frankly I have never voted against any Church leader proposed.  However, in my old age, I have found myself less and less willing to vote for someone that I don't know at all -- as a result I tend to avoid Church meetings where I know there are going to be mass sustaining votes of people I have absolutely no clue about -- namely General and Stake Conference.  As I recall, Joseph Smith asked the membership to release Sidney Rigdon as a member of the First Presidency and the membership refused.   There is considerable tension in the ritual in that on the one hand we believe that callings are of God, not men.  On the other hand, we are asked whether we will sustain someone.  The implication being that we will not sustain someone that is called of God.  So I suspect the safe thing to do is avoid the process with the knowledge if God truly called the person, then God will sustain them.

[KevinG]

Sustaining involves our commitment to supporting the person called.  It is not a vote in the choosing a leader sense.

 

There is value in having each of us individually choose to sustain or not sustain a leader who has been called.  There is also a time to object, and that is if you have personal knowledge of acts or events that would disqualify an individual from that calling.  While rare this does happen.

[Stone holm]

Stone Holm  I saw this in one Ward (as Ward Clerk) where the Bishop treated callings as a Business deal, kind of shook my faith a little. After moving to a new ward I saw (as Ward Exec Sec) an extremely faith filled Bishop pour out his soul to God over callings. The problem is not with the process, the problem (if any) is with the person doing the calling.

 

Ah, but that is a particularly slippery slope to start down -- once we say somebody other than God is calling someone to a position.  I know when I was a Bishop, I struggled pretty hard over callings.  Members sometimes shook their heads over calls that were made, heck I sometimes shook my head over calls that were made.  There is just something distasteful about the whole sustaining ritual to me, almost makes looking for colored smoke more palatable.

[Stone holm]

Sustaining involves our commitment to supporting the person called.  It is not a vote in the choosing a leader sense.

 

There is value in having each of us individually choose to sustain or not sustain a leader who has been called.  There is also a time to object, and that is if you have personal knowledge of acts or events that would disqualify an individual from that calling.  While rare this does happen.

 

True understanding of the process.  If are not sure you will sustain the leader, which should be the case of every person called who you do not personally know -- then you can do one of three things:  1) raise your hand anyway (which is what most people do); 2) not raise you hand (few will notice); or 3) manage to absent yourself from the meeting.  There is a fourth option which is to vote against but only jerks do that unless they have some real dirt on the person -- and if they have some real dirt on the person, then the question becomes why did God not tell His servants about the dirt or at least steer them clear of the person.  Which leads me to the question the ritual.

[Storm Rider]

Yeah, that works for some people.  And frankly I have never voted against any Church leader proposed.  However, in my old age, I have found myself less and less willing to vote for someone that I don't know at all -- as a result I tend to avoid Church meetings where I know there are going to be mass sustaining votes of people I have absolutely no clue about -- namely General and Stake Conference.  As I recall, Joseph Smith asked the membership to release Sidney Rigdon as a member of the First Presidency and the membership refused.   There is considerable tension in the ritual in that on the one hand we believe that callings are of God, not men.  On the other hand, we are asked whether we will sustain someone.  The implication being that we will not sustain someone that is called of God.  So I suspect the safe thing to do is avoid the process with the knowledge if God truly called the person, then God will sustain them.

 

Stone, you live in a world far too complicated for me.  I am a simple man - I don't raise my hand for every sustaining; mostly because I am, at times, just far too lazy to raise my hand.  I am not there for others and if they have a problem then it is their own personal problem.  If someone wants to know my thoughts they can just ask.  I try not to offend easily, but I also tend to provide an answer....and sometimes I still offend.  

 

I don't avoid meetings because of fear of being put in a compromising situation.  I just go and let the pieces fall where they may.  

 

You seem to carry so much baggage around with you regarding your beliefs and lack of belief.  However, I expect that you are better at putting those things on a shelf rather than sharing your lack of belief and faith in so much that the Church teaches.  

 

We create our own hell and our own heaven on earth.  Find joy, peace, and faith in your life is my wish.  

[strappinglad]

It is quite difficult to have PERSONAL knowledge of sins of an individual which might disqualify him/her from a calling. It is much easier to have second or third or tenth hand knowledge .Also, for the most part , most people I am called upon to sustain  I have little direct interaction with , so my sustaining vote is symbolic at best. In politics I vote so that at least I have the right to complain. In Church my vote gives me the right to keep my opinions to myself.

[Kenngo1969]

 

sure,  Jeff and I are good buds.

Awesome! Put in a good word for me, will you? (And tell him that my mom and/or I have a funny story for him, if ever we should meet!)

Edited October 6, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Stone holm]

It is quite difficult to have PERSONAL knowledge of sins of an individual which might disqualify him/her from a calling. It is much easier to have second or third or tenth hand knowledge .Also, for the most part , most people I am called upon to sustain  I have little direct interaction with , so my sustaining vote is symbolic at best. In politics I vote so that at least I have the right to complain. In Church my vote gives me the right to keep my opinions to myself.

You kind of nailed it. I tend not to keep opinions to myself, except opinions as to persons. You have to really have gone out of your way to get a negative shot personal shot from me, another reason I don't like the ritual as it really concentrates the alternative vote as only applying to the personal negative shot. But, unlike my behaviour on this board, I tend to absent myself from Church situations where I know I am likely to butt heads with a local leader on an issue. Of course these peculiarities are frequently classified as a lack of faith or testimony, l prefer to look at it as either cussed stubbornness or an unwillingness to follow the crowd. People like to refer to others who don't follow the crowd as being occupants of that great and spacious building...I find that ironic.

[Meadowchik]

If that's how they feel, okay. 

 

To me, the point is to be given the opportunity to sustain.  Or to choose to not sustain.

[jkwilliams]

I honestly don't understand the point of making a show of voting "no." Obviously, if someone knows of a good reason to oppose a particular person's calling, I would think they have a duty to make their objection known, even if it means voting "no" in a sustaining vote. But I don't get why you would oppose someone you've likely never heard of. The only thing I can think of is that these folks want to express their general unhappiness with the leadership of the church. Fair enough, but if you're unhappy with the leadership, why are you going to a meeting to hear them speak?