I personally would not do it

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The whole point of sustaining is to show the Lord and Church if one is with the Lord and the Church or against the Lord and the Church.  Though the Church does not formally make a registry of how one "votes", a record is made in heaven for the individual when they are judged.  So each one of those who chooses to oppose will have to explain themselves at judgement.  It would be interesting to see their attitude when the find out how serious this stuff really was and that the Lord does take this stuff seriously.  I gather there will be a lot of fear on their faces as they attempt to explain themselves. 

The "whole point"?

i thought it was to follow the law of common consent by which all things are to be done in the church, per the D&C. 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The whole point of sustaining is to show the Lord and Church if one is with the Lord and the Church or against the Lord and the Church.  Though the Church does not formally make a registry of how one "votes", a record is made in heaven for the individual when they are judged.  So each one of those who chooses to oppose will have to explain themselves at judgement.  It would be interesting to see their attitude when the find out how serious this stuff really was and that the Lord does take this stuff seriously.  I gather there will be a lot of fear on their faces as they attempt to explain themselves. 

I imagine it will be more humiliation then fear.

[CA Steve]

If I did not support the Justice's of the Supreme Court, I would not take the trouble to go somewhere just so I could yell out my dissent. This is America, love it or leave it.

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, Deborah said:

I don't think people understand what the sustaining vote means.

If you are right, then the problem is that we have the whole tradition and protocol about the sustaining vote that isn't clearly stated.  It's part of the "unwritten order of things" and we are getting mad at someone for not conforming. 

If the Church wants to pretend that it is asking for sustaining votes and then asks for notices of objection, then we need to accept the consequences.  If that is not the case, then I suggest any of the following changes:

- Have Pres. Uchtdorf stand and say "We present the following leaders as those who have been set apart in their specified offices.  We do this for informational purposes only, and if any within the sound of my voice object, please speak with your local Stake President, if you even know who that is."

- Have Pres. Uchtdorf say "We present the following leaders and would like to give you an opportunity to express your willingness to sustain them in their callings.  This isn't the proper forum to express your opposition, so when I ask if any are opposed, please don't say anything."

Because based on the responses in this thread, that seems to be what people are understanding him to have said.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The whole point of sustaining is to show the Lord and Church if one is with the Lord and the Church or against the Lord and the Church.  Though the Church does not formally make a registry of how one "votes", a record is made in heaven for the individual when they are judged.  So each one of those who chooses to oppose will have to explain themselves at judgement.  It would be interesting to see their attitude when the find out how serious this stuff really was and that the Lord does take this stuff seriously.  I gather there will be a lot of fear on their faces as they attempt to explain themselves. 

CFR please. This sounds like revenge fantasy

[Sleeper Cell]

28 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

 

If I did not support the Justice's of the Supreme Court, I would not take the trouble to go somewhere just so I could yell out my dissent. This is America, love it or leave it.

 

Try yelling out your dissent against a judge while in that judge’s courtroom (or in any other judge’s courtroom) and see what happens.  For that matter, try yelling out your dissent while you are in a polling place or (if memory serves) within 100 feet of a polling place.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

CFR please. This sounds like revenge fantasy

You want a CFR for a future event?

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, ERMD said:

If I did not sustain the leaders of the Church, I would not take the trouble to go to conference just so I could yell out my dissent.  It's too bad that someone who would have enjoyed attending in person was denied a seat given to someone whose goal was to cause a public spectacle.

We have every right to not sustain. We just have to have a well substantiated reason to not do so.

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Try yelling out your dissent against a judge while in that judge’s courtroom (or in any other judge’s courtroom) and see what happens.  For that matter, try yelling out your dissent while you are in a polling place or (if memory serves) within 100 feet of a polling place.  

Did the judge just ask for vote from any one in the audience who is opposed? Or are you just bothered by the fact those dissenting in conference are yelling, not by the fact they are dissenting?

 

[Deborah]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If you are right, then the problem is that we have the whole tradition and protocol about the sustaining vote that isn't clearly stated. 

I agree. i think someone needs to explain this clearly. Although with the numerous times leaders have gotten up in church and explained little children who need their parents to repeat everything for them in testimony meeting should have children bear their testimonies in FHE or in Primary meetings, not in Sacrament meeting, some people won't be listening.

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by Deborah

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Did the judge just ask for vote from any one in the audience who is opposed? Or are you just bothered by the fact those dissenting in conference are yelling, not by the fact they are dissenting?

I am not bothered by the dissent, but by the yelling.  IMO, those who dissent should raise their hands when asked to do so.

The judge asks the jurors to vote but, in my experience, does not allow them to yell out in court.  As a juror, I expressed my concerns to the judge in written communications handed to the bailiff, or by raising my hand in court.  (On the one occasion the judge acknowledged my upraised hand,  I was not permitted me to speak).

As I previously mentioned, voters -- while in or near a polling place  -- are not allowed to yell out their dissent.  Indeed, in both of my examples (the courtroom and the polling place), those who yell out their dissent risk being thrown in jail.  As you say, “this is America.  Love it or leave it.“

BTW, as far as I know, those who yell out their dissenting votes in conference don’t even risk being thrown out of the meeting.  

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, the Brethren DO ask if anyone opposes.  If we aren't willing to accept and opposing vote, we ought not ask. 

I do believe the expectation would be the same as those who do not oppose.  Raise the hand but not say anything.

[Kevin Christensen]

A reminder. Some years ago, while my wife was preparing for a Relief Society Lesson on “Sustaining our Leaders,” we decided to look up “sustain” in a good dictionary.  The results proved amazingly enlightening:
1. to keep up; maintain prolong.
2. to supply as with food or provisions.
3. to hold up, support
4. to bear, endure
5. to suffer; experience: “She sustained a broken leg.”
6. to allow: to admit, to favor
7. to agree with; confirm
If I permit myself to consider the full range of meanings for the word “sustain” I can also see a full range of options to employ in dealing with other LDS members in all their varieties of temperament, maturity, and level and quality of knowledge.  

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[ERMD]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

We have every right to not sustain. We just have to have a well substantiated reason to not do so.

You miss the point.

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

I am not bothered by the dissent, but by the yelling.  IMO, those who dissent should raise their hands when asked to do so.

The judge asks the jurors to vote but, in my experience, does not allow them to yell out in court.  As a juror, I expressed my concerns to the judge in written communications handed to the bailiff, or by raising my hand in court.  (On the one occasion the judge acknowledged my upraised hand,  I was not permitted me to speak).

As I previously mentioned, voters -- while in or near a polling place  -- are not allowed to yell out their dissent.  Indeed, in both of my examples (the courtroom and the polling place), those who yell out their dissent risk being thrown in jail.  As you say, “this is America.  Love it or leave it.“

BTW, as far as I know, those who yell out their dissenting votes in conference don’t even risk being thrown out of the meeting.  

I can certainly understand being uncomfortable with someone yelling next to me in a situation that I desire to be respectful, but we have a long history of dissent in this country and usually it is done by trying to attract attention to the dissent itself. Your example of within a courtroom is not analogous to a conference meeting since, AFAIK, those vocally dissenting in conference are breaking no laws. Yes I know some see it as bad form or manners but that is all it is. So until they are actually breaking a law, this is America, they get to yell at conference, that others would not do so, or that there are some very controlled situations where forbidding yelling is legally enforceable, is irrelevant.

 

 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I can certainly understand being uncomfortable with someone yelling next to me in a situation that I desire to be respectful, but we have a long history of dissent in this country and usually it is done by trying to attract attention to the dissent itself. Your example of within a courtroom is not analogous to a conference meeting since, AFAIK, those vocally dissenting in conference are breaking no laws. Yes I know some see it as bad form or manners but that is all it is. So until they are actually breaking a law, this is America, they get to yell at conference, that others would not do so, or that there are some very controlled situations where forbidding yelling is legally enforceable, is irrelevant.

 

 

Yeah, we have to let them get away with it.......until the Danites break their kneecaps anyways.

[Sleeper Cell]

59 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I can certainly understand being uncomfortable with someone yelling next to me in a situation that I desire to be respectful, but we have a long history of dissent in this country and usually it is done by trying to attract attention to the dissent itself. Your example of within a courtroom is not analogous to a conference meeting since, AFAIK, those vocally dissenting in conference are breaking no laws. Yes I know some see it as bad form or manners but that is all it is. So until they are actually breaking a law, this is America, they get to yell at conference, that others would not do so, or that there are some very controlled situations where forbidding yelling is legally enforceable, is irrelevant

So, in America, the government has a greater right to restrict the expression of dissent in the public sphere than a church has to restrict the expression of dissent in the religious sphere of a worship service it is conducting in its own church buildings?  Are you serious?  

Do you really believe that in America, anybody has a constitutional right to yell or even speak during a church meeting held on the church’s own private property, unless the church permits them to do so?   

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

If you are right, then the problem is that we have the whole tradition and protocol about the sustaining vote that isn't clearly stated.  It's part of the "unwritten order of things" and we are getting mad at someone for not conforming. 

If the Church wants to pretend that it is asking for sustaining votes and then asks for notices of objection, then we need to accept the consequences.  If that is not the case, then I suggest any of the following changes:

- Have Pres. Uchtdorf stand and say "We present the following leaders as those who have been set apart in their specified offices.  We do this for informational purposes only, and if any within the sound of my voice object, please speak with your local Stake President, if you even know who that is."

- Have Pres. Uchtdorf say "We present the following leaders and would like to give you an opportunity to express your willingness to sustain them in their callings.  This isn't the proper forum to express your opposition, so when I ask if any are opposed, please don't say anything."

Because based on the responses in this thread, that seems to be what people are understanding him to have said.

Well said.  I agree. 

[Duncan]

Does anyone know who these folks even are? 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Does anyone know who these folks even are? 

There was some sort of informal group at one point called "Any Opposed", I think.  But I haven't heard anything about/from that group lately.  I don't know if those who opposed today have anything to do with that group.  

 

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

So, in America, the government has a greater right to restrict the expression of dissent in the public sphere than a church has to restrict the expression of dissent in the religious sphere of a worship service it is conducting in its own church buildings?  Are you serious?  

Do you really believe that in America, anybody has a constitutional right to yell or even speak during a church meeting held on the church’s own private property, unless the church permits them to do so?   

The yelling or speaking was in response to a vote that was requested.  I see no evidence that the brethren want to restrict this.  That seems to be coming from you and others on this board.  I feel that honest feedback is always preferable to silent compliance.   

 

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

The yelling or speaking was in response to a vote that was requested.  I see no evidence that the brethren want to restrict this.  That seems to be coming from you and others on this board.  I feel that honest feedback is always preferable to silent compliance.

IIRC, it was also requested that the members vote by raising their hands.   To me, that sure seems to be evidence that the brethren want to restrict the voting to those means.  Virtually everybody else attending general conference also seem to understand that the brethren want to restrict voting to these means.  Have you ever heard anyone yell out a  “yes” vote?  Are we to believe that those who refuse to sustain the leaders of the church are more likely to listen to and understand what these leaders are saying than those who vote to sustain them?   

I also believe that honest feedback is preferable to silent compliance.  Hence my earlier statement in this thread:

“I am not bothered by the dissent, but by the yelling.  IMO, those who dissent should raise their hands when asked to do so.”  

BTW, the emphasis on “should” was in my original post

[pcarthew]

On 4/2/2016 at 6:35 AM, rockpond said:

Well, the Brethren DO ask if anyone opposes.  If we aren't willing to accept and opposing vote, we ought not ask. 

The sign that we use to sustain or to rightfully oppose if we so desire, is to raise our hand. Those sustaining do not yell out.  You may raise your hand in opposition, then you are able to go to your stake president and discuss it with him.  However, those who oppose verbally are not removed or asked to leave.  The polite observation is made by the member of the FP who is presenting the officers of the church for sustaining.  

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, pcarthew said:

The sign that we use to sustain or to rightfully oppose if we so desire, is to raise our hand. Those sustaining do not yell out.  You may raise your hand in opposition, then you are able to go to your stake president and discuss it with him.  However, those who oppose verbally are not removed or asked to leave.  The polite observation is made by the member of the FP who is presenting the officers of the church for sustaining.  

I understand good etiquette and yelling in conference clearly doesn't qualify.

My point is that if the presiding officer cannot see the hands that are raised, I don't see how we are actually following the principle of common consent.

It took people yelling for the FP to even make a comment about talking to your stake president.  Even then, if voices aren't heard, than no opposing votes would even be noted.  And talking to one's stake president isn't going to do anything to note an opposing vote with the presiding officer who asked for the vote in the first place.

 

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

So, in America, the government has a greater right to restrict the expression of dissent in the public sphere than a church has to restrict the expression of dissent in the religious sphere of a worship service it is conducting in its own church buildings?  Are you serious?  

Do you really believe that in America, anybody has a constitutional right to yell or even speak during a church meeting held on the church’s own private property, unless the church permits them to do so?   

The church to which you are referring is located in America. Obviously the government has a greater right than to restrict what is going on in its boundaries, than any other body, private or public, within its boundaries. That seems so self evident I have a hard time understanding why you are even questioning it.

The answer to your second question is yes I do, they have a right to yell and the church has the right to remove them. Both rights are protected. I think you are confusing manners and decorum with legalities. Is there any law that prohibits a person from yelling like these demonstrators are doing in a church? (Public safety laws excluded, obviously one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded building.)