If you're not in the First Presidency...

[CMZ]

This is a repeat of a post of mine from almost exactly ten years ago. With the solemn assembly coming up on Saturday morning to sustain a new president of the Church please remember that they do the sustaining in a certain order, starting with the First Presidency and then going through other priesthood quorums, to the Relief Society, Young Women, etc. This means that the new First Presidency is sustained first by the First Presidency (themselves), then they are sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, then I guess all the Seventy at once, then I believe the Presiding Bishopric and so on throughout the Church. But what seems to happen every single time is that the person conducting will ask for the First Presidency to sustain themselves and a bunch of people in the Conference Center (or the tabernacle) raise their hands. When this happened ten years ago President/Elder Uchtdorf actually kind of snickered at the fact that people weren't paying attention. And even when he called attention people still continued to vote/sustain at the wrong time. Maybe we as a church can get it right this time if we properly educate everyone on how this works. Strangely, in the thread from a decade ago there were people that got upset at me for bringing this up and said that if they felt like sustaining the First Presidency when only the First Presidency (or some other group the commenter wasn't actually in) was asked to sustain the First Presidency then, by golly, they were going to do it and I shouldn't say anything about it. My concern really is just for people to truly pay attention. I do get that it's tricky because we are so used to sustainings in the Church where pretty much everyone present is asked to sustain or not sustain and it can be hard to get out of that mode. I get that we don't typically see only the First Presidency being asked to sustain themselves, followed by the Quorum of the Twelve being asked to sustain the First Presidency, and so on. I get that. But if we pay attention to the rare times when it's more nuanced than that then I think that will be a good thing. I will also add that I have no personal knowledge of whether or not there might be some change to how they approach things this time around. I think with the sustaining of every prior new prophet there were some little changes over how it had just been done with the prior one.

[e-eye]

I sustain your motion and proceed to not sustain ,when we are not called to sustain those being sustained.

[rpn]

I would so love it if they started with the 12-17 year old girls rather than the men, why should they come after the boys their age?   And why should women come after Elders?   Letting women go first has always been an expected social respect.  

And do you know for sure it is going to be in the Saturday AM meeting rather than saturday afternoon when sustainings usually happen?

Edited March 29, 2018 by rpn

[CV75]

2 hours ago, CMZ said:

This is a repeat of a post of mine from almost exactly ten years ago. With the solemn assembly coming up on Saturday morning to sustain a new president of the Church please remember that they do the sustaining in a certain order, starting with the First Presidency and then going through other priesthood quorums, to the Relief Society, Young Women, etc. This means that the new First Presidency is sustained first by the First Presidency (themselves), then they are sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, then I guess all the Seventy at once, then I believe the Presiding Bishopric and so on throughout the Church. But what seems to happen every single time is that the person conducting will ask for the First Presidency to sustain themselves and a bunch of people in the Conference Center (or the tabernacle) raise their hands. When this happened ten years ago President/Elder Uchtdorf actually kind of snickered at the fact that people weren't paying attention. And even when he called attention people still continued to vote/sustain at the wrong time. Maybe we as a church can get it right this time if we properly educate everyone on how this works. Strangely, in the thread from a decade ago there were people that got upset at me for bringing this up and said that if they felt like sustaining the First Presidency when only the First Presidency (or some other group the commenter wasn't actually in) was asked to sustain the First Presidency then, by golly, they were going to do it and I shouldn't say anything about it. My concern really is just for people to truly pay attention. I do get that it's tricky because we are so used to sustainings in the Church where pretty much everyone present is asked to sustain or not sustain and it can be hard to get out of that mode. I get that we don't typically see only the First Presidency being asked to sustain themselves, followed by the Quorum of the Twelve being asked to sustain the First Presidency, and so on. I get that. But if we pay attention to the rare times when it's more nuanced than that then I think that will be a good thing. I will also add that I have no personal knowledge of whether or not there might be some change to how they approach things this time around. I think with the sustaining of every prior new prophet there were some little changes over how it had just been done with the prior one.

People can also get confused over common consent, which is also carried out within smaller scopes than the general membership (D&C 104:71-72 refers to the "common consent of the order").

[Duncan]

If you watch the Solemn assemblies' from Pres. Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball it took SO LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when Pres. Benson was his Prophetic successors were sustained they drastically cut it down. I can only imagine people like Howard W. Hunter, Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson were sitting there in like 1972 and 1974, they were thinking , yep, we might want to tweek some of this!!! sitting here bored out of my mind for half an hour!!!

[Amulek]

So if I raise my hand early, do I get to be in the First Presidency? 

If so, you'll be in for a treat come April Fool's day....

"Following President Oaks' remarks, the choir and congregation will stand and sing Bohemian Rhapsody, following which President Nelson will be our concluding speaker. The choir will then sing God Be With You 'Til We Meet Again, and the conference will be adjourned for six months. President Oaks." 

 

[stemelbow]

It seems we'll be seeing more and more people standing up and saying no.  Hopefully whoever is conducting will get all snickery and perhaps a bit condescending if anyone eager to get up and say no does so when the first presidency in their eminence are to sustain first.  "oh...are you really a member of the 1st presidency" they'll say "that's news to all of us".  

[theplains]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It seems we'll be seeing more and more people standing up and saying no.  Hopefully whoever is conducting will get all snickery and perhaps a bit condescending if anyone eager to get up and say no does so when the first presidency in their eminence are to sustain first.  "oh...are you really a member of the 1st presidency" they'll say "that's news to all of us".  

Have you heard of any cases of people getting up and say "no" when it comes time to sustain or not?  

Jim

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, theplains said:

Have you heard of any cases of people getting up and say "no" when it comes time to sustain or not?  

Jim

You can hear them now pretty much every conference where we do sustaining.

I have seen it happen a few times on the local level.

[CMZ]

9 hours ago, rpn said:

And do you know for sure it is going to be in the Saturday AM meeting rather than saturday afternoon when sustainings usually happen?

No, I do not. There is no eternal doctrine dictating any of this, but usually (~95% of the time) "regular old" sustainings take place in the Saturday afternoon sessions but it tends to be Saturday morning sessions when there is a solemn assembly sustaining of a new president of the Church.

[Marginal Gains]

What percentage of the vote does Nelson need to be considered ‘sustained’?

[CMZ]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What percentage of the vote does Nelson need to be considered ‘sustained’?

50.0000000000000001%

[CMZ]

It seems that this time that things worked out better when President Eyring mentioned three different times before the actual sustainings took place that you are only supposed to stand when your group is invited to do so. They also did an interesting thing where they saved the rest of the sustainings for the afternoon session.