pam Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 So this seems to be the latest thing for upcoming General Conference. A group was organized to secure tickets for conference sessions so those who use these tickets can oppose the sustaining of leaders. http://anyopposed.org/press-release-mormons-to-cast-opposing-vote-at-lds-general-confernce/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 '70s all over again, but probably worse. Pathetic losers. I should feel compassion and pity, but I feel only disgust. Daybreak79, EarlJibbs, pam and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 What, will it get to the point that you have to have a temple recommend to attend general conference? Last weekend there was a regional conference broadcast to something like 200 stakes in Idaho. One of the main talks was about how we have too much contention between us. These kinds of groups are the source of a lot of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 '70s all over again, but probably worse. Pathetic losers. I should feel compassion and pity, but I feel only disgust. What happened in the 70's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 People objecting at General Conference because of the Church's open stance against the ERA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I remember when people voted against sustaining President Kimball at General Conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I started to read the press release but only got as far as the second paragraph and then gave up. Its outside my area of interest or concern. I thought for a moment or two that perhaps I should read all of it, out of a sense of duty to keep myself informed about things that matter to me, but no, I really don't need this stuff and it has no impact or relevance for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I started to read the press release but only got as far as the second paragraph and then gave up. Its outside my area of interest or concern. I thought for a moment or two that perhaps I should read all of it, out of a sense of duty to keep myself informed about things that matter to me, but no, I really don't need this stuff and it has no impact or relevance for me. Other than it could possibly cause quite a commotion during the conference session. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 What, will it get to the point that you have to have a temple recommend to attend general conference? Last weekend there was a regional conference broadcast to something like 200 stakes in Idaho. One of the main talks was about how we have too much contention between us. These kinds of groups are the source of a lot of it.That was a fabulous conference!! Loved it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) It happened at 3 or 4 conferences in the early 1980s as well. Everything old is new again.I love how the website promises to protect anonymity, whilst similarly gloating that "no voters" have traditionally gotten a face-to-face meeting with a GA. Make up your mind, kids--do you want the GAs to know who you are, or don't you? Edited March 9, 2015 by Just_A_Guy Blackmarch and Backroads 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Well they won't be anonymous if they oppose and are invited to meet with I'm assuming President Packer since he is the President of the 12. When those opposed the sustaining of President Kimball they were invited to meet with President Hinckley who was president of the 12 at the time. Daybreak79 and Backroads 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I believe President Benson was actually the president of the Q12 at that point. President Hinckley was a counselor in the 1st Presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crypto Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm not against people being opposed, but I cringe and view with suspicion secret works. Who is putting this together? What should be opposed? Why are people opposed? It kinda reads to me as be opposed for the sake of being opposed, while I hope not to diminish the concerns of people, that is how it reads to me. Maybe this could cause a regional opposed vote reporting system to be implemented.(If there isn't one already, possibly called reporting to priesthood authority) Beccabee2 and Blackmarch 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 My formal response to this is "Meh." But I do object to this guy's template letter of opposition (for those who wish to oppose without attending Conference); he only provides a template for males! FamilyHistoryWannabe and Backroads 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 But more seriously, the guy behind this is clearly upset that the essays on race and polygamy don't represent history in the way he thinks it should be represented. There is some merit to that stance. I don't agree with the way he is trying to express his concerns, but I get where he's coming from. If this helps him sleep at night, so be it. For what it's worth, as of 8:30 AM EST today, there have been 27 tickets requested, 11 tickets promised, and 0 tickets received. This probably hasn't picked up much traction yet, but I don't think it will pick up a whole lot. RMGuy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I believe President Benson was actually the president of the Q12 at that point. President Hinckley was a counselor in the 1st Presidency. N. Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney were counselors at the time this happened. But you are right that President Benson was president of the 12 the time. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng#watch=video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Yeah; as I recall Kimball had three counselors for a while and Hinckley was one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 So, how did they deal with the "opposed" as regards to Kimball? My understanding is that all these have to be resolved before the keys can be given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 So, how did they deal with the "opposed" as regards to Kimball? My understanding is that all these have to be resolved before the keys can be given.I have never heard that. But in President Kimball's case, it's irrelevant; he was already the president of the Church, and so already held the keys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I have never heard that. But in President Kimball's case, it's irrelevant; he was already the president of the Church, and so already held the keys. Okay. So he was already prophet. That makes sense. But, regardless... those opposed still needs to be resolved. My understanding of sustaining votes is that it's not a democratic majority type of system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 We will probably never know what was discussed because that is not information that would be put out publicly. Daybreak79 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Okay. So he was already prophet. That makes sense.But, regardless... those opposed still needs to be resolved. My understanding of sustaining votes is that it's not a democratic majority type of system. It really isn't a democratic system. But it isn't an all-must-consent system either. Those with they keys to set apart a person to the calling in question have the ultimate say in the matter. On a local level, if a person were to oppose the sustaining of a bishop, the stake president would meet with the dissenter to determine the reason behind the opposition. The stake president then has to decide if the reasoning is strong enough to prevent the sustaining ("that man had an affair with my wife last week") or not ("he wouldn't help me install my surround sound system, so he must not understand the meaning of service.") If the stake president sees no reason to put a halt on the sustaining, the bishop may be sustained over the objections of the few. In the case of the president of the church, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve would hear out the opposition. If he felt there were a valid cause not to sustain the prophet, and he could gain the support of the entirety of his Quorum, then the Quorum of the Twelve could move not to sustain the prophet. Such an action would likely precipitate excommunication of the prophet, however, and would probably require a very grievous and substantiated case for opposing the sustaining. Backroads, pam, Daybreak79 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EarlJibbs Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Let them oppose, I say. It will bring about a great discussion at the Ward level about the process and sustaining of our leaders. If people lose their faith over it, that probably would have happened for less anyway. Honestly, if I really opposed someone being sustained weather in a conference or a chapel, I most likely wouldn't raise my hand to oppose them during the meeting. I would take it up immediately afterwards though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I continue to be amazed at those who consider themselves to be faithful LDS, but who seek support and comfort for their issues of contention from secular media. I read the OP article at the realclearreligion website. In-house church battles are never pleasant, but when they get aired out in Caesar's arena, it is truly sad. Edited March 10, 2015 by prisonchaplain Vort, notquiteperfect, Jane_Doe and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishcolleen Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 If they are opposed to church leaders/policy/doctrine why don't they just leave the LDS church? I don't understand why people stay where they are not happy. Saldrin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.