Why things are not perfect in the church

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Please tell me no one yelled out 'oppose' this time! Honestly, I had thought they had grown out of such things!

If members in the audience are given the choice to either sustain or oppose, why is that a bad thing?

M.

[Anddenex]

9 minutes ago, Maureen said:

If members in the audience are given the choice to either sustain or oppose, why is that a bad thing?

M.

Maureen, this isn't a new discussion for you. The given choice to oppose is through a sign "uplifted right hand" not a vocal, prideful, shout "NOOOO" or "OPPOSED." This is the same for wards business and stake business, no matter the size of the audience. The given sign is enough as it maintains reverence, rather than the prideful wanting their voice heard in a meeting that has already been given and stated, multiple times, if you raise your hand in opposition then talk with your local authority (stake president) to address your opposition. 

[Maureen]

5 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Maureen, this isn't a new discussion for you. The given choice to oppose is through a sign "uplifted right hand" not a vocal, prideful, shout "NOOOO" or "OPPOSED." This is the same for wards business and stake business, no matter the size of the audience. The given sign is enough as it maintains reverence, rather than the prideful wanting their voice heard in a meeting that has already been given and stated, multiple times, if you raise your hand in opposition then talk with your local authority (stake president) to address your opposition. 

It's not that they oppose it's how they oppose. You do realize though that a few hands raised in opposition to the thousand hands raised in sustainment is not as noticeable.

So if you are in the audience during General Conference and a few people next to you were to raise their hands in opposition, you would find that acceptable?

M.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

It's not that they oppose it's how they oppose.

Yes, and no. This also includes the reason for opposing. The option to "oppose" pertains to the worthiness of the individual being sustained to hold the calling they have been called to: male or female. What has the individual done to make them unworthy of their calling?  How and why a person opposes is very important. These individuals yelling out in a formal meeting are no different than those who called Joseph Smith a "fallen" prophet. 

The size of an audience is moot to opposing. There are proper manners of behavior to be maintained no matter the size of the audience. If in a ward a person opposes in the back, and the one conducting doesn't see the sign, if the person then yells out "NOOOO" or "I OPPOSE" they would be wrong. They can maintain reverence and speak with the bishop at the conclusion of the meeting. The yelling in a formal meeting, says more about the person opposing than it does the person who is being opposed. 

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

So if you are in the audience during General Conference and a few people next to you were to raise their hands in opposition, you would find that acceptable?

Yes, of course. This is why the option to "Oppose" is given, as someone in the audience may know something the current leadership may not know. The appropriate sign is given, and I have no objection against someone raising their hand to oppose. As long as the proper reverence is maintained, the sign given, that is all that matters. The individual who opposed can then speak with their local stake leader as to reasons for their opposition. If it truly is something that pertains to worthiness and not a personal dislike, then it will be brought to the attention to the appropriate leader, and then up to the leading body of the Church.

I will give you an example of a rightful opposition that was given when a young men was called and then to be sustained to the priesthood. When his name was given, and the signs requested, a mother opposed. In a private meeting the mother gave her reason. Evidence and witnesses were given. The young man was not worthy to hold the priesthood and did not receive the priesthood. 

The right to oppose is founded upon the principle of worthiness. What has a person done that would make them unworthy of the calling being received, or being sustained that they are already in? Our person opinions have no right in such avenues. I will give a personal example of an individual I nearly did oppose. I worked for the individual. The individual sought to fire me three times over a lie that was told about me. If not for the president of the company actually seeking evidence I would have been let go. We were in the same ward when he was being sustained to a position of leadership. As his name was given I thought carefully if I should raise my hand to oppose, as I was concerned with regard to how I was treated in the workforce by this man. As I pondered and prayed silently, the spirit attested to me that he had done nothing that would make him unworthy of the calling being received. I did not oppose. My personal distrust, dislike, had no place in opposing an individual to the calling being received. These individuals who are yelling, I am 100% confident these individuals have no good reason to oppose their worthiness. They are progressive Mormons with an agenda and they want to be heard; otherwise, they would maintain reverence and give the sign and then report to their local leader.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Anddenex

[pam]

They usually yell at no.  But I missed that session so I don't know if anyone opposed this time.

[Traveler]

8 hours ago, Maureen said:

It's not that they oppose it's how they oppose. You do realize though that a few hands raised in opposition to the thousand hands raised in sustainment is not as noticeable.

So if you are in the audience during General Conference and a few people next to you were to raise their hands in opposition, you would find that acceptable?

M.

Sustaining is not a vote for or against someone but more of a recognition that they have received the call and you are willing to sustain (help) them and the L-rd in completing or magnifying the call.  However, if someone is a member in good standing (supports that the Church can call officially to serve in the L-rd Kingdom) and they have personal knowledge that they are unworthy for the call, then they should go before their local leadership and so testify.  But I would also point out that if someone is aware of anyone requiring disciplinary counsel that they should go first to their local Priesthood leaders regardless of any call.  I personally know of someone that was not sustained by and individual and because of the witness brought before the Priesthood leaders that the person was never set aside for the calling.

It used to be that if someone was released from a calling for disciplinary reasons that such was announced before the Church – but that does not happen anymore.  I believe this is to avoid ostracizing someone and making repentance difficult.  If someone is not worthy for a calling – I do not believe that unless there are unusual circumstance that such things need to be made know to everybody in the public meeting of the Church.  Individual worthiness is not something to be discussed in meetings intended for worshiping and renewing covenants.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Maureen said:

It's not that they oppose it's how they oppose.

As @Anddenex said, it's about why they oppose.  The particular group that does this is specifically doing this because they don't believe the apostles are called of God.  It has nothing to do with "worthiness" in the traditional sense.  They simply don't have a testimony that this Church has God's earthly representatives speaking to the populace.

This is pretty serious.  While the discussion could go on and on, my reaction is -- if they don't support and sustain them, then what are they doing in the faith?  They aren't hoping to gain a testimony of the apostolic callings.  They aren't doing it to help anyone -- including themselves.  They stay solely for the purpose of being rabble-rousers.  Nothing more.  That is what we object to.

[Traveler]

 

One of the concepts of the “Kingdom of G-d” – meaning his church – is that G-d is willing to take anyone and everyone into his Kingdom.  Often we think of the higher reaches of heaven as the place for the cream of the crop but the reality is that G-d seems to work best with humanities worse.  The best is usually too prideful.  Seldom do we see or realize how far a person has come that is following the path or way of G-d.  We tend to see other more popular things as the fruits of goodness.  Seldom are the saints of G-d about the things one will find with the “in” or popular crowd.

Pending on what we thinking we are looking for we may not find the saints of G-d any more to our liking than anyone else.  I know of members called to serve at our state prison system – one couple in our ward was just released from a call to serve in the youth detention center where most are members of violent gangs.  They talked about the spirit they often felt with dealing with the troubled youth; many that could not last a week without ending back up in the system.

At the same time – there are many religious institutions that do a great deal of good – at least in helping mortals get through this mortal existence.  But G-d is not just about getting his children though a mortal experience.  He is most concerned about eternal things. 

The purpose of G-d is to prepare man for eternal blessings.  This can only happen through covenant with G-d and his appointed proxies.  I read recently in another thread on this forum written by a non-LDS that they did not believe man can serve as a G-d.  I have come to realize through personal experience with G-d that through every commandment given by G-d that we are expected to serve others even as he does – that G-d is preparing us and expecting us to serve in eternity as G-d serves – that our service is one with G-d’s.  The doctrine that we are to remain less loving, compassionate, just and merciful forever in eternity I have come to understand as the very excuse and doctrine of devils.

 

The Traveler

[NightSG]

On 9/29/2016 at 4:55 PM, anatess2 said:

Case in point... the comparable divorce rates between Catholics and Mormons... I mean, yeah, Mormons has a 3% higher divorce rate than Catholics.  BUT... divorce/remarriage is against Canon Law...

Nah.  The LDS divorce rate is clearly the fault of high fructose corn syrup: 87% correlation.

Oddly, though HFCS also seems to be the main driving force for marriage in Utah: 94% correlation.

My theory is that too much HFCS makes people make poor choices of life partners too quickly.

Edited October 4, 2016 by NightSG

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Nah.  The LDS divorce rate is clearly the fault of high fructose corn syrup: 87% correlation.

Oddly, though HFCS also seems to be the main driving force for marriage in Utah: 94% correlation.

My theory is that too much HFCS makes people make poor choices of life partners too quickly.

You're right!  How did I miss that???

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

You're right!  How did I miss that???

You should really get the sugar producers to start pushing these charts hard.

[askandanswer]

What are the correlations between marriage, divorce and bacon consumption? I'm guessing that excessive bacon consumption, if there is such a thing, could lead to a premature end to an earthly marriage as a result of the consumer suffering from obesity or heart attack.

[NightSG]

http://xkcd.com/552/

[Guest MormonGator]

On October 2, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Maureen said:

It's not that they oppose it's how they oppose. You do realize though that a few hands raised in opposition to the thousand hands raised in sustainment is not as noticeable.

So if you are in the audience during General Conference and a few people next to you were to raise their hands in opposition, you would find that acceptable?

M.

Maureen I really understand what you are saying and it makes sense to me. 

However in my view, I think it's rude to interrupt a speaker and ruin it for everyone around you. You have every right totally to object, but do it with class and manners. IE, @Anddenex and I are sitting near each other during General Conference. President Eyering asks, "All those in favor, please raise your hand." @Anddenex politely raises his hand and doesn't say a word. President Eyering asks, "Anyone opposed by the same sign" and I jump up and down yelling with my hand raised. I have humiliated not only myself, but my friend @Anddenex who invited me to general conference as well. It's disrespectful to him not because I opposed, by how I did it. 

No, I don't oppose the apostles and leadership of the church. I sustain them as well. I've never been to general conference and I am sure @Anddenex would rather drink bleach then sit near me during one (Just playing @Anddenex! Or maybe not. lol). Just trying to explain to Marueen how we might feel about this objecting thing. 

 

Hope this helps Maureen. You know how much I like and respect you! 

Edited October 6, 2016 by MormonGator

[Maureen]

Thanks @MormonGator. Like @Anddenexmentioned, this subject has come up before and I just needed a reminder about why "shouting" an objection is not the correct way to do it in GC.

I also like to understand exactly what is acceptable in "choice" situations. The LDS Church does preach free agency, so it's nice to know if they (members), let co-members practice it.

M.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Maureen

[NightSG]

On 10/2/2016 at 3:24 PM, Maureen said:

You do realize though that a few hands raised in opposition to the thousand hands raised in sustainment is not as noticeable.

http://www.foamhands.com/foam-hands-and-mitts/15-5-finger-foam-hand.html

[Maureen]

16 minutes ago, NightSG said:

http://www.foamhands.com/foam-hands-and-mitts/15-5-finger-foam-hand.html

LOL! Those would be great IMO, but I suspect the typical Mormon would not think these would show proper reverence.

M.

[NightSG]

21 minutes ago, Maureen said:

LOL! Those would be great IMO, but I suspect the typical Mormon would not think these would show proper reverence.

I'm sure they're available in white with a BYU logo.

[Larry Cotrell]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

I'm sure they're available in white with a BYU logo.

What about raising a paw in opposition?

I posted a picture of said foam paw but it didn't show up.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[NightSG]

13 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

What about raising a paw in opposition?

Might reduce the temptation for certain people to remove some of the fingers from the hand, leaving it in a less-appropriate configuration.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I posted a picture of said foam paw but it didn't show up.

Adding a photo is a two step process.  You may have just not followed through.

First, you drag the jpg or other image file to the space provided in your posting window.  Then you hit the "add" or "plus" button to actually insert it.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Adding a photo is a two step process.  You may have just not followed through.

First, you drag the jpg or other image file to the space provided in your posting window.  Then you hit the "add" or "plus" button to actually insert it.

What is the procedure for getting the @handle inserted properly?

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What is the procedure for getting the @handle inserted properly?

 

The Traveler

It's a bit touchy, unfortunately.  

1) First type the @ symbol.

2) Then type the handle of the person you wish to mention.

Where it gets touchy is that sometimes it works with a space between the @ and the handle.  Other times, you do NOT enter the space.  Then there are times when the system won't pull up any list of names at all, in which case you just have some text with no link or intelligence to it.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Guest

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

What is the procedure for getting the @handle inserted properly?

 

The Traveler

 

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It's a bit touchy, unfortunately.  

1) First type the @ symbol.

2) Then type the handle of the person you wish to mention.

Where it gets touchy is that sometimes it works with a space between the @ and the handle.  Other times, you do NOT enter the space.  Then there are times when the system won't pull up any list of names at all, in which case you just have some text with no link or intelligence to it.

For me, I have to actually click or select the name from the dropdown. I can't just hit enter and assume a default was selected (text is the default).

[Traveler]

@Carborendum and @mordorbund  okay sometimes it works and sometimes all the suggestions do not work.  Thanks the same

 

The Traveler