I  was running late on my way down to Layton, UT for a mission reunion. We were watching the Saturday Afternoon session of General Conference together, and I was about 15 minutes away when the broadcast started. I flipped on my car radio and tuned in as they began reading the names of the General Authorities for a sustaining vote. As the names of the first presidency were read and the vote requested, I silently raised my hand as a personal message to myself that I sustain Thomas S. Monson and his two counselors. I sat there reflecting about the oddity of the situation. There I was, wandering through the suburban maze of Layton, UT, hopelessly lost; and yet, I felt an obligation to show my personal support for our leaders, knowing full well that only me and the bearded man mowing his lawn and giving me funny looks would see it. As President Uchtdorf moved on, I focused again on finding my destination. Moments later I was surprised to hear shouts of “Opposed! Opposed!” drifting out my car radio. I literally stopped my car and sat there listening, the lawn-mowing man now staring me down with contempt. “What was that I just heard?” I thought. “I’ve never heard someone do that. What does this mean? How do they handle this?” As any of you who watched or listened to the broadcast are well aware, President Uchtdorf took it in stride, inviting those opposed to speak with their stake presidents about the reasons for their opposition.

While I had never heard of this happening before, I can say I wasn’t overly shocked, considering recent events such as the excommunications of both John Dehlin and Kate Kelly, as well as other controversial social issues with which the church has been involved. Later, while researching the events of the day, I discovered that the whole thing was a stunt that had been planned in advance, and that President Uchtdorf was more than likely expecting this to happen. Still, as I sat there pondering, the faint sound of sprinklers echoing in my thoughts, I questioned, “Can they do that?” The answer is a resounding, “Of course they can.”  Here’s why:

The “Law of Common Consent” is found in the Doctrine & Covenants in several places, such as section 26 verse two and 28 verse 13. In short, the  “Law of Common Consent” states that everything in the Church is to be agreed upon by the body of the Church as a whole. So, in other words, these members were well within their rights to oppose the sustaining of church officers. For one thing, church leaders literally ask for it. Asking for an opposing vote is not a ploy to weed out the unbelievers, it’s a serious request, and such opposition isn’t new–it has happened in past conferences. Samantha Shelley wrote an excellent article outlining some of the history of dissenting votes in the Church. We recommend you check it out here: http://www.whatsoeverisgood.com/the-right-to-oppose/

So what does this mean? Is President Monson getting thrown out? Is Dieter F. Uchtdorf going back to his day job flying planes?  Of course not.  So how are we, as a membership, meant to react to this?

Watching social media has been interesting in the wake of this, in historic and contextual terms, really insignificant event.  I’ve seen members condemning the actions of these people, calling them anything from disgruntled ex-mormons to attention-seekers. Thankfully, the conversation has evolved into most people simply declaring that they sustain Thomas S. Monson as prophet, an action that is perfectly appropriate, though perhaps somewhat unnecessarygiven that we literally all just had the chance to do that in conference.

Personally, I’m somewhat surprised at the initial reaction to the opposed votes. It perhaps highlights one of the issues these people were trying to make a statement about. Many people in the Church feel that they can’t voice their concerns about Church doctrine or the actions of Church leaders for fear that they will face social or official consequences. Let me just say, I think this thinking is flawed. There is plenty of room in the Church for questions and even doubts.  Numerous General Authorities have recently spoken on this very topic–Sister Wixom, for example, discussed doubts and questions in this morning’s conference session–and they have encouraged members to be active and involved in their congregations, no matter the level of their testimony. Despite this, there is a prevalent culture in the Church that often assumes that someone with questions is ready to leave the Church, or perhaps working against it. This culture is damaging and unproductive to the inclusive mission of the Church. In our digital age, it’s easy for anyone to find all the “evidence” they need, whether true or not, to decide to leave the Church, and if we reject those struggling with unresolved questions, then we are in no way fulfilling the Savior’s injunction in the Doctrine & Covenants to “succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.”

Despite the fact that this was obviously a calculated attempt to draw the attention of the press to particular issues, the way that the membership of the Church reacts says a lot about who we are and what we stand for. I sincerely hope that as a church we can welcome those who have opposing opinions with the same hand of fellowship and forgiveness that we would extend to anyone else.

For what it’s worth, I absolutely sustain Thomas S. Monson, his counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators, and look forward to their messages for us and the rest of the world in today’s sessions of conference.

There’s something powerful communicated when we use the word “enemy“.  Some of the images that come to mind when one thinks of our “enemies” might include surging ranks of malevolent armies, or legions of hostile foes.  The branding of nations, groups, or individuals as “enemies” can inspire at best, distrust, suspicion, and general disdain, and at worst, hatred, zealotry, and violence.  Some of the most horrific acts of human cruelty have been justified because the targets of these crimes were, “enemies“.  In short, as with any label, the word “enemy” has the power to strip a person’s humanity until we see them as nothing but an opposing idea.  It’s with this preface that I wish to discuss the common vernacular surrounding those deemed to be, “enemies of the church”.

My thoughts on this topic were, oddly enough, inspired by a line from The Hunger Games.  In a scene from the second installment of the popular dystopian series, Catching Fire.  Haymitch, before watching Katniss and Peta enter the arena for the second time, counsels them to, “Remember who the real enemy is”.  This phrase stuck with me, and caused me to reflect on people or groups in my life that I, perhaps unnecessarily, consider to be enemies.  One of those areas was the way in which I think and talk about people who have dissented from the church, or just oppose it’s ideals.  I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s something both damaging and unproductive in considering these people to be enemies.

While serving a mission in North Carolina, I often found myself face to face with many people who not only hated the theology and organization that I represented, but also hated me personally for representing them.  As a new missionary it was easy to simply dismiss these people as “anti’s,” and then strut off with the righteous indignation of a thousand pioneers, but the more I interacted with these people, the more I discovered that my very attitude was undermining my entire purpose to bring these people to Christ.  As I continued to serve these people, and to pray for them in personal and companionship prayers, my perspective began to change.  I stopped feeling better or more enlightened than others, and instead began to see these people as equals.  I began to see that others had had experiences that had brought them to their current beliefs.  I started to understand that their feelings were as legitimate as mine, and it was only from this place of understanding that I was enabled to offer them the love of our Savior, Jesus Christ.  Many of the people I taught accepted that message, and many did not, but it was the change in my heart that allowed me to leave these people with a heart full of gratitude, never thinking less of them.

I believe that the counsel from President Thomas S. Monson to, “Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved” can apply to the manner in which we defend church leaders and doctrines.  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t defend what we know to be true, nor that we should halt our pursuit to share the Gospel, quite the contrary.  It’s our duty as members of the church to uphold the doctrines of the church in all that we say and do, and viewing our friends and neighbors as equal travelers in this journey together is what ultimately will enable us to do exactly that.

Returning to the analogy of the Hunger Games, the other tributes in the arena weren’t the real enemy.  The real enemy was President Snow, the unforgiving leader of the nation.  The tributes were simply being used as pawns, pitted against each other in a horrific and traumatic contest for their lives.  In this analogy, President Snow can represent Satan.  Satan uses whatever tactics he can to pit us against each other in a never-ending conflict of opinions.  This influence from the adversary comes at varying times and degrees, but it is up to us to see past the lie that other people are the enemy, and to remember who the real enemy is, Satan himself.  It wasn’t until the tributes decided to work together that their situation collapsed in on itself and they were able to escape.

People can lie, but people are not lies.  People can sin, but people are not sins.  If we ever fool ourselves into thinking that our fellow travelers in this mortal existence have become the ideas that they profess, than we have robbed ourselves of the opportunity to both teach and to learn.  People can subscribe to ideas, and defend them with fervent zeal, but people are not ideas.  Ideas can be temporary.  Ideas can be generated and discarded like crumpled notebook paper, but souls are forever, and for that reason alone they deserve our respect.  I believe that perhaps when The Savior instructed us to, “Love your enemies,” He was in reality imploring us to see past the labels of enemy and foe, and to love that transcendent attribute of others that truly deserves to be loved, humanity itself.  Perhaps He was telling us to love our enemies until regardless of their actions or beliefs, we no longer see them as our enemies at all.