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.
Comments
76 responses to “Before You Oppose The Opposers”
Wonderfully written. I agree while heartedly with you! Keep up the good work.
Thanks! Glad you liked it!
Sure hope you get a nice pair shoes!
Haha! One day Paul, one day.
First of all I agree that casting a dissenting vote does not make you a bad person.
However in this case it did come across a little disingenuous to me. The regular method to manifest for or against is “by the uplifted hand”. Comversley organizing ahead of timing and shouting out in general conference seems more like a stunt.
If they had concerns they could have easily dissented in ward or stake conference.
That’s fair, and it definitely was a stunt. I think we can still react with grace and civility regardless
I’m sorry, over the internet this will sound harsh, but those who oppose the church will never prosper. As a church we are used to opposition and it is no shock to us that people will oppose us, even members will go apostate and deny what they once felt in their heart was true.
You missed the point of the article, but did exactly what he was saying we ought not to do. This has nothing to do with denying one’s faith, as much as it does with saints who are sensitive to the Spirit and the Spirit prompting them to follow Christ and how the Saints are being darkened in their minds for trusting too much in man-prophet.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 237; “President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel—said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church—that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls—applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall—that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.” – Joseph Smith
That’s the point. You cannot simply go through the regular method, as you are silenced and excommunicated for having questions, instead of lovingly listened to and nurtured by the Spirit leaders are supposed to follow representing Christ.
I feel bad that you and others feel that way. If you will remember, the two high-profile excommunicants were given ample opportunity to be “listened to and nurtured by the Spirit” – but they refused. And no one, to my limited knowledge, has been silenced or excommunicated for having questions. In fact, if you go back and re-read the article, there have been several General Conference talks recently that address this very issue.
The problem, in these situations, comes when an individual with questions tries to recruit others to his/her cause in order to affect change in Church doctrine – or, in other words, begins to acts like Korihor or even Alma and the sons of Mosiah, leading many away from the Gospel.
It comes down to what the intent of a person’s heart is. No one has been excommunicated for having questions – only for letting the adversary harden their heart and acting out of spite, anger, pain, ignorance, or evil intent and trying to bring others with them.
I am old enough to remember members opposing the sustaining of Church leaders back in the late 70s and early 80s. This was nothing new, and just like then, this is more a publicity stunt than a serious opposition. Yelling out is not the accepted indication of opposition. President Uchtdorf handled it beautifully, and if history is any indicator, we can expect 2-3 more sessions to put up with this nonsense before they realize that they are not causing the huge reaction from the Church, the members or the media that they want.
That’s true. We can probably expect more of the same in future conferences for a while. At least we’ll all be prepared. You’re right, President Uchtdorf responded perfectly.
Christopher, I have to disagree with you on one point. The Law of Common Consent is part of the exercise of free agency, of course. Two things went wrong, though. 1) they shouted rather than simply raising their hands. The point of common consent is not to behave in a rude manner. Yes, the conference center is large. Nobody would expect the Brethren to see every hand that raised in opposition. That would add unbelievable amounts of delay to the whole proceeding, trying to figure out who raised their hand in opposition. Just like when you raise your hand in consent, if you raise your hand in dissent you are signifying to the Lord primarily that you have a problem with the person or persons being sustained.
The people doing the opposing were not new members. They knew how this worked. They should have gone to their bishops and stake presidencies with any issues they had so that, if there was truly a problem (i.e. they had direct evidence that, say, one of the Apostles cheated on his taxes or committed adultery and was therefore unfit to preside), then the proper channels could be tapped for investigation and/or Church discipline if necessary. I believe that’s what happened to Paul Dunn.
This, however, was “Occupy the Conference Center”, not sincere or loyal opposition. These folks want the makeup of the First Presidency to come primarily from a ballot vote, like other churches, and not from revelation.
What would you expect the stake presidents to do? I know of many people who have taken this approach. The results were surprising to me. They run the gamut from nothing (no passing it on to the brethren, no reaction to the member) to immediate cancellation of temple recommend to excommunication (yep, just for not being sure that President Monson has ever prophesied anything). Here is one example:
“We invite those who oppose any of the proposals to contact their Stake Presidents.” President Uchtdorf, April 2015 General Conference Vote
This is actually my story.
–December 2014 – Attended ward conference, sat in the very back, quietly raised my hand in dissent on the first three choices for vote. (Top 3 Prophets, Seers, & Revelators (PSRs), Top 15 PSRs & All gen authorities)
–January 2015 – Stake president called me in to ask why I voted in dissent. I expressed my concerns, questions and dissatisfaction with current leadership.
–March 2015 – Sat before a disciplinary council for three hours where we discussed my “testimony” or lack thereof of the PSRs. Excommunicated that night.
–March 2015 – Two weeks later received a letter from the stake president officially notifying me of the council’s decision to excommunicate me for apostasy. The final sentence in the letter invited me to re-gain a testimony of the PSRs, then I might be re-admitted into the church.
So when I hear people apposing, agreeing with my vote which led to being exed, I get electrified that my brothers and sisters are stepping up. I no longer have the right to express my vote in LDS conferences. But many of you do. I hope you vote wisely.
DARYL BROWN – MESA, ARIZONA
The point is that, unlike in the past, members have been stripped of their God-given right to decide if a church leader is performing satisfactorily or not. It is laid out in D&C 107, D&C 20, and the book of the Law of the Lord that regular members decide whether church leaders are worthy to stand in their office or not. They cannot nominate the officer, but they do vote on whether or not he maintains the office. J. Reuben Clark Jr.: “In the Church the nominating power rests in a group, the General Authorities, but the sustaining or electing power rests in the body of the Church, which under no circumstances nominates officers, the function of the Church body being solely to sustain or to elect. . . .” (General Conference Report April 1940)
I would add that a vote is exactly how revelation was received during the leadership crisis after the martyrdom. The candidates presented their case, there was a vote, and Brigham got the majority. If that is not an inspired way of doing things, it calls into question the validity of the chain of leaders.
What happens in the event of the death of the church president is actually not revealed at all. Since the 1920s, the law (yes, state law in the charter of the church) dictates who will be the next president of the church. It happens the second of the death of the last president, before the apostles can even talk about it.
And for those who will say “but God controls who dies, so it is still revealed,” it was unsettled enough that there were serious and long arguments among the surviving apostles as to who should be the next president until Joseph F. Smith’s presidency. For instance, Heber J. Grant argued vehemently that Joseph F. Smith and not Wilford Woodruff should be president of the church. At Brigham’s death, the apostles were so unhappy with the way Brigham had treated him that they refused to reorganize the first presidency for some time, until John Taylor made sweeping concessions. If it became settled, it had nothing to do with revelation.
Christopher, I appreciate you posting this, and I agree with almost everything you said, except for sustaining the President. I voted in opposition, quietly, in my stake center, completely unaffiliated with Any Opposed. The reasons for doing so was not anything that could be labeled as participating in “Occupy the Conference Center”.
I wrote about it here: http://myreasonsforhope.blogspot.com/2015/04/reasons-i-opposed-vote.html?showComment=1428292332101&m=1#c7886231279607121583 . My only purpose in sharing is to try to contribute, positively, to the public discussion. I think the more exposure people get to the idea that people can be opposed to the way things are currently run, but still be faithful to the Gospel and Restoration, the less prone people will be to reacting negatively when people do oppose, for whatever reason.
-Matthew
That’s fair, and for what it’s worth I think the way you opposed was the more reverent and respectful way to do it.
Thanks for the article. I left the church in early 2008 because I could not agree with its stances on gay marriage and other social issues, and I found the opposition this weekend to be powerful. I was really sad to see how condescending Mormons became online and Yik Yak etc., to the “dissenters” for taking a jab at their infallible leaders. Because of this, it is easy for one to get the illusion that Mormonism, despite the voting, is not democracy, but a monarchy and Monson is the Mormon King demanding taxes, i.e. tithing. However, after a few years, my anger at the church has subsided and I am able to recognize that, even though I disagree, the church has been very graceful and does allow freedom for such a thing and you deliver that message wonderfully in this article. It is okay to hold different ideals, but still respect one another and not find fault.
Thanks Myles, I’m glad that message came through clear. We can all love and respect each other even if we don’t agree.
I lived in a third world country. Since I join the church I have never seen in person the Prophets that I have sustained over the years – it was all purely by faith. I always thought how blessed are those who live nearby Salt Lake area where General Conference are held twice a year – they got the better chance to see the Prophets and Apostles first hand. As I have witness how these people mocked the conferences which is purely dedicated to the Lord I sincerely pity them. What they did not realized is that we are doing missionary work here and we have investigators watching the conferences – seeking for truth – a spiritual confirmation that what they are about to accept is True. the effect of what these people did is catastrophic – so selfish and evilly planned. I am sorry Christopher for being so blunt – I can now therefore totally agree with the Savior when he said these piercing words to Thomas who had been with him side by side and yet still seek for proof..” Blessed are those who have not seen me yet they believed..”
I really appreciate this comment Neil, that’s a great perspective. You’re absolutely right that there’s a lot of people who’s opinions could have been swayed by the disruption.
I think anyone watching conference with the intention on trying to decide whether or not this religion is for them or not deserve to see both sides of the story. I think it was a good thing for them to see and hear. If they did feel the “spirit” then none of this wouldn’t have mattered anyway.
I like how you tied in the current lessons from this sessions General Conference. I completely agree with you and it was pretty disconcerting to watch how quickly and nasty the comments on social media turned. It’s understandable most people’s negative perception of us are “judgmental.”
I wrote about this also right after the session ended.
https://kliscruggs.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/any-opposed/
I just read your post, and I wholeheartedly agree! Well said!
Sorry, but I totally disagree with the tone of your article. What you say is we should react to these people with love and understanding — which I an agree with. But then you say in a very polite way, if you disagree with these people or if you think they are wrong that you should just shut up because you are not being Christlike. This I strongly disagree with.
I guess that came across wrong. I definitely don’t think we need to be silent, but we also don’t need to launch social media flurries against people.
Then, you need to clearly define the difference.
Also, why should those who engage in “social media flurries”, as you call them, also not be treated with forgiveness and understanding? Why is it that they don’t deserve a voice?
Of course they’ should treated with forgiveness and respect, and they should also afford that to their opposition.
I agree that they should afford that to their opposition. But even if they don’t, don’t they still deserve a voice? Isn’t giving them a voice even when they don’t afford that to their opposition one aspect of treating them with respect and forgiveness?
You’re totally trolling… but I forgive you. How’s that?
Jesus said let there be no poor among you
The Church spent what would cost a Billion dollars to rebuild- a giant spacious building. Used twice a year. It has scripture that ASKS and permits people to dissent. The building seats 22000 people. Apparently they have to simply raise their hand. That is participation, dissent, objection?
For some reason this issue seems to have hit a very big nerve. Joseph Smith’s “marrying” 14 years olds didn’t. Emma not knowing didn’t. Emma discovering him with 16 year old Fanny Alger the maid didn’t. The church admitting the Book of Abraham facsimiles have nothing to do with Abraham didn’t, saying the blacks were banned because the leaders were racist didn’t, joseph only using a stone in a hat to “translate”/ channel the words for the book of mormon didn’t (all verified and taken from lds.org essays btw). Rock Waterman didn’t, Dehlin didn’t, Ordain Women kind of did, Denver Snuffer didnt.
But these 5 people have
So much so that football coaches tweet intimidating threats to them.
I find this one extremely fascinating
I don’t know why, but it is interesting
What did we used to say? Catholics believe their Pope is infallible but know he isn’t. Mormons know their Prophet is not fallible but believe he is
Id love a sociologist to explore this event
Of course they should afford forgiveness and respect to their opposition. So are you saying they deserve a voice or not?
I posted the previous comment in the wrong place by accident.
Everyone is entitled to sustain who they will. I don’t even mind them saying it outloud. The conference center is huge so that’s not what bothers me.
What bothers me is that people are forgetting why we sustain leaders. To oppose, we are questioning the character and morals of the men that head our church. Not any specific issue that is happening within the church. Opposing the apostles and prophet just because the gay marriage issue or the women and the priesthood issue is like saying “I’m not going to sustain him because he has different political views.” That makes no sense. So normally, those people opposing the sustaining know of some conduct (read: knows them personally) of these men and find them unworthy to fill the position. These men have been called of God. Do you really expect Him to make a mistake?
Opposing for the sake of opposing or because of any issues that have been brought up recently is not how the church works. This is why I don’t understand why people are defending them. Yes, you should still treat them with love and respect,but they just want attention.
While I agree that it’s important to react to these sorts of situations in a respectful way, I think it’s also important to call a spade a spade. The purpose of an opposing vote is to bring to attention a worthiness concern regarding the members proposed for the callings in question. In this case, those opposed have no special knowledge about the worthiness of the Church leaders. They are simply opposed to Church policies and doctrines and were trying to (1) gain media attention (hence their interviews with reporters afterward) and (2) obtain an audience with Church leaders — in both cases so they could air their grievances about Church policy and doctrine.
K, you make many assumptions
By the same sign does not mean yelling “opposed” a simple raise of their right hand would’ve been more appropriate.
This is a good point Leta, but to be fair, a simple raised hand would have likely gone unnoticed in a conference center that size. Not that that makes it the appropriate thing to do, but it is perhaps understandable
If they had just raised their hand and then went to their stake president to discuss the situation that would have been fine. The rudeness of their yelling was what got me. I have a son with a disability and he raises his hand in church a few minutes after everyone else has sustained the vote, when he did this when a high councilman was there, he came over to ask us why for the non-sustaining vote, we explained and all was okay. If a person has issues with something then go to your leaders and talk to them instead of throwing a fit in a public place.
Candy, why do you believe replying to the invitation “those opposed” with an audible “opposed” was not fit in a public place?
Why do you determine what is “fine”?
What doctrinal insight do you have that they should go to their leaders as against what the D&C requires?
Again, unless you have gone to your stake president (proper channels) as many have done, with their questions then you can’t state these things. The issue is people, innocent people are being exed for seeking a witness that these men are who they claim to be. It isn’t a matter of faith in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith (who was murdered by the hands of some exed members) as much as it is a matter of faith in the arm of flesh and the Spirit moving many many saints (see LDSFreedomForum.com) to feel something is not well in Zion, and they simply visit with their leaders to find themselves exed for not taking that oath-like sustaining of men to be found “worthy” of God’s temples and salvation.
Except that they have ushers on hand to make note of any such votes.
It’s not just an “eyeball’s from the stand” by any means.
It also used to be that dissenters were granted an almost immediate audience with a General Authority to explain their dissent- these “dissenters” knew that, and were hoping to milk the publicity.
That’s why “take it up with your Stake President” was such an awesome reply.
“Awesome” maybe, but not in keeping with the spirit of common consent enshrined within the Doctrine and Covenants. General conference is just that, a forum for the general membership to come together. As this was opposition to the general authorities, they should appropriately be the ones to respond to an opposition vote of a member in good standing (I do understand that all opposers may not have been in good standing, but Pres. Uchtdorf would not have known that at the time), not a stake president.
“…not in keeping with the spirit of common consent enshrined within the Doctrine and Covenants…”
Because YOU say so?
Nothing in the Doctrine and Covenants guarantees any crackpot with a cause an audience with a General Authority simply because they make a spectacle of themselves at Conference.
So long as the matter is referred to competent authority- and most Stake Presidents qualify as competent- then the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Scriptures, if not necessarily that of the pomp of Babylon.
And yes- the Brethren WERE warned well in advance about this publicity stunt and were well prepared for it.
“As this was opposition to the general authorities, they should appropriately be the ones to respond to an opposition vote of a member in good standing…”
In YOUR opinion. On the other hand, you are assuming that the matter would have STOPPED with the Stake President, had the “dissenter” actually been a member in good standing.
For all we know, seeing the Stake President was nothing more than separating the wheat from the tares in order to concentrate on those with genuine doubts or concerns, instead of wasting time on those who deliberately neither see nor hear.
I do not base it on my opinion, but on precedents that have been set in past conferences from the 19th century through at least the 1980’s, where those with an opposing vote were granted an audience–sometimes immediate and public and sometimes delayed and private–with a general authority.
I totally think that people should be able to voice their questions and concerns on how the church is being directed. My problem is strictly with the disrespectful act of yelling and screaming in the conference center. I see no excuse for that hateful action. We all know there are proper channels to go through to use your voice in the church to be heard but still show respect not only for the people being sustained but the rest of us present. The yelling totally broke the fragile spirit and I struggled that whole secession to recapture the spirit so I could listen to its teachings. It was disruptive at best but, certainly I hope we can all agree shamefully disrespectful to EVERYONE participating. Just raise you hand to the square and be reverent. I doubt the sincerity of any “opposed” that was shouted.
I was also distressed because having never met any of the church officers myself, I LOVE THEM. I know they love us. I feel their love every time I listen to the conference talks or even read them. I really think that those men who sacrifice so much to serve the Lord and who love us all so much must have been HURT by the horrible display of disrespect orchestrated by those people. I know they must have known it was coming but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t hurtful. Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him but, do you think it didn’t HURT his very tender feelings to be betrayed? So, I totally understand why so many people are angry at the yellers and the screamers in the conference center. I am too.
I think you’re right to feel defensive when you feel like our leaders have been disrespected Cess. One important note though, since you brought it up, Christ may have been very hurt by Judas’s betrayal, but he didn’t retaliate, he just moved on with his mission. Thanks for the comment!
CESS you don’t ponder the concern that some members idol worship leaders of the church at all?
I’m just calling for understanding for those who are upset the same way you are calling for understanding for those who are opposed. While we shouldn’t retaliate I can be understanding of those who reacted badly to the opposition. I have had people “calling for Peace” attack me for not backing down on my principles or putting up with others who would disrespect what I know to be sacred (Asking someone not to post atheist links on my FB page was a drama fest and I was attacked by members because I wasn’t tolerant to the atheist smearing that stuff on my page when she could put that on hers and I never said a word). I don’t want it to be OK to point a finger at them with judgment and scorn just as you don’t want them pointing fingers.
That seems like a fair thing to ask. 🙂
I don’t understand why you or anyone are upset. The scriptures are very clear about sustaining/ opposing.
Why do you think the brethren called for the vote for/ against?
It is scripture.
So someone objects. Nothing new there.
What exactly is the disrespect? Or is this about we should all worship people by virtue of their calling…last time I checked god was not a respecter of person.
Thankfully we don’t stand when these leaders enter rooms and things like that. Leave that for a court. Our leaders have real power, they don’t need minions idol worshipping them by standing when they enter or leave a room.
Thank you for your words, they brought me great comfort as one of the opposers on Saturday is my loving father. Born and raised in the church, he also raised me in the church. In the last 10 months my parents have divorced after 26 years of marriage, my father has struggled the last 30ish years with a muscle disorder and same sex attraction and has informed us all within the last 3 weeks that he is gay. And gave us warning that he may be on the news discussing some of the church’s polocies, none of us new he was referring to opposing the men of God. Its been a major blow to my entire family and we need prayers. It’s important not to judge and you never know what people are going through.
Thanks so much for your comment Hannah! I can’t imagine what it must be like for you and your whole family including your father to go through that ordeal. I wish you all the best!
That sounds traumatic for all. I hope it works out. It must have been difficult for your mother living in a relationship all those years.
I’m sure your father still loves you as much as he always has. Thankfully the church understands people are born with same sex attraction and no longer encourages people to marry so as to cure their problem. Lord knows the miserable marriages that caused over the last 50 years. Tolerance and understanding are very important. Prayers for all
Thank you so much for writing this! While I was disappointed in the way these people made their opposition known, namely the shouting, I’m almost equally disappointed with so many people’s reaction to it. I can understand our knee-jerk reaction to defend these men we love and respect, but we also need to remember to not judge those we disagree with. We usually don’t know the whole story. Even with the news conference they did it’s obvious, especially based on what Hannah said above, that we still don’t know the whole story. I’m not perfect. My initial reaction wasn’t nice. But the more I’ve thought about it the more I’ve realized it’s not for me to judge.
Hannah, you and your family (including your father) are in my prayers.
It has been touched on, but further study of the law of common consent in regard to the prophets will teach you that opposing removes the opposed from the equation of the sustaining, not the prophet.
“And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference…” (D&C 124:144)
According to the scriptures, if you have issues General Conference is the place God wants you to bring them up. So no, I don’t think their actions were inappropirate. Thanks Christopher for reminding us of what should be obvious.
It seems that the prophecies for the last days are coming to pass very rapidly. As members of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we need to be examples to everyone and judges of none. I love our leaders and sustain them and the disruption did not take away the spirit I felt as I watched and listened to our beloved leaders. We need to pray for those who have a need to dissent because they are our brothers and sisters too. May Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have mercy on us all because we are all sinners. Thank goodness for the Atonement!
Hi Annette
Can you elaborate on these “prophecies for the last days”?
I’m also curious how these 7 people simply doing what LDS scripture directs them to do interacts with that.
Thank you
Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same:D&C 1:38; these were all men called of God through prophets and apostles. So it would appear that God and Jesus Christ sustain ALL THESE MEN.
How did that apply to King Noah and Abinadi?
Thanks for writing a well-thought-out article. I’ve heard too much hell-fire and damnation (for those opposing) and too little understanding, or even desire to understand. Let’s leave the manner out of it–yelling may or may not be appropriate–and focus on the issue, which is that members are asked literally to vote: sustaining, or opposing. They are not electing a new prophet, counselors, etc., but they are definitely voting (choosing one of two choices). Lastly, In the general conference, it would be appropriate for them to have access to a general authority to explain their opposition vote, rather than to be referred to their stake presidents.
When we sustain our leaders we quietly raise our hands when asked to do so and keep our mouths shut. If any should oppose, they too must abide by the same manner of reverence, and raise their hands when invited to do so – keeping their mouths shut!
Hi Gary
That sounds a little like it might be from the Gary Handbook of Instructions? Perhaps you can direct me to the scriptures which substantiate your protocols on reverence, abiding and silence?
I saw the conference, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBiSeOaRzk4 I note that President Uchtdorf didn’t even look up to see if there were any opposed votes. How would you suggest they make their opposition known?
Remember, D&C specifically tells them that they need to go to General Conference to make their opposition known
Thank you for this insight! While it is important that we ask questions and state our concerns, we also must love and be open minded to others who also have concerns.
I am a bit flabbergasted by many comments here but not surprised. The Book of Mormon was written for us saints, not for the catholics, they are not reading it, we are. If you go humbly ask God to open your heart and mind to the message to us today in the last days contained in the Book of Mormon, you will experience what I have and many others who are being exed for realizing that we are no closer to Zion than the saints were with Joseph, when he rebuked them for trusting in man-prophet too much, thus being darkened in their minds. This has little to do with not loving Monson, but everything to do with idol worship towards man, when Christ is the only Keeper of the Gate. This isn’t about being right, but being sincere to the Spirit’s whisperings, which spirit, if we do not take as our only guide we will be deceived.
General conference was wonderf, Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk was inspired, but nowhere do we find any fruits of Seership and Revelators by these good loving men, we find fruits of inspiration by the Holy Spirit as much as we do with a good sac. mtg talk, nothing more. Please correct me where you can point out with our living Apostles and Prophets any fruits of: Prophecy, Seership, Revelation. It is all inspired truth being taught, just like I can hear with a neighbor who aspires to Christ and lives a life meriting Christ’s grace and light and truth.
Why even have a “vote” at all if anyone who casts a negative vote is instantly excoriated and decried as a tool of Satan? Such seems rather cultish, doesn’t it? – Curious Workman
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38177&start=90#p594946
Why do you speak about forgiveness towards the oppossers? (rhetorical questions used here) Didn’t you say that they acted whithin their right?
after reading the first few comments i gave up because the article gave his opinion on what happened and of course we will all have our own opinions thats a true blessing for us as humans and being brought up in this gospel i have come to know for myself just how perfect jesus christs church is and we as members are the reasons for all this unneccesary behavior i personally dont have any grudges to those who yelled out even though like many who have said before me that they could have addressed it the same way by the uplifting of your right hand if you appose but at the end let us remember that satan is very well alive just like our savior and redeemer is and ofcourse he will try all his power to bring down gods church but let us always return our thoughts and hearts to our saviors examples and teachings for this is the time we need to be more christlike yes its was hard for me at first to not be angry for what they did but then i automatically remember our saviors plea to us his brothers and sisters to love one another to love our enimies to have his christlike love and forgive those who oppose against his church for what ever there reasons were let us find it in our hearts to love them and forgive them for it is god that will judge them not you or i so i would like to close by saying that i love and sustain our prophet and his counsellors and all those who have been calked of god to lead and direct his church in this last days where we will seemire and more of these sorts of behaviors but let us not lose sight of the goal and that we may bring those who are still lost in the things of the world and bring them back into the fold by our love testimony and everlasting faith in our savior jesus christ who is and always be the head of this church the church of jesus christ of latter day saints. i feel so much love to you all and may we leave the past in the past and not dwell on the bad but let us rejoice in his love for you and i and what we can do tomorrow to save the souls of millions waiting to hear and to be saved and let us use our talents or faith to do that and not consume our lives with the negative and bad but give thanks and praise to our father which who is watching us every day of our mortal lives
With all due respect, Brother Patty, I believe that both you and Sister Shelly are missing a few crucial points, and I would appreciate it if you would clarify a number of things for me.
First and foremost, I am quite active in Latter-day Saint apologetic circles (and have been for the better part of a decade). The vast majority of negative responses which I noted objected NOT to dissent “qua dissent”, but to the profaning of a sacred religious service for the sake of a few seconds of notoriety.
As you yourself concede above, this was NOT the principled, reasoned dissent permitted by the Law of Common Consent, but a willful deliberate, disrespectful and deeply offensive hijacking of our worship services in pursuit of the praise of Babylon.
Nor were these “dissenters” members of the Church. Of the five “dissenters” in the Conference Center, four have been positively identified as out-and-out apostates who have either been excommunicated for apostasy or demanded that their names be removed from the Church rolls.
As open apostates and people who are NOT in good standing with the Church, they HAVE no “voice” in the affairs of the Church and no rights under the Law of Common Consent.
As such, the faithful are in violation of neither the word nor the spirit of the Law of Common Consent. That being the case, your piece would seem to condemn the Latter-day Saints for something they didn’t do.
You further postulated, “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.”
There was no assumption necessary in the case of these five (seven). Each is an avowed apostate with an ideological axe to grind and a history of both agitation and open, aggressive attacks on the Church and its credibility.
They set out to mock God, pervert God’s laws to their own agenda, and to be seen “doing their alms before men”.
Verily, they have their reward.
But in offering both the statement above and the follow-up, “This culture is damaging and unproductive to the inclusive mission of the Church”, you seem to be insisting that (in order to be both effective and Christ-like) we as Latter-day Saints must tolerate heterodoxy and even out-and-proud false doctrine in our classes, our chapels, and our religious services.
And yet Christ himself was not universally inclusive- he regularly condemned hypocrites, Pharisees, liars, and those who would entrap him. And that overlooks his fiery reaction to the profaning of the Temple.
Christ did not tolerate false doctrine or lies, but actively and swiftly rebuked and rebutted them in his presence.
I agree with you that the Saints should be patient, long-suffering, quick-to-forgive, and ready to teach, to explain, and to understand.
But your essay would seem to turn that virtue into carte blanche for proclaiming and spreading apostasy even within the walls of our homes.
Have we NO right- have we not a DUTY- to object to false doctrine, blasphemy, and slander are uttered in our presence?
Is it not instead our duty, calling, and commission to teach THE TRUTH in patience, humility, and a love unfeigned?
Where do you draw the line between tolerance of dissent and surrender of (as Moroni might have put it) our lives, our homes, and our sacred duty?
First and foremost, I am quite active in Latter-day Saint apologetic circles (and have been for the better part of a decade). The vast majority of negative responses I noted objected not to dissent qua dissent, but to the profaning of a sacred religious service for the sake of a few seconds of notoriety.
As you yourself concede above, this was not the principled, reasoned dissent permitted by the Law of Common Consent, but a willful deliberate, deeply disrespectful hijacking of our services in pursuit of the praise of Babylon.
Nor were these “dissenters” members of the Church. Of the five “dissenters” in the Conference Center, four have been positively identified as out-and-out apostates who have either been excommunicated for apostasy or demanded that their names be removed from the Church rolls.
As open apostates and people who are NOT in good standing with the Church, they HAVE no “voice” and no rights under the Law of Common Consent.
They set out to mock God, pervert God’s laws to their own agenda, and to be seen “doing their alms before men”.
Verily they have their reward.
In discussing your essay elsewhere, it was suggested that you believe that in order to be “Christ-like”, we must meekly accept the profaning and disruption of our religious services.
Are you, in fact, suggesting that (in order to be truly “loving”) we must accept and tolerate heterodoxy and even false doctrine in our wards, our homes, and our religious services?
Or is it instead our duty to teach THE TRUTH in patience, humility, and a love unfeigned?
I agree that we must be willing to teach
Weird.
Apparently my post got badly garbled.
It should have ended with ” our lives, our homes, and our sacred duty?”
My apologies for the duplication.
Very nice article. Loved your tone and I think you gave a nice fair look to both sides! Wish we had more people writing like this. I had heard that the motive behind them yelling “opposed” was because people in the past had raised hands and because of the darkened seating area at the conference area, the vote was not noted. So they yelled “opposed” to make sure the vote was noted. That said, I’m sure there was a degree of attention seeking behavior involved as well. Anyway, just wanted to bring that point up so people don’t think they were just doing a totally unnecessarily belligerent protest.
“There is plenty of room in the Church for questions and even doubts.” I wish that was the case. It does vary geographically. I you read the http://cesletter.com/ in California and have legitimate questions, you are ok. If you do so in Pleasant View, Utah, you are not. I brought up some of these issues to my Stake President and he simply looked me in the eye and said: “You are wrong, you have been deceived.” A month later, the church came out with its essays on LDS.org acknowledging that my questions and the concerns were legitimate and true.
If you go back and listen to the last few conferences, there are also vocal dissenting votes. I fully expected it today and the brethren do take it in stride at the pulpit. These are organized protests, planned well ahead of time by ex-members of the church. These are not well-meaning members who have legitimate concerns. They are there to garner attention to their causes, whatever the cause du jour may be.
Thanks Marie, this article was from last year when this happened.