April 2017 LDS General Conference thread

[jimmy eat jazz]

In other words, nothing to do with religion. Gotcha.

In other words, EVERYTHING to do with LDS administrative processes, which is the whole point (ostensibly) of asking for a vote/show of support for those appointed to Eclessiastical Administrative positions. Ergo, everyting to do with religion (unless you want to argue that how a religion conducts its adminitrative affairs has nothing to do with the religion itself).

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You should watch the talk, I gave a link to it above. I'd be interested in your reaction. To me it came off as being to both church members and leaders.

I'll probably read it when the Ensign Conference issue comes out. In fact, I'll make it a point to do so. I'll defer to your perceptions on the content of the talk in the meantime.

My general point is the conflation of 'doctrine' and 'culture' is a widespread, systemic "problem" (I'm not sure it's a problem per se, it's unavoidable in my opinion) in the LDS religion, something that is a result of a variety of factors, with one important one being perpeutation by high Church leadership, both actiive (e.g., active conflation of the two in talks, writen words, etc.) and passive (failure to correct conflations when they do occur). More, I'd say that even among the highest GA's, even they are not always clear about the distinctions between the two, which is in part an explanation for why they contribute to it the way they do.

Note, I don't see this as an 'ill' of the Church, just a fact of the way things are, and (as I mention above) unavoidable.

 

[JazzGal]

As I am no longer a member, I do not make it a point to watch or listen to General Conference. But since I live with my nearly deaf mother who has the TV set at a loud volume, it is unavoidable for me to hear at least some of it. I have not agreed with much of anything Elder Holland has said recently (that I am aware of, anyway), but the part of his talk that I heard was quite good. And then Elder Uchtdorf's talk on fear was excellent. I also watched the special on Sunday afternoon on civility and some of the refugee program as well. I found all of the above inspiring and it helped me resolve to do some things better. It has been a long time since anything from church leadership has inspired me, so I will take the good when I find it. Maybe I'll check out the Renlund talk. I'm all for anything that might help the current climate of fear and hatred and distrust and anger. I'm still not likely to listen to more in the future however, since I can't bear to wade through the stuff that triggers me.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You should watch the talk, I gave a link to it above. I'd be interested in your reaction. To me it came off as being to both church members and leaders.

It dawns on me that a quite good example of the conflation between doctrine and culture, and one which is exacerbated by LDS leadership is the whole caffeneited Coke issue. Lacking a historical/doctrinal precedent for banning coffee/tea under the WoW, the Church settled on the presence of caffeine in the drinks as an explanation. But this was never official doctrine, but over time, became de facto doctrine. But, nobody was every denied a temple recommend for drinking caffeneited Coke (except perhaps by some over zealous Bishop or Stake President), so obviously, the caffeine ban was not really doctrinal. Still, once BYU began selling Coke on campus (after long avoiding it, because of doctrinal/cultural confusion about WoW), it only sold non-caffeine Coke (and I believe sill only sell caffeine free Coke, but I could be wrong)thus again creating a perception that caffeneited Coke was wrong, contrary to beliefs, yet still, there was absolutely no sanction if one did drink caffenieted Coke (and many, many do), which implies in turn that the WoW ban on coffee and tea really wasn't, and never was, about their caffeine content in any case. (That plus many other food/drink products contain caffeine but aren't banned under WoW.) You can easily see in this example that there continues to exist significant confusion about the basis for the WoW and the role of caffeine in it, which naturally leads many good willed people to confuse what is actual doctrine with what is just LDS cultural practice.

Now, one might say that whether caffeneited Coke is ok or not under LDS doctrine is a rather trivial issue (I would say that the entire WoW is a trivial issue, particularly as related to coffee and tea--in the scope of sins large and small, it is microscopic), but the WoW is a central cultural/doctrinal issue to the LDS Church and its members and is one of the primary ways members self-identify and differentiate themselves from others. So it's hardly trivial in this context, yet confusion around the doctrine, its rationale, and the role of caffeine abounds, creates no end of doctrinal v. cultural confusion. And, Church leadership has contributed significantly to this confusion by send very, very mixed messages about it.

This is just one of many possible examples as to why the conflation of doctrine and culture is such a 'problem' within the Church.

 

[colton]

I think that's a great example. I work at BYU. They don't sell caffeinated beverages on campus. But no one has a problem with me bringing caffeine containing Coke to my office and storing it in my mini fridge.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I think that's a great example. I work at BYU. They don't sell caffeinated beverages on campus. But no one has a problem with me bringing caffeine containing Coke to my office and storing it in my mini fridge.

I was under the impression they started selling caffeine in campus. The official press statement was something along the lines of the reason it wasn't being sold at BYU was because there was no demand/request for it and nothing doctrinal. But maybe I completely misunderstood. I have a brother who is a seminary/institute teacher that felt very justified in his Coke drinking when this changed and got a lot less judgement according to him.

 

[colton]

I was under the impression they started selling caffeine in campus.

No, they still do not.

The official press statement was something along the lines of the reason it wasn't being sold at BYU was because there was no demand/request for it and nothing doctrinal.

Yes, they said something like that a year or two ago, but as far as I can tell they've never actually tried to determine the demand. I suspect if they asked the students (and faculty/staff for that matter) there would be a HIGH demand. Anyway, they are correct about it not being a doctrinal reason.

 

[LogGrad98]

In other words, EVERYTHING to do with LDS administrative processes, which is the whole point (ostensibly) of asking for a vote/show of support for those appointed to Eclessiastical Administrative positions. Ergo, everyting to do with religion (unless you want to argue that how a religion conducts its adminitrative affairs has nothing to do with the religion itself).

You don't really understand why we sustain church leaders then. It is the farthest thing from a "vote" and no they do not take challenges very seriously in that particular forum. To make an official challenge to a leaders worthiness there are steps for that (which is why a GA normally tells people who "voted" nay to talk to their local stake authorities). This is NOT an administrative function, it is a spiritual one, and really represents those affirming also reaffirming their covenants and promises to uphold and support the leadership of the church.

They do address dissenting votes, but by no stretch will this affect doctrine or even general policy, and if anyone thinks it should then they do not understand the idea of having a prophet leading the church. The only dissenting votes that have ever lead to anything were over individual conduct, not over policy or doctrine.

So anyone who thinks voting "no" means you are putting weight on the brethren to change the policy or doctrinal positions of the church just simply does not understand the role of a prophet or does not believe that the prophet is lead by God.

Some reading:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

The ways of the Lord are different from the ways of man. Man’s ways remove people from office or business when they grow old or become disabled. But man’s ways are not and never will be the Lord’s ways. Our sustaining of prophets is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.

This gives us, as members of the Lord’s Church, confidence and faith as we strive to keep the scriptural injunction to heed the Lord’s voice8 as it comes through the voice of His servants the prophets.9 All leaders in the Lord’s Church are called by proper authority. No prophet or any other leader in this Church, for that matter, has ever called himself or herself. No prophet has ever been elected. The Lord made that clear when He said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you.”10 You and I do not “vote” on Church leaders at any level. We do, though, have the privilege of sustaining them.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/called-and-chosen?lang=eng

https://www.ldsliving.com/Dissenting-Votes-at-Conference-Everything-You-Need-to-Know/s/78523

In the event that member concerns are raised through dissenting votes, the Church Handbook 2, which applies to all Church meetings, explains the protocol for dealing with these issues:

“If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position” (19.3).

During the April 2015 and April 2016 conference, President Uchtdorf designated local stake presidents as the assigned priesthood officer for dissenting members to talk to.

Historical Precedence in Recent Years

In more recent history, some Church members may recall instances of opposing votes cast in conference. The first opposing vote in the modern era occurred in 1977.

President N. Eldon Tanner, first counselor in the First Presidency, took the vote for the sustaining of the general officers of the Church. The conference record again records the incident:

President Tanner: It seems, President Kimball, that the voting has been unanimous in favor of these officers and General Authorities, and we would ask those new members of the First Quorum of the Seventy to take their seats with their brethren, please.






Voice from the gallery: President Tanner? President Tanner?

President Tanner: Yes?

Voice from the gallery: Did you note my negative vote?

President Tanner: No. Let me see it.

Voice from the gallery: Up here.






President Tanner: Oh, up there. I’m sorry, I couldn’t see up in that gallery. We’ll ask you to see Elder Hinckley immediately after this meeting.

The voice from the gallery belonged to Byron Marchant. He objected over the Church’s stance at the time of not sustaining those of African descent to the priesthood.

The next year, President Tanner addressed the dissenting vote before presenting the officers of the Church for sustaining. He said, “During the last conference we had one dissenting vote, and there was some misunderstanding about it. Someone said that I treated him very curtly. I would just like to explain just what takes place if anyone or a number of people have a dissenting vote. We give them the opportunity to go to one of the General Authorities to explain to that General Authority why they feel the person is not qualified, and if he’s found not qualified, then we take the necessary action.”

A few short years later in 1980, the sustaining of the Church’s general officers was again not unanimous. Three women gave dissenting votes.

The women were reportedly protesting the Church’s position against a proposed piece of legislation, the Equal Rights Amendment. In an article on the matter, the Church explained, “The Church is firmly committed to equal rights for women, but opposes the proposed Equal Rights Amendment because of its serious moral implications.”

 

[JazzGal]

Those who are there voting "no" are doing so as a protest. They do not expect anything to change, except they want people to know that they disapprove of the church leaders and some of the doctrines. There is a lot of emotion in the questioning and former Mormon worlds, and for some people expressing their disapproval in this way helps them in their process.

 

[LogGrad98]

No, they still do not.



Yes, they said something like that a year or two ago, but as far as I can tell they've never actually tried to determine the demand. I suspect if they asked the students (and faculty/staff for that matter) there would be a HIGH demand. Anyway, they are correct about it not being a doctrinal reason.

They don't sell it at the MTC either and I remember when I was there watching the guy refill the soda machine. He had a bunch of regular coke on his dolly he said he loaded by accident. We asked him if we could have one and he said he wasn't allowed. Pretty sure he meant he can't sell one outside of the machine but it made me think when he said it like that.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You don't really understand why we sustain church leaders then. It is the farthest thing from a "vote" and no they do not take challenges very seriously in that particular forum. To make an official challenge to a leaders worthiness there are steps for that (which is why a GA normally tells people who "voted" nay to talk to their local stake authorities). This is NOT an administrative function, it is a spiritual one, and really represents those affirming also reaffirming their covenants and promises to uphold and support the leadership of the church.

No, I really do understand why we sustain church leaders. You are dead wrong that this is not an administrative function.

Moreover, I understand it's not a 'vote,' per se, or intended in practice to be one, but IT IS intended as an opportunity for members to show support for those leaders called to a position, or not. Moreover, there are no rules or procedures I'm aware of prohibiting members from voicing opposition. That none do (or rarely do) is NOT doctrinal, or required procedurally, but is much more a function of established cultural practice.

They do address dissenting votes, but by no stretch will this affect doctrine or even general policy, and if anyone thinks it should then they do not understand the idea of having a prophet leading the church. The only dissenting votes that have ever lead to anything were over individual conduct, not over policy or doctrine.

I don’t imagine for a minute that any member raising a hand in dissent will change doctrine or policy—doctrine and policy head only one direction in the LDS Church, and that’s downward via a very heavily top down administrative structure. I understand well the concept of a prophet leading the Church, but, at least in theory, this should not imply that members have no voice. ‘Inspired’ leadership by no means rules out active voice among members—they are not inherently contradictory—but I do understand that in LDS Inc., member voice is very, very muted, not because it has to be that way, but because, again, policy and culture dictate that it should.

So anyone who thinks voting "no" means you are putting weight on the brethren to change the policy or doctrinal positions of the church just simply does not understand the role of a prophet or does not believe that the prophet is lead by God.

Geez, you fundamentally misunderstand why people vote ‘no’ in the circumstances we are discussing. It is much less about changing policy (even the most optimistic church critic would concede that the odds of this are small), but it’s about exercising member VOICE in a culture where member voice is discouraged and, at times, even punished.

Some reading:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng





https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/called-and-chosen?lang=eng
https://www.ldsliving.com/Dissenting-Votes-at-Conference-Everything-You-Need-to-Know/s/78523

I was an active member for 40+ years. I know well the drill, you're not saying anything I haven't heard ad nauseum before, and I find it as unsatisfying now as I ever have.

 

[♪alt13]

So I didn't realize how important World Of Warcraft was to the LDS church. Nerds

 

[b_line]

So this was probably Tommy's last conference right? We will get Nelson for a bit, then Oaks for a long time.

Oaks has impressed me lately with his progressive stances on a lot of things. He's a smart guy who is viewed as such nationally. He was even considered for Supreme Court justice at one point

 

[JazzGal]

So this was probably Tommy's last conference right? We will get Nelson for a bit, then Oaks for a long time.

Oaks has impressed me lately with his progressive stances on a lot of things. He's a smart guy who is viewed as such nationally. He was even considered for Supreme Court justice at one point

Nelson is 92, and even though he seems okay now, that could change on a dime. I thought President Monson would not make it to this conference, so you never can tell about these things. Oaks is 84, so I don't know that he will be around for a "long" time. Bednar is the only one who could potentially be president for any significant length of time. The others ahead of him are very old already.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Jg, the Renlund talk was outstanding. If you get a chance, i think you'll enjoy it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Nelson is 92, and even though he seems okay now, that could change on a dime. I thought President Monson would not make it to this conference, so you never can tell about these things. Oaks is 84, so I don't know that he will be around for a "long" time. Bednar is the only one who could potentially be president for any significant length of time. The others ahead of him are very old already.

Long live the gerentocracy! Oh wait . . .

 

[colton]

Nelson is 92, and even though he seems okay now, that could change on a dime. I thought President Monson would not make it to this conference, so you never can tell about these things. Oaks is 84, so I don't know that he will be around for a "long" time. Bednar is the only one who could potentially be president for any significant length of time. The others ahead of him are very old already.

Yes. Or maybe Holland, he's ahead of Bednar and is "only 76".

But looking at the age and seniority info here makes it seem like Bednar very well may become church president someday in the next 10-15 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...Church)#Current_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles


In other news, Pres. Monson has been an apostle for 20 years longer than Elder Nelson. Crazy.

 

[colton]

Long live the gerentocracy! Oh wait . . .

It's certainly different, but there are much worse ways to do things.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's certainly different, but there are much worse ways to do things.

Like voting. Look where that got the U. S.

 

[JazzGal]

Jg, the Renlund talk was outstanding. If you get a chance, i think you'll enjoy it.

I just read it. He had me at Les Miserables. It was really good. Thanks for reminding me about it.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app