NOM

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:45 am I wonder if they're going to make Uchtdorf go on a humility tour where he has to talk about his demotion in every talk.

I'm glad they have not chosen to humiliate Uchtdorf by making the members choose between Uchtdorf and Barnabas at the April General Conference and then having Uchtdorf carry his cross up City Creek Canyon.

MormonLeaks has obtained a partial transcript of the last Quorum meeting of the Brethren:

Oaks:
Ah, gentlemen, you know why we are here
We've not much time and quite a problem here

NOM outside:
Hosanna! Uchtdorfstar!

Holland:
Listen to that howling mob of blockheads at that forum!
A trick or two with lepers and the apostates are a roarin'

Quorum:
He is dangerous

Ballard:
Quick, Oaks, go call the Samoan guard

Oaks:
No, wait - we need a more permanent solution to our problem

Holland:
What then to do about Uchtdorf of Lufthansa
Miracle wonderman, the hero of fools?

Ballard:
No riots, no army, no fighting, no slogans

Oaks:
One thing I'll say for him: Uchtdorf is cool

Holland:
We dare not leave him to his own devices
His anti-dodo fans will get out of control

Bednar:
But how can we stop him? His glamour increases
By leaps every minute; he's top of the poll

Oaks:
Fools! You have no perception!
The stakes we are gambling are frighteningly low!
We must crush him completely
So like Hugh B. Brown before him, this Uchtdorf must go
For the sake of the Brethren, this Uchtdorf must go

Hope that helps.

Palerider wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:32 pm

consiglieri wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:48 pm Can I just state the obvious for a second?

We all know the sustaining vote is merely a formality, but at least the illusion is there.

Now church leaders have chosen and set apart the president of the LDS Church with absolutely no input from the members.

And they won't be able to give their (sustaining) vote for almost three months.

The charade that the members have any input into the selection of church leaders is officially over.

I thought about this earlier but couldn't remember if the protocol had changed. In most cases in the church the sustaining "vote" is asked for before the individual is set apart.
Has this current situation been a departure from the norm? Did they not want to wait until April for a FP?

But for all intents and purposes, you're absolutely right. The deed is done. No input necessary from the peons.

It's my understanding that this is simply the way they do things when a president of the church dies. The Q12 do their thing and in the next general conference they ask for a ratifying vote.

Outside of the question over the timing, sustaining the top leaders of the church has been a meaningless gesture for a long, long time now.

nibbler wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:22 am Outside of the question over the timing, sustaining the top leaders of the church has been a meaningless gesture for a long, long time now.

I'm not sure it was ever any different. Maybe with Brigham. Certainly not with Joseph.

Its like voting in a totalitarian dictatorship. An opportunity to swear fealty to the supreme leader and nothing else.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:02 am

nibbler wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:22 am Outside of the question over the timing, sustaining the top leaders of the church has been a meaningless gesture for a long, long time now.

I'm not sure it was ever any different. Maybe with Brigham. Certainly not with Joseph.

It seemed to matter to Joseph, maybe because his own position was secure. He attempted to have Sidney Rigdon dropped from the First Presidency but the assembled congregation sustained him anyway. Smith respected their decision and kept him on in protest. You wouldn't see that happen today.

Brigham Young was of a completely different mind. When Smith died and Rigdon vied for presidency of the church, Young argued that the church couldn't put anyone at the head of the 12 because they were the only ones holding the priesthood keys. He held a sustaining vote to make the 12 the head of the church, but before asking for such a vote, he told the congregation that to choose otherwise would be pointless.

Brigham Young wrote: You cannot fill the office of a prophet, seer and revelator: God must do this. You are like children without a father and sheep without a shepherd. You must not appoint any man at our head; if you should, the Twelve must ordain him. You cannot appoint a man at our head; but if you do want any other man or men to lead you, take them and we will go our way to build up the kingdom in all the world.

I know who are Joseph's friends, and who are his enemies. I know where the keys of the kingdom are, and where they will eternally be. You cannot call a man to be a prophet; you cannot take Elder Rigdon and place him above the Twelve; if so, he must be ordained by them.

I tell you there is an overanxiety to hurry matters here. You cannot take any man and put him at the head; you would scatter the saints to the four winds, you would sever the priesthood. So long as we remain as we are, the heavenly Head is in constant cooperation with us; and if you go out of that course, God will have nothing to do with you.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-7-chapter-19

Fine, go ahead and appoint someone else as president of the church, but the 12 will go their own way and build up the kingdom on their own. Basically, do what you want, we're taking the keys and going on our way. We didn't find out what would have happened had the congregation sided with Rigdon, but the suggestion here is that the 12 would have refused to ordain him.

That moment was the end of common consent. It died and early death.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:45 am

Jeffret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:02 am

nibbler wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:22 am Outside of the question over the timing, sustaining the top leaders of the church has been a meaningless gesture for a long, long time now.

I'm not sure it was ever any different. Maybe with Brigham. Certainly not with Joseph.

It seemed to matter to Joseph, maybe because his own position was secure. He attempted to have Sidney Rigdon dropped from the First Presidency but the assembled congregation sustained him anyway. Smith respected their decision and kept him on in protest. You wouldn't see that happen today.

Sure, Joseph would accept it with some of his underlings. But would he ever have put up with a true, clear vote on his own position? I highly doubt it.

Oliver recently predicted Dieters forthcoming humility tour. This appeared on my FB feed last night, as expected:

https://www.facebook.com/lds.dieter.f.u ... j03wEKxHGc

What gets me are many of the comments - those rebuking others for any sadness or disappointment they're feeling. The preachy, un-empathetic, Bednar-esque tone is troubling but that seems to be the prevailing reaction these days by TBMs to anyone who miiiiiight not be conforming as they should. Of course, there's no shortage of comments oozing with adoration too.

My SIL nearly wet herself in delight on FB following the press conference. If someone had literally vomited on-camera she'd have hailed it as divine. Baffling.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:56 am

LMAO!!!!

HAHAHA! Love that Moksha, made my day.