NOM

The latest in the growing catalogue of Radio Free Mormon podcasts looks to be a snark-fest.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... residency/

For your consideration.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Downloaded. Hopefully I can listen in the next day or two.

I listened. And, I always wondered about it as well. Common consent is a farce. The Bish, the SP, and everyone higher is called without any vote.
Anyone ever been in a ward counsel or stake meeting and had someone vote in opposition?

I was in the church for 45 years. I never saw it once at that level. Anyone ever see it?

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:56 pm I listened. And, I always wondered about it as well. Common consent is a farce. The Bish, the SP, and everyone higher is called without any vote.
Anyone ever been in a ward counsel or stake meeting and had someone vote in opposition?

I was in the church for 45 years. I never saw it once at that level. Anyone ever see it?

Nope

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:56 pm I listened. And, I always wondered about it as well. Common consent is a farce. The Bish, the SP, and everyone higher is called without any vote.
Anyone ever been in a ward counsel or stake meeting and had someone vote in opposition?

I was in the church for 45 years. I never saw it once at that level. Anyone ever see it?

I've heard second-hand accounts. Even then, it didn't change who was "called".

Never seen it. I've read accounts of it, though. Kishkumen has done it. (I'm too lazy to search for it.)

It seems that about half the time, the opposer's TR is yanked. This is in accordance with church policy. If a bishop finds out that a person has become unworthy of a TR, he's required to confiscate the TR or electronically invalidate it. Sustaining general and local leaders is required to be worthy.

I'm very careful to not call the church a cult, so... #notacult.

That's they way they do things. They go ahead with the formation of the FP a week or so after the previous prophet dies and do a ratifying vote during the next general conference. I suppose there's a window where the FP is illegitimate but if that's the case I've got to think that every recent FP have been illegitimate for the first few months of their tenure.

From the faithful perspective, it's very similar to when a kid leaves on a mission and they have to make him an Elder. They go ahead with the ordinance, then get the vote they needed to do it afterwards during the next stake conference.

Common consent is long dead. It's also a pipe dream. The more people there are the less likely it is for everyone to be in agreement. There's always going to be at least one person that disagrees with a decision.

I have seen people oppose callings. I saw it during general conference on more than one occasion. It doesn't matter if there are people that oppose, it wouldn't even matter if there was a large contingent of people that oppose, and if a vote against is meaningless then a vote for is equally meaningless. That's why I abstain from sustainings. It's an empty gesture.

And I wouldn't look towards the D&C for an authoritative word for how things should happen in the church. If you feel differently the actual word of wisdom would like to have a word with you.

Thanks Consiglieri! Another masterpiece of critical thinking.

Consiglieri's premise for this podcast is the fact that President Nelson and his counselors were set apart days before any kind of announcement as to who was going to be leading the church and months before any of them could be sustained by the general membership, and that this is in direct contradiction to revelations in D&C that NO ONE can lead the church (or be set apart to lead the church) without being first sustained (voted in) by the membership.

I agree with this premise, and I think the church is operating in error on this point. However, the one question that Consiglieri alludes to, but never answers is how long this has been going on. Is Nelson's ordination the first one to happen without a sustaining vote?

Having recently read up on the falsehoods of Brigham Young's "transfiguration" I do remember that they called for a vote then as to who the church would support, and BY seems to have carried the day. But that was to sustain the quorum of the twelve as leaders, not BY personally as president. In fact, thanks to Consiglieri's episode Apostolic Coup-d-Etat we know that BY decided to have himself inserted as president without any kind of specific revelation or sustaining.

A quick glance at Wikipedia's list of presidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... day_Saints shows they were all ordained as follows...

Brigham Young - December 27, 1847
John Taylor - October 10, 1880
Wilford Woodruff - April 7, 1889
Lorenzo Snow - September 13, 1898
Joseph F. Smith - October 17, 1901
Heber J. Grant - November 23, 1918
George Albert Smith - May 21, 1945
David O. McKay - April 9, 1951
Joseph Fielding Smith - January 23, 1970
Harold B. Lee - July 7, 1972
Spencer W. Kimball - December 30, 1973
Ezra Taft Benson - November 10, 1985
Howard W. Hunter - June 5, 1994
Gordon B. Hinckley - March 12, 1995
Thomas S. Monson - February 3, 2008
Russell M. Nelson - January 14, 2018

Just looking at the dates of ordination, there are very few of them who could have possibly had a sustaining vote at a general assembly prior to being ordained. I have bold-ified(?) the ones that stood out to me, and dug a bit further into those specific cases below.

• In April 1880 https://archive.org/details/conferencer ... %221880%22, John Taylor was sustained as "President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as one of the twelve apostles, and of the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The trick here is that there was no official presidency of the church. The church was being lead by the Q12 at the time, with Taylor as president. He was ordained as president in October, but there is no conference report for that month that I can find. Lots of cool voting to donate livestock to the poor, etc. Good stuff.

• No conference reports for 1889 because those pesky feds made it hard to get the whole group of polygamists together.

• In 1901 conference was held on Oct. 4-6 https://archive.org/details/conferencer ... %221901%22. President Snow was still alive, and sustained. He died on the 10th, and Joseph F. Smith was ordained a week after that sans sustaining vote. As a side note, this conference includes a fascinating talk by J. Golden Kimball about following your leaders, and a bit about how the comforter is not the Holy Ghost at all, but a physical visitation from Christ himself.

• In 1951 https://archive.org/details/conferencer ... %221951%22, we have our best shot at an actual sustaining vote. George Albert Smith passed away on April 4, 1951 (his birthday). Conference was held April 6-9, with a funeral on April 7. On April 9, Elder J. Reuben Clark says they "... shall follow the exact proceedings that were followed in connection with the installation of President George Albert Smith. ... except for necessary changes in names." I assume this means the language and procedure for sustaining, not necessarily the order of sustaining vs ordaining. Because Gorge Albert was ordained in May, several weeks after the closest conference. I didn't verify, but I'd be willing to bet he wasn't sustained until the following October.
  
  Clark then instructs each priesthood quorum from the 1st presidency (a hint that they're already ordained?) all the way down to the deacons, and finally followed by the whole congregation (i.e. women and children) that they are free to vote for or against any officer. "There is no compulsion whatsoever in this voting."
  
  They then proceeded to sustain David Omen McKay as "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and President of the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", followed by his two counselors.
  
  All three were ordained some time that day. I do not know if it was before or after the sustaining vote, but language seems to indicate that it was before.

And there you have it. With the sole possible exception of David O. McKay, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has NEVER sustained a president before he was ordained to that calling.

edit: Added links to conference reports.

But, but...

What do the Articles of Incorporation say for the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints™?

Legal documents are much more important than scripture, even for the only true and living Corporation™ on the face of the earth.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:36 am Thanks Consiglieri! Another masterpiece of critical thinking.

Indeed.

græy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:50 amJust looking at the dates of ordination, there are very few of them who could have possibly had a sustaining vote at a general assembly prior to being ordained.

In other words, it's not just recently broken and illegitimate, it's been that way for a long time.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:56 pm I listened. And, I always wondered about it as well. Common consent is a farce. The Bish, the SP, and everyone higher is called without any vote.
Anyone ever been in a ward counsel or stake meeting and had someone vote in opposition?

I was in the church for 45 years. I never saw it once at that level. Anyone ever see it?

I'd argue it's very rare for any opposing vote with the commoners even at the local level as well. The general TBM membership march in an orderly fashion. I think part of it is public shaming, not wanting the rock the boat, even if they don't like the person being sustained.

My old man was pretty progressive and critical in his thinking. He hated local unit and stake politics. A neighbor of ours was a child molester, yet the local leaders were still putting him in leadership positions, basically covering for him. My old man opposed when they were sustaining this guy in the local ward. It was ironic to see the stake and local leaders ostracize dad as a radical while protecting the douche bags. It's like it was more important to stay in line and march to the hymns rather than have any manner of critical thinking.

On the thread topic: I just listened to the podcast. I guess I never thought about how common consent is suppose to work because my whole life as a TBM it's never worked that way. But there it is in D&C and here we are with a blatant disregard for our own doctrine! Right on the BYU website, it describes how it's suppose to work:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Common_Consent

April 1830, states: "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65). This instruction was reemphasized three months later: "All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2). LDS practices may have been influenced in these earliest years by the Book of Mormon model of theocratic government that conducted its "business by the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:25-26), and by biblical example (e.g., Ex. 24:3; Num. 27:19).

This is a big deal! This is the very foundation of this religion! Imagine if our government did the same thing? Walked over the top of the constitution, just picked a new president then months later, told us to sustain that decision. The comparison to N. Korea is quite fair in this case. It's too bad the general TBM membership has been slowly boiled in the pot and simply doesn't see this.

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:37 am I'd argue it's very rare for any opposing vote with the commoners even at the local level as well. The general TBM membership march in an orderly fashion. I think part of it is public shaming, not wanting the rock the boat, even if they don't like the person being sustained.

My own devout ward would sit in painful, awkward silence if someone voted "opposed" to a sustaining vote. Faithful opposition is simply not part of LDS culture any longer.

I did have one Sunday on my mission where the bishop was announcing a calling for a ward member and that ward member in question voted opposed to her own calling. It was quite a tense showdown for a moment until the bishop realized that he had forgotten to tell this bold, opposing ward member about her new Relief Society Teacher calling before the announcement was made in sacrament meeting. She happily accepted next Sunday, but raising your hand in opposition is still an act of pants-wetting terror for most people.

Corsair and Ruben,...just read your posts.

The voting in opposition to me is an example of the decay of the entire body. There is a "head" in the church...oh yeh, we know about that! And, according to Paul, there are also other members, but deference is paid to the "head".

I've concluded that the LDS church is a very hostile organization to the opposition, both inside and out, and in many ways is as nasty as Scientology groups to subversives.

I remember the first Sisters Act movie where Whoopie says to the little lady with the different "habit" scarf: "You will go to hell". The reaction of that other little actor was classic: her face went white and a look of utter shock/terror crossed her face. To her (this actor who did a good job on that scene), Hell was real and something to be seriously feared.

In the LDS church, the TBM culture reinforces the power-structure at a very weird level. There are some things you just don't do! It amazes me how powerful those unwritten rules are--I mean, the DOMINATE the culture!

There need to be a few more people break out of the mold and raise a few more hands in opposition. After all, that is part of the written "word of god"...right?

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:37 amApril 1830, states: "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65). This instruction was reemphasized three months later: "All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2). LDS practices may have been influenced in these earliest years by the Book of Mormon model of theocratic government that conducted its "business by the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:25-26), and by biblical example (e.g., Ex. 24:3; Num. 27:19).

So, when pres. Nelson was made president, what office was he ordained to? Is President an office in the priesthood? I thought apostle was the highest. Notice, they won't call a new apostle until conference when he can be sustained as an apostle. The guys in the FP are already ordained apostles. IIRC, only the pres. has to be an apostle. The counselors can be HP. In fact, the FP officiate as HP not as apostles.
Thoughts?

2bizE wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:36 am ...what office was he ordained to? Is President an office in the priesthood? I thought apostle was the highest.

Thoughts?

I had this exact thought while researching for my last post in this thread. The wikipedia article I initially looked at uses the word "ordained" in the table so I just ran with it. But you're right, lds newsroom and other sources specifically state that he was "set apart" to his new calling as president, not ordained to any new office, and apostle is the highest office.

So he was not ordained to any new office, but set apart in his new calling. How is that any different than what we do in our wards today? If individuals are being ordained to a new office in the priesthood they are sustained for that. But the same holds for callings, even when the new calling does not require ordination to a new office. If a HP is called as Group Leader, and then later released and called as librarian. He is to be sustained, before being set apart.

edit: I have since edited the wikipedia article to say "Set Apart as President" rather than "Ordination" in the column heading.

Additional note from the newsroom article on President Nelson. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... -president

It read's...

He was sustained and set apart in the Salt Lake Temple on Sunday, January 14, 2018.

So, a sustaining did in fact take place. I would assume he was sustained by the remaining members of the Q15. Does that fulfill the requirements of scripture? Are they allowed to stand in as representatives for the general membership since there is no possible way to get an accurate membership wide vote?

See Rock Waterman's thoughts on the new FP here on his Pure Mormonism blog. Note: he is looking at this from a Snufferite POV, but he gives a lot of great references.

What hasn't changed in Mormonism since it's inception?

It should be no surprise that the way the FP is selected, announced, and sustained is different from what it was in the very early days of the Church. Joseph didn't prepare any contingencies for his demise and the succession crisis that followed was significant. Or perhaps the problem was that he provided too many. Though accepted by the Brighamite branch, it's not clear that Brigham really had the dominant claim. Those who didn't follow him didn't think so. After his long, foundational reign, the succession process still wasn't fully established. The current pattern grew up via the tapestry of tradition, certainly not charter, constitution, or scripture.

I struggle to see how this FP is any more illegitimate than any of those that have preceded it. I don't know that waiting until a sham sustaining vote would grant it any more legitimacy. The FP derives its authority from the modern Church's incorporation documents and from the tacit acceptance of those who willingly follow.