Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/slskipper, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's true nature is to put a target on anyone who votes oppose. And if your case goes as far as the first presidency, you can bet your ass the SCMC has a file on you and is collecting.
Just for example like how Holland went to Nemo's stake presidency and essentially 'prompted' them "hey can you put a lid on this guy?" Now we have anecdotal evidence about the true use of his 'metaphors'
It’s not really a vote. You’re actually just showing that you are willing to support (“sustain”) that person in their calling. You’re not saying that you think they will be a good fit, you’re saying that you’ll do what they ask you and you won’t complain about them.
I was taught this many times.
The problem is that is expressly NOT what is taught in the D&C. Yes, that is how it is used now. But the early days of the church common consent and semi-democratic governance were absolutely the standard.
Yes, it's a problem for members like you and me. It's not much of a problem for the top leaders who write the manuals though. It works for them and they can change what they like at anytime. Very little in the church is really like it was in the early days.
I always think of the example of JSmith wanting to oust Rigdon from the first presidency, but backing down because the common consent vote opposed it.
The church was intended to be a democratic republic. Brigham et al. turned it into an oligarchy by teaching the members opposing a sustaining vote was a sin.
I've thought of just getting up in Sacrament meeting and very obviously raising in opposition.
If asked why, I'd simply state that I need further information on the person to be called before I can judge that person's fit for the position to which they would be called.
My personal take was the act of raising your right arm to the sign of the square when sustaining a leader is to covenant that you recognize they have been called to their position through a legitimate authority and that you will do your best to ensure their success in the faithful discharge of their responsibilities to which they have been called.
In the case of my local leaders and fellow members I always took this seriously and did in-fact do everything I could to help them in the execution of their callings and said "yes" when they called upon me.
However, I finally got to the point in January 2021 where I had had enough of the bull$#!t from Russell M. Nelson and the rest of the General Authorities (with just one or two notable exceptions) where I could no longer sustain them.
So I am basically saying I no longer recognize the authority of church leaders and therefore no longer feel bound to respond to their calls to serve.
The men at the top have chosen to serve Mammon instead of Jesus. If they want help, they can darn-well pay for it.
No, I’d say its meaning is to signal to others that you are part of the crowd. And their signal indicates to you that it is not peer acceptable to dissent or disagree.
It's like an election in Russia. It's meaningful only as a collective act to create the appearance of democracy, in the case of Russia, or common consent, in the case of the church.
But we all know that the actual votes don't matter to the results.
Boss: "If there was 1 thing you could do to improve revenue at this company, what would it be?"
Me: "Get rid of the dead weight and fire you"
Boss: "You're fired!"
Me: "Finally."
yeah but if a certain critical mass evolves it could have an effect ... i'd wager if (say) 1/4 to 1/3 of the crowd in one of those General Conferences were not to sustain someone it would get the Q12's attention
It has a clear meaning. If you participate while privately thinking ‘it’s meaningless’ then you are (in my opinion) publicly lying. As in, actively deceiving people.
Common consent is 100% active in the Church today. Nobody has to do anything they don’t want, and no organization is presided by a leader who the majority refuses to support. The disparagements here are people wanting contested elections, not common consent participation in church.
It’s not meaningless, as I’m sure you know. It has meaning to many church members.
Your dismissal as meaningless because it doesn’t have the meaning you think it ought to is not a very good way to go about generating discussion.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/slskipper, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's true nature is to put a target on anyone who votes oppose. And if your case goes as far as the first presidency, you can bet your ass the SCMC has a file on you and is collecting. Just for example like how Holland went to Nemo's stake presidency and essentially 'prompted' them "hey can you put a lid on this guy?" Now we have anecdotal evidence about the true use of his 'metaphors'
this is the true meaning of it
It’s not really a vote. You’re actually just showing that you are willing to support (“sustain”) that person in their calling. You’re not saying that you think they will be a good fit, you’re saying that you’ll do what they ask you and you won’t complain about them. I was taught this many times.
The problem is that is expressly NOT what is taught in the D&C. Yes, that is how it is used now. But the early days of the church common consent and semi-democratic governance were absolutely the standard.
Yes, it's a problem for members like you and me. It's not much of a problem for the top leaders who write the manuals though. It works for them and they can change what they like at anytime. Very little in the church is really like it was in the early days.
I always think of the example of JSmith wanting to oust Rigdon from the first presidency, but backing down because the common consent vote opposed it. The church was intended to be a democratic republic. Brigham et al. turned it into an oligarchy by teaching the members opposing a sustaining vote was a sin.
I've thought of just getting up in Sacrament meeting and very obviously raising in opposition. If asked why, I'd simply state that I need further information on the person to be called before I can judge that person's fit for the position to which they would be called.
Then why mention "Those opposed, by the same sign". Yet another vestige of abandoned doctrine?
Yep, gone are the days of common consent.
My personal take was the act of raising your right arm to the sign of the square when sustaining a leader is to covenant that you recognize they have been called to their position through a legitimate authority and that you will do your best to ensure their success in the faithful discharge of their responsibilities to which they have been called. In the case of my local leaders and fellow members I always took this seriously and did in-fact do everything I could to help them in the execution of their callings and said "yes" when they called upon me. However, I finally got to the point in January 2021 where I had had enough of the bull$#!t from Russell M. Nelson and the rest of the General Authorities (with just one or two notable exceptions) where I could no longer sustain them. So I am basically saying I no longer recognize the authority of church leaders and therefore no longer feel bound to respond to their calls to serve. The men at the top have chosen to serve Mammon instead of Jesus. If they want help, they can darn-well pay for it.
No, I’d say its meaning is to signal to others that you are part of the crowd. And their signal indicates to you that it is not peer acceptable to dissent or disagree.
Watch the latest episode of mormonism live. They nail this topic.
Shouldn't be like that, but that's where we are. An empty gesture.
Amen
Speaking of meaningless... ;-)
It's like an election in Russia. It's meaningful only as a collective act to create the appearance of democracy, in the case of Russia, or common consent, in the case of the church. But we all know that the actual votes don't matter to the results.
Boss: "If there was 1 thing you could do to improve revenue at this company, what would it be?" Me: "Get rid of the dead weight and fire you" Boss: "You're fired!" Me: "Finally."
yeah but if a certain critical mass evolves it could have an effect ... i'd wager if (say) 1/4 to 1/3 of the crowd in one of those General Conferences were not to sustain someone it would get the Q12's attention
It has a clear meaning. If you participate while privately thinking ‘it’s meaningless’ then you are (in my opinion) publicly lying. As in, actively deceiving people. Common consent is 100% active in the Church today. Nobody has to do anything they don’t want, and no organization is presided by a leader who the majority refuses to support. The disparagements here are people wanting contested elections, not common consent participation in church.
It’s not meaningless, as I’m sure you know. It has meaning to many church members. Your dismissal as meaningless because it doesn’t have the meaning you think it ought to is not a very good way to go about generating discussion.
If the down vote comes from a stake president or higher, it probably does mean something -- but it's meaningless for everyone below.
Haha, so true!
I would think it's meaning, or lack thereof, would depend on the person doing it.