At the most recent General Conference, there was a man in a bright orange jacket who raised his hand in dissent during the sustaining of Church officers. He was hustled out of the meeting by security and asked who his Stake President was so that his issues could be reported to his local leader. This new procedure for dissenting votes (not necessarily the security guards and removing the dissenter from the meeting) was announced by Pres. Uchtdorf in April of 2015. Later that same year, the Church announced the extremely unpopular Policy of Exclusion, barring the children of LGBT parents from baptism, a policy that was later reversed but not until many resigned their membership in frustration.
It’s an interesting policy shift. On the one hand, let’s be real, it’s been a long time since “votes” were really treated seriously. It’s also a bit unwieldy in the modern era, given the total number of Church members, and even the number of conference attendees, for every dissenting individual to get a private audience with the person to whom they object. It could also be a dangerous matter given the rising violence we are seeing in the US as individuals become more polarized, and given how many guns there are out there; you never know when someone’s going to see God as taking too long to change the leader and take matters into his (usually his) own hands. Additionally, dissenting votes at the local level or in years past when the Church was smaller were probably most likely to be based on personal knowledge of misdeeds by the objectionable person (e.g. adultery, dishonest, or just being a cantankerous a-hole). While that’s certainly a possibility still, it’s increasingly more likely that the critiques of leaders are policy-based rather than personal, and yes, politics (and policies) are personal.
But, it’s still not a good look for a Church to be visibly seen as treating dissenters roughly (the security guard problem). It’s equally disturbing that dissenting is a sure ticket to a disciplinary court, practically guaranteed because your local leaders are the ones who approved giving you the golden ticket to attend in person, and now you’ve made them look like they lack discernment. It feels like a recipe for retribution. Additionally, leaders try to present a “united front” instead of revealing the dissent in their own ranks, making it harder to object to specific individuals. This has been particularly true under the Nelson regime. E. Christofferson was forced (?) to defend the Policy of Exclusion, even though he has a gay brother and probably had mixed feelings about the policy at best. E.Holland (whose recovery we all hope for) went on the warpath against LGBTQ students and allies at BYU, encouraging the faculty to use “musket fire” to defend these unpopular positions; this may have been his view, but it eroded his popularity quite a bit as he had often been seen as one of the empathetic ones. And E. Uchtdorf had to make a public apology about having donated to Biden’s campaign, claiming that it wasn’t him after all but a family member (yeah, right). This is a business tactic often used to portray a united front which is a Potemkin Village (h/t Uchtdorf). It also erodes the hope that other views are acceptable; it creates a barrier to dissent.
Reactions to the dissenting brother in online discussions were also interesting, but split along the usual predictable lines. Former Mormons were punching the air and calling him a hero. At least one Church defender said that just based on his appearance (a beard? orange jacket?) you could tell he was not a member in good standing, and the sustaining vote is only for members in good standing. Okey-dokey. Last I checked the Lord looketh on the heart, but self-righteous randos on Twitter, not so much.
I remembered vaguely some dissenting votes from my childhood. There were dissenters when the Church opposed the ERA in the late 70s, and they essentially scuttled it from passing into law in the US. (I highly recommend the Hulu series Mrs. America for any who haven’t watched it if you’d like to know more about this). I also remember local votes with dissenters. In the case of the former, it was a policy dissent, but in the case of the latter, it was based on personal knowledge of misdeeds.
There was an interesting article detailing historical dissenting votes, and here are a few highlights:
- In 1837, Frederick G. Williams was not unanimously sustained to the First Presidency, and he was then released the following summer with a letter explaining he was still in good standing. (wink)
- In 1898, two men opposed the sustaining of John W. Taylor (not the later Church President). They were invited to come up to the stand at the end of the meeting to be heard and to reconcile their issues with comments Taylor had made at the prior conference. They agreed to this. Afterward, 20-25 members of the Tabernacle Choir also objected to Taylor, rising to their feet so their dissent could be noted. They likewise agreed to a meeting with Taylor after the meeting. As a result, Taylor recanted his offensive remarks, and then later resigned from the Q12 citing other reasons. This sounds like a hot mess of goss, and frankly, I am here for that.
- In 1977, there was an opposing vote by Byron Marchant regarding the Priesthood race ban. The vote was halted and his dissent was noted. President Tanner, who had taken the vote, apologized in the following conference because some felt he had been curt. He explained: “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.”
- In 1980, three women gave dissenting votes due to the Church’s anti-ERA position. The Church later released a statement: “The Church is firmly committed to equal rights for women, but opposes the proposed Equal Rights Amendment becuase of its serious moral implications.” (Seriously, watch Mrs. America, people).
- In 2014, (then) E. Nelson admonished Church members to “sustain the prophets” and adding that these callings are not “elected” positions. “You and I do not ‘vote’ on Church leaders at any level. We do, though, have the privilege of sustaining them.” That interpretation of the sustaining vote process is certainly one that is shared by more than just Pres. Nelson, even if others have clearly felt differently about it. To me, though, it sounds a lot like Reed Smoot’s explanation of consent, that women whose husbands chose to marry additional wives could consent to it (and support it), but if they did not consent, the man was still allowed to do it. That’s a pretty bizarre definition of consent, rendering anyone with objections (even if they are founded in personal knowledge of misdeeds) utterly powerless. You can sustain, but whether you do or don’t, nothing will change. Get on the good ship Zion or GTFO.
- And as previously mentioned, in April 2015 the process changed so that dissenters are referred back to their local leaders.
Dissent in the Church takes a lot of bravery, but is also more futile than it has ever been, but I suppose that’s just a reflection of how things are, so it’s best not have have any false hope that leaders want to know about dissent. After all, Pres. Hinckley claimed there was no agitation for women’s ordination, even though during the ERA legislation, there was quite a lot of agitation. They just excommunicated those who agitated. When any dissent is dismissed as evidence of apostasy, it’s pretty easy for leaders to say there’s no dissent (that’s the No True Scotsman Fallacy for your Bingo cards).
What could the Church do instead? First of all, let’s face facts. They aren’t going to do anything different. They could do away with the process, and the Church audit report which is a twisty word salad of nothing while they’re at it. They could do a blind vote across the membership which would absolutely not yield a unanimous vote, even under the most popular of Church presidents and policies. They could create a tip line for actual malfeasance done by leaders (e.g. George P. Lee stuff). Or they could continue with the tradition as it currently is, a show of support that is not as unanimous as it appears, but it is a long-standing tradition. Those who sustain probably feel a renewed sense of openness to messages leaders are given. Any watching at home who dissent can continue to do so, and it’s about as effective as flipping someone off with your hands in your pockets. You might feel better for ten seconds, but it’s the tree that falls in the forest when no one is around to hear it.
- Do you think the current dissent process (sending dissenters back to their Stake President to face consequences) works or is problematic?
- If you were in charge, what would you do about sustaining votes?
- Have you seen someone dissent? What happened as a result?
- What do you think the result would be of a “blind vote” about the current Q12? The First Presidency?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
-Having them speak to their stake president if probably the only feasible way to handle it logistically at the size the church is now. And you did make the good distinction between objection based on policy vs objections based on knowledge of malfeasance. Having them speak to their stake president, preserves the ability to capture and forward reports of malfeasance and other issues of suitability without such reports being simply drowned out by objections to promulgated policy or doctrine. And in the case of objections to policy or doctrine, it gives them an opportunity to counsel together about it.
-At the general level, I’d remove the invitation to object, and simply state that if there are objection, they should speak with their stake president. This would remove the appearance that it actually is some sort of vote. (Locally, it probably still works to invite votes of objection)
-I have dissented before concerning a ward calling. The Bishop talked with me about it after the meeting.
-Obviously not unanimous. You simply won’t get that from a group on the order of 100,000s to 1,000,000s. I’m pretty sure that they would all easily garner a supermajority of support.
The value and risk of inviting public dissent changes as an organization grows. In a small organization, the reputation and legitimacy of dissenters is likely to be known. A person dissenting is likely to have a serious concern, even if private and personal, and the matter can be economically considered.
In a larger organization familiarity is lost. Dissent can be based on intimate knowledge but more often it is driven by organizational / political concerns. The response for the leadership becomes entirely political. If the leaders show a willingness to respond to public dissent then public dissent becomes an acceptable way for members to push changes. This dynamic has imperiled many public organizations who are pushed to extremes by loud employees and activists
It really doesn’t help the LDS leadership to welcome “democracy” in its operation. So why go through the motions of inviting a dissenting vote? Tradition.
Reality is in a voluntary organization every participant has a dissenting vote they can exercise at any time. Stop participating!
The church should change its practice in the approval of church callings. It should continue to invite a public show of support. But it should forego the invitation for public dissent and rather simply state those with concerns should contact local leaders. The church currently does the latter but it still goes through the charade of inviting a show of public dissent, which it then punishes!
That all said, the shutting down of dissent in the LDS church weakens the organization. It makes the leaders defensive and forces them to make personal compromises. For rather than allowing member concerns to be publicly addressed, leaders are forced to assume a posture that there are no substantive concerns and that church policy is always right, even until the disputed policy is arbitrarily changed.
I view the sustaining of leaders the same way I view the audit report: a tradition without much meaning. I don’t think the Brethren want much meaning attached to either or they’d do it differently. But they also don’t want to drop either because that’s a bad look. So we will continue to play this little game where we (members) pretend our voice counts (sustaining) and they (Church) pretends that they are accountable and transparent with Church funds.
The Church really needs to create a way for regular members to give feedback to the Church since the current system just doesn’t work. Dissenting during the sustaining of callings just leads to church discipline and/or social ostracism and referring dissenters to local authorities just leads to the complaints getting stonewalled.
Unless you are related to a high-up GA, the Church just doesn’t seem interested in hearing from regular members. A case in point is my home ward building has had a leak in its roof for years now and the local Facilities people will not do anything about it. It should be the least controversial thing ever, but from what I have heard the Facilities department just denies that their is even a problem. There is no way for regular members to get ahold of someone at HQ to take the concern seriously, since they always end up referring the concern back to the local Facilities people who continue to do nothing. Talking to other people who have had similar building problems, the only way to get around this is to have someone in the Ward be related to a high-up GA who can then make sure the work gets done, unfortunately no one in my home ward seems to be related to the right people in the Church.
One idea…the Church could implement a web-based system that allowed members to anonymously (it would have to be members only–no outsiders, but it would have to be guaranteed to be anonymous given how the Church has traditionally dealt with dissenters) submit issues that they have concerns about: LGBTQ issues, women’s issues, use of Church funds, etc. Prior to each General Conference, the top 5 most commonly mentioned issues would be determined, and Church leaders would be required to defend the Church’s position on these issues at the upcoming GC. Some issues would likely repeatedly make the top 5, so rather than requiring the Church to defend their position on the same issue every 6 months, any given issue could only be repeated every 2 years. That means that the Church would be required to defend its position on 20 different issues of concern to members every 2 years.
When you think about it, Church leaders are really being cowardly these days with regards to addressing important issues of concern to members. When was the last time you heard a Q15 member justify the Church’s position on LGBTQ individuals, women’s standing in the Church, or the lack of financial transparency? They know that these are sensitive issues with weak scriptural justification, so they are purposely avoiding them. And then they are shocked when members start working as “activists” against these policies. When Church leaders purposely avoid these sensitive topics and provide no other way for members to provide feedback (speaking to a stake president typically goes nowhere), what else do they expect members to do?
Yes, we’ll hear a reference to the Family Proclamation every now and then, but we don’t hear a detailed defense of its contents. Why can’t the Church allow married LGBTQ individuals in monogamous relationships take the sacrament, say an opening prayer, or hold a calling? There are a huge number of members who have an LGBTQ friend or family member who deserve to hear a detailed justification for this policy by a Q15 member.
Other than Renlund’s talk telling people not to pray to Heavenly Mother, the most recent talk about women’s roles that I can think of was by Oaks’ (kinda weird) talk back in April, 2014. Half (actually, my understanding is its more than half since more women remain active members) of Church membership is being treated as second class citizens. If that issue keeps making the list of top 5 issues (which I suspect it would), then the Church has a duty to regularly make its case in detail for how it is overlooking how it is utilizing women.
I’ve certainly never heard the Church publicly justify its lack of financial transparency to members. The Church really should explain why it would be so bad for it to be more financially transparent to its membership.
There seemed to be an (not entirely successful–Haynie and Corbitt’s talks come immediately to mind) effort at this last GC to not give controversial talks. Oaks’ talk was literally 100% quotes from the life of Christ, mostly from the 4 Gospels in the New Testament, with a few also from the Book of Mormon. Given Oaks’ terrible track record of giving talks that in my opinion are frequently in direct conflict with the gospel of Christ, my initial thought right after hearing Oaks finish quoting Christ from the scriptures was, “I *so* wish Oaks would just read quotes from Christ from the New Testament every time he gives a GC talk from now on. This is *so* much more uplifting than his usual crappy interpretations of the gospel.”
But…if the Church is going to truly serve its members, they have a duty to respond to the concerns and suffering of its members. While I enjoyed hearing Oaks stick to quoting Christ and Nelson’s talk on peacemakers, they can’t just hide behind these pretty words while members are hurting. So, yeah, I feel like that means that Oaks (can we get someone else to do it, please?) needs to stand before Church membership every two years and give a detailed accounting of why the Q15 can’t allow a married, monogamous gay person give an opening prayer in sacrament meeting. Likewise, Nelson needs to stand before the Church body every two years and explain in detail to us why a woman can’t be a ward financial clerk. (I’m assuming that LGBTQ and women’s issues would regularly be one of the top 5 issues raised by members.)
My question is: Why are the Q15 afraid of the members, their questions and concerns? What are they afraid that we will do and say? Avoiding “contention” is not the same thing as willfully avoiding serious issues that the church definitely needs to address now. Jesus didn’t downplay or ignore His followers’ questions and comments about His work and teachings. Why should our leaders feel like this is necessary in order to run the church? Are they afraid that members might discover that “the emperor is wearing no clothes”?
Not being able to effect any positive and very necessary changes that would greatly improve the overall experience for church members plus feeling that they have absolutely no voice in the way that the church is run is a big reason why many otherwise faithful members are leaving the church in droves. Top down leadership and management is the authoritarian approach to dealing with people. The members are only seen as useful when they are “so many tithing dollars on two feet” or free labor. In other words, the leaders see and treat us as “things” to be manipulated as they so choose. They don’t see and treat us as the body of Christ which we actually are. Perhaps this is due to the corporate viewpoint the leaders have. We’re just religious drones serving the Q15 in the church beehive. As you know, a drone has one and only one job-to do all of the grunt work so that the queen (king) bee(s) can make more bees . That might work in nature, but it is definitely not a model of of healthy human interaction that leads to growth and self actualization. I foresee a time when the Q15 will have a nasty wake-up call and be forced to review their leadership model. Unfortunately, when that time comes it might be too late to effect a necessary course correction because too many members will have already decided that they can’t in good conscience support the current form of leadership anymore.
I’ve observed the “sustaining vote” morph into a public declaration that you will sustain the person in their new calling (i.e., do as they ask, support them) vs. it being a yes or no vote to the selection of a person. As such, it doesn’t make since to ask if “any oppose” the action, and it would make sense to change the wording to “support ” so-and-so.
@mountainclimber479: I’d give your comments in this thread 5 thumbs up if the system allowed.
On Dissent:
The culture of W&T is better than other LDS blogs, but consider how the mechanism of “thumbs down” is used right here to attempt to control speech—totally unnecessary. A single “thumbs up” option would accomplish a sustaining vote. Instead, we punish speech, dialogue, anything that doesn’t fit our W&T culture. So we aren’t much better than the institution…
@hawkgrrrl, I like this topic because it strikes at the core of the relationship between members and the institutional church’s governing authority and power. It’s worth talking about, a lot, and through different lenses. I’ll take a crack at each of your questions.
*Do you think the current dissent process (sending dissenters back to their Stake President to face consequences) works or is problematic? And, if you were in charge, what would you do about sustaining votes?
My opinion is sustaining votes have become a way for membership to display loyalty to leaders, and little else. It’s perfunctory. In the early church, the vote process seems to have played a more dynamic role, and as your examples illustrate, gave members a stake in the game. The process was far from perfect, but we can see it as a somewhat healthy and dignified attribute of the early church. It respected members’ roles as followers. It does none of that in the modern church.
The current general conference sustaining/dissenting process is problematic. When there is a dissent, it likely yields nothing except to mark the dissenter as a radical and someone who can’t to be trusted going forward. The church (and most of its members) does NOT value independent thought, competing ideas or constructive criticism. If we extend dissenting votes to more vocal forms of dissent broadly regarding doctrine or policy, what we see in many instances is ostracism by local church leaders, and if the dissenter makes too much sense and gains too many sympathizers, the church excommunicates them (or that thing we call excommunication today). That is what dissent often results in when taken to an ultimate outcome. And while I think the two forms of dissent are linked (sustaining/opposing leaders and dissenting generally about doctrine or policy), my thoughts on dissent broadly are off the point of sustaining or opposing leaders.
Back on point, another reason sustaining/dissenting votes have lost efficacy is because of the way power has been centralized within the institutional church. Go back half a century and being called as the stake Sunday school president was a big deal. Why? They, along with their called Sunday school board, drafted the curriculum for study for each year. My nonagenarian father told me being called as the stake Sunday school president in the 50’s and 60’s (his effective adult memory) was kind of a big deal, a position of respect because it signaled that you were a scriptorian and could be trusted to interpret the gospel. When we had two meeting Sundays, the early meeting was Sunday school, and it opened with a hymn and blessing and passing of the sacrament. The ward Sunday school presidency conducted this meeting (it’s the origin of the two and a half minute talk) even if the bishop was the presiding officer. Even on a ward level, the Sunday school president was viewed as an important calling with considerable weight and influence. Today, Sunday school presidents (yawn)…do they still even exist? Prior to correlation and the consolidation of budgets and power to the institutional church, who was in charge at the stake and ward level mattered. It seems to me the sustaining or dissenting votes were taken more seriously because more was on the line. And it’s not like ward or stake leaders were inaccessible. If you dissented it was in everyone’s interest to hear the ‘no’ voter out and work to resolve the concern because everyone was in it together at the local level. Now that is drifting a bit from the sustaining/dissenting process at the general level, but culturally it may help us better understand why the sustaining/dissenting vote process today is so flaccid, so meaningless. We are only acted upon by general authorities. There is no relationship with them. Members can’t contact a general authority directly, about anything. We aren’t in it together with GA’s like we are with ward and stake level leaders, or at least used to be. Even at the local level, the purpose of the sustaining vote has been diluted badly because people don’t hold any power at the local level anymore. (There is a considerable difference between power and authority.) So even at the local level, sustaining votes mean less than they used to. At the general level, sustaining votes don’t mean anything.
*Have you seen someone dissent? What happened as a result?
Yes, when I was young, about 7 years old, around eight members dissented when our stake president’s name was presented for a sustaining vote as a part of stake conference business. I checked the details with my father who remembers it. My father didn’t know the members or what their issues were. However, he did tell me that this particular stake president was known to be gruff, strict and punitive and many members didn’t like him. They asked those members to meet in the Relief Society room immediately following the meeting. Stake conference went on from there normally and my dad has no recollection if anything came of it. Outside of that I have never witness an opposing vote. Why? For my generation, the church’s culture has become incredibly intolerant of expressions of individual moral conscience on any level, particularly if that leads to vocal disagreement. The call to unquestioning obedience has been reinforced by general authorities in my time. My dad shared with me a few stories of the occasional dissenting vote in his ward. His read is that it was usually based on personal differences. But it happened and my dad left me with the impression it wasn’t this big horrible thing that made everyone gasp. It was rare, but occurred, and then church life moved on. There seems to be a big generational difference between his experiences and mine.
*What do you think the result would be of a “blind vote” about the current Q12? The First Presidency?
This would not be effective largely because only those at the tails (normal distribution metaphor) of loyalty on one end and extreme dissatisfiers on the other end would chime in. The church would need to survey its members in a way that would estimate measurable member attitudes and support of church leaders with a confidence interval. This could be done. It could be done cost effectively, but will never happen because those men are called by God and answer only to God and not to members. At least that is the party line. The loss of meaning behind the sustaining vote is yet another symbol of the disassociated relationship the general church has with its members, and that gap seems to grow wider every year. We don’t have conversations. There are no real exchanges. Reasoned persuasion isn’t in the general church’s lexicon. Participatory governance isn’t in our handbook. Managing dissent takes work and so does reasoned persuasion; the church has seemed to take the easier way out, not the more effective way out, but the easier way out. IMHO, it’s part of the reason why so many members are leaving or drifting–the general church doesn’t have adult conversations with its members. As a result, members are left unfed, unled and are highly dissatisfied. At least this one is.
I’ve seen a few dissenting votes and heard about a few others. The first was my dad. He was voted against when called as stake clerk in the 60s. He was a pretty vocal opponent of the JBS. When the sustaining vote happened a JBS member voted against him. When I was a SP I dealt with a few. They were pretty trivial and were actually good opportunities for discussion from the person that was voted against and some healing for the dissenting voter. Another, that I am aware of was in a rural stake where an old farmer voted against the new SP. The visiting authority from the stand asked him to state his concern and he said the new SP drove his cattle on Sunday. The authority turned to the new SP and asked him to respond to the brother. He said, I’m sorry, I will stop. The brother said ok and sat down.
As far as the Q12 being insulated, I don’t think that is totally accurate. Granted it depends somewhat on the individual. For example, I close friend of mine wrote Elder Holland after the musket fire talk and told him how much pain it caused members of his family. My friend did not ask or expect a response. A week or so later Elder Holland called him at home. He had no prior relationship with Elder Holland. He acknowledged that the BYU talk was not his finest hour then asked my friend how he can do better. 30+ years ago I was in a mission presidency in a mission that was falling apart. Lots of problems. I was a counselor but never was invited to a presidency meeting or was asked about anything. I basically did not have a calling. What brought change was parents of missionaries expressing their concerns to SPs and GAs. I know lots of other situations where MPs, SPs, Bs were released for a variety of reasons based on concerns expressed by members. When my dad was stake clerk He had some concerns about the SP he served with. He didn’t know or have evidence of any wrongdoing but just had a feeling something was not right. He wrote Hugh B. Brown. They had a lengthy correspondence on a variety of issues. Not long after an audit of a temple fund that was being built (the SP was chair of the committee) was completed and the SP was excommunicated.
The Brethren realize they are insulated. They come to a stake conference and everybody puts on the best face and all is rosy. Some really drill down others don’t. It’s the same thing with mission tours. The insightful ones can read puff when they see it. Others dig in and peel the onion back. What is sad to me is the impersonal approach at GC is so different than the personal approach at stake conferences and mission tours. I just wish the programming could be more spontaneous and personal at GC. We would see more of their personality and they would be more endearing. Some of the GAs drink in the praise, because they are human. Others avoid it like the plague because they are humble. Elder Faust used to say to new leaders “People will look to you for counsel and guidance, some will praise you and say nice things about you. When it happens DO NOT inhale.” We all have stories of a few GAs that have rubbed us the wrong way and others that have inspired us. Happens with me every GC. The problem is culturally we hold them up to a standard that is neither doctrinal nor healthy.
This is a tough issue. The church can’t be like other democratic institutions and still maintain absolute truth claims that are unchangeable. Societies continue to change their values based on popular opinion. However, the church has defined absolute truths too broadly in many instances. Absolute truths based on traditions of discrimination aren’t truths at all.
I like BigSky’s point about reasoned persuasion. Our society is in dire need of this in our philosophical and political debates. It is ironic that the church effectively “cancels” dissenters but never truly engages with their arguments. Ironic since the church wants its members to engage in civil persuasion.
While it’s true that some arguments (e.g., “Jesus was a wise man but not the son of God”) are a matter of belief rather than reason, plenty of other arguments are a matter of reason, according to the logic of the church’s own doctrine. For example, our mortal life is patterned after our premortal life with loving parents that guide us and teach us. Cool, so why can’t church members rely on the guidance and teaching from our Heavenly Mother but we can from our earthly mothers? It’s all kinds of crazy inconsistencies like this, related to the unjust treatment of women, people of color, LGBT people, etc that leaders should address. While there will always be individual cases and exceptions church leaders may not have policies for, there should be sound theological reasons for the policies they do have that harm members in any group.
I was thinking along @zwingly’s lines. It’s very frustrating that there are no avenues for members to express concerns or problems about Church leadership. The recent dissents are clearly not about actually stopping a calling but seem to me to be acts of desperation to send a message to deaf ears. I’m thinking of the person who was heard shouting “Stop protecting sexual predators” a few years ago in the conference center.
But yes. I think leadership sees the votes as an opportunity to sustain. Not an opportunity to give feedback or vote against someone. It’s our privilege to sustain and otherwise they really could not care less what we have to say.
“A week or so later Elder Holland called him at home. He had no prior relationship with Elder Holland. He acknowledged that the BYU talk was not his finest hour then asked my friend how he can do better.”
If that story is true, then it’s evidence of at least one GA seeking feedback from the membership and a refutation of that whole “Which Way Do You Face” talk. It gives me hope that one day church leaders actually could set up a more effective way of addressing members’ concerns and also makes me wonder why they don’t just do that then if Holland is cool with confessing a mistake to a stranger.
It’s also infuriating because if he’s aware of the pain he caused the membership and chooses not to apologize, that’s somehow worse than being ignorant of the harm he caused. One Facebook post or tweet is all it would take. But I’m disinclined to believe this story is true anyway (no offense, Lawrence) because when it comes to the Q15 the 1st law of heaven would seem to be: Never let them see you bleed.
I remember being called to be class president in an Institute class. I was the only one who dissented. Didn’t matter.
Travis: The down votes are a way for others in the W&T community to express dissent. They don’t eliminate dissent. Plus, commenters are free to participate in the discussion and critique others’ ideas.
I tend to think Lawrence’s story could be true. I do believe Holland is capable of remorse. He may not, however, be permitted to apologize publicly. As I said in the post, there seems to be a trend of forcing some of the less strident apostles to take more extreme positions publicly to imply endorsement of unpopular positions. Maybe that’s not what’s happening, but I can’t imagine any of the things I listed would have happened under a different First Presidency.
I am never at church on time for the announcements. Are bishoprics still asking for “any opposed” votes when they announce a new calling in the ward? This is the only scenario where I see a dissenting vote having any impact. Even then, if someone sincerely has a problem with a fellow ward member receiving a calling (maybe they know something no one else knows), a private conversation with the bishop or sp, would be the better option, imo. On the church wide level … The GAs don’t want your opinion, sorry.
Kirkstall – I can absolutely attest that the story is 100% true.
Members don’t signal their dissent by raising their hand. They signal their dissent by using their feet to walk out of church (and never come back).
> The church can’t be like other democratic institutions and still maintain absolute truth claims that are unchangeable. Societies continue to change their values based on popular opinion.
The church can’t maintain absolute truth claims that are unchangeable whether it adopts more democratic methods or not. Partly because some of its claims have been bold beyond their robustness, partly because the church *also* changes its values via shifts in social opinion, it just tends to pretend it didn’t, or that both the before and after picture are exactly what God expected at the time. It’s a strange form of politics that celebrates progression without admitting change while pretending there is no politics.
There is likely a more excellent way, probably involving less of the eye saying to the hand it has no need of it etc, and a lot more thinking of the church as a community trying to figure it all out by aggregating light and knowledge distributed scarcely but a bit more evenly throughout than commonly assumed, and maybe in the aggregation of people made in the image of God there’s something like a complete image of God itself.
But from where we’re at now, that state of affairs would probably be described by wielding democracy as a dirty word.
When I was serving a mission in the Canary Islands, there were a couple of well known families that frequently voted opposed to a number of callings. They objected to the mission president, the district president, and the branch president, and some few of the other callings. They usually didn’t come to church, but when they did they voted opposed.
I was new in the area when we had a district conference.
Anyway, these families all came as a group, sat in the back, and then noisily walked out once the business had been completed and before any of the speakers. Apparently they had been planning to vote to sustain the general authorities and then oppose the sustaining of the local leadership and maybe make a bit of a show of it. But the catch was that the sustaining of church officers only happens at one stake or district conference per year, and they had picked the wrong one. They all left in a huff having wasted their morning. I was new in the area and had no idea what was going on until people explained it to me later.
“E. Christofferson was forced (?) to defend the Policy of Exclusion,
even thoughprecisely because he has a gay brother and probably had mixed feelings about the policy at best”Fixed it for you.
“The church can’t maintain absolute truth claims that are unchangeable whether it adopts more democratic methods or not.”
Even so, there are some are some things the church cannot change without it becoming a different church.
@Angela,
Many of the most meaningful comments shared here at W&T express ideas about how the role of dissent might be more equitably managed throughout the institution. The comments are honest, progressive, and functional. Some really good ideas.
The object of dissent is not merely a raising of a hand or a thumbs down vote—there is a need for the dissent to be articulated beyond a mere hand raise or thumbs down vote. Holding space for comments provides a safe place for folks to be heard. Those who wish to dissent here at W&T are free to do so by writing a comment. Arguing that the thumbs down vote is a representation of dissent is a bit silly, when there is freedom to express a view in a safe space. The thumbs down vote here at W&T is a mechanism for social control, not open exchange. Few are willing to write dissenting comments here—not because there aren’t many dissenters out there—rather, because W&T’s format is designed to amplify a very specific point of view—it works for the groupthink. The thumbs down vote is a psychological mechanism and it works just as intended. If W&T got rid of the thumbs down vote, there would be greater participation (maybe too much), and the blog would lose its ability to control the culture and product it aims to export. So, yes, the culture here at W&T isn’t much different from the culture of the institution.
Wow Travis. Are you really that invested in being popular? If the thumbs were really as effective at control as you claim, then the self-appointed missionaries to the heretics who comment here wouldn’t keep replying so freely and regularly.
As well, those thumbs aren’t completely accurate at representing one vote per person. Yes, voter fraud can happen here at W&T and probably does on occasion. When you find it inflames your sensitivities, I advise not taking it so seriously. End threadjack.
I see a culture of silence about so many things that could use a good dose of disinfecting daylight. I’ve read some of these comments that downplay the severity of dissent they’ve seen or experienced, putting a positive spin on the church moving forward despite the presence of mild agitation, and the commenters doing this are all guys. As a born and bred LDS woman, I understand the reluctance to see the church flamed, but I think the house is already on fire when the Relief Society Taboo Topics include most of women’s church history. Including polygamy, women’s leadership roles in the past, women who were effective leaders— what they said and did, or even what there names were, the history of RS (all of it,) women’s healing blessings, Heavenly Mother, modesty, & etc. There are so many topics that we don’t discuss, much less study, it’s crazy making and it’s no wonder women feel like they have no voice. But dissenters are frozen out, some are literally excommunicated. Others are just released from callings, and the silence any further dissent is met with is awkward indeed.
For more context, please review Elisa’s last post about the lack of women speaking in Gen Conference and what it means in 2023.
And if what was reported here is “100% true”about Elder Holland post musket-fire, then he owes, at the very least, Matt Easton a public apology. And maybe include the LGBTQ student at BYU for added humility.
What I find odd about the leaders’ approach to feedback, is that they very intentionally do not have a mechanism for feedback while explicitly forbidding any kind of activism, yet at the same time they obviously respond to activism. Do they realize that this approach actually encourages activism?
Would Elder Oaks have given a talk about women and the priesthood without the OW movement? Would I be allowed to sit in bishop interviews with my child if not for Sam Young? Would changes in the wording of temple rituals have happened without women voicing their opposition publicly? Would they have reversed the 2015 policy without all the public opposition? We could go on.
Why not just simplify things and create a feedback mechanism? It would clean up so much of the negative publicity that the leaders don’t like by making it unnecessary. As it is now, public activism is the only way for the members to voice concerns, and it clearly works when it’s loud enough.
“Even so, there are some are some things the church cannot change without it becoming a different church.”
We’re a different church than we were in the 1990s, or May 1978, or correlation, or before McKay’s Presidency, or Grant’s, or OD1, or the reformation of 1856, or Joseph’s death, or any number of milestones and inflection points large and small before which people could have argued (and did argue) that certain aspects of the church were indelible or key features in spite of the fact that they have since passed into time.
We’ll do it again.I’ll refrain from any prophetic pretense of predicting which changes, and certainly don’t expect they will all be my preferred changes. But change the church will. It’s not only inevitable, a different church is written into language like AF9 or the increasingly popular “ongoing restoration.”
All the talk of unchanging or any implication that becoming a different church might be a loss (even if true) doesn’t matter a bit in the face of these larger forces. And often doesn’t have much substance to it beyond the politics of what a given speaker believes shouldn’t change.
Rockwell: I swear I’m losing my mind. Did I know you served a mission in the Canaries? Viva Canarias! Fuera de Espana!
W,
Like an acorn the Kingdom started out small and over time has begun to grow into an oak tree. While it certainly has taken on new form during its process of growth it is still of the same genus as it has always been.
If the church were to change its views on the centrality of Christ as our Redeemer–that would be a shift of such seismic proportions that it (the church) would become something else entirely, IMO. The same with displacing Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration; or discontinuing the principle of on going revelation.
That said, though I agree that the church has undergone changes through growth and pruning–for the church to remain the Savior’s church there are some things about it that cannot change, worlds without end.
W: “It’s a strange form of politics that celebrates progression without admitting change while pretending there is no politics.”
On the nose. Thanks.
Somehow I missed @Lawrence’s comment the first time.
Why on earth didn’t Holland call Matt Easton? He’s the one who deserves an apology.
Answer is obviously because he can’t let any of that become public. But I find it aggravating that GA’s can’t admit mistakes. Good grief.
I have an interesting story about this that happened at the local level when I was a growing up. It was stake conference and there was a new counselor in the stake presidency being sustained after the one had moved away.
It was the usual round of sustainings/releasings, but when “all opposed” was called out for the new counselor one man in stood up in the congregation and raised his hand high. The stake president stopped the meeting, and invited the man with the objection to leave the chapel to speak with him.
It was super awkward as we all sat there waiting in silence; the new counselor looked very sad about the situation. After several minutes, the stake president came back in to announce that he had spoken to the person objecting about his concerns and that the counselor was sustained. (I later learned that it was a personal grievance from a neighbor and not something that would preclude the man from being in the stake presidency).
This obviously was possible at stake level, and a different procedure may be needed at the GA level. But I’ve always been struck at how seriously the stake president took the situation and how calmly it was handled even in the face of public awkwardness.
ive been disheartened to see that even the trappings of christian community are gone now, and what we felt was sacred, our sustaining vote, never mattered to the people we trusted. if they respected our vote, it wouldnt be merely ceremonial to them. i imagine they hate people wasting their time, and thats the disrespect we’re shown now with the deminuition of our consent.
My wife and I opposed in Ward Conference not too long again and let’s say it did NOT go well at all. We are on the more traditional, conservative side of things (which I recognize many here are on the liberal, progressive side-that’s fine).
We opposed because in our Ward, we did not take the shots, wear masks, etc. and recently with our daughter entering into YW for my wife having the temerity to quietly observe in the classroom she was berated at least 3 time publicly by the YW Presidency, with things like “you don’t belong here, you shouldn’t be here”. My daughter cried at least three times when the YW presidency berated my wife; half the girls walked out of the class upon invitation of the YW President (in the presence of the Stake YW President). And the final straw was after quietly attending the YW wed. night activity an unprovoked horribly nasty text was sent to my wife, from a YW leader.
It called her “the devil in sheep’s clothes”, “you make me want to vomit”, “you are the only problem in my life”, “you should find another Church”, “you don’t follow the Prophet”, “you have ruined a special place for your daughter”. Absolutely horrible, vile talk from a leader over our daughter. We showed the text to the Bishop-he smirked. We opposed in Ward Conference-no one talked to us for almost a week. Then we were blamed as being the ones at fault; mind you for a ward with ~15 girls they only have a YW President and a Counselor. One counselor quit after she saw how my wife was treated and couldn’t do anything about it; the secretary moved out.
Opposing did nothing; instead of working to resolve things, the Bishop told my wife if she ever stepped for in a YW’s meeting or activity prior to being invited he would begin the process of taking out a restraining order!!! When asked what my wife had done wrong, the only response was she was told she shouldn’t be in the activities or the classes with our own daughter!!
Maybe when the Bishop is released (which should be any week now), we’ll go back . . .maybe.