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."
Note the difference between what President Tanner did in granting the one dissenter a meeting with an Apostle after the afternoon session to discuss why he opposed the sustaining, and what President Uchtdorf did in suggesting those opposed simply meet with their stake presidents?
This is because what had been done throughout LDS history was mostly what Elder Tanner suggested. It used to be under Brigham Youbg or even Joseph Smith that if anyone opposed they would either stop the meeting and discuss it there or arrange a meeting afterward and discuss it then.
President Uchtdorf simply brushed off those opposed. Whereas Elder Tanner addressed the issue as it was supposed to be.
However in 1978, 1981 and 1982 there were dissenters as well. And by the last dissenting conference those opposed were talked over and ignored.
For a solid account of these somewhat recent opposing votes and for audio of them go to
http://infantsonthrones.com/any-opposed/
Now fast forward to April of 2015 the attitude of the church hadn't changed since the early '80's when the church for the first time skipped over sustaining each General Authority and thus limited the ability to oppose as often at least but even then church leaders treated the question of any opposed as if it were rhetorical. Which it is not.
But many feel that these men are called of God and that sustaining them is an oath-like commitment. It is not. Yet that is how church leaders now describe it:
"You and I do not “vote” on Church leaders at any level. We do, though, have the privilege of sustaining them."
"Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us." Russel M. Nelson October 2014 "Sustaining The Prophets
First I would like to point out that Russel M. Nelson is saying that sustaining is an oath. But here's what Christ said about oaths: "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:33-37
So it is contrary to the word of our Savior to swear an oath to anyone or anything for any reason. And it is part of church history that many times members opposed. And they used to be listened to. But now they are talked over and ignored. Why? Why do we as a church demand total allegiance and obedience?
This all hinges on something I think most of us have heard but not fully understood which is the Law of Common Consent.
Here's some scripture and backstory:
From LDS.org
D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent
Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)
Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).
D&C 26:2. Could a Person Hold an Office in the Church without the Consent of the People?
“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)
D&C 26:1-2: 1 Behold, I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville, and to performing your labors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do.
2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.
According to the church itself past and present "Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints."
So why are those who opposed looked on with such disdain? Why is their faith in God questioned because they oppose policies or church officers?
I actually know one person who opposed at the April 2015 Conference. They lost their home teachers and visiting teachers. They are not allowed to take part in discussion at church. They have been ignored and shunned. Completely ostracized all because they cast an opposing vote.
How is it that a church based on the love and further light and knowledge of Christ turns so cold when someone doesn't vote or believe the same? How are we to love our enemies if we can't even love those who disagree?
And now I'm hearing from faithful members who do sustain the brethren that at this last conference several more people opposed yet when they watched the news and went back to watch their favorite talks online and to see the opposing vote again they found no evidence of an opposing vote.
That's right, more than being talked over and ignored now we are slicing and dicing audio and visual evidence to remove any memory of an opposing vote. It is shaking the faith of the most stalwart of Mormons because this tactic doesn't feel right. It feels wrong even to those who do sustain our leaders.
This Orwellian tactic reminds me of the Conference talk by Ronald E. Poleman in October of 1984 of all possible years for this to have happened. Here's the wiki article detailing what happened and presumably why it happened.
"In the October 1984 general conference of the LDS Church, Poelman delivered a sermon entitled "The Gospel and the Church". Controversy ensued when the version of his sermon that was published in the November 1984 Ensign magazine differed from the sermon Poelman had delivered orally. According to Poelman's brother, after Poelman had delivered his sermon, it had been pointed out to him by apostles that have dealt with apostate, often pro-polygamy, groups that the text of his talk might support these groups' claims that people do not need the LDS Church. In response, Poelman had revised the text of the sermon for publication in the Ensign[6] and re-delivered the edited sermon on film. A "cough track" was included in the retaping to make it appear that the revised sermon was delivered in front of an audience.[7] The church spliced the retaped sermon into the tapes of general conference prior to their distribution and archival.
One commentator has criticised the changes to the sermon as a dramatic shift in the meaning of Poelman's address:
"The rewriting and refilming of Elder Ronald Poelman's October 1984 Conference address, originally a rare and inspiring defense of free agency, so that it became yet another cry for obedience. His text was not edited — his ideas were turned inside out."[8]
How can we as a church built on free agency deny the agency we dislike? Isn't the point that we may choose as we like? And when some need to remind others about not being free of consequences this typically only refers to decisions we disapprove of. But even the negative consequences like ostracizing family, friends or peers with doubts, hard questions or opposing votes or views there seems to be no such thing as negative consequences.
We have every right to oppose policy, General Authorities and financial decisions. And we have the right to be heard by the body of the church and its leaders.
But that is not what's going on in the latter-days. Our church is not following its own scripture and its historical traditions as articulated by Joseph Smith in regards to the law of common consent.
The law of common consent aims to prevent our church from becoming an Orwellian institution.
The law of common consent has not failed us. We have failed to abide by the law of common consent.
