5 dissenting votes

[Mars]

During the sustaining vote in General Conference, 5 individuals stood up to vote "opposed". I find this interesting. I'm not rushing to judgement about them just yet, but I am curious to know their stories and why they chose to do so.

[hawkwing]

During the sustaining vote in General Conference, 5 individuals stood up to vote "opposed". I find this interesting. I'm not rushing to judgement about them just yet, but I am curious to know their stories and why they chose to do so.

Follow #anyoppose on twitter.

[Mars]

http://ldsliving.com/story/78523-dissen ... ed-to-know" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


P.S. Sorry, this was supposed to be in the Lounge.

[hawkwing]

It is. Now.

[SpiffCoug]

I'm guessing most don't also seek out their Stake Presidents to make their opposition known.

[CAFB_04-12]

I was changing the oil in my truck and listening to the Saturday session when this happened. At first I thought to myself "hey, they seem to have changed up the script a little" when Uchdorf kept saying "the vote has been noted." Then it dawned on me at the end when he mentioned that people with dissenting votes can speak with their Stake leaders that there had been actual dissenting votes.

I can't figure out exactly what they wanted by doing this. From the news accounts (AP did a blurb) it seems that they weren't an anti-Mormon group or anything, just a group of Mormons generally upset that the Church still opposes gay marriage and women in the priesthood. In which case, I would think, they would simply abstain from sustaining votes, not cast actual dissenting votes.

My thoughts were always that a dissenting vote had more to do with the individual and knowledge of his circumstances more than simple disagreement with doctrine or policy. Like, if you knew the guy they just called as Young Men's president was a child molester in his previous ward or something. In which case you would follow up your dissenting vote with the Bishop, who may or may not know about something like that.

Anyway, it was interesting at least. Once in a lifetime kind of thing.

[hawkwing]

I was changing the oil in my truck and listening to the Saturday session when this happened. At first I thought to myself "hey, they seem to have changed up the script a little" when Uchdorf kept saying "the vote has been noted." Then it dawned on me at the end when he mentioned that people with dissenting votes can speak with their Stake leaders that there had been actual dissenting votes.

I can't figure out exactly what they wanted by doing this. From the news accounts (AP did a blurb) it seems that they weren't an anti-Mormon group or anything, just a group of Mormons generally upset that the Church still opposes gay marriage and women in the priesthood. In which case, I would think, they would simply abstain from sustaining votes, not cast actual dissenting votes.

My thoughts were always that a dissenting vote had more to do with the individual and knowledge of his circumstances more than simple disagreement with doctrine or policy. Like, if you knew the guy they just called as Young Men's president was a child molester in his previous ward or something. In which case you would follow up your dissenting vote with the Bishop, who may or may not know about something like that.

Anyway, it was interesting at least. Once in a lifetime kind of thing.

There were some people who were part of it on twitter. I saw 2 or 3 of them, not a single one of them identified as LDS. They identified as atheists.

[BoiseBYU]

Five out of 20,000+. Yet the press thinks this is newsworthy? Sheesh

[Mars]

Five out of 20,000+. Yet the press thinks this is newsworthy? Sheesh

First time since 1977, I think, when one man cast a dissenting vote based on blacks and the priesthood. He was escorted out, but invited back in afterwards the talk to one of the 12 apostles. Oh, and 3 women again in the late 70s or early 80s over a political equality issue.

Historically, it seems that this used to be common. But always as an issue with an individual, not issues with the doctrine in general. And you must be a member in good standing to cast a dissenting vote.

Rumor is, one of the Ordain Women owns the website, and they plan on "making this a thing" EVERY general conference from now on. That is definitely NOT the proper order of things. They list their disagreements on the website as such things as the Church stating that gay mormons should not have gay sexual relationships. That, specifically, is pretty poor beef to pick with the Church.

I doubt that they'll speak to their Stake Presidents either. But they were allowed to stay in the Conference Center after opposing, even if they didn't get to speak to any of the Brethren afterwards.

[scott715]

Aren't tickets given to stake presidents and then to members of the church.