If it's solely the job of God to remove unfit leaders, why do we have a sustaining vote?

[NeveR]

Well, that's my question.

At ward, stake and higher levels we are all asked multiple times a year if we sustain our leaders or oppose them.

It's a confidence vote essentially and one which at one time was supposed to represent a genuine democratic right to choose.

Why was this process put in place if only God has the right to remove unfit leaders?

And if we believe - for example - that the vax is NOT a "literal Godsend" but a potential deadly poison, should we not use this vote as a means of expressing our moral and factual objection?

What can possibly be so wrong or apostate about that since "opposing" the leaders is an option built in to the very fabric of the church?

[Robin Hood]

Well, that's my question.

At ward, stake and higher levels we are all asked multiple times a year if we sustain our leaders or oppose them.

It's a confidence vote essentially and one which at one time was supposed to represent a genuine democratic right to choose.

Why was this process put in place if only God has the right to remove unfit leaders?

And if we believe - for example - that the vax is NOT a "literal Godsend" but a potential deadly poison, should we not use this vote as a means of expressing our moral and factual objection?

What can possibly be so wrong or apostate about that since "opposing" the leaders is an option built in to the very fabric of the church?

Couldn't agree more.

[gruden2.0]

Maybe researching the Law of Common Consent would answer some of your questions. Of course, what the Mormon church observes is mere lip service to that law.

God does respect and value our input. Mormon leaders do not.

[TheDuke]

not sure why sustaining has just a direct link to removal? Removal would require some terrible crime or reason, not sustaining is your right

[Atrasado]

Well, that's my question.

At ward, stake and higher levels we are all asked multiple times a year if we sustain our leaders or oppose them.

It's a confidence vote essentially and one which at one time was supposed to represent a genuine democratic right to choose.

Why was this process put in place if only God has the right to remove unfit leaders?

And if we believe - for example - that the vax is NOT a "literal Godsend" but a potential deadly poison, should we not use this vote as a means of expressing our moral and factual objection?

What can possibly be so wrong or apostate about that since "opposing" the leaders is an option built in to the very fabric of the church?

Your question is so good I'm going to steal it.

[endlessQuestions]

not sure why sustaining has just a direct link to removal? Removal would require some terrible crime or reason, not sustaining is your right

A review of the historical purpose of sustaining seems to be in order.

The law of common consent is still in force.

It's just the judges won't enforce it anymore.

[Robin Hood]

not sure why sustaining has just a direct link to removal? Removal would require some terrible crime or reason, not sustaining is your right

You make a good point.
Raising our hand in the negative has to be purposeful. It can't be because we don't like someone or that we've heard a rumour etc. And even if we have certain knowledge of a misdeed, we can't assume we know more than others. It could be that it has already been resolved.
So the law of common consent must be deployed with care.

[endlessQuestions]

Well, that's my question.

At ward, stake and higher levels we are all asked multiple times a year if we sustain our leaders or oppose them.

It's a confidence vote essentially and one which at one time was supposed to represent a genuine democratic right to choose.

Why was this process put in place if only God has the right to remove unfit leaders?

And if we believe - for example - that the vax is NOT a "literal Godsend" but a potential deadly poison, should we not use this vote as a means of expressing our moral and factual objection?

What can possibly be so wrong or apostate about that since "opposing" the leaders is an option built in to the very fabric of the church?

Yes, we should use this divinely instituted pattern.

It will likely cost you your temple recommend, and possibly your membership in the Church.

[endlessQuestions]

not sure why sustaining has just a direct link to removal? Removal would require some terrible crime or reason, not sustaining is your right

You make a good point.
Raising our hand in the negative has to be purposeful. It can't be because we don't like someone or that we've heard a rumour etc. And even if we have certain knowledge of a misdeed, we can't assume we know more than others. It could be that it has already been resolved.
So the law of common consent must be deployed with care.

Which is why the Lord gives us a pattern of how to resolve our disputes.

Unfortunately, our leaders have shut off the ability of the membership to pursue this path.

So, what shall we do?

[HVDC]

Just like we have the right to remove tyrants too.

People become complacent.

Don't zealously guard their rights.

So many parallels.

The mind boggles.

Sir H

[HVDC]

not sure why sustaining has just a direct link to removal? Removal would require some terrible crime or reason, not sustaining is your right

You make a good point.
Raising our hand in the negative has to be purposeful. It can't be because we don't like someone or that we've heard a rumour etc. And even if we have certain knowledge of a misdeed, we can't assume we know more than others. It could be that it has already been resolved.
So the law of common consent must be deployed with care.

I think we have been more than careful.

Sir H

[Mindfields]

not sure why sustaining has just a direct link to removal? Removal would require some terrible crime or reason, not sustaining is your right

You make a good point.
Raising our hand in the negative has to be purposeful. It can't be because we don't like someone or that we've heard a rumour etc. And even if we have certain knowledge of a misdeed, we can't assume we know more than others. It could be that it has already been resolved.
So the law of common consent must be deployed with care.

Which is why the Lord gives us a pattern of how to resolve our disputes.

Unfortunately, our leaders have shut off the ability of the membership to pursue this path.

So, what shall we do?

Well I see two options that will likely lead to the same result.

Raise you hand in opposition. Meet with the local authorities and chose to not oppose anymore or attend a court of love and lose your membership. *
Resign

* Bishop roulette may alter this outcome.

[endlessQuestions]

not sure why sustaining has just a direct link to removal? Removal would require some terrible crime or reason, not sustaining is your right

You make a good point.
Raising our hand in the negative has to be purposeful. It can't be because we don't like someone or that we've heard a rumour etc. And even if we have certain knowledge of a misdeed, we can't assume we know more than others. It could be that it has already been resolved.
So the law of common consent must be deployed with care.

Which is why the Lord gives us a pattern of how to resolve our disputes.

Unfortunately, our leaders have shut off the ability of the membership to pursue this path.

So, what shall we do?

Well I see two options that will likely lead to the same result.

Raise you hand in opposition. Meet with the local authorities and chose to not oppose anymore or attend a court of love and lose your membership. *
Resign

* Bishop roulette may alter this outcome.

Honest question:

Is there a third, "Can't sustain, but don't know that I oppose" option?

In order to force the conversation into the open?

Because this is where I find myself.

Due to the appearance of evil, sustaining violates my conscience.

But, as Robin Hood pointed out, we may not have all the information we need in order to decide to oppose.

But the leadership won't talk to us.

So, as for me, I feel rather stuck.

Looking for a responsible, mature way forward.

[TheDuke]

perhaps it is the way the OP is formed but it talks about removing unfit leaders via a sustaining vote. It doesn't seem as broad as a full discussion of the concepts of common consent. The later which seems to get twisted often in FF. So, keeping it to the OP, it is simplified question that makes sense really. Forget, all the complexity. Is there a place to remove (or more likely in original format to keep a new leader from taking a place) by our sustaining or lack of sustaining vote.

There are seemingly three outcomes. First, you sustain and promise to at the very least not oppose the leader. Second, you don't sustain for your own personal reasons. but you are in the minority, so nobody else really cares. Third, would be to the OP, you refuse to sustain and then provide evidence of why. And then we get to the question of whether or not your evidence is real and whether or not it raises to the level of removal.

I understand in the early days, many were not sustained and never put in place. Not sure if or how many removed. but, it would be like a major rebellion against a bad leader (i.e. bishop or SP). Recently, at the top level they seem to use the slow path to remove the rough spots. I.e. (other than RMN) all Q15 members were GA's for many, many years. I guess if they were sustained for 20-30 years already, few would sneak by with unseen warts that raise to the level, meaning the issue would be doing new things and several GA's have, even recently.

A few months ago, a link was on here to a guy from England that did not sustain and then went to the wall for getting action. My reaction was he had good questions. And he was correct about most of his complaints (i.e. RMN and Wendy embellishing truths as well as Oaks and others). Seems he was right and the leaders should address it, but they didn't. However, none seemed to be to the level of removal, just fixing their stories, etc...

So, I guess there are multiple reasons to sustain or not or what it means, but removal doesn't seem like the most pressing. Also, I don't think it is correct to say it is the Lord's job to remove a bad leader. It really never says that. I mean the Lord can do this, but he seldom has in history (think of Eli and other ancient HPs, King Noah, first HP of northern kingdom (can not remember his name) that ended up adding Baal so the citizens wouldn't have to travel to Judah, etc...). They all died, so eventually they were all removed but dying of old age doesn't seem anything but a natural result. IMO.

[endlessQuestions]

perhaps it is the way the OP is formed but it talks about removing unfit leaders via a sustaining vote. It doesn't seem as broad as a full discussion of the concepts of common consent. The later which seems to get twisted often in FF. So, keeping it to the OP, it is simplified question that makes sense really. Forget, all the complexity. Is there a place to remove (or more likely in original format to keep a new leader from taking a place) by our sustaining or lack of sustaining vote.

There are seemingly three outcomes. First, you sustain and promise to at the very least not oppose the leader. Second, you don't sustain for your own personal reasons. but you are in the minority, so nobody else really cares. Third, would be to the OP, you refuse to sustain and then provide evidence of why. And then we get to the question of whether or not your evidence is real and whether or not it raises to the level of removal.

I understand in the early days, many were not sustained and never put in place. Not sure if or how many removed. but, it would be like a major rebellion against a bad leader (i.e. bishop or SP). Recently, at the top level they seem to use the slow path to remove the rough spots. I.e. (other than RMN) all Q15 members were GA's for many, many years. I guess if they were sustained for 20-30 years already, few would sneak by with unseen warts that raise to the level, meaning the issue would be doing new things and several GA's have, even recently.

A few months ago, a link was on here to a guy from England that did not sustain and then went to the wall for getting action. My reaction was he had good questions. And he was correct about most of his complaints (i.e. RMN and Wendy embellishing truths as well as Oaks and others). Seems he was right and the leaders should address it, but they didn't. However, none seemed to be to the level of removal, just fixing their stories, etc...

So, I guess there are multiple reasons to sustain or not or what it means, but removal doesn't seem like the most pressing. Also, I don't think it is correct to say it is the Lord's job to remove a bad leader. It really never says that. I mean the Lord can do this, but he seldom has in history (think of Eli and other ancient HPs, King Noah, first HP of northern kingdom (can not remember his name) that ended up adding Baal so the citizens wouldn't have to travel to Judah, etc...). They all died, so eventually they were all removed but dying of old age doesn't seem anything but a natural result. IMO.

Really good analysis here, in my opinion.

When you say "really bad leader", do you mean somebody who has joined a secret combination that is known as "The Brotherhood of Death" - or worse than that?

[endlessQuestions]

In the interest of full disclosure, this is something I've been thinking about for quite awhile now. Here's how I've proposed we as a membership should proceed:

It was originally posted at the end of last year.

########### BEGIN ############

Tomorrow is a red-letter day in the history of the world.

For those of you old enough to remember printed calendars, a red-letter day on secular calendars indicates a holiday. On God's calendars it indicates a "holy day", and tomorrow is a red-letter day on both the Sacred Round, and what is known as the Priest Calendar. It is also a minor holy day on what is known as the Mercury Calendar.

While a discussion of the significance of this is beyond the scope of this communication, let it be known to all the world that our Father set the appointed times of all His servants long before the creation of the world, and to this date, all appointments have been fulfilled as planned. Again: God has not, does not, and will not fail to keep His appointments.

In the very near future we will be releasing Volumes One and Two of the "Record of the Life of Beverly Brough Campbell", a historical record of the dealings of some of God's children and the world they inhabited and influenced. We encourage all those who are seeking to understand God's plan to carefully review these documents and "ponderize" the implications of what they reveal about the time and place we find ourselves in.

We feel impressed to remind all who review it that while it is given unto us to form judgments for ourselves as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, final judgement lies with the Lord. Let us not make the same mistake that so many of our ancestors have made and attempt to do the Lord's work for Him. Let us rest in the assurance that, as He did with our first parents, God has promised to return to give us further instruction and promised that, in due time, He will come to complete His work on our planet by destroying the secret works of darkness and establishing his kingdom here upon the Earth.

We wish to draw attention to the literal reality that when God decrees that the appointed day has arrived, Jesus Christ will return to rule upon the earth as King of Kings. We wish to reaffirm that all those who are willing to declare their allegiance to our Lord and Savior will be given an inheritance in that kingdom, and allowed to serve as his loyal subjects. Those who reject the Messiah as their sovereign will, in due time, go on to receive their reward as well.

In preparation for the return of the Lord, we call upon all men, women, and children who have reached the age of accountability to prayerfully consider whether they have truly accepted the Messiah as their King, and if they have not, to do so with as much haste as can be taken.

For those who serve in public positions for organizations that claim to represent our Lord and Savior, we call upon them to publicly proclaim their allegiance to our God, our King, and His coming kingdom.

To the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we make a special invitation:

In that you preside over a church that is, by the King's decree, to be run by the law common consent, we call upon all those who serve as leaders with stewardship over God's children to publicly release individual statements in which you declare your filial allegiance to the Father of all Mankind and His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, acknowledge that the man known as Jesus Christ is in very fact the King of Kings, proclaim your eternal opposition to Lucifer, the common enemy of all mankind, and declare that you are prepared to serve Christ and only Christ, with no reservations, no divided allegiances, and full purpose of heart. We particularly ask that the man who is currently sustained as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the prophet, seer, and revelator - the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys - complete this task, whomever that may be at the time this message is received.

We ask that you publish these statements and make them available for public review before the 19th of March, 2023 so that all who are being asked to sustain you as prophets, seers, revelators, and General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints may review your declaration and come to The 193rd General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints prepared to cast their votes with full confidence and without reservation.

Let us all remember that the Lord knows all the subtle works of the adversary and the works of all those who follow him. Let us recall that God will not be mocked, allow His temple to be polluted indefinitely, or His kingdom to be overthrown. We call upon all those noble souls who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, Lord, and King to waste and wear out their lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them, as that is what our King has asked us to do. As we do so we may know with absolute certainty that God will fulfill His promises unto us, and that in a future day we will enjoy the privilege of worshiping our God without the influence of those who seek to usurp His authority.

To close we simply wish to offer a prayer, in the manner our Lord taught us while He walked amongst the children of men:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever., Amen.

##### END ######

I am now actively looking for ways to put this invitation into the hands of our leadership.

I feel that before I can sustain or oppose, I need further information.

Only they can provide that information.

Let me know if you can help pull a Beverly Campbell "access" miracle here. I'm happy to be the one to stick my neck out, but I might need help getting the access I need.

[Reluctant Watchman]

It's a way to weed out the dissenters.

[Reluctant Watchman]

How does the church define "sustain"? It's very different than most of you believe.

[endlessQuestions]

How does the church define "sustain"? It's very different than most of you believe.

How do you define "the church"?

[BeNotDeceived]

not sure why sustaining has just a direct link to removal? Removal would require some terrible crime or reason, not sustaining is your right

You make a good point.
Raising our hand in the negative has to be purposeful. It can't be because we don't like someone or that we've heard a rumour etc. And even if we have certain knowledge of a misdeed, we can't assume we know more than others. It could be that it has already been resolved.
So the law of common consent must be deployed with care.

Which is why the Lord gives us a pattern of how to resolve our disputes.

Unfortunately, our leaders have shut off the ability of the membership to pursue this path.

So, what shall we do?

James 1:5

[Reluctant Watchman]

How does the church define "sustain"? It's very different than most of you believe.

How do you define "the church"?

Who decides/defines the doctrine of the church? LDS church leaders. That’s who’s definition we need to reveal in order to unwind this mess.

[NeveR]

perhaps it is the way the OP is formed but it talks about removing unfit leaders via a sustaining vote. It doesn't seem as broad as a full discussion of the concepts of common consent. The later which seems to get twisted often in FF. So, keeping it to the OP, it is simplified question that makes sense really. Forget, all the complexity. Is there a place to remove (or more likely in original format to keep a new leader from taking a place) by our sustaining or lack of sustaining vote.

There are seemingly three outcomes. First, you sustain and promise to at the very least not oppose the leader. Second, you don't sustain for your own personal reasons. but you are in the minority, so nobody else really cares. Third, would be to the OP, you refuse to sustain and then provide evidence of why. And then we get to the question of whether or not your evidence is real and whether or not it raises to the level of removal.

I understand in the early days, many were not sustained and never put in place. Not sure if or how many removed. but, it would be like a major rebellion against a bad leader (i.e. bishop or SP). Recently, at the top level they seem to use the slow path to remove the rough spots. I.e. (other than RMN) all Q15 members were GA's for many, many years. I guess if they were sustained for 20-30 years already, few would sneak by with unseen warts that raise to the level, meaning the issue would be doing new things and several GA's have, even recently.

A few months ago, a link was on here to a guy from England that did not sustain and then went to the wall for getting action. My reaction was he had good questions. And he was correct about most of his complaints (i.e. RMN and Wendy embellishing truths as well as Oaks and others). Seems he was right and the leaders should address it, but they didn't. However, none seemed to be to the level of removal, just fixing their stories, etc...

So, I guess there are multiple reasons to sustain or not or what it means, but removal doesn't seem like the most pressing. Also, I don't think it is correct to say it is the Lord's job to remove a bad leader. It really never says that. I mean the Lord can do this, but he seldom has in history (think of Eli and other ancient HPs, King Noah, first HP of northern kingdom (can not remember his name) that ended up adding Baal so the citizens wouldn't have to travel to Judah, etc...). They all died, so eventually they were all removed but dying of old age doesn't seem anything but a natural result. IMO.

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

When I spoke of it being "the Lord's job" to remove bad leaders I was paraphrasing what one poster here has often stated to be his reason for not speaking out against the wrong advice given by the FP in support of the vax.

I'm wondering how this view can be reconciled with the long-standing right/obligation of church members to openly state their opinion re. the leadership.

When you are given the invitation to clearly enunciate your doubts and disagreements within the framework of the church - how can any of us justify not doing so?

Isn't a vote to sustain in such circs a vote against our own conscience?

And hasn't the Leadership strayed into error by turning what was once a genuine democratic procedure into a mere formality where no one can "oppose" without being punished?

[Atrasado]

How does the church define "sustain"? It's very different than most of you believe.

I have recently read that they take it as an oath to support all of the leaders' decisions, or so Elder Rasband thinks. To which I say, no thanks.

[BeNotDeceived]

How does the church define "sustain"? It's very different than most of you believe.

How do you define "the church"?

Who decides/defines the doctrine of the church? LDS church leaders. That’s who’s definition we need to reveal in order to unwind this mess.

God, but the church is not fully functioning.

[endlessQuestions]

How does the church define "sustain"? It's very different than most of you believe.

How do you define "the church"?

Who decides/defines the doctrine of the church? LDS church leaders. That’s who’s definition we need to reveal in order to unwind this mess.

Incorrect. How does the Lord define "the church" in the Standard Works?