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

[MikeMaillet]

The only way to decide if any person is a prophet is if they speak by the spirit of prophecy and their words are witnessed by the HG. Some people have met these qualifications through the ages, many are charlatans.

Given how screwed up and brainwashed the members are, you’ll never have a 100% dissenting vote.

Agreed; however, we are counseled to judge his fruits. RMN is no prophet of God. Speaking of the counsel to judge people’s fruits… RMN does seem to fit one of those characters nicely. Something about clothing and sheep. What do I know

And it's fine for you to feel that way. Millions of Catholics, millions of Protestants, millions of Muslims, etc would all agree with you 100% that he's not.
Which again is why the sustaining vote is not about him, it's about those voting.

The idea of this thread is that the sustaining vote somehow could remove the position of our leaders. That's not what the vote is for. It's purely for our acceptance or rejection. It's not the same as political office. You can't vote someone to be a prophet or not be a prophet. They either are or aren't and you either sustain them or don't. Only God decides if they actually are by actually speaking to) through them.

Your view prophets is that they are alway speak the word and will of the Lord. JST Mark 9 would suggest otherwise.

That's not my view at all.
There's a difference between their authority and their teachings. They can retain authority despite error in doctrinal teachings. Peter and Paul both held authority despite disagreement on teachings.

If our Prophets are in doctrinal error then they do not speak for God, for in God there is no error.

Mike

[NeveR]

I'm a little sad to see the conversation veered off into a familiar debate about who is or is not a Prophet - which is tangential to my original question.

It's not about whether RMN or any other is worthy, unworthy. There's a place for that discussion, sure, but it's not here.

It's about what looks like a dichotomy in the church's own process.

A method of legitimately voicing opposition to our leaders once existed, and still nominally exists, even while we are being told opposing the leaders is wrong.

I would like those who currently agree with the second part of that statement to explain how it can be reconciled with the first.

If opposition to the leadership is fundamentally wrong/apostate - why was expressing such opposition sanctioned and catered for at the foundation of the Church?

And why is it still enshrined as an option for every member?

I'd like to see a rational answer please...

[Jashon]

There is no rational answer. You're in danger of becoming a pariah if you voice dissent.

Decades ago now, a mother of two friends voiced her dissent in church for a bishop or SP (can't remember which), because she had personal knowledge relevant to worthiness. Most people in her ward/stake expressed their disapproval and gave her a very hard time for her vocal dissent.

All that's really wanted these days is rubberstamp approval. Voting in lockstep is a sign of one's commitment to the system, which is what is expected and desired by the system and those who want to rise within it.

[HereWeGo]

All that's really wanted these days is rubberstamp approval. Voting in lockstep is a sign of one's commitment to the system, which is what is expected and desired by the system and those who want to rise within it.

Commitment to the system is commitment to the Corporation. It is sad that we are required to indicate commitment to the men of the corporation rather than Jesus Christ. Perhaps it is because Jesus Christ doesn't hold a corporate position. The corporation is the one to commit to rather than Him.

[NeveR]

Sad and strange that no one who upholds this dichotomy (and I know there are several here who do) is prepared to explain their position when asked to do so.

[Chip]

My wife put it this way:

We should attend Jesus' party, not invite him to our party.