Pres Monson's Sunday a.m. Gen Conf Talk

[A Random Phrase]

I don't know if he spoke in the ph session, but TSM only spoke once during the general sessions. It was short, and I was impressed with the content.

My notes:
Choices we make determine our destiny. (quotes Alice in Wonderland). With faith, we can accomplish our goals. If we choose Christ, we will make the correct choices.

I think this talk, alone, made it worth watching conference this weekend.

[SmallFarm]

At the priesthood session he talked about some men who were shipwrecked who had seen a rescue boat pass them by multiple times. The last time the boat passed one man heard the spirit tell him to call them back with the priesthood and he did so, and the boat came back.

[A Random Phrase]

That's cool. I'll have to see if I can access that session.

[Matthew.B]

At the priesthood session he talked about some men who were shipwrecked who had seen a rescue boat pass them by multiple times. The last time the boat passed one man heard the spirit tell him to call them back with the priesthood and he did so, and the boat came back.

I remember hearing that story before in Conference, a few years ago. I don't remember who shared it...

He really didn't look well, and his faculties are going ("Chinese " cat). I hope President Monson is able to live peacefully now, without too much distraction or hardship. He's probably not long for this world...

[Jason]

I don't know if he spoke in the ph session, but TSM only spoke once during the general sessions. It was short, and I was impressed with the content.

My notes:
Choices we make determine our destiny. (quotes Alice in Wonderland). With faith, we can accomplish our goals. If we choose Christ, we will make the correct choices.

I think this talk, alone, made it worth watching conference this weekend.

Stage was set with opening prayer.

Two paths and one choice...with eternal consequences...his concern that we hopefully choose Christ!

Couple that with the conclusion regarding building a better improved tomorrow out of the wreckage. And conclusion of 2nd session on process of sanctification.

Should be an interesting 6 months.

[iWriteStuff]

I don't know if he spoke in the ph session, but TSM only spoke once during the general sessions. It was short, and I was impressed with the content.

My notes:
Choices we make determine our destiny. (quotes Alice in Wonderland). With faith, we can accomplish our goals. If we choose Christ, we will make the correct choices.

I think this talk, alone, made it worth watching conference this weekend.

Stage was set with opening prayer.

Two paths and one choice...with eternal consequences...his concern that we hopefully choose Christ!

Couple that with the conclusion regarding building a better improved tomorrow out of the wreckage. And conclusion of 2nd session on process of sanctification.

Should be an interesting 6 months.

Did you notice how much they stressed the rebuilding theme? Especially in the sections between conference where they talked about the new Provo Temple and all that went into it.... what a great analogy! So much symbolism in that project that it was hard to suspend my sense of awe.

Truly, if such things are in our future.... I can't wait to see it. O:-)

[iWriteStuff]

At the priesthood session he talked about some men who were shipwrecked who had seen a rescue boat pass them by multiple times. The last time the boat passed one man heard the spirit tell him to call them back with the priesthood and he did so, and the boat came back.

I remember hearing that story before in Conference, a few years ago. I don't remember who shared it...

He really didn't look well, and his faculties are going ("Chinese " cat). I hope President Monson is able to live peacefully now, without too much distraction or hardship. He's probably not long for this world...

The opening prayer on the Sunday session spoke of upholding him like King Benjamin. Well, King Benjamin only had that one speech left in him before passing on. I think they are preparing for a change, and I feel... well, I don't know how to describe it, but it seems like Elder Russell M. Nelson, acting President of the 12, is being spiritually prepared for the call. :-ss

Can't quantify that feeling, but I've noticed it over the last couple of conferences....

[Sandinista]

At the priesthood session he talked about some men who were shipwrecked who had seen a rescue boat pass them by multiple times. The last time the boat passed one man heard the spirit tell him to call them back with the priesthood and he did so, and the boat came back.

I remember hearing that story before in Conference, a few years ago. I don't remember who shared it...

He really didn't look well, and his faculties are going ("Chinese " cat). I hope President Monson is able to live peacefully now, without too much distraction or hardship. He's probably not long for this world...

The opening prayer on the Sunday session spoke of upholding him like King Benjamin. Well, King Benjamin only had that one speech left in him before passing on. I think they are preparing for a change, and I feel... well, I don't know how to describe it, but it seems like Elder Russell M. Nelson, acting President of the 12, is being spiritually prepared for the call. :-ss

Can't quantify that feeling, but I've noticed it over the last couple of conferences....

I had the same impression. And I took the King Benjamin reference in the same way.

I also felt so hurt for President Monson during the sustaining of Church officers in the Saturday afternoon session. Here is a man who has literally spent his entire life in service to his fellow man and to the Lord, and for him to have to sit there and hear a few malcontents shout "no" when asked if there are any opposed was just really low class. My wife remarked that he probably didn't take offense, being the type of man he is, but I still think it would have hurt to hear that kind of garbage spewed from the people and Church he has spent so much of his life serving, to say nothing of the disrespect for the Lord's Prophet.

[iWriteStuff]

At the priesthood session he talked about some men who were shipwrecked who had seen a rescue boat pass them by multiple times. The last time the boat passed one man heard the spirit tell him to call them back with the priesthood and he did so, and the boat came back.

I remember hearing that story before in Conference, a few years ago. I don't remember who shared it...

He really didn't look well, and his faculties are going ("Chinese " cat). I hope President Monson is able to live peacefully now, without too much distraction or hardship. He's probably not long for this world...

The opening prayer on the Sunday session spoke of upholding him like King Benjamin. Well, King Benjamin only had that one speech left in him before passing on. I think they are preparing for a change, and I feel... well, I don't know how to describe it, but it seems like Elder Russell M. Nelson, acting President of the 12, is being spiritually prepared for the call. :-ss

Can't quantify that feeling, but I've noticed it over the last couple of conferences....

I had the same impression. And I took the King Benjamin reference in the same way.

I also felt so hurt for President Monson during the sustaining of Church officers in the Saturday afternoon session. Here is a man who has literally spent his entire life in service to his fellow man and to the Lord, and for him to have to sit there and hear a few malcontents shout "no" when asked if there are any opposed was just really low class. My wife remarked that he probably didn't take offense, being the type of man he is, but I still think it would have hurt to hear that kind of garbage spewed from the people and Church he has spent so much of his life serving, to say nothing of the disrespect for the Lord's Prophet.

If I had to guess, I'd say a man like Pres. Monson felt worse for the opposers than he did for himself being on the receiving end of disrespect. It's not a casual thing to cast your lot against the church, and there are definite consequences for those choices - something he spoke about a lot in Sunday Morning session. I'm quite certain they would have opposed anyone in his role, so no need to take it personally.

[Thomas]

Why is it called disrespect when someone votes no? Didn't they call for no votes? If they didn't want any no votes, why ask for them? If that is not the time and place to express a no vote, where is the place and when is the time?

In Joseph Smith's day, the vote really meant something and Joseph Smith honored those votes. Today people act like it is a crime to vote no. Thanks to our leaders for taking away common consent and going against God's will for how the church is to be run.

[SmallFarm]

Why is it called disrespect when someone votes no? Didn't they call for no votes? If they didn't want any no votes, why ask for them? If that is not the time and place to express a no vote, where is the place and when is the time?

In Joseph Smith's day, the vote really meant something and Joseph Smith honored those votes. Today people act like it is a crime to vote no. Thanks to our leaders for taking away common consent and going against God's will for how the church is to be run.

What part of ".... by the same sign" do you not understand?
You can't see how their loud, vocal, attention seeking dissent is disrespectful?

[iWriteStuff]

Why is it called disrespect when someone votes no? Didn't they call for no votes? If they didn't want any no votes, why ask for them? If that is not the time and place to express a no vote, where is the place and when is the time?

In Joseph Smith's day, the vote really meant something and Joseph Smith honored those votes. Today people act like it is a crime to vote no. Thanks to our leaders for taking away common consent and going against God's will for how the church is to be run.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion/position. One could debate the methods of expressing it, though. They ask the same Sustain/Oppose questions in ward and stake conferences. Why not voice it there? That's where they ultimately direct folks to discuss their concerns anyway.

To me, and I apologize for the presumptuousness of the following statement, but it seems more like showmanship and pride to shout in General Conference than an act of genuine conscientious objection. But alas, I would imagine that herein we disagree.

[SmallFarm]

Why is it called disrespect when someone votes no? Didn't they call for no votes? If they didn't want any no votes, why ask for them? If that is not the time and place to express a no vote, where is the place and when is the time?

In Joseph Smith's day, the vote really meant something and Joseph Smith honored those votes. Today people act like it is a crime to vote no. Thanks to our leaders for taking away common consent and going against God's will for how the church is to be run.

"In Joseph Smith's day" if someone had a dissenting vote, it was about the character of the individual, not over general dissention over the direction of the church. If someone felt that way, they didn't take it out on the individuals up for sustaining vote.

[ebenezerarise]

Given the blatant ignorance or outright dismissal of what common consent means as demonstrated on this forum it seems we're in for more of this kind of "dissent" in the conferences to come. Someone keeps bringing up the nonsensical phrase "faithful agitation" when it comes to these things. Uh, if you're agitating about anything in the Church you're NOT faithful...

Why some fail to see that sustaining is a personal, covenant-keeping action and NOT a platform for public rebellion is beyond me....

[Rose Garden]

At the priesthood session he talked about some men who were shipwrecked who had seen a rescue boat pass them by multiple times. The last time the boat passed one man heard the spirit tell him to call them back with the priesthood and he did so, and the boat came back.

Ha, ha, ha, ha! My kids and I tried this very thing yesterday with the ice cream man! Didn't work. Moral of this story: Don't try to buy ice cream from the ice cream man on Sunday.

[shadow]

Thanks to our leaders for taking away common consent and going against God's will for how the church is to be run.

if they took common consent away then you wouldn't be here griping about those who didn't like the tacky vocal opposition in general conference. You gotta think these things through, Thomas 8-|
As it turns out, the tens of thousands who quietly sustained far out numbered the one or two who loudly opposed. Don't be a sore loser, Thomas. Common consent didn't go your way, but it wasn't taken away as you claim. Grow up a bit.

[Robert Sinclair]

The family of Ephraim, need not contend one against another, but should be supportive of one another to do good continually, and to awaken to their role, in this family of Israel.

Anyone could see, a sea of white anglo saxon faces, that were not Jews, sitting upon the stand as leaders of the House of Ephraim spoken of in the scriptures.

How can you be sure they are of Ephraim, there is a witness of God in Ezekiel 37:15-23 and especially in verse 19 which states---

"Behold I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim"

The men upon the stand at conference, who hold the Book of Mormon or Stick of Joseph in their hands, are not of Judah or Jews, and, none can deny they fulfill the scripture, that they are of Ephraim, and the display of their countenance does surely witness of this.

What other people on the face of this earth fulfill this role?

What is their role in this family of Israel, that hold the Stick of Joseph in their hands?

President Monson and fellow 12 is that you? Why yes, yes it is.

Look and see, how you ought to be, and of what you ought to do, to serve God, even as it has been written.

You will be glad you did. ♡ ♡

[Contemplator]

In his Sunday morning talk, President Monson closed with this, after saying that our choices matter, "If we choose Christ, we will have made the correct choice." Whatever else anyone may think about him, here is a very old man who, with what strength he has, invites us to follow Christ. Seems kinda like something a prophet would do.

[Robert Sinclair]

He is a fellow brother, of the House of Ephraim, and as such, deserves all the love and care to be given to any of this house, for always remember, to do unto others as you would have done unto you. ♡

[Matthew.B]

I have voted opposed to the general leaders for the past year, although not affiliated with Any Opposed. The idea behind shouting out "no" is that they wouldn't be seen otherwise, due to the sea of people. Personally, I wish they wouldn't shout out their opposition unless they weren't seen by President Uchtdorf during the time he asked for any to show opposition by the same sign--it does seem rude the way they currently do it. But, due to the monolithic nature of current Church membership, any opposition at this point is more symbolic than functional, something done to keep one's actions in harmony with the conscience.

And I doubt President Monson takes it personally (at least, I hope he doesn't). I don't know anyone who opposes who wouldn't if other men were leading. The vote of common consent is the only God-sanctioned method for the members to affect the leadership (and therefore direction) of the Church.

[Sandinista]

I'd like to point out that it isn't a "vote", it is a sustaining vote". Those are two very different things. We "vote" when we elect people for office, as in a vote in an election for pubic position in a government. A Priesthood calling and the Church membership "sustaining" of that calling is not a "vote" in that we are not electing someone for an office. Callings, including the President of the Church, are made by God through established Priesthood line of authority. Let me repeat that statement because it is at the very heart of this discussion. Callings to offices or positions in the Church are made by the Lord. We do no have a "vote" in that.

What we do have is a chance to cast a "sustaining vote", meaning we can openly either chose to "sustain" and support the Lord's choice, or we can openly chose to not "sustain" and oppose the Lord's choice. In effect, when we cast a "sustaining vote" to "sustain" any Priesthood called position, whether it is at the Ward, Stake or Church level, we are simply saying we recognize the Lord's choice and will support that individual in the carrying out the responsibilities of that office or position. It doesn't say we agree with the calling. It says we will support the individual in their calling, no matter what we may think. Conversely, and here is where we need to be really careful, if we chose to not "sustain" an individual, and we have that right, we are stating that we do not agree with or recognize the Lord's choice and will not support that individual in their calling. Do you really want to stand up and tell the Lord you think he doesn't know what He is doing? I certainly don't!

No where does it say, either in scripture or by prophetic utterance, that we can override the Lord's will in calling any individual to any position in His Kingdom. Of course, if someone knows something about an individual that may create questions as to their worthiness to function in a particular calling, they should bring that to the proper authority's attention. That's as far as that responsibility goes. And do you not think that the Lord already knows whatever it is that it might be that we think we know that may disqualify someone from a position? In my experience whenever anyone has come forth with a concern with why they will not "sustain" someone (notice I did not say a person should be called, that is the Lord's decision, I said "sustain" the person), it is usually something like a long carried offense, a prejudice, or some other trivial matter. And the real problem is usually with the person who has the problem, not the individual being called or "sustained". It really comes down to pride and obedience, something that was talked about extensively in several of the Conference discussions.

I know that the next thing that will be thrown out is that Joseph Smith, and the scriptures, says all things will be done by "common consent" in the Church. That does not mean we "vote" on decision, policies, callings, etc. What it means is that as covenant people we "consent" to follow the Lord in all things. The "common consent" of the Church is the membership of the Church's, as a body of covenant people, acceptance of the will and direction of the Lord through His called and ordained servants. When we cast a "sustaining vote" we are in truth re-affirming our covenant "consent" to follow the Lord and do all we can to promote the cause of Zion, including supporting those who we may not agree with but who nonetheless have been called of God.

Sorry to get on a soap box!

[iWriteStuff]

I'd like to point out that it isn't a "vote", it is a sustaining vote". Those are two very different things. We "vote" when we elect people for office, as in a vote in an election for pubic position in a government. A Priesthood calling and the Church membership "sustaining" of that calling is not a "vote" in that we are not electing someone for an office. Callings, including the President of the Church, are made by God through established Priesthood line of authority. Let me repeat that statement because it is at the very heart of this discussion. Callings to offices or positions in the Church are made by the Lord. We do no have a "vote" in that.

What we do have is a chance to cast a "sustaining vote", meaning we can openly either chose to "sustain" and support the Lord's choice, or we can openly chose to not "sustain" and oppose the Lord's choice. In effect, when we cast a "sustaining vote" to "sustain" any Priesthood called position, whether it is at the Ward, Stake or Church level, we are simply saying we recognize the Lord's choice and will support that individual in the carrying out the responsibilities of that office or position. It doesn't say we agree with the calling. It says we will support the individual in their calling, no matter what we may think. Conversely, and here is where we need to be really careful, if we chose to not "sustain" an individual, and we have that right, we are stating that we do not agree with or recognize the Lord's choice and will not support that individual in their calling. Do you really want to stand up and tell the Lord you think he doesn't know what He is doing? I certainly don't!

No where does it say, either in scripture or by prophetic utterance, that we can override the Lord's will in calling any individual to any position in His Kingdom. Of course, if someone knows something about an individual that may create questions as to their worthiness to function in a particular calling, they should bring that to the proper authority's attention. That's as far as that responsibility goes. And do you not think that the Lord already knows whatever it is that it might be that we think we know that may disqualify someone from a position? In my experience whenever anyone has come forth with a concern with why they will not "sustain" someone (notice I did not say a person should be called, that is the Lord's decision, I said "sustain" the person), it is usually something like a long carried offense, a prejudice, or some other trivial matter. And the real problem is usually with the person who has the problem, not the individual being called or "sustained". It really comes down to pride and obedience, something that was talked about extensively in several of the Conference discussions.

Very good explanation, Sandinista. I think you nailed it.

I've only ever seen one instance in my life where someone was "opposed" to an individual receiving a calling. In this case, they were opposing my father's calling to serve in the bishopric. As such, it made a very lasting impression.

The details of the event are as follows: there was a brother in our ward whose son had been hired by my father to manage an apartment building. The job was fairly simple: you collect rent, sweep the halls, change the light bulbs, and perform any other minor piece of maintenance that may come up. (In later life when I ended up managing the building, my dad had me replace every toilet in the building.... an exciting task, I assure you) The son who was hired to do these simple tasks decided to do none of them. After months of trying to get him to do his job, and having to step in and do it for him, my father decided the best course of action was to let him go and hire someone else. Doubtless this caused some discomfort for the young man and his family, but he had been given numerous chances...

The father of this young man was outraged. When my father was called into the bishopric and the high councilor asked for "any opposed", the father of this young man quietly yet indignantly stood up with crossed arms from his seat in the front row. From my vantage point one row back and half a pew over, I had a pretty good view of the whole thing. The high councilor looked like his head was going to explode. After the sustaining vote was over, the high councilor immediately took the father to a side room to discuss his concerns. When there was no moral ground discovered on which my father could be disqualified from service, he was set apart without delay and served to the best of his ability until the bishopric changed some years later.

My father and the father of the young man later reconciled and are now good friends again. I don't know if he ever apologized, but I doubt my father took it personally anyway. My father has been known to let his pride take it on the chin and suffer indignity without much if any complaint. I kinda love that guy.

Anyway, I relate this example to demonstrate what Sandinista has described above. The sustaining vote is primarily meant to voice our own individual support and acknowledge the Lord's hand in choosing His servants. And, more often than not, it is a personal grudge or grievance that distinguishes the opposing party rather than a factual claim to moral impropriety.

[2EstablishZion]

I thought it highly inappropriate for the person to shout out. In the spirit of casting a cloak of charity over the person, they simply may have been concerned that in an audience of over 20,000, their opposing vote would not be seen or acknowledged. Not that it was the correct action, of course, and I had the same feeling that it was pride that caused the person to "act out" the way they did.

I felt the presidency treated the person with respect, even with President Uchtdorf returning to the podium at President Monson's direction to direct the individual to take the matter up with his local authorities.

[Sandinista]

I'd like to point out that it isn't a "vote", it is a sustaining vote". Those are two very different things. We "vote" when we elect people for office, as in a vote in an election for pubic position in a government. A Priesthood calling and the Church membership "sustaining" of that calling is not a "vote" in that we are not electing someone for an office. Callings, including the President of the Church, are made by God through established Priesthood line of authority. Let me repeat that statement because it is at the very heart of this discussion. Callings to offices or positions in the Church are made by the Lord. We do no have a "vote" in that.

What we do have is a chance to cast a "sustaining vote", meaning we can openly either chose to "sustain" and support the Lord's choice, or we can openly chose to not "sustain" and oppose the Lord's choice. In effect, when we cast a "sustaining vote" to "sustain" any Priesthood called position, whether it is at the Ward, Stake or Church level, we are simply saying we recognize the Lord's choice and will support that individual in the carrying out the responsibilities of that office or position. It doesn't say we agree with the calling. It says we will support the individual in their calling, no matter what we may think. Conversely, and here is where we need to be really careful, if we chose to not "sustain" an individual, and we have that right, we are stating that we do not agree with or recognize the Lord's choice and will not support that individual in their calling. Do you really want to stand up and tell the Lord you think he doesn't know what He is doing? I certainly don't!

No where does it say, either in scripture or by prophetic utterance, that we can override the Lord's will in calling any individual to any position in His Kingdom. Of course, if someone knows something about an individual that may create questions as to their worthiness to function in a particular calling, they should bring that to the proper authority's attention. That's as far as that responsibility goes. And do you not think that the Lord already knows whatever it is that it might be that we think we know that may disqualify someone from a position? In my experience whenever anyone has come forth with a concern with why they will not "sustain" someone (notice I did not say a person should be called, that is the Lord's decision, I said "sustain" the person), it is usually something like a long carried offense, a prejudice, or some other trivial matter. And the real problem is usually with the person who has the problem, not the individual being called or "sustained". It really comes down to pride and obedience, something that was talked about extensively in several of the Conference discussions.

Very good explanation, Sandinista. I think you nailed it.

I've only ever seen one instance in my life where someone was "opposed" to an individual receiving a calling. In this case, they were opposing my father's calling to serve in the bishopric. As such, it made a very lasting impression.

The details of the event are as follows: there was a brother in our ward whose son had been hired by my father to manage an apartment building. The job was fairly simple: you collect rent, sweep the halls, change the light bulbs, and perform any other minor piece of maintenance that may come up. (In later life when I ended up managing the building, my dad had me replace every toilet in the building.... an exciting task, I assure you) The son who was hired to do these simple tasks decided to do none of them. After months of trying to get him to do his job, and having to step in and do it for him, my father decided the best course of action was to let him go and hire someone else. Doubtless this caused some discomfort for the young man and his family, but he had been given numerous chances...

The father of this young man was outraged. When my father was called into the bishopric and the high councilor asked for "any opposed", the father of this young man quietly yet indignantly stood up with crossed arms from his seat in the front row. From my vantage point one row back and half a pew over, I had a pretty good view of the whole thing. The high councilor looked like his head was going to explode. After the sustaining vote was over, the high councilor immediately took the father to a side room to discuss his concerns. When there was no moral ground discovered on which my father could be disqualified from service, he was set apart without delay and served to the best of his ability until the bishopric changed some years later.

My father and the father of the young man later reconciled and are now good friends again. I don't know if he ever apologized, but I doubt my father took it personally anyway. My father has been known to let his pride take it on the chin and suffer indignity without much if any complaint. I kinda love that guy.

Anyway, I relate this example to demonstrate what Sandinista has described above. The sustaining vote is primarily meant to voice our own individual support and acknowledge the Lord's hand in choosing His servants. And, more often than not, it is a personal grudge or grievance that distinguishes the opposing party rather than a factual claim to moral impropriety.

Thank you IWriteStuff. From what I know of you on this forum your father passed his fine qualities on to you.

[iWriteStuff]

Thank you IWriteStuff. From what I know of you on this forum your father passed his fine qualities on to you.

I appreciate the sentiment! The man had some big shoes, and my feet are still growing ;)