Sustaining Judas as Apostle

[_consiglieri]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fie ... triarch%29

Fascinating, Buff!

I am heartened that at least he was treated with compassion.

Though I am certain it had nothing to do with his family connections.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Fence Sitter]

This one is interesting also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R._Lyman

[_bcspace]

My concern is that the majority of members of my group seem to think it proper to sustain a wicked man to a church office.

I cannot believe this is correct, and wonder how it is we have come to such a place in the development of the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

Since Judas and his story is well known, some might assume that the problem was taken care of prior to the calling. I'm not saying such an assumption must be valid though. Honestly, I might not raise my hand in opposition, but I might inquire afterwards and state my opposition if the results of such an inquiry seemed to mandate.

[_cinepro]

Somebody else had already mentioned Judas so I followed up by asking if, knowing the end from the beginning, what our response should be should Judas be presented for a sustaining vote.

I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. Are you saying that Judas is presented for a sustaining vote before betraying Christ? In that case, can we condemn someone for something they haven't done yet?

[_honorentheos]

Consig -

I think it's human nature to not go against the grain, even when one feels strongly that the group is in the wrong.

I think evolutionary biologists would tell us that this is at the heart of why your and my ancestors survived to pass on their genes that promoted this behavior while the fool who stood in the wheat field got eaten by a tiger.

Today, though, the majority of the tigers we face are not physical ones but moral ones. Courage to resist this impulse at least long enough to think about why we are going in a given direction is a virtue, in my opinion. To fail to act once one recognizes one is not being eaten by a tiger, but may be in the process of being led towards one is cowardice. A vice we all too often fall prey to, not just within the church.

[_consiglieri]

I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. Are you saying that Judas is presented for a sustaining vote before betraying Christ? In that case, can we condemn someone for something they haven't done yet?

Yes, that is the hypothetical, but I am not suggesting that we "condemn" somebody for something they haven't done yet.

I am just trying to see to what degree Mormons have abdicated the role of giving a sustaining vote for somebody presented to them for a calling.

It seems to be a meaningless exercise as it has developed.

Or at worst, it is a process by which we covenant to obey whomever has been called, regardless of what we think of them or what they may ask us to do.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Drifting]

Found this on LDS.org

Voting by the uplifted hand to sustain someone in a Church position is a sign of our personal commitment to uphold the Lord’s choice of that person in that calling. President Harold B. Lee identified the commitment, the covenant, inherent in voting to sustain. In the solemn assembly called to sustain Joseph Fielding Smith as prophet, seer, and revelator to the Church, President Lee said:

“Everyone is perfectly free to vote as he wishes. There is no compulsion whatsoever in this voting. When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give, your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote.” (Conference Report, April 1970, p. 103.)

We are free to exercise our free agency to sustain or not sustain, but we should consider prayerfully the counsel of President Joseph Fielding Smith:

“No man, if the people decide not to sustain him, 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. The priesthood selects, under the inspiration of our Father in heaven, and then it is the duty of the Latter-day Saints, as they are assembled in conference or other capacity, by the uplifted hand, to sustain or to reject; and I take it that no man has the right to raise his hand in opposition, or with contrary vote, unless he has a reason for doing so that would be valid if presented before those who stand at the head of the Church. In other words, I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only if he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold. That is my understanding of it.” (Conference Report, June 1919, p. 92.)

I have underlined an interesting part. If the Lord gives you a feeling via the Holy Ghost that you should not sustain someone you are to ignore it. How two-faced.