Saturday, September 15, 2018

Clarifications 2

The process begun in Arizona involved an initial vote to choose a document. There was a second vote planned, but the process was called off before it took place. That second vote was intended to be a sustaining vote to adopt the chosen document as our guide and standard.

Numerous people have argued that the majority vote in favor of the Lots' statement indicates we sustained it. That is incorrect. The first voting - what took place on Saturday - was described in advance as a vote to choose a document from the many presented and any not presented. At no time was it stated or implied that it was a sustaining/adopting vote. It was explained that a vote to adopt the chosen document would take place on Sunday.

There was also a period of discussion, persuasion, reasoning, etc., required to take place after the first vote, both to make sure there was no Achilles heel to the document that might only be known among the opposing minority, and to allow persuasion to inform and change minds before our voting to adopt any statement as binding. Only then, after that work took place, could a sustaining vote be reasonably taken to adopt and canonize the chosen document.

It makes a difference. The attempted steps were not completed. It's like claiming you own a car in the dealership's lot because everyone at the dealership agrees it's yours. But until you sign the papers, you have no legal right to or responsibility for that car. And until we legally bind ourselves to a statement of principles by a sustaining vote, we cannot be held accountable, nor can we claim any rights or blessings resulting from obeying the Lord's command to produce such a statement and then add it with our scriptures. We have yet to sign on the dotted line.

There may be more to clarify, but I hope others can do that and I can be done. If I have to say more, it'll be soon. I don't want to drag things out.