Thoughts from Brother Dale

{Editor’s note: This is a continuation of yesterday’s post by brother Dale Volskay.}

Allow me to discuss this bit farther… In 2006, a resolution was offered at the very beginning of the first business session which threw total havoc into the entire conference. I was not at this meeting due to a doctor’s appointment, but I heard about it as soon as I arrived. Last year's CRE Conference was handled like a grade school activity, and after the conference was completed, I proceeded to review what took place. I wrote a paper on that subject and the above underlined portion which says “conferences that do not provide voice and vote—are an affront—etc—I question. Please look at my paper, and decide for yourself: I named it “Decisions of Early Conferences: Decisions of the Early Conferences — pre – 1900

In reexamining the report on the CRE conference that I did, I wanted to do some further study on the “where as” that was stated in the Resolution presented by Rudy Leutzinger. Just for the fun of it, I will write out the references of the Resolutions that he quoted in the fifth whereas.

This ‘whereas’ states: “such conferences have been specifically discouraged by General Conference Actions (adopted April 6, 1868. NO. 87: “That all private members, male and female, have a right to vote on all questions that the elders may deem of sufficient importance to bring before the church. [Note: “All questions that the ELDERS MAY DEEM OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO BRING BEFORE THE CHURCH] ---Now the sentence continues: (Adopted April 9, 1873; No. 145.
Whereas, the String Prairie and Nauvoo Districts conference at its last session, as published in the Herald, adopted a resolution expressive of their opinion, to the effect, that none had a legal right to vote on the business before the body except elders, or Melchisedec priesthood; and
Whereas, the General Conference of 1868, resolved and decided affirmatively, “That all private members, male and female, have a right to vote upon all questions that be brought before the General Conference;” it is hereby
Resolved: that this conference considers the action of the String Prairie and Nauvoo District conference, on the suffrage question, premature, and disrespectful to the entire body, and that said conference is hereby respectfully requested to reconsider and rescind said resolution at their next quarterly conference session.)”
{Then Br. Leutzinger continues with his resolution:} as disrespectful to the entire body of the Church; and here Br. Leutzinger goes to his next whereas (#6 in his resolution.): Where as, the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches provides voice and vote to all members of the Church of Christ and has received endorsement of a growing number of branches and . . .”

Let’s take a closer look at what has been quoted here: If I am understanding this correctly, the String Prairie and Nauvoo district made a resolution to put ALL questions before the General Conference. In doing this the district did not quote resolution #87 correctly and tried to show that the “ELDERS” had said ALL Questions, when in actuality #87 says: “Questions that the Elders may DEEM of Sufficient Importance to bring before the Church.”

I feel very strongly that many times, those who are knowledgeable will present things as above to a conference, knowing very well that people not only do not have time to think about what is being said, much less taking time to carefully examine things when they are in a stressful situation as they were that day, in the conference. A careful reading of the “Whereas” above, as I re-read it does not support the idea that the conference of 1873 embraced the “voice and vote of the people on ALL questions before the conference." Rather, as I read it, the General Conference was reprimanding the district conference for its “disrespectful resolution”, thus the decision of #87 remained as the Elders Deem Sufficient to bring before the Church.

If I am correct in putting this together, then the first sentence of “Whereas #5 (such conferences have been specifically discouraged by General Conference Actions) is incorrect! This is misleading to say the least.

Can some one give greater guidance on this? [This was written April 2006] ---- end of paper -----

How many times have we had such notations pulled on us, either knowingly or unknowingly, not understanding what issues that were being presented? The resolution above is an outcrop of the resolution mentioned in this conference (2007). Fortunately this resolution was not called before the conference.

Time was at a premium and the Conference just did not have much of it. Bro. Paul Gage did the best that he could under the circumstances. He was very patient with the group and only once did he raise his ire. He recognized that there was an attempt to take over the CRE. His remarks were, “that without a doubt the time would come that CRE would join with the JCRB, but it would have to be through a gentle spirit and not by a hostile take over." He concluded by saying, “that the CRE was needed and would continue, as there were many Branches that would not join with JCRB, but would continue to have contact with the CRE." From this point, I noted a change in the discussions, but there is still one resolution that I will mention that might create future problems. Here is the final as amended: "Whereas: the Seventy are currently the highest authoritative missionary arm in the church and, Whereas: there are many boards and committees attempting to spread the gospel throughout the world and, Whereas: there has been some overlap in the work going out, therefore be it resolved: that the CRE ask the Seventy to work with all boards and committees involved with the missionary work, to find and employ ways to direct the work throughout the world under one umbrella." (This passed) On the surface this sounds great. There is only one problem for the CRE. The Seventy as a whole all support and work under the umbrella of the JCRB. They may deny this, but look at the record. What happens if one of the boards has a project going on that the Seventy does not want or like, and since the Missionary Boards are funded through the CRE Treasury, who controls the dispensing of funds for the most part, and the Seventy decide to “block” that effort? Can we see the turmoil and conflict that will take place? To further complicate the problem, there is another question whether there will be enough funds in the General Operations to publish the 6 editions of the Tidings Magazine. It was moved that in order to publish all six editions that the Treasurer could draw upon the Funds from the missionary arm of the CRE to pay the publishing costs. This passed. If money is sent to the missionary councils, can we be assured that it will be used as our intentions for sending it will be honored? It’s a possible problem being raised by this action.

The Wednesday morning session was used to elect new offices for the coming year. I will list them here: Chairman: Richard Neill; Secretary: Aaron Smith; Treasurer: Steve Mapes; Historian: Jim Daughtery. As for the other councils and different orders; I will just list the number of people: Aaronic Council: 8 ; Coordinating Council: 7 ; Education Council: 8 ; Stewardship council: 2 ; Youth Council: 8 ; Evangelism Council: 7 ; Publication Council: 7 ; Elders council: 10 ; Women’s Council: 7. This is a grand total of 68 people. Of this number, as I gaze over the list, I would guess that at least 39 without question favor the JCRB over the CRE. Several others could be called into question, but since I am not familiar with them I will not list them with that number.

Another interesting comparison we have 6 men who are serving on councils in each conference. Some of those are serving on the same councils in each conference. To me that is called “conflict of interest”.

The CRE has an Aaronic Council, where the JCRB has the Aaronic absorbed in their membership and provided by the “Joint Activities Committee”. In the CRE Council, a resolution was drawn up that requested that they be allowed to combine their operation (FARM) with the JCRB “to facilitate more effectively the unity of our Aaronic Brothers . . .” Here again we see that the emphases was placed on “combining” the two conferences together. This resolution was not brought up to the floor in either conference due to the time element.

As stated last year, the JCRB is a duplicate of the same organization, using in many cases the same personal in each conference. I am glad that there are no Military secrets involved, we’d lose the war. We may have anyway, depending upon which side you want to win . . . .

I want to point out that not one resolution was presented or written up in any of their “quorums” that suggest or even hinted that the Seventy should be organized.

In all, the conference went a lot smoother this year, but still had its rough edges, warding off all the amended resolutions thus using up the time CRE had on hand. For this reason, many refused to come to conference this year, especially from any great distance. Part of it was the costs involved, but most was the fact that we only had a 3-day conference.

There were several resolutions that we did not cover in this writing. All were similar in content and typical of a Conference in action . . . . One, which was too lengthy to put into writing, is called “Restoration Branch Defined” and is basically the same that POZ and JCRB has issued. I feel that down the historic road this will come back a bite the CRE . . . .

At the beginning, I said this was going to be long and asked forgiveness for the length. Thank you for reading the whole article, for I believe it will be revealing to all who complete it. Once more allow me to repeat myself—not that I am that good, but only blessed by the Lord to be able to see what is taking place. For us to not know our history is to bind us into repeating it .

Once more, God Bless you all and thanks for your sharing with each of us.


Dale Volskay