Coreyb Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I don't know why you would think that. President Uchtdorf announced that the "no" votes had been noted.Would he had it not come to his attention? I don't know. Can he survey the whole audience in that split second usually given between votes?
Popular Post cinepro Posted April 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 4, 2015 If they simply had raised their hands what would we think? We wouldn't think anything, because we wouldn't know about it. It may be noted by any official "observers" who are in the auditorium for that purpose, but other than that, the odds of seeing four hands go up is almost nil. Here's a screen capture for those who missed it. While we can debate the propriety of breaking the sacred LDS tradition of treating all our meetings like funerals with monastic reverence, I hardly think their brief calls of "no" (or "opposed') would rise to the level of "disruption". More time is spent each conference with audience members responding to a joke with laughter than the fraction of a second these people took up. It's also situations like these where we really learn what the principles of "sustaining" and "common consent" mean. Because if what happened today is intolerable, than they really don't mean anything and we're all just pretending. 7
Scott Lloyd Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Would he had it not come to his attention? I don't know. Can he survey the whole audience in that split second usually given between votes?I don't think President Uchtdorf is as prone to carelessness -- or dishonesty -- as you apparently do. 2
The Nehor Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 We probably would not know about it. I expect that President Uchtdorf would have acknowledged it as he did. That was the situation in the past. I read one case (early to mid 70s if I remember right) where objectors were not seen by the sustainer. When the sustainer said that he believed the vote was unanimous one of the objectors relatively courteously made it known. The sustainer apologized for missing them and invited them to meet with a then-member of the First Presidency following the meeting to discuss their concerns. That is how it should be done. 2
slamarwi Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 With this I agree.It is very inappropriate to yell out. It was loud enough to be audible on my TV, which I'm sure was their intention. It's fine to oppose, that's why there's a vote. But one can certainly be respectful when doing it.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) It's also situations like these where we really learn what the principles of "sustaining" and "common consent" mean. Because if what happened today is intolerable, than they really don't mean anything and we're all just pretending.Um, I could be mistaken, but I think it has been repeatedly noted here that what is being found "intolerable" is not the registering of opposition in accordance with the law of common consent, but in this instance, the disrespectful and disruptive manner in which it was carried out. [tick tock, tick tock ... ] I went back and checked. Nope, I'm not mistaken. Edited April 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
The Nehor Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 While we can debate the propriety of breaking the sacred LDS tradition of treating all our meetings like funerals with monastic reverence, I hardly think their brief calls of "no" (or "opposed') would rise to the level of "disruption". More time is spent each conference with audience members responding to a joke with laughter than the fraction of a second these people took up. It's also situations like these where we really learn what the principles of "sustaining" and "common consent" mean. Because if what happened today is intolerable, than they really don't mean anything and we're all just pretending. Disruption in the sense of preventing the meeting from proceeding? Probably not. Discordant? Probably. It does not qualify as intolerable. I giggled a bit at it....especially when they were told to speak to their Stake President. I just would not want to encourage it.
Coreyb Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I do not feel he is prone to either. Don't misrepresented me please. I am just accounting for his (possible) human limitations.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I expect that President Uchtdorf would have acknowledged it as he did. That was the situation in the past. I read one case (early to mid 70s if I remember right) where objectors were not seen by the sustainer. When the sustainer said that he believed the vote was unanimous one of the objectors relatively courteously made it known. The sustainer apologized for missing them and invited them to meet with a then-member of the First Presidency following the meeting to discuss their concerns. That is how it should be done.Yes, I remember that very clearly myself.
jwhitlock Posted April 4, 2015 Author Posted April 4, 2015 While we can debate the propriety of breaking the sacred LDS tradition of treating all our meetings like funerals with monastic reverence, I hardly think their brief calls of "no" (or "opposed') would rise to the level of "disruption". More time is spent each conference with audience members responding to a joke with laughter than the fraction of a second these people took up. It's also situations like these where we really learn what the principles of "sustaining" and "common consent" mean. Because if what happened today is intolerable, than they really don't mean anything and we're all just pretending. Nice spin, along with the usual cheap shot at the church. Of course, spinning it like this requires that we ignore the experiences of the disruptive ERA protesters. It also requires that we ignore the fact that common consent is not meant to turn conference into some kind of protest circus, which I suspect you would love to see happen. There are appropriate ways to express appropriate opposition. That didn't happen today. 2
jwhitlock Posted April 4, 2015 Author Posted April 4, 2015 I don't think President Uchtdorf is as prone to carelessness -- or dishonesty -- as you apparently do. Especially since it appears they knew that something like this was coming. It wasn't spontaneous, and he had prepared for it. 4
Coreyb Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I expect that President Uchtdorf would have acknowledged it as he did. That was the situation in the past. I read one case (early to mid 70s if I remember right) where objectors were not seen by the sustainer. When the sustainer said that he believed the vote was unanimous one of the objectors relatively courteously made it known. The sustainer apologized for missing them and invited them to meet with a then-member of the First Presidency following the meeting to discuss their concerns. That is how it should be done.Yes, and there are also cases from the past where the brother at the stand moved forward calling the vote unanimous when the opposing "nos" where audible in the recording. Perhaps he didn't hear or see them. I will give the benefit of the doubt
cinepro Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I would also point out that President Uchtodorf asked for those who sustained or opposed to "manifest it". He didn't even say "by the given sign" or whatever is usually said. Sure, silently raising the right arm is the tradition in the Church, but I don't think you can say these objectors did anything they shouldn't; they simply chose to vocally (and briefly) "manifest" it. 3
The Nehor Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Yes, and there are also cases from the past where the brother at the stand moved forward calling the vote unanimous when the opposing "nos" where audible in the recording. Perhaps he didn't hear or see them. I will give the benefit of the doubt To be honest I do not really care if everyone present knows there was an objection. That is not really the point. As long as there is a way for objectors to report their objections I am content. If I sit in the front row at ward conference and someone in the back objects does it really matter to me if I know who objects or even if there was an objection? 4
The Nehor Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I would also point out that President Uchtodorf asked for those who sustained or opposed to "manifest it". He didn't even say "by the given sign" or whatever is usually said. Sure, silently raising the right arm is the tradition in the Church, but I don't think you can say these objectors did anything they shouldn't; they simply chose to vocally (and briefly) "manifest" it. I refuse to believe that the objectors were quick enough to hear that and change their approach at the last second and dumb enough to imagine that the wording justified it. The usual formula is "those in favor may manifest it by the raising of the right hand" followed by "Those opposed by the same sign" or "Those opposed may manifest it". Both mean the same thing and are tied back to the original statement as to the appropriate method of manifesting it. 3
cinepro Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Nice spin, along with the usual cheap shot at the church. Of course, spinning it like this requires that we ignore the experiences of the disruptive ERA protesters. It also requires that we ignore the fact that common consent is not meant to turn conference into some kind of protest circus, which I suspect you would love to see happen. There are appropriate ways to express appropriate opposition. That didn't happen today. When a large group holds a conference for all members, and then polls the members present and asks them if they support or oppose a proposition and to please "manifest" it if they do, having those who oppose it briefly call out "opposed" or "no" in response to the request doesn't strike me as inappropriate. The only way I would classify what happened as "inappropriate" would be if the opposers weren't members of the Church. 1
Coreyb Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) To be honest I do not really care if everyone present knows there was an objection. That is not really the point. As long as there is a way for objectors to report their objections I am content. If I sit in the front row at ward conference and someone in the back objects does it really matter to me if I know who objects or even if there was an objection?Agreed. I personally don't care why they were objecting, neither was I offended, disrupted nor disturbed. I felt the spirit later in the session, so I don't think they drove him out of the building. Edited April 4, 2015 by Coreyb
jwhitlock Posted April 4, 2015 Author Posted April 4, 2015 What a great closing prayer in noting the privilege it is to sustain the leaders of the church in their sacred callings! 1
jwhitlock Posted April 4, 2015 Author Posted April 4, 2015 When a large group holds a conference for all members, and then polls the members present and asks them if they support or oppose a proposition and to please "manifest" it if they do, having those who oppose it briefly call out "opposed" or "no" in response to the request doesn't strike me as inappropriate. The only way I would classify what happened as "inappropriate" would be if the opposers weren't members of the Church. I take it, then, that you agreed with the methodology ERA protesters used in conference to shout out their opposition and then leave and hold press conferences. Maybe you should take a look at the website Duncan referred to earlier that organized this and see where they're coming from. I suspect you might be comfortable with their means. Perhaps you feel that organized vocal protest, which is what this was, is appropriate at conference. I certainly don't. In order to think that this was appropriate, there sure is a lot of contextual information that you need to ignore. 1
Teancum Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 They yelled "no" very loudly....more then once. If you can hear them on video or audio (and I did quite clearly) they were either yelling or had smuggled in microphones. They were out of line. Oh boo hoo!
Teancum Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 And look here - now you say that being vocally disruptive is appropriate. Very inconsistent, of course. But that's what opposition to the church is all about - inconsistent logic. Ok you caught me on this. I agree my comments conflict. But how is one to oppose is such a setting? Opposing in not in conflict with doctrine and practice.
Popular Post diamondintherough Posted April 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 4, 2015 The fact that they can oppose at ward and stake conferences but did so here instead tells me that this was just for attention. Futhermore, they're more anonymous in general conference than they would be locally. That says something! 7
strappinglad Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) See what has been done here? The protesters have given us a chance to debate the merits of asking for a sustain vote, AND received the attention that they so piously desired. Two birds, one stone. Edited April 4, 2015 by strappinglad 1
why me Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I agree that the intent matters. That's why I do not oppose when I have gripes with policies/ teachings of leaders. I would only oppose if I felt I could not sustain the person presented in that position. Unfortunately we cannot sit here in judgement upon the opposers and their motives. Their stake presidents will try to figure that out.I will bet a penny that the people protesting are probably exmembers or inactive members. I don't think that they are members who wish to remain in good standing. However, I think that if there position was about same sex marriage or OW, the conference so far as addressed their protest, especially the talk on the family.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I refuse to believe that the objectors were quick enough to hear that and change their approach at the last second and dumb enough to imagine that the wording justified it. The usual formula is "those in favor may manifest it by the raising of the right hand" followed by "Those opposed by the same sign" or "Those opposed may manifest it". Both mean the same thing and are tied back to the original statement as to the appropriate method of manifesting it."Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign" is also a stock phrase that is used.
Recommended Posts