Popular Post ERMD Posted April 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted April 2, 2016 If I did not sustain the leaders of the Church, I would not take the trouble to go to conference just so I could yell out my dissent. It's too bad that someone who would have enjoyed attending in person was denied a seat given to someone whose goal was to cause a public spectacle. 7
oats Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Based on what I see online I would expect many more people would put in the effort to cause a scene. The reality is that, given how easy it is to be a goof if one wanted, only maybe a handful of 20000+ take that opportunity is great. Especially since the monkey see monkey do mentality tends to spur the confidence of more people to go do it.
rockpond Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 21 minutes ago, ERMD said: If I did not sustain the leaders of the Church, I would not take the trouble to go to conference just so I could yell out my dissent. It's too bad that someone who would have enjoyed attending in person was denied a seat given to someone whose goal was to cause a public spectacle. Well, the Brethren DO ask if anyone opposes. If we aren't willing to accept and opposing vote, we ought not ask. 4
Guest Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 23 minutes ago, ERMD said: If I did not sustain the leaders of the Church, I would not take the trouble to go to conference just so I could yell out my dissent. It's too bad that someone who would have enjoyed attending in person was denied a seat given to someone whose goal was to cause a public spectacle. It is the act of cowards to yell our rather than just raise their hand. It also gives them cover from their Bishop or Stake President not know who it by shouting out in a small chapel setting. I would never do such a thing as I fear my parents might be looking down from heaven, knowing how much trouble I would be in...in my upbringing there were things one just did not do.
ERMD Posted April 2, 2016 Author Posted April 2, 2016 We don't yell our assent. Why shout out a dissent? If it is a personal integrity "I need to do this to be true to myself" thing, then why not raise one's hand, just as I did at home? This is grandstanding pure and simple. It accomplished nothing positive or constructive. If the individual (sounded like only one) truly objects, he will meet with his stake president as we are advised. My bet is he will not; no way to know that for sure, but it won't happen. 2
Guest Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Well, the Brethren DO ask if anyone opposes. If we aren't willing to accept and opposing vote, we ought not ask. Not by voice count or yelling and everyone here knows it.
rockpond Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: Not by voice count or yelling and everyone here knows it. I agree. But given th lighting in the conference center, a raise of a hand cannot be seen. 2
Guest Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I agree. But given th lighting in the conference center, a raise of a hand cannot be seen. More is seen that many might suppose. But you pointed out how they are for it (by that I don't mean you believed they should yell), what they ask for is an affirmative vote by the raising of the right and, and the other vote by the Same sign. Nowhere, including the size and lighting of the building do they ask for anything else...so when you capitalized the word "Do", as in the "Do" ask for it, you were making an incorrect statement.
Calm Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, Duncan said: So I missed this aft. conference, what happened? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/talk-summaries-saturday-afternoon?cid=HP_SA_3-26-2016_dPFD/CN_fGC_xLIDyL2-1_&lang=eng Or do you mean in regard to the sustaing only?
Deborah Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 I don't think people understand what the sustaining vote means.
Duncan Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/talk-summaries-saturday-afternoon?cid=HP_SA_3-26-2016_dPFD/CN_fGC_xLIDyL2-1_&lang=eng Or do you mean in regard to the sustaing only? did someone or some group oppose?
Robert F. Smith Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Well, the Brethren DO ask if anyone opposes. If we aren't willing to accept and opposing vote, we ought not ask. I saw Pres Uchtdorf accept the opposing vote, as he always has done in the past. I saw the same willingness to accept opposing votes when Pres Nathan Eldon Tanner was asking for sustaining votes back in the 70s. Nothing new here. Let's move on . . .
Robert F. Smith Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Duncan said: did someone or some group oppose? I heard someone yelling, and he or she was acknowledged by Pres Uchtdorf each time, and Uchtdorf was later directed by Pres Monson to speak to the issue specifically. Edited April 2, 2016 by Robert F. Smith
Jeanne Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Well, the Brethren DO ask if anyone opposes. If we aren't willing to accept and opposing vote, we ought not ask. This is what I thought first thing. If you don't want to know..don't ask. He did nothing wrong.
Jeanne Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 2 hours ago, rockpond said: I agree. But given th lighting in the conference center, a raise of a hand cannot be seen. Who is going to really notice one hand up or two amid the huge audience. Maybe this guy just really wanted to be counted.
BlueDreams Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, Jeanne said: This is what I thought first thing. If you don't want to know..don't ask. He did nothing wrong. I thought more that they ask for the opposition by the same sign as the sustaining vote (ie. raised hand). Yelling it, to me, still seems more attention grabbing than is necessary for what's being asked. That said, I appreciated Monson assuring that Uchtdorf remind the people where they can go with their concerns. With luv, BD
Duncan Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 I am in a social anxiety disorder class and man alive sitting there knowing what you'll do they must have nerves of titanium!!! I would blow up with fear
Popular Post JAHS Posted April 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted April 2, 2016 Like I said in the other thread, a negative vote is supposed to be used if someone personally knows of some reason (that no one else knows about) that would make the one being sustained unworthy to serve in the position. It is not supposed to be used for someone's personal objection or agenda about a particular church doctrine or policy. 5
The Nehor Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 3 hours ago, rockpond said: Well, the Brethren DO ask if anyone opposes. If we aren't willing to accept and opposing vote, we ought not ask. And if said opposers would register their opposing vote with dignity and then go meet with their Stake President to share their reasons I would support them. If they just want to make some noise in the dark and are too cowardly to go face their Priesthood leaders afterwards to share their reasons for dissent then they are just grandstanding. Somehow I doubt this is what is going on and that I need to have any respect for these idiots. 4
rpn Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 What I liked most about it was Elder Uchtdorf returning to add the instructions, referring to Pres. Monson telling him too (and visually you can see the two conferring), all of which smacks right in the face of those who argue that Pres Monson is unable to really run the church. So the vocal opposition actually ended up helping the cause of Zion rather than helping the critics.
Tacenda Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 http://ldsmissionaries.com/dissenting-votes-at-conference-everything-you-need-to-know/ Saw this on my FB feed. 1
Maestrophil Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: This is what I thought first thing. If you don't want to know..don't ask. He did nothing wrong. You mean other than completely ignore etiquette and protocol?
carbon dioxide Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: And if said opposers would register their opposing vote with dignity and then go meet with their Stake President to share their reasons I would support them. If they just want to make some noise in the dark and are too cowardly to go face their Priesthood leaders afterwards to share their reasons for dissent then they are just grandstanding. Somehow I doubt this is what is going on and that I need to have any respect for these idiots. The whole point of sustaining is to show the Lord and Church if one is with the Lord and the Church or against the Lord and the Church. Though the Church does not formally make a registry of how one "votes", a record is made in heaven for the individual when they are judged. So each one of those who chooses to oppose will have to explain themselves at judgement. It would be interesting to see their attitude when the find out how serious this stuff really was and that the Lord does take this stuff seriously. I gather there will be a lot of fear on their faces as they attempt to explain themselves. Edited April 3, 2016 by carbon dioxide
sjdawg Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 7 hours ago, ERMD said: If I did not sustain the leaders of the Church, I would not take the trouble to go to conference just so I could yell out my dissent. It's too bad that someone who would have enjoyed attending in person was denied a seat given to someone whose goal was to cause a public spectacle. I don't sustain and I agree with you. I don't see any point in going to conference to express dissent. Beyond that it is rude to disrupt others worship services with a protest. Protest outside fine (although I still don't see the point and wouldn't bother) but don't take it inside.
Recommended Posts