DiscussMormonism.com

I just read an article which made an interesting point about the manner in which LDS Church leaders and actions are sustained by the membership:

Where on Earth do you have to stand up and justify your dissenting vote to the people who held the vote? What countries or places do you have supposed votes where the proposition is always passed with 99.99 percent of the vote? Totalitarian regimes, where the message is very clear—you obey, you submit.

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article- ... rmons.html

This was worded so well it made me rethink the entire proposition. While I have long seen that LDS sustainings are form devoid of substance, it had never sunk in how dictatorial the notion is that any dissenting votes have to be explained to the people who held the vote.


This in conjunction with the fact the vote is not secret, but completely open for all to see, seems to lay the LDS Church wide open to the charge of totalitarianism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Very good point.

Anyone have any first hand experience of what happens when someone raises their hand in dissent over someone or something being sustained in church services?

I've heard that the person in charge (Bishop, Stake Pres..) tells the dissenting person that he will discuss their concerns after the meeting in private, at which point they are given a stern talking to about sustaining the brethren.

My FIL opposed once. He knew the guy was breaking a commandment or two. They took him into the office and he explained why and they asked him to sustain him. (this part I remember)

Basically, If I recall correctly, they didn't care. He was asked to sustain the guy anyway. I think in the end he didn't sustain or oppose, he refrained. (this part I am a bit fuzzy on)

More than yes. What other regime goes so far as to tell its subjects what underwear to use?

Nortinski wrote:Anyone have any first hand experience of what happens when someone raises their hand in dissent over someone or something being sustained in church services?

I don't, but I a while back I posted a young man's account of the aftermath of his casting a dissenting vote at the most recent General Conference:

What happens when an opposition vote is cast at GC?

SteelHead wrote:More than yes. What other regime goes so far as to tell its subjects what underwear to use?

And then corners the market on SELLING said underwear. Ha!

just me wrote:My FIL opposed once. He knew the guy was breaking a commandment or two. They took him into the office and he explained why and they asked him to sustain him.

As long as my mind is being opened to the issue, where did the idea come from that the only legitimate reason for voting against somebody is commandment-breaking?

Aren't there other, and more legitimate, reasons to think somebody might not be the keenest bishop in the world?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

TrashcanMan79 wrote:I don't, but I a while back I posted a young man's account of the aftermath of his casting a dissenting vote at the most recent General Conference:

What happens when an opposition vote is cast at GC?

That is interesting, TrashcanMan. (Your name doesn't have anything to do with The Stand, does it?)

And what is the deal with having an election (or sustaining vote) with only one candidate? You either pick this candidate or you vote against him.

And, by the way, this candidate is the one the Lord has chosen.

And by by the way, you are hearing this name immediately before your vote is taken. You have no time to think about the issue or discuss it with anybody else.

So, what is the point of "common consent" again?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If you don't believe the Mormon church is Totalitarian then you also believe that Auschwitz was a Fat Camp provided by the NAZI for Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_ ... ation_camp