I don't find any point in drawing attention to yourself in a meeting of people who are supportive. And yes, it can be interpreted as rude. It doesn't do anything constructive. I would be embarrassed for the people standing out like a sore thumb. Very awkward. I would say the same thing for women trying to get into a Priesthood meeting they know they are not invited to. I agree: not classy!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2015 08:39PM by SusieQ#1.
Sadly, the " Rosa Parks " event was little more than a publicity stunt. The real brave young people who it was staged after get all but no recognition.
Raising hands isn't yay or nay. They simply could've just raised their hands when he said "Any opposed?". I guess I just didn't see it as a constructive way of spreading the "good word".
I didn't think it was rude at all. They simply said no in a voice loud enough to show their dissention, otherwise they would of been dismissed as they have been in the past.
Oh come on people, members all know it's a "sustaining vote" of confidence and support. It's not a real "vote" as winning an election. If members cannot sustain the leaders, what the &*(*^&& are they doing there? Get out. Resign. Be done with it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2015 08:44PM by SusieQ#1.
SusieQ#1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh come on people, members all know it's a > "sustaining vote" of confidence and support. It's > not a real "vote" as winning an election. > If members cannot sustain the leaders, what the > &*(*^&& are they doing there? Get out. Resign. Be > done with it.
I don't think "love it or leave it" should be the only options. Hopefully this becomes a growing trend and the people that don't buy everything but want to stay in the church get to voice their opinions as well.
Your church leaders (you sound as if you're really an active TBM) need to know that their own members are rising up against them. They aren't prophets or god like they think they are. They're men. Period. The raising of hands wouldn't have gotten the message out. Now they realize they have more dissenters and their power trip has been diverted a little. Mormonism is a tiny speck of sand compared to the world's population yet these men think they're all powerful. For people to rise up to men like that is highly respectable. As deco posted, it's like Rosa Parks on the bus. And that IS classy.
I don't understand where in your mind you (and SusieQ#1) think it's "un-classy" to voice your vote when clearly asked? They have every right to voice their opinion. If they don't want people disagreeing with their leaders then don't ask if anybody is opposed. You claim to be an ex-mormon but the fact that you can't see the logic in all of this makes me question your authenticity. I guess in your world freedom of speech is never "classy".
Yes. It's not classy. It's also pointless as there is no power or control over a non-supportive vote by a member. It's a personal matter that the member takes up with the locals. The non-vote has no power. It's just silly and goofy and calls attention to your personal angst -- like hanging out your dirty laundry in public!!
I don't know why this "vote" of sustaining support is some kind of election. It is not. It's just a traditional way of the members raising their hand to the square in their religious fashion.
If the member can't support the leaders, why are they there? It boggles the mind. Stay home. Don't raise your hand either way.
All non supporting votes are always told to talk to the local leaders. I've seen it done on the local level.
I find it ridiculous and pointless. Use your power where you have power.
I'm not arguing freedom of speech. I'm arguing there are more productive ways of speaking up. Also, I didn't say they didn't have the right to voice their opinion.
Newnamewhatever Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not arguing freedom of speech. I'm arguing > there are more productive ways of speaking up. > Also, I didn't say they didn't have the right to > voice their opinion.
Well whatever point they felt they were making is 100% wasted on the rest of the congregation.
Newnamewhatever Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not arguing freedom of speech. I'm arguing > there are more productive ways of speaking up. > Also, I didn't say they didn't have the right to > voice their opinion.
So many do not understand how this policy works in the LDS Church. This is a traditional vote of confidence and support. Non-support is to be taken up with your local leaders.
Of course, if you are not supportive, it's wise to consider leaving the organization.
Dissenting votes have been going on for years on a local level. I've seen it happen. People now days like their 15 minutes of fame, even if it's from behind so they use their non-supportive vote when Gen. Conf is being televised. It's a private matter to be handled by the local leaders. This is the LDS Church's policies and traditions. It has nothing to do with anything else.
They asked if anyone was opposed. A wise man once said "If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question." The church can't claim to be democratic and expect no one to ever voice opposition. I didn't think it was rude, I did think Uchtdorf handled it with class.
Yes. The whole set up is a cult tactic. It's unhealthy and completely manipulative to ask for a vote if it's not a real vote. It's fake social proof. "Wow, if all these other people think this is so good, then this organization must definately be legit!" It's just like a Herbalife or Amway extravaganza, or a Hitler youth rally for that matter.
If it's not a real vote, COJCOLDS need to drop this coercive use of social influence.
The dissenters are completely classy. The only entity here that totally lacks class is the manipulative Mormon Organization.
Then why call for a vote at all, if voting your conscience is ‘rude.’
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.
People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity of the crowd.
Groupthink is foolish. They asked for a vote, and people voted. I don't see how that's rude.
Can we not well remember the outrage we first felt when we found out?
I know I did some rude, brash, ill-considered things at first.
It inevitably takes time for the anger to subside before we can begin to take more rational and compassionate means to spread the marvelous gospel of Exmo Liberation.
If members, even those who are TBM, were honest could support prophecy, revelations, seers from those who have the position and priesthood office. Everyone knows Monson is on dementions doorstep, Packer was reciting some genital talk which he probably wrote back in the 1980s or 90s.
These "voters" are still members who had to have tickets, so they're trying to change the corporation from the inside.
Of course this is not rude, this is simply voting your conscious. If you vote in a fashion that is against your conscious in order to simply "not be rude" then you are being both dishonest and spineless.
btw, there is nothing 'classy' about silently going along with the crowd. Just ask German citizens in the 1930's....
I would oppose asking dissenters to keep quiet on the grounds that the leadership is using this as another form of brainwashing. ‘See, we put it to vote, and everyone was in agreement.’ That’s creating an illusion of democracy where democracy doesn’t actually exist. If it’s just meant as a show of support … then give three hip, hip, hoorays. Don’t shmeeb it as a vote. That makes it a deception. Three cheers is a show of support. A vote is exactly that … a vote. Those in opposition should be able to have their say. I oppose!
The vote was asked for in a large venue where there were many people present, and these folks answered. Sure, they wanted those around to TAKE NOTE OF THEIR OPPOSITION and that is why they bravely did it this way. They have no direct access to the leaders of the church. The cult has made this impossible. This is the only way to say---
You, in the elite seats who do not answer letters or phone calls, we are here and have issues!!! And NO, we do not want to talk to bishops or stake presidents, we want to talk to you.
Who were the people who shouted, "No?" If they weren't members of the Church, then they shouldn't be a part of the vote. The question is for members as to whether or not the sustain the current leadership of the Church. It's entirely irrelevant to non-members or ex-members.
Greyfort Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who were the people who shouted, "No?" If they > weren't members of the Church, then they shouldn't > be a part of the vote. The question is for > members as to whether or not the sustain the > current leadership of the Church. It's entirely > irrelevant to non-members or ex-members.
Exactly. Odd behavior. They know, as members how to handle their feelings of non-support. It's just a cheap shot, in my view.
There are host of things these self-declared TBMs could have done that would have been rude and tacky.
When the affirmative vote was sought, there was no gazing about to try to take a count. When the negative vote was asked for, had they sat there and mutely raised an arm to the square, the leadership would not have noticed. In essence, they would have squandered their opportunity.
Standing up and saying "no" got their point across, which was they wanted to do. While their behavior can be labeled as rude by those who chose to do so, it can also be said to have been necessary by those who support them.
There is no "right" answer, there are only a myriad of opinions.
I was just wondering if it was only a group of non-members calling attention to themselves in an LDS meeting, or if it was actual, active members taking a stand.
TSCC continually if not constantly puts itself at odds with the rank & file they purport to serve; isn't that rude also? (Not suggesting eye-for-eye, that's a different subject)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2015 09:35PM by GNPE.
I Nay vote is absolutely appropriate and honest when a person is asked to give their vote of support - or in this case - non support of what tscc leaders are trying to say is what the whole church body wants. How can these elite OLD white men speak for a population that has grown to include extremely improverished ethnic minorities and women who are not valued by tscc hierarchy and gays? Get real, they are asking for vocal and obvious dissention. I am amazed that they actually are surprised by it.
but rest assured, nothing will come of it except some additional excommunications because the boys at the top are happy to be in charge and make the rules for all people.