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:



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, iirc, 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?

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?

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

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

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

Do you think the current leaders of the Church all try to emulate Lyndon B. Johnson?

I always thought that the church was openly and unapologetically totalitarian.

Democracy and capitalism and all that are useful for governments run by imperfect men, but everything changes when the Lord is at the helm. That's why it's called the Kingdom of God on Earth, and not the Democratic Republic of God on Earth. The ideal government would be a dictatorship or monarchy with a god or perfect man at the top. In other words, a theocracy, which is what Joseph Smith tried to establish in Kirtland and Nauvoo, and which Brigham Young was more successful at in Utah.

When the Millennium gets here the whole world will be under Jesus' totalitarian regime. Won't it be marvelous?

It is strange how Democracy was God's chosen political system in which to restore his 'kingdom on earth'.

It'll be awesome when all the sinners and unbelievers get slaughtered! WOohoo!

But the difference is that everyone will *want* Jesus to be the dictator.

That is true, because all the people who didn't want him to be the dictator were burned to death. So all the people who were not executed by Jesus are happy to have him as their dictator.

Everyone still standing, at least.

ETA: Curse you, Dark Helmet!

I would say no because you can walk out of the building any time you want to leave. Since I resigned they haven't done anything to try to reclaim me even. The LDS Church is no more totalitarian than most workplaces. If I don't like what my boss does I can just leave. The difference between the LDS Church and my boss is that when I leave the LDS Church I get a 10 percent pay raise.

I used to wonder if a few really skilled/lucky naughty people that hid under the rocks during the purge might sneak through to the millennium. I know God is pretty good at what He does but you never know. I mean, what if a Bear Grylls type found a way? It *could* happen!

The communist/socialist countries, in the 50s, 60s, 70s...

I know, I lived here, in Hungary.
I've made parallels in my comments, many times. Nobody believed.

To understand that environment, one have to live in. Tourists, reporters - who leave after a few days - can not grab it.

It was not 99.99%. It was between 99.96 and 99.98. The remaining 0.02-0.04% were not against, they were invalid. There were no place on the paper to vote against. One should have draw a dick in the middle, to make it a bad voting paper. I am not joking, that was the routine. (I took part in Counting Committee...)

Sometimes - rarely - the rate was under 99.95%. That was the message to the leadership: that man should be shuffled out of sight. Next year, that man became ambassador in Togo.
Or in Burkina Faso. You know, that name is a composite of local languages and is roughly translated as "the land of incorruptible men."

Our highest leaders were never pensioned. There were two way out for them. The coffin or - sometimes - the trapdoor.

*******************************************
How could have we survived? With jokes...
Radio Yerevan:
- The Armenian Radio was asked: "Is it true that in Moscow, Mercedes cars are being given to citizens?"
- The Armenian Radio answers: "Yes, but it is not Moscow but Leningrad, not Mercedes but Ladas, and not given to but stolen from." (This was even funnier in the Hungarian version where the main pun was the similarity of the words osztogatnak "they give them away" and fosztogatnak "they rob them".)

or

Q: Why some people say that Hungarians love the Russians and hate the Americans?
A: Because Russians helped Hungarians to get rid of one totalitarian rule, but Americans don't help to get rid of the other.

Q: Is it possible to build socialism in Switzerland?
A: It's possible, but why? Did Switzerland really do something wrong to you?