Sympathy For The Opposers

[Guest]

You're not answering the question.

[Maureen]

You're not answering the question.

 

I will repeat myself in a different colour:

 

If these threads were never created and silly comments were never made, I wouldn't feel the need to give my 2 cents.

 

M.

[Guest]

But why do YOU care? Do you go all over the Internet to combat "silly" comments and threads? You must be very busy.

[Maureen]

But why do YOU care? Do you go all over the Internet to combat "silly" comments and threads? You must be very busy.

 

I'm a regular poster. I come here often. I read threads, I comment. Why do you have a problem with my comments, Eowyn?

 

M.

[Guest]

You have turned obtuse responses into an art form. 

[Maureen]

You have turned obtuse responses into an art form. 

 

Explain to me how my responses are obtuse.

 

M.

[Guest]

Just like that. Acting innocent and turning it onto the other person. Answering a question with another question. 

 

You know, I find that type of communication disingenuous if not downright deceitful. Sneaky, if you will. I have no respect for it, nor for people who skate just close enough to the rules to get by.

 

But specific to this thread, it bothers me because you choose not to be a part of our church or culture, and I'd say you even have a thinly-veiled ax to grind, and yet you're telling those of us who are bothered that we're silly to feel the way we feel. That's just rude, and insensitive, and done with a stubborn refusal to understand why we'd feel that way. On the surface, you hear a couple of little shouts that shouldn't mean anything. But it seems like you are intentionally NOT seeing/hearing that this isn't just a break of protocol, but an offensive show of disrespect to not only the leaders most of us love, who give up a great deal to serve the Lord, but also to the Lord himself, whose revelations are the root of said protocol. Even if you don't believe in any of that, you have to understand that WE do, and to come onto lds.net and tell LDS people that their feelings are silly is hard to understand. Either you have a beef against the church, or you don't have a dog in the fight. Which is it?

[Jane_Doe]

Guys, let's not do this dance again.....

 

Just agree to disagree and call it good.

[Maureen]

Just like that. Acting innocent and turning it onto the other person. Answering a question with another question. 

 

Your post #30 did not ask a question and I was just wanting clarification on your comment. What's wrong with that?

 

You know, I find that type of communication disingenuous if not downright deceitful. Sneaky, if you will. I have no respect for it, nor for people who skate just close enough to the rules to get by.

 

How is asking questions skating "just close enough to the rules to get by"? So fine, you don't want to answer my questions but just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm breaking the rules.

But specific to this thread, it bothers me because you choose not to be a part of our church or culture, and I'd say you even have a thinly-veiled ax to grind, and yet you're telling those of us who are bothered that we're silly to feel the way we feel. That's just rude, and insensitive, and done with a stubborn refusal to understand why we'd feel that way. On the surface, you hear a couple of little shouts that shouldn't mean anything. But it seems like you are intentionally NOT seeing/hearing that this isn't just a break of protocol, but an offensive show of disrespect to not only the leaders most of us love, who give up a great deal to serve the Lord, but also to the Lord himself, whose revelations are the root of said protocol. Even if you don't believe in any of that, you have to understand that WE do, and to come onto lds.net and tell LDS people that their feelings are silly is hard to understand. Either you have a beef against the church, or you don't have a dog in the fight. Which is it?

 

Years ago there was a talk given by an LDS leader about "being offended". And he ultimately said that being offended is a choice that people make for themselves. No one can force you to be offended, you do that yourself. Sure, the person who opposed the sustaining was vocal; that doesn't happen very often so it can catch you off guard but; how is it possible to be offended by a sound that barely lasted one second? (that's not rhetorical) President Uchtdorf didn't seem to be offended, he took it in stride. I am not LDS, so I don't really understand the strict GC culture but if you did an experiment and tried to see it from an outsider's perspective, you might understand a little better why someone like me doesn't get what all the "offensive" fuss is all about. Your GC lasts two days and for a couple seconds something different happened, out of ordinary; but if you look at the whole picture, it's kind of tiny and insignificant. That's how i see it. Get offended by this post if you want, it's your choice.

 

M.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Maureen

[Guest]

Alrighty then.

[Guest]

This is going to be my LAST response to Maureen on this. I don't think she will ever get this because... the cup is fulleth. But, I'm going to give it my one last college try before this thread too gets a lock down...

This fuss over two barely audible vocal notifications (I can't even call them shouts) that last about one second each is the equivalent of making a "mountain out of a mole hill".

M.

Context is everything.

If all you are seeing is that tiny little "No" on a crowded room, then sure, mountain out of a molehill...

But, it's like this:

Iran's President declares "we don't acknowledge the right for the state of Israel to exist!". Then Iran goes and meets with foreign dignitaries and says, "We want to run 6,000 centrifuges with a year's break-out time for nukes...". Then Iran goes and funds groups that sends beheading videos to media...

Then an Iranian goes to a Netanyahu speech and shouts, "No!".

Mountain, not molehill.

If these threads were never created and silly comments were never made, I wouldn't feel the need to give my 2 cents.

You think it is silly. We, on the other hand, are pretty serious about this stuff.

[bytor2112]

It is bothersome because we go to be fed by the Spirit and to hear the voice of men we sustain and believe are Prophets of God and are speaking the words that Christ himself would say if he were here among us. As if it is not bad enough to be harassed by the jackals outside the conference center who mock our sacred beliefs, now those who little by little have been drawn away by are attempting to do the same at conference. You expect unity and instead their are those seeking disunity. 

Edited April 9, 2015 by bytor2112

[pam]

I was going to stay out of this thread but I guess I'll throw my 2 cents out there too.

 

I can see how a non member would think that something like this is silly.  Or insignificant, or making a mountain out of a mole hill and yes even to accusing one of having such a dull life.

 

But statements such as this are made out of ignorance and not understanding the importance we place on this time that we have to show a public support and sustaining of our leaders.  The importance of proper protocol in these types of situations.  It's of HUGE importance to us as members.  It's a time to show our love and support of these great men and women.

 

There is a protocol and it's not shouting out a "no."  Whether that took 2 seconds or not it's inappropriate. The proper sign is by a show of hands.  The fact that this was a planned thing is one of the issue at play here.  People do have a right to oppose. That is their right.  But it should be done in the same spirit as those who are sustaining.  Not a public display of shouting out a no.

 

But I also think it inappropriate to have someone who is not a member point out to us how insignificant this whole thing is.  The truth be told.  It's not insignificant to us in the church.  I personally, do not like being told how I should feel about something and be told that I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[estradling75]

I listened to the clip.  In many denominations verbalized nays are normal.  So, it may be worth considering that some would wonder what all the fuss is about.  On the other hand, if opposition is rare, and a silent show of hand is the norm, regardless, then the vocal opposition would, at minimum, be the equivalent of a cell phone sounding during a sermon/homily/talk.  Uncouth at best, obnoxious at worst.

 

Silent show of hands is the Norm for LDS.

 

Lets go with the cell phone during a sermon/talk that you just put forth.  Lets say you are giving your homily (or whatever you call it) and a cell phone goes off.

 

Ideally you would think someone made a mistake and that they would quickly correct and not do it again.  Thinking this you might make a joke about it or give a reminder for people to turn off their phones.  Not a big deal really but still a disruption none the less.  But let say you find out that it was not an accident.  That you find out that the person in question purposely, knowingly, and willfully disrupted you.  Their goal was to hijack some church process (Whatever works for your faith) to their own ends.

 

If this happened to you in your church prisonchaplain would you be all that inclined to simply "get over it?"  Or would you think that you needed to have some words with the offender about their actions and call them to repentance?

[Backroads]

In many ways, yes, I do think a mountain was made of a molehill and I think all the harping from both sides on this incident has gone on far longer than it ought to have.

 

But that does not change the issue, which seems to be at heart, that it's rarely okay to go into another culture, or even another individual's circumstances, and continually criticize feelings on a matter. We might ask questions and authentically seek to understand, but there comes a point where one simply must concede one isn't part of that culture or those circumstances and will never fully "get it". To criticize after that is tactless.

[Blackmarch]

This fuss over two barely audible vocal notifications (I can't even call them shouts) that last about one second each is the equivalent of making a "mountain out of a mole hill".

 

M.

yup.

[Maureen]

In many ways, yes, I do think a mountain was made of a molehill and I think all the harping from both sides on this incident has gone on far longer than it ought to have.

 

But that does not change the issue, which seems to be at heart, that it's rarely okay to go into another culture, or even another individual's circumstances, and continually criticize feelings on a matter. We might ask questions and authentically seek to understand, but there comes a point where one simply must concede one isn't part of that culture or those circumstances and will never fully "get it". To criticize after that is tactless.

 

I agree, I don't get it. I have had my say and I will leave it alone.

 

M. 

[Jedi_Nephite]

Context is everything.

 

[Pa Pa]

Hello Everyone

I wanted to start this topic for the purpose of the apparent opposing of the prophet and the apostles. I have felt some what sympathetic towards those who "opposed" because I also have disagreements towards certain Apostles and Prophets on a personal level. Such as Bruce R. McConkie (surprise) is it incorrect to Oppose doctrines that the spirit doesn't manifest to us are true?

I don't worry about those who disagree, but I do have a problem with those who turn into anti-Mormons who go on line and become angry and lie. Edited April 14, 2015 by Pa Pa