It should be understood beyond debate that the Lord established in scripture the expectation that His church do things according to "common consent," especially when it comes to choosing leaders. If, for any reason, this is new to you, or you stand unconvinced (though I can't do anything if you simply don't think He's serious when He says these things), here is a selection of scriptures to that end:
"No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;" – D&C 20:65
"And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen." – D&C 26:2
"For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." – D&C 28:13
"And now, I give unto the church in these parts a commandment, that certain men among them shall be appointed, and they shall be appointed by the voice of the church;" – D&C 38:34
"And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference;" – D&C 124:144
"Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord." – Mosiah 29:25
"Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people… And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people." – Alma 2:3, 7
(See also Mosiah 7:9; Mosiah 22:1; Mosiah 29:2; Alma 27:21-22; D&C 104:21, 71-72, 85; and numerous others.)I don't care if Elder Nelson declared in general conference the logical fallacy that our common consent vote shouldn't actually be understood as a real vote. The Lord apparently considers legitimate common consent to be a big deal, and therefore so should we.
Common consent can only work if certain prerequisites are already met. Participation in a functioning common consent environment requires virtues such as humility, tolerance, patience, and love for our fellow men. These are absolute necessities, especially for the value and purpose of opposing votes to be appreciated and meaningful, or the common consent nature of the community collapses into something else.
When a person in a common consent environment has love for their fellow men, and learns that their brother or sister opposes a proposition they themselves agree with, they want to know about it. You want to know what is troubling to them, because you don't want them to continue suffering under that burden of being troubled, if it can be helped. Therefore, you want them to make their concern clearly known, you want it raised loud and clear so it cannot be missed, so it can be addressed. An upraised voice in a conference of 10,000 becomes important and useful to you, rather than an annoyance that you want swept away, or belittled, or to suffer an ass-kicking. That is, if you have love for your fellow men.
Humility is essential, because when an opposing vote is registered, you might have to accept the possibility that this person knows something you don't, and their information may actually be of serious interest to you. You might have something valuable to learn from them, some truth which would in fact sway your own opinion in their direction, if you were humble enough to investigate the basis for their opposition with open ears and open eyes.
Tolerance and patience are crucial, because when someone is opposed to something you accept, they may be the most sincere person in the world, but struggle to come to the understanding which would resolve their opposition. They may have an entirely different world view and understanding, not to mention personal language barriers and other things that wrinkle understanding and communication. It may take time and discussion and study to help them resolve their concerns, and tolerance of your disagreements in the meantime. But then their concerns may become resolved, and you've gained a brother or sister.
These virtues are also crucial if you are the one registering an opposing vote. You may have good basis for your opposition, but others may not be interested in hearing you out, or treating your concerns as valid. This doesn't strip you of your right and responsibility to register your opposition, but you may have to tolerate prejudice and persecution for it. You may have to do it with patience, as it may take time for anyone to hear your concerns or take them seriously, if they ever do at all. Humility requires you understand your voice may remain the minority, and you may be subject to the decisions of the majority if you choose to remain in the community. Love for your fellow men requires that you seek whatever is in the best interest of even those you disagree with, which may mean your suffering persecution as the price of helping the few who will come to hear you.
When I see a supposedly common consent environment in which an opposing voice is raised, and the response from the remainder is persecutory, what becomes evident is that God's established "common consent" instructions are no longer in vogue and have been replaced with conformity, Satan's mockery of common consent.
In an environment of conformity, a dissenting voice is best when silenced, and compulsive means are acceptable. This can include verbal persecution, or emotional abuse through actively ignoring or marginalizing their voice, both of which are intended to generate fear of further speaking out. It can include legislatively ejecting the dissenting voice from the community to make them an outcast, safe to disregard and avoid. Or, ultimately, it can include forcibly silencing the dissenting voice by physical abuse or death. Unfortunately, many of these tactics seem to be more in line with what some members of the LDS Church are exemplifying and embracing in the wake of hearing such a voice, that when asked to make itself known, did so.
Personally, I'm glad someone raised a loud, opposing voice in general conference, whether or not I agree with their concerns. They apparently understand that their opposing vote is intended to be heard by design (D&C 124:144). The irony of the outrage against their obedience to scripture is palpable. Their voice isn't supposed to be ignorable, persecuted, or simply "noted."
On that "note," how can the First Presidency member claim that they've "noted" the opposing votes one second after the vote is called for? What exactly did he "note"? It is literally impossible to even peruse the entirety of that massive chamber in that time–not that he even tries, if you watch his eyes–and so he cannot possibly know how many opposing votes are present for him to "note." (Let alone those around the world not present in the conference center.) If opposers had only raised their hand in that dark, cavernous chamber, he certainly would not have known there was anything to "note" at all. As it stands, he can only have, at best, "noted" that some undefined number of people were opposed. This is a gross perversion of a common consent environment, because such an environment is necessarily built on every vote having relevance to the whole. To not even know how many opposing votes there are, let alone hear what their concerns are, is to completely set at naught common consent and embrace the tyranny of conformity.
I appreciate common consent. I don't much care for conformity.
