You and I do not see eye to eye.

Big surprise. ;)

I did. See comment 8.

My position is when there are four people sitting in the living room watching conference and three raise their hand to sustain, there is pressure for the fourth to do the same. A *different* type of pressure than when they are at church watching the same conference.

No one, sans God (who ostensibly knows how you would have voted), is taking official account of any non-sustaining votes while you are not in the presence of a church official so the sustaining vote is pointless.

“I have a strange feeling that the family you’re describing lives in a universe other than mine.”

I can confirm with utter certainty that I do live in a different universe than yours. ;)

But you believe that any time a parent expresses his own faith or belief, as for example, by raising a hand in support of Church leaders, the parent is not teaching this? He’s merely enforcing conformity through unspoken threats of Arizona work camps? That’s just a little too bizarre. What forms of expression would you deem acceptable, rather than classifying them under your list of totalitarian oppressions?

By the way, if you know any parents who sent their kids to a “hardwork camp” in Arizona solely because the children failed to raise their hands during General Conference, do let me know. I have a strange feeling that the family you’re describing lives in a universe other than mine.

I would think most parents do. We do, anyway.

I’m not saying that I want people teaching their children to reject the prophet, I am saying that I want people to teach their kids to carefully deliberate important decisions and not defer to authority by default.

Plenty of people teach their children to reject the Prophet. On the other hand, plenty of people choose to support or not support the Prophet, in oposition to their parents’ teachings.