Sustaining Process at GEneral Conference

I haven’t seen it in ward or stake conferences here yet. This is the second time I noticed it in GC, in April there were the vocal dissenters. I’ll also note that in April Pres. Uchtdorf conducted the business and also didn’t appear to look up during the opposition question. I don’t think the SP has to give any kind of report to SLC, I think it’s just a ploy to marginalize the dissenters. I think I commented on this last conference, but prior to this dissenters at GC actually got to meet with an apostle and I dislike that the process is more perfunctory and that the individuals are marginalized. One could meet with one’s SP any time one wishes generally speaking.

I think the sustainings are important at the local level because I had a situation where I opposed the granting of the priesthood to a young man who had propositioned my wife shortly after baptism, after commenting on the attractiveness some of her body parts. So did the two sisters who taught him the lessons — they also opposed. I had mentioned his behavior to a priesthood leader in my Ward previously, and still, the proposal for ordination got to the pulpit. The opposition acted as a filter for bad leadership decision-making.

I do see the sustaining process as sort of irrelevant at the church wide level though. It’s tough for it to matter, and the fact that the people who present names for sustaining don’t even look up during the opposition phase, makes it even moreso.

Funny how at one time I heard leaders speak with joy about how all leaders had been sustained unanimously. I heard it mentioned in talks. Now that the foundation of unconditional support for leaders has been eroded, and the sustaining process can be a bit of an embarrassment to the church, they have change the wording. I think the fact that there is opposition at conference is evidence that the type of support members were used to giving has eroded in recent years.

The power of the internet is amazing.

It is symbolic only, since the no votes are not based on anything about the individuals themselves but rather organizational or general, instead.

There is no way the apostles could meet with everyone who knew they would receive such an audience by opposing, so diverting opposition to the local level is the only way to maintain the concept of common consent and the chance to voice opposition. If someone knew something truly damning about someone being presented, there still is an opportunity to have opposition mean something – but that possibility is so remote, I think, that a symbolic vote is all that is left.

I actually am okay with it, since it means a lot to the vast majority of fully active members. I don’t expect meaningful opposition to individuals at that level, so it doesn’t bug me. At the local level . . . That is different.

I don’t think the sustaining is the time to bring up issues. I think the core issue is that the church is now run as a top-down authoritarian organization. Anybody that has studied that type of organization notes that it tends to draw those that lean towards authority figures.

Those with authoritarian personalities tend to be conformists, dismissive of inferiors (or those they deem inferior), and submissive to superiors (and assume/demand that their subordinates submit to them). As long as people can come and go, a top-down authoritarian organization tends to get an organization full of “yes-men” (and “yes-women”). In some situations that isn’t the worst model (i.e. the military).

One of the main issues I see with the church is that they do not have an effective feedback mechanism. The organization I work for spends a lot of time on an annual employee morale survey and they even follow it up with selected “spot surveys” that focus on progress of issues found in the main survey. As a mid-level manager I can tell you that has helped diffuse issues at the lower levels by letting upper management know what is going on down below. It saddens me that with BYU being one of the most prestigious business schools that the church does not ask them how they might setup such a feedback mechanism. I would worry since they have none now, if the did set something up, they probably would be flooded at first and I fear that this might make them backtrack and shut something like this down.

Take even a simple thing. I think that missionaries should be able to call home a few more times of the year and also I would think that once a month in addition to P-Day they need a “recharge your battery” / mental health day where they are able to relax and within some clear boundaries just have some fun. Even if most members agreed, I know of no way of getting such a message up. If I start a signature petition I am going to be seen as “usurping God’s role in telling the brethren what to do.” Telling my SP will probably go nowhere.

And on an even more important item, what about the 1 year waiting period for those who are married in a civil ceremony? I bet if you put that up for a vote you would have no problem getting a majority of affirmative votes. And unless the brethren are really ignoring items (they say they are very aware) they have to know there is pressure for that change.

Getting off my morning vent.

Doesn’t the very notion of one true church inhibit the desire to both give and seek feedback?

We model the church after the way we feel god interacts with us (top down) and we don’t give god feedback. That idea probably carries forward among church members, from the leader to the rank and file. The leader doesn’t look for feedback, all their direction comes from higher-up the chain; meanwhile the rank and file doesn’t feel it’s their place to give feedback.

That said I have heard a few rumors on the internets that there have been a few surveys. I’ve never received one but I’ve heard of others receiving them. I know there was one about the garment but it was more about specific materials and cuts than “tell us what you really think about the garment.” I’ve heard of other surveys that were more pointed toward policy but I can’t remember what they were about.

I haven’t disagreed with any of that, SD.

😆 😆

English is crazy. I read it as being addressed to me. 😳

I thought there were three purposes for sustaining leaders:

1. To make changes in callings public and visible.

2. To give people an opportunity to commit and decide whether or not they will sustain (help out, support) someone in their calling.

3. To give people an opportunity to oppose a calling for whatever reason.

It seems like reasons 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the concerns brought up in this thread. These concerns seem to be about number 3. It’s always been recommended to resolve problems between yourself and God first, then escalate it to your local leaders when needed, then area authorities when needed, then general authorities when needed. That just makes sense organizationally. Perhaps this change is just making the general conference match that organizational order that works more efficiently. That seems much more likely an explanation than it being an attempt to marginalize people and discredit their concerns. If it’s a legitimate concern, it can get resolved starting at the local level and then get escalated as needed. The court system does it this way – that’s why the Supreme Court isn’t hearing me about my parking ticket or even a local murder case. Why should the 11,000 people who happen to be physically located in the conference center that day get any special treatment or greater access to general authorities than I do sitting in my living room in my robe raising my hand on my couch? It seems like a logically sound change in procedure driven by basic principles of efficiency, delegation and basic organizational workflows. Thoughts?