Sustaining Process at GEneral Conference

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Quote:

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.

Each one of these things is handled in a different phase of the announcement.

1) We could do this without asking for a sustaining. Just make it an announcement.

2) We ask the general membership to sustain the action.

3) We ask if there are any opposed.

I think people focus on #3 because they don’t really take issue with the announcement itself or the act of showing support. #3 feels superfluous.

I agree that there are few alternatives to the current process. What works for a church of a few thousand isn’t necessarily going to work for a church of a few million.

rcronk wrote:

If it’s a legitimate concern, it can get resolved starting at the local level and then get escalated as needed.

I think the concern is that some feel that things never escalate as needed. Someone might feel like they’ve got a high court issue but the higher court refuses to hear the case and always defers to the lower court. Maybe that person truly does have a lower court issue but their feelings aren’t being validated when the higher court appears to ignore the appeal. People might need to see the process of something going up the chain before they believe that things go up the chain.

I don’t think people would bother the higher court if they felt like their issue was being addressed by the lower court. If that’s the case then how do we expect those people to feel when the answer is “go back to the lower court.” They may begin to feel as though no one cares.

And, in the past it was done differently. In the past one who opposed did get to meet with an apostle and at least have his or her grievance heard by someone who could actually affect change (although no change ever occurred to our knowledge). Especially taking into account leadership roulette, no SP is ever going to bump any of this up the line unless perhaps (and with the right SP) the individual is being accused of being a child molesting creep – and we all know they’re vetted well enough at that level that such a case is highly unlikely. Working relatively closely with my SP, I recognize how powerless he really is and he is mostly marginalized himself. He has only a slightly better chance of getting anything bumped up the line than any of the rest of us, even if he cared to do so.

[Anonymous]

And if we want to go back even a bit further, from what I have read (sorry – no references off the top of my head), there used to be all kinds of objections (even at conferences) about certain sustaining’s.

It feels to me it has turned into a solidarity pledge. ONLY someone out of touch with the spirit would EVER object unless they had knowledge of something almost like criminal grounds (polygamy aside).

I had a good (and I mean good to the heart) TBM that stayed with me as the last 2 people helping someone move. He was actually quite bummed that he was going to miss the first bit of Saturday AM conference and he really wanted to be there (virtually of course since we were way over a thousand miles from SLC) so he could sustain the prophet. I respect him, but I had to contrast it with me being GLAD I missed some of conference and my wife wouldn’t get on me since I was helping someone move, but I was even more excited to be helping the guy I was moving. Even if I didn’t care for him I generally would rather help someone move than sit through conference.

[Anonymous]

There’s a lot of guessing of people’s motives and inventing of victims going on here. I’ve found it more useful in my life to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise when it comes to general conference sustaining mechanics or really in most situations where I don’t know the truth in people’s hearts.

[Anonymous]

rcronk, in this thread by people here?

I assure you that isn’t the case. You are new, so it might be easier and natural to assume those things, but I think as you read more you will see there is no victim blaming going on here. The last few comments have dealt with the history of sustaining in the Church, from a purely factual basis.

[Anonymous]

No offense intended, I’m just calling it like I see it. When people say “some people might feel…” I’ve found that’s not usually useful. Either _I_ feel or think a certain way or _I know of someone_ specifically who has told me that they feel or think a certain way. Using such language creates virtual victims who don’t necessarily exist or who can be used vicariously to rail against something without anyone being able to challenge these victims’ logic since they don’t necessarily exist.

Then there are also projections on what people have in their hearts such as wanting to marginalize people or the things people would think if someone opposed a calling. Guessing what’s in people’s hearts and then acting or judging that guessed motive is a form of a straw man argument which I also don’t think is very useful.

I’ve spent years debating atheists, anti-Mormons, and anyone else you can think of online. I find many problems that people have are self-inflicted by these types of fallacious logical arguments. I think my delivery probably sucks, especially since I’m new here and should instead be building trust and relationships instead of diving into these kinds of things. I apologize for my delivery and for not asking more questions to get clarity first.

[Anonymous]

rcronk, I would like to see where people were inventing victims. I am serious when I say that. It is good to have another perspective if we can’t see how something could be interpreted differently than intended.

Please quote where you think someone is inventing victims.

[Anonymous]

I used quite a bit of that type of language in my post: “some feel that things never escalate…” “someone might feel like they’ve got a high court issue…” etc.

When I use that language that’s my way of saying that the problem isn’t systemic (trying to take the edge off) and to both admit that I don’t necessarily share those feelings myself and acknowledge that all any of us can ever do is guess what others are truly feeling, even after reading what they wrote or hearing what they said. With the high court comment I’m also communicating that what’s important to some people is not necessarily important to others.

It’s my way of showing empathy for people, even if I’ve never felt the affront myself. Trust me, I know of several specific someones that feel marginalized by the policy to speak to the SP and they do feel that their concerns “die” at that level. I feel for them.

rcronk wrote:

That seems much more likely an explanation than it being an attempt to marginalize people and discredit their concerns.

rcronk wrote:

Then there are also projections on what people have in their hearts such as wanting to marginalize people or the things people would think if someone opposed a calling. Guessing what’s in people’s hearts and then acting or judging that guessed motive is a form of a straw man argument which I also don’t think is very useful.

I don’t believe the church set out to marginalize people or discredit their concerns. I see it as a simple change in policy made for practical reasons.

In the early days of the church people could go directly to Joseph looking for a personalized revelation from the lord. After the church grew it was less practical for Joseph to do this and continue to do his day job. Maybe that’s where the office of church patriarch came from. The church grew some more, now we have stake patriarchs. Practical.

In many ways I feel the same about this change. It was a change made to address the growth of the church. It was a practical change. Practical changes can have unintended consequences and just because there are unintended consequences doesn’t mean the change was the wrong one to make. Again, I don’t think leaders sat down to figure out a policy that could help them ignore people’s problems, I think the growing membership and the growing number of members with concerns drove the change, and the new policy is much more practical in that regard.

If you need something more than a virtual victim you could try searching for threads among the various DAMU communities during the time frame of the April 2015 general conference (when there were people that were vocally opposed to the sustainings). People noticed the policy change and people did have words to say. Something I was trying to take the edge off of but acknowledge all the same.

rcronk wrote:

I’ve spent years debating atheists, anti-Mormons, and anyone else you can think of online.

I don’t typically like to engage in debate, I don’t find it very productive. I did want to clarify what I was saying earlier though. I felt like someone was guessing what I had in my heart and then acting or judging that guessed motive.

[Anonymous]

Fair enough. I see my hypocrisy in guessing the intent of virtual victim inventing. Debate can be very useful if done right and I’m still learning. It’s been very useful for me to see my own flaws and lapses of logic and has made me a better person. It also shows me my hypocrisy. If I’m honest and not just seeking to be right, then all can walk away edified rather than engaging in contention.

What were some examples of sustainings that were opposed and for what reasons? I’m curious about that.

[Anonymous]

Hey, I agree. Inventing problems doesn’t get anyone anywhere. We just end up with more problems.

rcronk wrote:

What were some examples of sustainings that were opposed and for what reasons? I’m curious about that.

October 1898. As I understand it many people took objections over something John W. Taylor said about the choir.

October 1977. Byron Marchant had objections about the priesthood ban.

October 1980. In the clip you can hear that the people that were opposed disagreed with the church’s position on the Equal Rights Amendment.

There’s the more recent April 2015 conference. This is based off memory: at the time there was a group that planned ahead of time to vote in opposition and were asking people to join them in their cause. I believe that they even “warned” the brethren in advance of the vote that they planned to vote in opposition. Everyone had their own reasons but a few people later came forward afterwards and stated their reasons for opposing. The highlights from the few that cited reasons:

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

No offense intended, I’m just calling it like I see it. When people say “some people might feel…” I’ve found that’s not usually useful. Either _I_ feel or think a certain way or _I know of someone_ specifically who has told me that they feel or think a certain way. Using such language creates virtual victims who don’t necessarily exist or who can be used vicariously to rail against something without anyone being able to challenge these victims’ logic since they don’t necessarily exist.

I can see both sides of the coin on this one. On one hand there is a time for using decisive language and being confident in your personal perspective. This is actually a trait of leadership and likeminded people can rally around you. On the other hand when speaking and building bridges with people that have very different perspectives, opinions, and positions it can be very useful to avoid couching language in absolutes. Rather than “I feel this way” or “faithful people feel this way” or “rational non-deluded people think this way,” I can say “some people might feel.” This can acknowledge that there is room for differences of opinion without placing any value judgments on those different opinions.

I find that during Sunday School it can be very helpful to say, “I have a friend/child that was hurt by xyz, how can I help them know that they are welcome/needed in the community?” Sometimes I really do have a friend/child and sometimes I am vicariously putting my feelings into a hypothetical person because I do not feel that it is safe to reveal my true feelings. I like to frame the question as how to make these people feel welcome, accepted, or needed in the community because that usually directs the conversation towards inclusion. If on a rare occasion a particularly opinionated person were to say something along the lines of “They should support the brethren or get out of the church” there is room to retreat and save face. It need not devolve into a battle of wills where I personally lay my sense of belonging in this church on the outcome.

In summary, I find that in speaking to and building bridges with people that disagree with me it can be helpful to speak in uncertain language and even sometimes to project my feelings onto a hypothetical third party.

[Anonymous]

Nibbler – thanks for the links – yeah it seems it’s an issue of scale mainly. And it seems the opposing of sustainings might have more to do with standing up for what someone thinks is right and raising awareness of something than actually getting something done through the prophet. What would the prophet do with an opposed vote anyway on something He’s already received revelation on? Go back to God and say, this guy thinks you got it wrong so change your mind? It is an interesting process if you think about it. It’s not a democracy or a republic – democracies and republics are for evil people being led by evil people. This is Christ’s church led by Christ (through a prophet), who is the universe’s ultimate benevolent dictator, but who is also all about helping us progress, so maybe the opposing vote is about freedom to chose. It’s good to think about these things.

Roy – I’ll have to consider trying that sometime to see how it works. I’ve usually just walked through the logic with people letting them know that I have no vested interest in my position but am just seeking truth side by side with them and usually things work out ok if we’re both willing to seek truth together. But in the cases where they aren’t willing, maybe it might help there. I imagine if I tried to though, depending on the person, they might call me on it and ask for a reference. It makes me rethink my delivery though and for that I thank you.

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

Nibbler – thanks for the links – yeah it seems it’s an issue of scale mainly. And it seems the opposing of sustainings might have more to do with standing up for what someone thinks is right and raising awareness of something than actually getting something done through the prophet. What would the prophet do with an opposed vote anyway on something He’s already received revelation on? Go back to God and say, this guy thinks you got it wrong so change your mind? It is an interesting process if you think about it. It’s not a democracy or a republic – democracies and republics are for evil people being led by evil people. This is Christ’s church led by Christ (through a prophet), who is the universe’s ultimate benevolent dictator, but who is also all about helping us progress, so maybe the opposing vote is about freedom to chose. It’s good to think about these things.

I agree the church is led by Christ, but I have also seen the prophets get so many things wrong when they thought it was revelation. Given how little inspiration I feel I have been given, I will give them a break. But in my book I have to say that Elder Ballard saying, “We will not, we cannot, lead you astray” as going way beyond what they can honestly and humbly state. I either have to give JS a break and assume current leaders also have some things wrong, or take so many statements of, “either it is all true or all false, there is no in between” and conclude it must be all false. At this time I try to have lots of forgiveness, even at what I see the brethren’s arrogance under the veneer of certainty.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

…so many statements of, “either it is all true or all false, there is no in between” …

Statements like this made by authorities baffle me. There have been debates over the WW statement about the Lord removing the prophet before he could lead the church astray,..and yet historically there are clear examples. One that is glaring to me is the Adam God Theory.

It would be fascinating to hear a candid statement from GAs who have this B/W thinking to address those historical problems. I would give just about anything to be a fly on the wall during such a conversation…..

just saying.

[Anonymous]

The older I get, the more I realize that it is impossible for me to make an accurate moral judgement of something outside of the sphere of knowledge that I live in. This means that I don’t know if some statement made by a prophet was correct or not, served God’s purposes or not, tested our faith or not. I do know that the pattern is to get my own testimony of things regardless of their origin. Luckily (or unluckily) for salvation-related things, I’ve figured out a lot of what’s right and wrong on my own.

[Anonymous]

rcronk wrote:

Luckily (or unluckily) for salvation-related things, I’ve figured out a lot of what’s right and wrong on my own.

I think that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

[Author]

Posts