Sustaining/Opposing GAs

[_Black Moclips]

Isn't it a hold over from earlier church times when things actually operated by "common consent" of the people? Didn't they actually vote and count the votes for the high positions in the church? Any church history buffs around that can shed more light. But since we don't actually follow the common consent idea anymore, I think its just a symbolic geasture to make you feel a part of the process.

[_Mister Scratch]

Surely it is telling that this has happened so few times that no one really seems to know what goes on in the "interviews."

I estimate that over the years I have personally witnessed between ten and twenty thousand callings/sustainings, and only once have I seen a person raise a hand in opposition. It's a ritual that has become laughable.

I've seen several and spoke with someone who was interviewed.....not in an Orwellian fashion.

But were you present during the interview? If not, then how can you have any idea whether or not the "interrogation" was or was not "Orwellian"? And I say "Orwellian" due to the essentially coercive nature of these "interviews". As the TBMs at MAD explain it, these function either as a means of collecting "dirt" on those being called, or as a method of browbeating someone into no longer criticizing the newly called leader. Either way, it just seems like "play acting" at democracy.

[_Jason Bourne]

There once was a time when I opposed giving someone a position. I told the bishop ahead of time and I refused to go to the meeting in which he would be sustained.

My problem with the sustaining the way it is done is that it's all or nothing. I object to a few of the 12, but they are not singled out so I can't oppose them. It's very frustrating.

No. You can cast an opposing vote when they present all 12 then tell the person who you discuss it with which ones you oppose.

[_Jason Bourne]

Surely it is telling that this has happened so few times that no one really seems to know what goes on in the "interviews."

I estimate that over the years I have personally witnessed between ten and twenty thousand callings/sustainings, and only once have I seen a person raise a hand in opposition. It's a ritual that has become laughable.

I've seen several and spoke with someone who was interviewed.....not in an Orwellian fashion.

But were you present during the interview? If not, then how can you have any idea whether or not the "interrogation" was or was not "Orwellian"? And I say "Orwellian" due to the essentially coercive nature of these "interviews". As the TBMs at MAD explain it, these function either as a means of collecting "dirt" on those being called, or as a method of browbeating someone into no longer criticizing the newly called leader. Either way, it just seems like "play acting" at democracy.

It is not a democracy not was it intended as such. I was present at the interview for the opposing vote I mentioned about and it was not an interrogation or Orwellian in the least.

[_malkie]

There once was a time when I opposed giving someone a position. I told the bishop ahead of time and I refused to go to the meeting in which he would be sustained.

My problem with the sustaining the way it is done is that it's all or nothing. I object to a few of the 12, but they are not singled out so I can't oppose them. It's very frustrating.

My branch in Scotland had a missionary BP who was greatly disliked. He misused budget funds (spent everything on a pet project, leaving nothing in reserve for winter heating oil, failed to pay utility bills), browbeat a mentally challenged member into not attending, accused a member of smoking pot (only "evidence" he had was that the member had long hair, and listened to rock music), and generally acted like an insensitive prick.

Before branch conference I talked to the district pres and told him that there would likely be mass opposition if he put the BP's name up for any position in the branch, never mind BP.

They found a replacement.

The missionary BP was moved to another area, and the members there loved him. I don't know if he changed his behaviour, or if we were just over critical (before the days of DHO's famous speech about criticising church leaders).

The district pres warned me never to "pull a stunt" like that again! My view was that, by speaking to him beforehand, I allowed him the opportunity to reconsider, but that I didn't make the decision for him - just gave him some information that he didn't already have.