Sustaining/Opposing GAs

[_Mister Scratch]

There is a thread over on the aptly named MADboard entitled, "Raising Hand to Sustain The Ga's". Here is the OP:

I understand that we are given the opportunity to raise our hands in support of newly appointed GA's as an opportunity to voice our support and help bear their burdens. But why is it asked if there are any opposed? If I raised my hand becaue I didn't like a GA what would happen? Do these votes against sustaining even mean anything?

On another thread someone said that to not sustain a GA is looked on as a mark of apostasy. I think this is partially true. In church, if we notice someone not sustain a GA I don't think the members are going to think wonderful things about that persons testimony.

So what is the point of asking us if we are opposed if it isn't going to do anything other than signify we are falling away from the bretheren?

I found this post to be both very provocative, and also rather frightening/disturbing in terms of its implications. I think that all-too-often, the sustaining of the GAs is something that happens by rote---members just don't think about it and just go along with the flow. But Auteur55 raises a couple of important points. Namely, the raising of the hand functions as a symbol of uniformity, and, I suppose, conformity. You can either raise your hand and indicate that you submit fully to the dictates of the Brethren, or you can face disciplinary action.

What does this "discipline" consist of, you might ask? Here is our very own beloved LoaP:

The person or persons are interviewed privately.

"Interviewed"? Or "interrogated"? Personally, I have never known or spoken with anybody who dared to publicly oppose the Brethren, so I have no idea what actually goes on in these sinister-sounding "interviews." Here, another poster elaborates on the process (though I'm not sure how this person really knows what would happen):

It gives you the opportunity to speak with your priesthood leaders about the reasons for your refusing to sustain a member in his or her calling. If you have knowledge about the individual that the appropriate priesthood leader may not have been privy to before issuing the call (e.g. something that would call into question the person’s standing in the church), objecting to a calling gives you the chance to communicate that information with your priesthood leaders.

Conversely, if you are objecting to a person serving in a calling merely because you dislike that individual then it gives you the opportunity to speak with your priesthood leaders and perhaps they may be able to encourage you to let go of some of the animosity that you are harboring toward your fellow man.

So, am I to understand that these "interviews", in essence are meant to either: A) Get you to "dish the dirt" on somebody, or B) browbeat you into submission? Next up is Duncan, who also seems to not know what happens:

I think it happened a few times in the 1970's. I think those opposing would meet with their leaders and air their complaint.

Surely it is telling that this has happened so few times that no one really seems to know what goes on in the "interviews." Here's a post from Consiglieri:

A little more seriously, the calling for any opposed is, I think, a holdover from an earlier day in the Church when perhaps a dissenting vote was not considered to be an act of rebellion against God.

And maybe it's also to keep people from having a basis to complain later. "Hey, did you vote against the bishop when he was sustained? Then shut yer pie-hole and quite yer whining!"

And check out this follow-up post from 'Amulek':

If you have a good reason to object, then you should object. General Authorities are mortal men and can be excommunicated just like anybody else.

Ah, right. Raising your hand in opposition to the General Authorities could actually lead to one of them getting excommunicated. I doubt I've ever heard anything so absurd.

Up next is a rather creepy post from 'Ihearya':

Not quite. If you are opposed, you have a chance (or should) to voice what it is that you're opposed against. Obviously not liking a particular GA is not a good reason. But you might have some material information that would prevent a GA from exercising his new calling. However, before any GA is called, his background and his life is double-checked for anything wrong-doings that might prevent him from performing his duties. So basically, your raising your hand against would be a futile act.

(emphasis added)

Now, how on earth would s/he know that? And, if the Church possesses the ability to do so thorough a background check on the GAs, why should we have any reason to doubt that the same kinds of "investigations" are done on prominent dissenting members?

Finally, here's Paul Ray, who interprets the evidence in an intriguing way:

I think it's amazing, and wonderful, that more people don't speak out against things, and it indicates to me that there are more people who are for things than there are people who are against things.

In other words, it's "amazing and wonderful" that people who've been threatened with these Orwellian "interviews" don't "speak out." To summarize, the facts of the matter seem to be this:
---Raising of the hands to sustain the GAs functions ritualistically as a marker of obedience, submission, and cohesiveness
---Nobody really seems to understand what happens if one decides to actually display opposition to the GAs during the sustaining proces
---Some TBMs seem to believe that the call for "those opposed" is mere carry-over from when the days when this process was legitimately democratic
---Many TBMs seem to feel that the call for "those opposed" is a totally moot point, and that any expression of opposition would be a waste of time
---The "interviews" of those who express dissert are meant to serve two purposes: to punish the dissenters, and to ply incriminating evidence out of them.

All in all, I find the psychological underpinnings of the hand-raising to be very troubling indeed.

[_skippy the dead]

I had seen on a comment on an LDS blog regarding the Solemn Assembly that appeared to imply that Pres. Monson had requested that local stake presidents note the name of any member who had raised a hand in dissent during local viewings of the assembly, and forward the name to SLC. I looked for any authority for this (or even other anecdotal support), but found none. So who knows if it's even remotely true. Yet, I wondered what the reason for this would be, if true, other than to have a list ready "in case" any of the names were brought up again for other actions against the church. Has anybody else seen anything similar out in the internets?

[_ktallamigo]

Perhaps it is to maintain some kind of illusion of democracy within the church, or reinforce to ourselves that we do indeed have free agency to sustain or oppose.

Yet the only opposing votes I ever remember were those on TV of Sonia Johnson in the 70's.

[_ludwigm]

...
Yet the only opposing votes I ever remember were those on TV of Sonia Johnson in the 70's.

Great Moments in Mormon History wrote:

From the research of church historian Michael C. Quinn in The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of Power:
...
Oct 6, 1907 - At sustaining of church officers a man votes against Joseph F Smith because of his admitted violation of Utah's cohabitation law. Smith has him ejected from Salt Lake Tabernacle.
...

[_bcspace]

Namely, the raising of the hand functions as a symbol of uniformity, and, I suppose, conformity. You can either raise your hand and indicate that you submit fully to the dictates of the Brethren, or you can face disciplinary action.

I see a lot of this on the other side. Antimormons and exmo apostates are almost uniform in their false arguments and erroneous claims as if there is some 'force' out there driving them on to a frenzied chorus. The comformity comes from the ridicule one receives if ones does not tow the line or is 'half in half out' so to speak.

Consider all the tooth-gnashing over faith based threads when the opportunity to criticize (for it's own sake no less) was removed.

[_John Larsen]

Namely, the raising of the hand functions as a symbol of uniformity, and, I suppose, conformity. You can either raise your hand and indicate that you submit fully to the dictates of the Brethren, or you can face disciplinary action.

I see a lot of this on the other side. Antimormons and exmo apostates are almost uniform in their false arguments and erroneous claims as if there is some 'force' out there driving them on to a frenzied chorus. The comformity comes from the ridicule one receives if ones does not tow the line or is 'half in half out' so to speak.

Consider all the tooth-gnashing over faith based threads when the opportunity to criticize (for it's own sake no less) was removed.

I'm no anti-Mormon, but I am an apostate. Please, do enlighten us. Please give us an example of one of these uniformly held false arguments.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

[_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 remember the opposition in I think the late 70's when the ERA thing was going on to Pres Kimball at conference. Then once in my ward to people opposed the Elders Quorum Pres. They did not support him because he was sort of a crass out spoken fellow who could be rude and crude-a J Golden Kimball or Porter Rockwell type. He had offended these two. The were asked to discuss with leaders why they opposed him. They did and then the EQ Pres was still set apart.

[_The Nehor]

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.

[_harmony]

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.