Sustaining the Leaders

I don't get this. It seems like... is it a real sustaining if you can't disagree? Also, is it a way of making sure that at any point, someone can say, "you sustained them. You have to obey them." I don't know... I just don't like it. I know, surprise surprise: an evil athiest doesn't like the proceedings of the church. But still, I don't understand the point. Perhaps I am too cynical and it is merely a simple way of alerting the membership of changes in the structure. But if we can't disagree and we have no say... it seems fairly pointless.

I also love the passive voice: it is proposed. By who? We all know that it is the prophet (allegedly) who makes all these decisions. It just seems like it would be better in active. Like, "Thomas S. Monson proposes..." or better, "the lord proposes..." Would that be too much assigning responsibility? Like, if he turned out to be a child molester, the passive voice does not assign blame: it was just proposed, we don't know whose idea it was.

Also, lots of Latino names... I guess the whole idea of racial equality is slowly trickling up.

I don't like how the Primary and Relief Society presidency are all women. I mean, I'm glad they are in leadership, but the leadership positions make it clear where women are welcome and valued; not over men, but over other women and children. And god forbid a man serve in a Primary Presidency. That's not his role. It's a woman's role that is with the children.