- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Sunday, I was sitting in the very very back row (not unusual for me). A stake High Counselor was there going through the list of new callings. Typical question… all in favor… we all raise our hands in unison. The HC nearly forgot, but then added, “Any opposed?” or something like it. Just then, the man sitting in front of me saw a family member at the door and raised his right hand to get her attention. The timing, the motion, the situation… it looked EXACTLY like he was opposing the callings. The HC didn’t notice, said, “Thank you”, and sat down. Apparently, nobody on the stand noticed either. It was sort of comical. So, two questions.
– Does anyone know the actual policy of how to handle no-votes? I don’t mean hearsay or rumor… I mean, does anyone know for sure? I’m interested in whether it is an all-or-nothing, or simple majority. In other words, if 99% of the ward members sustain the individual, and one guy in the back is opposed, what is supposed to happen?
– I’ve been around for a long time. I’ve been a member my whole life, and either fully active (before my fall) or mostly attending Sacrament Meeting (after the fall). I was born during the David O. McKay era, so I’ve been to at least a couple thousand Sacrament Meetings. In all that time, I can recall no case, ever, where a single negative vote was cast for any proposal. Would we be better off if the church had more of a real voting system, or would that just serve to politicize the environment?
To answer your first question, it used to be that the Bishop would deal with the objection privately, assess the circumstances, and either go ahead and sustain the person or not. It has happened twice in my lifetime. Once, I opposed (this was over 20 years ago). A new convert had called my home and propositioned my wife. I told the first counselor in the Bishopric and he looked him up on the computer, and identified who he was. He said he would take care of it, but I never heard anything back from the Bishopric about any kind of resolution, or that he had even been spoken to or the matter looked into. The next Sunday they presented his name for receiving the Aaronic Priesthood. I opposed, and so did the two sister missionaries who taught him for baptism. The Bishop later told me that he had spoken to the sister missionaries and was “on it”. He never asked me for what I knew, perhaps because he already knew? Not sure.
The other time, someone else opposed a particular call to a position. The Bishop indicated the people who had opposed had been recognized, and were invited to meet with him after Sacrament meeting in his office to talk about it.
Another Bishop told me that one Bishop dealt with it right then — stopped the meeting, met with the people, and then came back and completed the sustaining.
So, it’s not just window dressing, the do listen when there is a valid opposition. But not all objections are valid.
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng&media=video good example of how to handle these.
Yes, objections are supposed to be acknowledged and discussed privately – and proposed callings can be rescinded due to valid objections. I’ve seen it happen twice – but one was the person in question, since he was the only one who realized that the proposed calling was not what had been extended to him. That one was really funny, and the Bishopric handled it with good humor.
Personally, when I was in a position to be the one at the pulpit, I made it a point to look obviously around the congregation and behind me at the people on the stand. Looking behind me really made the point that I was taking it seriously.
My grandmother opposed once. She was spoken to in private afterwards and gave her reasons. The person was sustained anyway and set apart. Boy did my Grandmother have guts. I think I ought to do the same thing when a similar case arises. DBMormon wrote:http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng&media=video good example of how to handle these.
That was awesome. It was almost as if Elder McKonkie knew they were coming.Thanks everyone, for that very interesting info. So, in light of that, I’ll re-ask my second question: Would we be better off if the church had more of a real voting system, or would that just serve to politicize the environment?
Quote:Would we be better off if the church had more of a real voting system, or would that just serve to politicize the environment?
Imo, No and yes.
I wish we had more of a viabrant sustaining process – maybe something like an announcement of proposed callings with a week of private discussion time with the Bishop and anyone who had concerns (although even that has obvious political pitfalls) – and that everyone took their sustaining vote more seriously, but I don’t want a vote system. That scares me – a lot.
Asked this before. Apparently, the people who vote “no” have a chat afterwards as to why. Quote:But not all objections are valid.
Agreed, excellent point.
I remember you bringing up the person who propositioned your wife. Obviously, that is a serious objection. If there were three such objections, that is a strong charge as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.