- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Has anyone hear run into a situation where they DIDN’T want to sustain someone’s new calling? This is purely hypothetical for me. I have sustained everyone so far, but I am no fan of unanimous votes in any context. I wish we had a “Devil’s Advocate” who voted the other way like the Roman church.
So if someone receives a calling, or leadership position, and we know that they are up to no good (some serious crime) etc, how do you go about dealing with this, without rocking the boat?
I opposed the sustaining of a new member to the Aaronic Priesthood. This was because he was hitting on my wife, offering her sex through phone calls to my home. My wife told me about it. When his name was presented in sacrament meeting, I raised my hand, and so did two sister missionaries.
The way the “boat rocking prevention” is handled is by the actions of the Bishop over the pulpit (or his counselor). The way to handle it is to indicate that everyone who has opposed have been recognized and are invited to meet with the Bishop after the meeting, in his office. I met with the Bishop’s counselor and explained the situation, and he was sympathetic. The new convert was never sustained to receive the Aaronic priesthood afterwards, to my knowledge.
SD is correct. If you know of something that you believe to be serious enough to oppose and keep the person from serving in that calling, the way to do so is simply to raise your hand and oppose – then talk with the presiding leader privately and express your concern. If you don’t know of anything specific but can’t say honestly that you sustain the person, simply don’t raise your hand to sustain or oppose. As I said in another thread recently, I’m speaking in one of the units in our stake about how receiving and understanding personal revelation influences sustaining and supporting our leaders. I’ve thought about sharing the advice I just gave you in my talk next Sunday, but I’m not sure yet if I will do so. This has been a difficult talk to craft properly, since it’s such a balance, imo, between two naturally enticing extremes – 1) I will do whatever I feel is the best thing to do, no matter what anyone else says; 2) I will do whatever my leaders tell me to do. Neither extreme is healthy, imo, but it’s hard to address fully without some people misunderstanding.
I’m glad I’ve not run up against it. I’ve sustained everyone so far, that’s partly because I don’t know half of the people! To be fair, none of them struck me as unsuitable. We have a large number of people in the ward, but we also have men getting appointed who have beards, which I find encouraging. SD, you have my sympathy, I wouldn’t put up with someone harassing my wife like that. That’s certainly one of the things I’m thinking of, sexual misdemeanor (NB – not the M word, and not homosexual tendencies). The others which spring to mind are financial “irregularity” and theft, involvement in some kind of violence (wife beating, violent crime), corruption, regular lies and the taking or selling of hard drugs (i.e. heroin, cocaine, LSD, serious stuff like that).
Clearly the person in question should never have been baptized, at least not in that state. Sexual attraction is one thing, but harassment and intended adultery another. We have had some extremely attractive sister missionaries here, and some of the married women are also beautiful, but I don’t go round hitting on them.
Old-Timer wrote:This has been a difficult talk to craft properly, since it’s such a balance, imo, between two naturally enticing extremes – 1) I will do whatever I feel is the best thing to do, no matter what anyone else says; 2) I will do whatever my leaders tell me to do. Neither extreme is healthy, imo, but it’s hard to address fully without some people misunderstanding.
Personally, I think it’s going to be a REAL tightrope to walk as the typical view is that leaders are inspired and if you do what you say, all will go well. It’s definitely simpler, supports the whole “Church as THE authority” concept that many people are comfortable with. I do think you risk being grossly misunderstood if you try to deviate it even a bit. Your talk reminds me a bit of the conundrum faced by Poelman of the Seventy regarding the relationship of the Church and the gospel.
Personally, I think such a discussion is best handled in places like STayLDS or in personal conversations with people undergoing trials of faith — not in the traditional believing context of a formal Church meeting. But that’s just me. Maybe you’ll be able to come up with something without sounding like you’re skating around the issues…
The issue is that the topic I mentioned is my assigned topic from the Stake Presidency – and they got me when they called me. I’m not going to preach either extreme, so I’m working on how to teach the balance in which I believe honestly and openly. It’s ironic that my situation is a great example of the topic I’m addressing – seeking personal revelation about how to support my leaders in what they’ve asked of me, even when I’m not certain they will agree totally with the finished product if they don’t hear it live. Luckily, one of the Stake Presidency counselors is in the ward where I will be speaking, so it won’t get misrepresented by others – as long as he’s attending that week.
If I can’t pull it off myself, I have no right to preach it as what others should do. Therefore, I intend to pull it off – with help from the Spirit, since I’m not backing away from the need to preach what I believe really is the ideal.
Old-Timer wrote:The issue is that the topic I mentioned is my assigned topic from the Stake Presidency – and they got me when they called me. I’m not going to preach either extreme, so I’m working on how to teach the balance in which I believe honestly and openly.
It’s ironic that my situation is a great example of the topic I’m addressing – seeking personal revelation about how to support my leaders in what they’ve asked of me, even when I’m not certain they will agree totally with the finished product if they don’t hear it live. Luckily, one of the Stake Presidency counselors is in the ward where I will be speaking, so it won’t get misrepresented by others – as long as he’s attending that week.
If I can’t pull it off myself, I have no right to preach it as what others should do. Therefore, I intend to pull it off – with help from the Spirit, since I’m not backing away from the need to preach what I believe really is the ideal.
I’d be interested in reading it.
Ray, I think you should post your talks online. I’d be interested in reading them! I’ve always sustained people for callings–except once in seminary. The seminary teacher wanted me to be class president, so I voted “no.” It didn’t matter.
😈 I just didn’t want to be class president.I talked to someone that actually voted “no” to sustaining his Elder’s Quorum president. Apparently the potential president had a reputation of paying bills short, and owed the voter about $3000. From what I understand the EQ pres purposely paid bills short to many people, because it would cost about that much to recover in small claims court. The voter explained his situation to the bishop, but the guy was ordained anyway. If the story is true, the EQ pres sounds pretty slimy, IMO. If I was in the voter’s situation, I probably would have done the same thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.