Sustaining Vote - Have You Ever Not Given It?

[Messenger]

Even if you knew there was a good reason why that person should not be sustained to that calling, you would sustain them?

Also, why do they ask for an opposing vote if we are all meant to simply raise our hands in support? Why vote at all?

I agree with you Arkholt. What I have learned from this thread is that there are two purposes of the sustaining vote.

1) Last chance for worthiness determination. When we know someone is not worthy, we have the opportunity to show that. But ultimately, is the decision of the bishop or state president.

2) Demonstrate support through the sustaining process. I think there is something to raising your hand and the mental process of accepting someone in a new calling.

This has not been brought up in this thread. But I once belonged to a ward where I had several callings, and due to the politics in the ward, I never was allowed to act on any them. That was a tough spot to be in. Having ADHD, I'm a pretty creative guy, and I will also say that the connection I have to the Lord is strong. I was gaining revelation on what to do well within the boundaries of my callings, but was not able to act on them. For example, an emergency prep coordinator will usually try to have a kick off meeting during the combined priesthood relief society meeting. The Bishop originally thought that was a good idea, but when the old emergency prep coordinator found out, who just also happened to be the Sunday School President, and he actually ended up talking to the ward about emergency preparedness. Because of the politics of the ward, the Bishop allowed that person to limit what I did to nothing. I talked to the bishop several times trying to get insight on how to solve the problem. He would shrug his shoulders and say, sorry! And smile at the same time. When I prayed about it, I knew I wasn’t going anywhere because my direction, that once was full flowing, now was silent. The only direction I got after several months was to move out of the ward. I must say it was great to get direction on what to do. People like me with ADHD are not very patient, but I did pretty good and waited for 3 months looking for an answer. I was pretty stressed out at the end of those three months. When I got the answer from prayer to go to the ward building, I simply obeyed. I drove up, entered the building and the first person I saw in the hallway was my bishop. When I shook his hand, I got more direction on what I needed to say to him. So, we went into his office. I told him about the struggles I had with the callings and the lack of support from him and others. Again, he smiled, and shrugged his shoulders. I got direction on what to say next. I smiled and said, "Perhaps this ward isn’t the best place for me, I will find another ward to attend. Will there be any problem from you as far as transferring my records?" You should have seen the look on his face! Heavenly Father thumped him on the head, and he didn’t like it. He was clearly mad, but I knew Heavenly Father was on my side. He reluctantly said there would be no problem with moving my records; I could tell he was actually quite upset. When I reached out to shake his hand after the meeting, he refused to offer it. Actually, he was the one that held up the process. Church HQ intervened, and thumped him again on the head. After two months in the new ward, my records arrived and I got a new calling. It was wonderful and I had a lot of support.

The Sunday School President was also a professor at BYU-I. I always found that interesting. A guy who teaches church doctrine couldn't apply one of the most basic principles of our Gospel, sustaining a person in a calling.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Messenger

[Arkholt]

I agree with you Arkholt. What I have learned from this thread is that there are two purposes of the sustaining vote.

1) Last chance for worthiness determination. When we know someone is not worthy, we have the opportunity to show that. But ultimately, is the decision of the bishop or state president.

2) Demonstrate support through the sustaining process. I think there is something to raising your hand and the mental process of accepting someone in a new calling.

I mean, it's not like you're going up to the bishop or stake president and telling him how he should run his ward or stake. He's coming to you and asking you what you think. "Yea or nay?" If he really didn't care, or wasn't supposed to care what you think, there wouldn't be a vote.

[Messenger]

I mean, it's not like you're going up to the bishop or stake president and telling him how he should run his ward or stake. He's coming to you and asking you what you think. "Yea or nay?" If he really didn't care, or wasn't supposed to care what you think, there wouldn't be a vote.

Exactly.

[alter idem]

I mean, it's not like you're going up to the bishop or stake president and telling him how he should run his ward or stake. He's coming to you and asking you what you think. "Yea or nay?" If he really didn't care, or wasn't supposed to care what you think, there wouldn't be a vote.

Exactly.

I must disagree . This is not why they ask for a sustaining vote. The leadership ask the congregation if they can sustain the person in their calling. That means, can and will you recognize the person's stewardship to serve in this calling. Will you support them when they ask you to do something. Will you honor the call that has been extended to the person and do all you can to help them fulfill it (within reason of course).

They do not ask you for a vote on whether or not the person is worthy and whether or not they should go ahead and call the person.

As has been said before, IF you know something that may prevent you from sustaining this person (as described above) in their calling, then you will need to raise your hand in opposition. This then allows the leaders to speak with you privately to consider the matter. They may or may not act upon it.

The church is not run in a democratic fashion and I believe among many members there is confusion about the sustaining process. For those who are unsure of exactly what their sustaining vote means, it might be wise to research the subject.

Also, Church members are not in a position to receive revelation on who should or should not be called to a church position--that is not their stewardship. It is the stewardship of the Bishop or Stake President who is called, set apart and given the keys and authority to fulfill this responsibility. While an Elders Quorum, relief society pres, primary pres. will receive revelation on who they should have serve with them, the call will not be extended unless the Bishop also receives revelation that this person should serve in this capacity.

When you sustain the Stake President or Bishop, you are also saying that you will sustain their choices in who they will call to serve in positions.

Edited June 26, 2011 by alter idem

[erichard]

I mean, it's not like you're going up to the bishop or stake president and telling him how he should run his ward or stake. He's coming to you and asking you what you think. "Yea or nay?" If he really didn't care, or wasn't supposed to care what you think, there wouldn't be a vote.

When I was a member I did choose to not sustain the present church authorities. Since members are given the Right to sustain or not sustain them, should they not take that Right as a responsibility and be as wise and careful as they can be when they are asked to sustain or not sustain?

As Arkholt says, "it's not like you're going up to the bishop or stake president [or church President] and telling him how he should run his ward or stake [or church]."

If members who sincerely have issues with the church choose to NOT sustain the present general authorities, and did not try to change anything themselves, I honestly believe it would be a blessing for the church. People need to be true to their hearts.

Any system that big brothers, bullies, bandwagons people into things eventually has a backlash. If the church is doing this, the fact that it is the Lord's church will not stop there being a backlash. When a member faces the Lord He will say, "I gave you the right to not sustain the leaders, if you made a mistake thinking they should automatically be sustained, that is your problem, not Mine. You should have realized all was not well in Zion."

It is very normal in a “bully system” for the leaders to require acts of proving one’s allegiance to those in power. Is this all that “common consent” is in the Lord’s church? Or is it part of the Lord’s “balance of power” he set up in His church, giving members the right and responsibility to detect and overrule possible errors by their leaders?

Why does D&C 107 list 5 different quorums and say they are equal in authority (assumedly when they vote unanimously)? Why would there need to be any kind of "balance of power" in the Lord's church since the Lord guarantees that the church president will never lead the church astray?

The reason is that the Lord does NOT guarantee that the church President will never lead the church astray. That is not a scriptural doctrine.

You can read this.

Richard

[Messenger]

They do not ask you for a vote on whether or not the person is worthy and whether or not they should go ahead and call the person.

This is the only thing I don’t agree with you on. But, I've already made my explanation as to why. If you know of a situation where they may not be worthy, I believe it’s our duty to bring it up. But ultimately, it’s the decision of the Stake President or Bishop if they call that person or not. They simply take what we bring up after we raise our hand in the negative, and decide. It could be that they would have already repented, and it’s really none of our business. But if they have not, its an opportunity to do so – that’s a good thing! As already mentioned, there are many other scenarios.

I've actually had a bishop explain it to me this way.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Messenger

[Arkholt]

I must disagree . This is not why they ask for a sustaining vote. The leadership ask the congregation if they can sustain the person in their calling. That means, can and will you recognize the person's stewardship to serve in this calling. Will you support them when they ask you to do something. Will you honor the call that has been extended to the person and do all you can to help them fulfill it (within reason of course).

They do not ask you for a vote on whether or not the person is worthy and whether or not they should go ahead and call the person.

As has been said before, IF you know something that may prevent you from sustaining this person (as described above) in their calling, then you will need to raise your hand in opposition. This then allows the leaders to speak with you privately to consider the matter. They may or may not act upon it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. They're not asking us for our vote on whether the person is worthy for the calling, but we should tell them if the person is not worthy for the calling?

The church is not run in a democratic fashion and I believe among many members there is confusion about the sustaining process. For those who are unsure of exactly what their sustaining vote means, it might be wise to research the subject.

Also, Church members are not in a position to receive revelation on who should or should not be called to a church position--that is not their stewardship. It is the stewardship of the Bishop or Stake President who is called, set apart and given the keys and authority to fulfill this responsibility. While an Elders Quorum, relief society pres, primary pres. will receive revelation on who they should have serve with them, the call will not be extended unless the Bishop also receives revelation that this person should serve in this capacity.

Right. The leader has the final say. That doesn't mean that he can't ask for input from others.

When you sustain the Stake President or Bishop, you are also saying that you will sustain their choices in who they will call to serve in positions.

Doesn't it also mean that you will support and help them do their job? If there is some kind of oversight, wouldn't it be helpful to bring it up to him? Just because you get called doesn't make you omniscient.

[Messenger]

It is very normal in a “bully system” for the leaders to require acts of proving one’s allegiance to those in power. Is this all that “common consent” is in the Lord’s church? Or is it part of the Lord’s “balance of power” he set up in His church, giving members the right and responsibility to detect and overrule possible errors by their leaders?

I don’t think of the system that way. It simply allows the Lord to inspire leaders to call them to assisting people in running the ward. 99.99% of the time, the system works great. It’s not perfect, but then again, we are a Telestial church right now. We still have some backups in place, and I believe the sustaining vote is one of those backups. The bully system you quote is not the system that I know. Although, I suppose there are a few people that are called to a position and use priesthood authority incorrectly. I've seen that once or twice - but I'm sure that's way less than 1% of the time because they don’t last long - thankfully for the sustaining vote!

There are a few examples in history where a Church leader when haywire. Years ago this happened with the convert governor of Hawaii. A few members wrote letters to the church headquarters, they took a trip to Hawaii, and he was promptly excommunicated.

There are probably far many more times when members of a ward don’t sustain a person in a calling in silence, or don’t sustain them in public and really don’t have a good reason. Perhaps they don’t like them, or they wish to make a deal with them if they vote for them. Or perhaps they just don’t like the system. But I've never run across any systemic bullying in the church. I've had a lot of callings in the church, and I am thankful that so many members have been sustained both by vote of hand, and in heart. Without it, anybody with a grudge could thwart the direction of the Lord.

Oh and by the way, I've made a few honest mistakes in callings. I've quickly repented, and I've always been amazed how forgiving the ward members are. For example, I was teaching the High Priest lesson every 3rd Sunday in my ward. On that Sunday, due to a lot of distractions, I forgot. We started the high priest session and the HPGL said, you have the lesson right? haha! Well, I prepared it in about 60 seconds while he conducted business. Nobody was upset, in fact, I started the lesson telling everyone I was sorry and might need to call on them for help in the lesson. They all pitched in with ideas and concepts to the lesson - it was one of the best in my opinion. But, I never forgot again! Nor did anybody in the group ever hold a grudge against me. To this day, when I think of that High Priest group, I always have kind feelings.

[CARPE DIEM]

This is the only thing I don’t agree with you on. But, I've already made my explanation as to why. If you know of a situation where they may not be worthy, I believe it’s our duty to bring it up. But ultimately, it’s the decision of the Stake President or Bishop if they call that person or not. They simply take what we bring up after we raise our hand in the negative, and decide. It could be that they would have already repented, and it’s really none of our business. But if they have not, its an opportunity to do so – that’s a good thing! As already mentioned, there are many other scenarios.

I've actually had a bishop explain it to me this way.

Interesting, I'm curious as to why if the higher ministers and leaders "Call" the people to a position as they and only they have the authority to do, why would it matter what the members think? I'm not sure I understand? If anything goes awry with this person and his/her calling do the members get held responsible somehow?

[Arkholt]

Interesting, I'm curious as to why if the higher ministers and leaders "Call" the people to a position as they and only they have the authority to do, why would it matter what the members think? I'm not sure I understand? If anything goes awry with this person and his/her calling do the members get held responsible somehow?

If a member knew something and didn't speak up, then perhaps they would be held responsible at some point.

[Messenger]

The pattern is the same here: Do all you can (the leadership) and what you don’t have will be given unto you by grace. If the leadership had 100% revelation (which is not telestial law) then they wouldn’t need to interview for a temple recommend. And when serious problems with worthiness arise, there would be no need for church court.

Another example was with my Mission President in Australia: After a horrible companionship that nearly cost me my life, my Mission President told me that it was by revelation that he broke up our companionship, but admitted that he didn’t get revelation before hand.

It would be a mistake to assume that revelation on a person’s calling (or any direction for that matter) always comes ahead of time. Even if it does, when revelation involves another person, that revelation does not take away their free agency – They may be worthy when the Bishop interviews them, but by the time a sustaining vote was cast, they may not be. As already mentioned by another member on this forum, there are opportunities for the person being called to repent. When they do not, we rely on other means.