Do You Have The Courage To Oppose A New Calling?

[Duncan]

I was thinking if someone was called to do something in the Church and the congregation was asked to sustain it or not, do I have the courage to oppose it if I thought that was necessary and I don't think I have that kind of courage! only because of gossip and the fallout could be long and difficult-what about you? do you have what it takes to oppose something and how would you handle the fallout?

[The Nehor]

I think I do but I've never had the need so I guess it is all theoretical. I would only do it if I knew something that should disqualify them and was reasonably sure the Bishop or Stake President wasn't aware of the objection.

[ksfisher]

The proper time to give a dissenting vote is if we have knowledge that the person being sustained is guilty of some conduct that would disqualify him or her from serving in that position.

That being said, I have never seen a dissenting vote in a ward or stake meeting, or even heard stories of such. It would take a lot of courage to do this.

[The Nehor]

The proper time to give a dissenting vote is if we have knowledge that the person being sustained is guilty of some conduct that would disqualify him or her from serving in that position.

That being said, I have never seen a dissenting vote in a ward or stake meeting, or even heard stories of such. It would take a lot of courage to do this.

I have seen it. I don't think it is that big of a deal. The dissenter went and spoke with the Bishop afterwards.

[Duncan]

I have seen it once at stake conference here about 11 years ago, 3 people did it and Bishop H. David Burton the Presiding Bishop was there!

[Duncan]

I have seen it. I don't think it is that big of a deal. The dissenter went and spoke with the Bishop afterwards.

here is a theoretical scenario- an inactive guy becoming say a counselor in the stake presidency or HC or Bishopric-would you oppose that?

[CV75]

I have seen it once at stake conference here about 11 years ago, 3 people did it and Bishop H. David Burton the Presiding Bishop was there!

Was there gossip and fallout that proved to be long and difficult?

[Freedom]

I have done it but I did not do it during the meeting. After the service, I went and spoke to the bishop about my concerns. The person stayed in the calling so I am glad I didn't make my opposition public. A former bishop of mine who is now a stake president shared a story of when he was first called into a bishopric in his native country. Someone put up their hand in opposition. It turned out he was seen on many occations stumbling out of a bar with a bunch of asosociates from work. In truth, he went frequently to retrieve his drunk employer. He was stumbling because he was trying to hold him or her up. He did so to save them from public embarrassment because they were public figures of some sort. I don't recall what he did for a living, I think he worked at the City Hall.

I have learned that, no matter how much proof you have, deal with it privately.

I recall another story of a man who was called to be Bishop and a few people put their hands up in opposition. they opposed him because he was very vocal against the scouting program. He committed to support the program and everybody went back in and sustained him. I was told this by the son of one who put their hand up in opposition. The son was serving as my stake president at the time and was teaching the young adults about the purpose of sustaining church officers.

[LeSellers]

here is a theoretical scenario- an inactive guy becoming say a counselor in the stake presidency or HC or Bishopric-would you oppose that?

Unless he's in my ward, the odds of my knowing him from a box of corn flakes is vanishingly small.

In any case, his being "inactive" is essentially 100% known to the calling authority, and (again, if he's not in my ward) not to me. If the Stake President is willing to call him, then so be it. The issue just may have come up in his calling interview, doncha thin?

Lehi

[Nominee]

here is a theoretical scenario- an inactive guy becoming say a counselor in the stake presidency or HC or Bishopric-would you oppose that?

I have doubt this would ever happen but I say that I would not oppose if it were to take place. I would sustain my church leaders. It is not the inactive guy you are opposing it is the inspired church leadership who made the decision that you are putting in question.

[Duncan]

Was there gossip and fallout that proved to be long and difficult?

yep and that is why I put it there! All three are out of the Church with one being disfellowshipped-I don't know why though not my business!

[The Nehor]

here is a theoretical scenario- an inactive guy becoming say a counselor in the stake presidency or HC or Bishopric-would you oppose that?

Nope. That's something that I am reasonably sure the people calling would know about and have taken into account.

If I knew that last week the person called had committed adultery with their mother and thought it unlikely the person calling them knew of this I would oppose.

[Duncan]

Unless he's in my ward, the odds of my knowing him from a box of corn flakes is vanishingly small.

In any case, his being "inactive" is essentially 100% known to the calling authority, and (again, if he's not in my ward) not to me. If the Stake President is willing to call him, then so be it. The issue just may have come up in his calling interview, doncha thin?

Lehi

well, strictly theory though but our stake has a history of putting people like that into callings like that to reform them somehow with varying degrees of "success"...

[Duncan]

Nope. That's something that I am reasonably sure the people calling would know about and have taken into account.

If I knew that last week the person called had committed adultery with their mother and thought it unlikely the person calling them knew of this I would oppose.

if they don't bother coming to Church then why would anyone take them seriously and how can they tell others how to live a LDS style life if they don't bother doing it themselves? I am not judging anyone but if they don't attend Church then what else is going on or not is what I think

[The Nehor]

if they don't bother coming to Church then why would anyone take them seriously and how can they tell others how to live a LDS style life if they don't bother doing it themselves? I am not judging anyone but if they don't attend Church then what else is going on or not is what I think

The Bishop or SP may have been inspired to try to reactivate them through the calling, decided to try it of their own volition, or may know something of their circumstances preventing them from coming that I didn't know of. My sustaining vote does not mean I think they are going to do a fine job. It means I will support them as needed in their calling. They might fail spectacularly. Oh well.

If I know a reason they shouldn't have the calling that I am pretty sure the leaders don't know of then that is the time to step up.

[CV75]

yep and that is why I put it there! All three are out of the Church with one being disfellowshipped-I don't know why though not my business!

How is that long and difficult--would the three people not have opposed the calling if they knew there would be gossip (and if so, why didn't they change their mind/are they saying their opposition wasn't worth it?)?

[Duncan]

How is that long and difficult--would the three people not have opposed the calling if they knew there would be gossip (and if so, why didn't they change their mind/are they saying their opposition wasn't worth it?)?

well, the gossip still lingers, i.e when people talk about sustaining new callings they are used as an example and some few in the know tell what happened ( idon't know how they know but whatever) and one of the moms of one involved has spotty attendance partially because of it, I think we should just look past it and move on!

[wenglund]

I have seen it on a local and at a church-wide level, and in each of those cases it wasn't an act of courage, but rather agenda-driven grand-standing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

I have seen it on a local and at a church-wide level, and in each of those cases it wasn't an act of courage, but rather agenda-driven grand-standing.

I have seen it done where it was not.

Edited November 18, 2011 by The Nehor

[Duncan]

I have seen it on a local and at a church-wide level, and in each of those cases it wasn't an act of courage, but rather agenda-driven grand-standing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

what do you mean?

[CV75]

well, the gossip still lingers, i.e when people talk about sustaining new callings they are used as an example and some few in the know tell what happened ( idon't know how they know but whatever) and one of the moms of one involved has spotty attendance partially because of it, I think we should just look past it and move on!

But in light of the OP, would the three people not have opposed the calling if they knew there would be gossip? Was their leaving the Church voluntary? Was any disciplinary action related solely to their opposing vote?

[Nominee]

I have done it but I did not do it during the meeting. After the service, I went and spoke to the bishop about my concerns. The person stayed in the calling so I am glad I didn't make my opposition public. A former bishop of mine who is now a stake president shared a story of when he was first called into a bishopric in his native country. Someone put up their hand in opposition. It turned out he was seen on many occations stumbling out of a bar with a bunch of asosociates from work. In truth, he went frequently to retrieve his drunk employer. He was stumbling because he was trying to hold him or her up. He did so to save them from public embarrassment because they were public figures of some sort. I don't recall what he did for a living, I think he worked at the City Hall.

I have learned that, no matter how much proof you have, deal with it privately.

I recall another story of a man who was called to be Bishop and a few people put their hands up in opposition. they opposed him because he was very vocal against the scouting program. He committed to support the program and everybody went back in and sustained him. I was told this by the son of one who put their hand up in opposition. The son was serving as my stake president at the time and was teaching the young adults about the purpose of sustaining church officers.

I don't think I have been a member here long enough to be allowed to hand out reputation points but I really like Freedom's post here. Anything that can be dealt with publicly could be dealt with privately first. Why put yourself or the person of new calling in such a position as to possibly humiliate them and expose yourself? UNLESS, the opposer had already stated his/her opinion to church leadership privately and did not get the response they were hoping for. This would mean that to have a public application to the same complaint is for the cause of dissention in the ranks. I am guessing that it is not the opposing votes that put these people in such positions but the way they handled their dicontent that made the difference.

[Duncan]

But in light of the OP, would the three people not have opposed the calling if they knew there would be gossip? Was their leaving the Church voluntary? Was any disciplinary action related solely to their opposing vote?

don't know to the first, two were teens and one was a lady I didn't know yes to the second and no to the third

[CV75]

don't know to the first, two were teens and one was a lady I didn't know yes to the second and no to the third

It would seem then that they exercised their right to oppose with no meaningfully adverse consequence that might be a cause of fear for them. As far as sticking to one’s convictions and obligations, some people have courage and some don’t, I guess.

Addressing concerns over someone’s egregious sins should not wait until the moment a sustaining action is underway, but the procedure affords everyone a voice no matter how poor their timing.

[Silver Girl]

I have doubt this would ever happen but I say that I would not oppose if it were to take place. I would sustain my church leaders. It is not the inactive guy you are opposing it is the inspired church leadership who made the decision that you are putting in question.

I knew a gentleman who had been inactive for over 10 years... His wife was active, but he had not been... One day the Stake President came by the Auto Repair Shop this man owned, and asked to speak with him... The Stake Presdient said that they were going to be calling a new Bishop in 3 months time... And, the Lord had chosen him!! This man thought the Stake President was joking, but he wasn't!!

The man went home and told his wife... She told him that he had better pray about it before he turned it down... The man prayed, and recieved a very strong answer that he was the man for the job!! He came back to Church for the next 3 months, and then was called... He served in that calling, with distinction, for over 10 years!!

I do not know if anyone opposed his calling, but that would be interesting to know!! So, sometimes it does happen!! : O )

Silver Girl