KevinG Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Too many times rumors, misunderstandings and falsehoods could undermine someone with no guilt or divide a ward. I would only oppose a calling if I were in first hand knowledge of a sin that would disqualify someone from holding that calling and first hand knowledge that the sin had not been repented of...Short of being a victim of a predator who had not yet dealt with their crimes I cannot think of many situations where I would feel confident raising my hand in opposition.
Nominee Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Silver Girl,Thank you for sharing! I love it. http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/19.26?lang=eng#25
Grundelwalken Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 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-I was in the Tabernacle when a group in the balcony raised their hands in opposition to the revelation allowing all worthy male members to hold the priesthood. They were asked to meet with one of the 12 at the door to explain themselves. As mentioned above, there's was more an agenda driven opposition.Unless a person has personal, factual knowledge concerning sinfulness or unworthiness to hold a specific calling, the hand should be raised to the square and the heart needs to be changed to accept.
HeatherAnn Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) 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?At first, by the topic, I thought you were asking if we had the courage to say no to a calling... & yes, I do.I'd oppose if I knew someone had some serious problem - like he/she was a convicted child molester (& there is 1 in my ward - which I did NOT find by gossip, but by looking up the National Sex Offender Registry online). If they were called to teach Primary, then I'd go up to the bishop afterwards & express my concern.Yet, I've never done this & doubt I'll ever need to. Bishops tend to be pretty aware of people & I believe they're given extra spiritual guidance in their calling (generally/ideally)... so most of the time I'd support anyone called.Raising our hands to show support is great... but hand raising for voting about other issues seems silly - like it's just for show.Even if someone did object, the speaker wouldn't notice. Edited November 18, 2011 by HeatherAnn
KevinG Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 At first, by the topic, I thought you were asking if we had the courage to say no to a calling... & yes, I do.I'd oppose if I knew someone had some serious problem - like he/she was a convicted child molester (& there is 1 in my ward - which I did NOT find by gossip, but by looking up the National Sex Offender Registry online). If they were called to teach Primary, then I'd go up to the bishop afterwards & express my concern.Yet, I've never done this & doubt I'll ever need to. Bishops tend to be pretty aware of people & I believe they're given extra spiritual guidance in their calling (generally/ideally)... so most of the time I'd support anyone called.Raising our hands to show support is great... but hand raising for voting about other issues seems silly - like it's just for show.Even if someone did object, the speaker wouldn't notice.Thats a good example of first hand knowledge (a sex offender registry).Sustaining isn't really a vote - it is our agreement to support and sustain those who get the callings. In essense we are saying we will support the person and back the Bishop or Stake President on the calling of that person.Sometimes we get callings because the Church needs our skills. Sometimes we get them because we need to develop our own skills. In the case of the latter- it is even more important that we are willing to support and sustain by helping the called learn and succeed.
Nominee Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Thats a good example of first hand knowledge (a sex offender registry).Sustaining isn't really a vote - it is our agreement to support and sustain those who get the callings. In essense we are saying we will support the person and back the Bishop or Stake President on the calling of that person.Sometimes we get callings because the Church needs our skills. Sometimes we get them because we need to develop our own skills. In the case of the latter- it is even more important that we are willing to support and sustain by helping the called learn and succeed.I made a reference to "the opposing votes" in an earlier post here. I spoke inaccurately, I should not have been so lose with words there. I agree with you 100%. Sustaining isn't really a vote...Thank you for clarifying.
why me Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) here is a theoretical scenario- an inactive guy becoming say a counselor in the stake presidency or HC or Bishopric-would you oppose that?No. Why would I oppose it? All know that the person was inactive before the calling. No reason to oppose by raising the hand. Edited November 18, 2011 by why me
why me Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 I do not know if anyone opposed his calling, but that would be interesting to know!! So, sometimes it does happen!! : O )Silver Girl It shouldn't happen. Nothing wrong with an inactive person being called to a calling. And nothing wrong with an inactive person accepting the calling.
why me Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 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 thinkI would assume that they would begin to live a lds lifestyle. If not, they would lose the calling. Sometimes a calling is just what they need to return to church. And when they see that god still loves them and wishes them to come back in such a capacity it can be a very life changing experience for them.
Duncan Posted November 18, 2011 Author Posted November 18, 2011 I would assume that they would begin to live a lds lifestyle. If not, they would lose the calling. Sometimes a calling is just what they need to return to church. And when they see that god still loves them and wishes them to come back in such a capacity it can be a very life changing experience for them.but what if it causes others to question whether or not it is what God wants and they question it and leave-I had a Bishop years ago say that God does that to see who is real or not and to weed out people
Duncan Posted November 18, 2011 Author Posted November 18, 2011 God! Weed out people?! I firmly disagree.that's what he said! I think he wants to change people not necessarily make them leave the Church, but I don't know
The Nehor Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 God! Weed out people?! I firmly disagree.Jesus himself used that metaphor about wheat and tares.
KevinG Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Jesus himself used that metaphor about wheat and tares.Yes- but that metaphor was reminding us that people are given an opportunity to fill their cup of righteousness or wickedness. It isn't up to us to try to separate them early in their growth and risk casting out the good seed.I did have one family I tried to home teach tell me they wanted to be removed from the rolls of the Church. I gave them the Bishops informatino and told them they would have to put it in writing unless they wanted the next missionary companionship or home teacher to contact them again. That's as close as I've come to helping someone along the process of separation.
The Nehor Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) Yes- but that metaphor was reminding us that people are given an opportunity to fill their cup of righteousness or wickedness. It isn't up to us to try to separate them early in their growth and risk casting out the good seed.Yes, but the Bishop in the above story about "weeding" did say it was God doing the weeding not anyone else. Edited November 18, 2011 by The Nehor
KevinG Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Yes, but the Bishop in the above story about "weeding" did say it was God doing the weeding not anyone else.Good point. In the sense that a calling to an inactive member could push them off the fence that would be one possible result.
Nominee Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Jesus himself used that metaphor about wheat and tares.But in this scripture,http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/86.7?lang=eng#6D&C 86:7, it says that the wheat is bundled and removed so then the tares are what is left to burn.However, you are correct in that there is still weedings going on.
The Nehor Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 But in this scripture,http://lds.org/scrip...86.7?lang=eng#6D&C 86:7, it says that the wheat is bundled and removed so then the tares are what is left to burn.However, you are correct in that there is still weedings going on.No actually the tares are bundled too. Then the field is burned.
Nominee Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 No actually the tares are bundled too. Then the field is burned.You are right. I was focusing on who was bundled first, the wheat. I should have said that the tares were left to be bundled last, after the wheat had been weeded out. Then the field is burned.I am sorry for that, it was not my intention to mislead.
Duncan Posted November 19, 2011 Author Posted November 19, 2011 So, not to threadjack my own thread but what then is the point of doing less active work if God wanted them out of the Church?
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 So, not to threadjack my own thread but what then is the point of doing less active work if God wanted them out of the Church?I don't think God wants anyone to leave. For some people unable or unwilling to bring their life into harmony with God's will right now it may be better for them and/or others to leave for a time or even permanently. Some can only be taught outside the fold whether just dealing with longing or down with the Prodigal eating husks with swine.We are not God and our orders are clear. Help them come back. If God tells you otherwise for a specific case go with that instead.
Thinking Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 At the October 1977 General Conference, Byron Marchant cast an opposing vote toward Spence W. Kimball. His purpose was to oppose the Church's policy of not ordaining blacks to the priesthood.
annewandering Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) 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.It happened in my stake when I was very small. An inactive word of wisdom breaker was called to be stake president by Pres. Mackay. It was a bit of a surprise to everyone but he tackled the job with a good deal of humility and hard work. He was the right man for the job at the time. Edited November 19, 2011 by annewandering
Pahoran Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 At the October 1977 General Conference, Byron Marchant cast an opposing vote toward Spence W. Kimball. His purpose was to oppose the Church's policy of not ordaining blacks to the priesthood.That's Spencer W. Kimball. Yes, I recall that too. President Tanner just told "Lord" Marchant to talk to (then) Elder Gordon B. Hinckley about it afterwards.That was, IMHO, a pretty good example of the "agenda driven grandstanding" alluded to earlier.Regards,Pahoran
HeatherAnn Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 At the October 1977 General Conference, Byron Marchant cast an opposing vote toward Spence W. Kimball. His purpose was to oppose the Church's policy of not ordaining blacks to the priesthood.And I'm so glad he had the guts to stand up for what's right! - Even when he was likely "chastised" for it.
Recommended Posts