Opposings and Sustainings ?

[Duncan]

If you knew something on someone that could possibly prevent them from being called to a calling how are you supposed to know they'll be called to something until afterwards? If you had the where withal to oppose them you could easily get  the Adam Sandler famous line, "things that could have been brought to my attention yestarday!!!!!!". As if you knew yestarday that  they'd be called dot dot dot. What to do?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If you knew something on someone that could possibly prevent them from being called to a calling how are you supposed to know they'll be called to something until afterwards? If you had the where withal to oppose them you could easily get  the Adam Sandler famous line, "things that could have been brought to my attention yestarday!!!!!!". As if you knew yestarday that  they'd be called dot dot dot. What to do?

What do you have in mind as to something that would prevent someone from performing their calling? 

[bluebell]

I don't think you have much of an option but to bring it up during the sustaining.  

[Duncan]

Just now, stemelbow said:

What do you have in mind as to something that would prevent someone from performing their calling? 

it could be anything and I could come up with examples as we all could

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If you knew something on someone that could possibly prevent them from being called to a calling how are you supposed to know they'll be called to something until afterwards? If you had the where withal to oppose them you could easily get  the Adam Sandler famous line, "things that could have been brought to my attention yestarday!!!!!!". As if you knew yestarday that  they'd be called dot dot dot. What to do?

I see a Way Back Machine in your future...

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If you knew something on someone that could possibly prevent them from being called to a calling how are you supposed to know they'll be called to something until afterwards? If you had the where withal to oppose them you could easily get  the Adam Sandler famous line, "things that could have been brought to my attention yestarday!!!!!!". As if you knew yestarday that  they'd be called dot dot dot. What to do?

It's tough. You pretty much have 1 second to decide after you hear the name whether or not you want to make a scene by opposing, even though that might be the right thing. If the church were interested in opposing votes they would allow more time for people to contact the presiding leader to share their concerns. For example, the church could propose someone to be sustained 1 week but not set apart until the next after the sustaining is verified, or opposing votes are considered. But I think we all know the sustaining/opposing is a rubber stamp that doesn't mean much.

[Duncan]

Do you think this way of doing things almost compels people to oppose, if they think they have sufficient reasons to do so?

[Duncan]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

It's tough. You pretty much have 1 second to decide after you hear the name whether or not you want to make a scene by opposing, even though that might be the right thing. If the church were interested in opposing votes they would allow more time for people to contact the presiding leader to share their concerns. For example, the church could propose someone to be sustained 1 week but not set apart until the next after the sustaining is verified, or opposing votes are considered. But I think we all know the sustaining/opposing is a rubber stamp that doesn't mean much.

didn't see your post until I posted mine!!! but I agree with you, you have almost no time to think about it until it's too late

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Do you think this way of doing things almost compels people to oppose, if they think they have sufficient reasons to do so?

I would think the opposite. The system is set up for people to sustain. It's kind of just assumed and I've yet to see an opposing vote make a difference in a person receiving a calling. But then I've only ever witnessed a couple of opposing votes in my entire life.

 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it could be anything and I could come up with examples as we all could

I'm supportive of people in their callings unless he/she happens to be a child molester or rapist, or terrorist or some such thing.  I can't really imagine any regular member being those things, although it could very well be that they are.  If any were and were called to be my bishop, let's say, and I, for some reason, wasn't there when they did the sustaining, well I'd probably feel obliged to contact each member and tell them the sad news.  if say a man who had bilked me out of 10 grand was called, I might just take it up with him before I did something more drastic.  But if he failed my test, I'd probably go to the Stake President. 

[cdowis]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it could be anything and I could come up with examples as we all could

Based  on personal experience.  You vote "no" and afterward someone should approach you to find out the reason for your vote -- "Do you know something that would prevent them from serving in this calling?"

In GC, they advise you to go to your stake president for that issue.

[Duncan]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I'm supportive of people in their callings unless he/she happens to be a child molester or rapist, or terrorist or some such thing.  I can't really imagine any regular member being those things, although it could very well be that they are.  If any were and were called to be my bishop, let's say, and I, for some reason, wasn't there when they did the sustaining, well I'd probably feel obliged to contact each member and tell them the sad news.  if say a man who had bilked me out of 10 grand was called, I might just take it up with him before I did something more drastic.  But if he failed my test, I'd probably go to the Stake President. 

boy do I have a story for you then but I hear you

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

boy do I have a story for you then but I hear you

Fair enough.  I admit I tend to be naïve when it comes to trusting people, for the most part. 

[ksfisher]

Duncan,

If you do have reservations about something that has taken place you can always speak to your bishop about it.  He may wish to do something, but he may also have more information than you do and there is nothing that needs to be done. 

[Duncan]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Duncan,

If you do have reservations about something that has taken place you can always speak to your bishop about it.  He may wish to do something, but he may also have more information than you do and there is nothing that needs to be done. 

if it's in another ward?

[Jeanne]

Duncan, in another thread (can't remember which one) you kind of brought this up is a subtle way.  so..I am going with the thought that you might have a knowledge of someone and it is stressing you out.  Seeing as how Bishops make callings or take names from other organizations...I feel you should meet with him no matter what.  Best to you!

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if it's in another ward?

Your bishop should be the first place for you to go. 

[Duncan]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Duncan, in another thread (can't remember which one) you kind of brought this up is a subtle way.  so..I am going with the thought that you might have a knowledge of someone and it is stressing you out.  Seeing as how Bishops make callings or take names from other organizations...I feel you should meet with him no matter what.  Best to you!

I though this concern would go away but apparently it hasn't!! ack! Thank you!!!

[rongo]

Three stories:

1) A counselor of mine in another ward is very wealthy and politically connected. He told me that he was once called in by a general authority and told that they were calling a man as stake president, but that some concerns were expressed. He was asked for his input because of his status in the finance world. He told the GA that he had grave concerns about the man, and he gave specific examples with specific knowledge he had of business dealings. The GA thanked him for the information, and asked him if he did end up being sustained as stake president, despite the information and objections, what he intended to do. He answered that if, after having told that information, they went forward with the call, he would sustain him and would not weaken his influence with the stake by gossiping or murmuring. 

The man was sustained and set apart as stake president. One week later, he vanished, under federal investigation for embezzlement and fraud. 

2) An LDS family with 12 kids bought a farm from my uncle when I was growing up, and lived down the hill from us. They were terrible neighbors, and were vindictive and dishonest. He was an incompetent farmer, and their farm was in disarray and went to seed. Not being able to get a bank loan, my uncle sold them the farm on his word with an agreement to make payments to him. Two months later, the man wrote my uncle and told him that they considered their debt paid, and that they wouldn't be paying him anything further. Rather than evicting them legally, my uncle let it be and allowed them to live there many years. Later, after moving out of state, we learned that the man had been called into the bishopric (and after that, another one).

I asked my parents and uncle as a teenager how they would have voted if they had been present for the sustaining. Without hesitation, they all said they would have sustained him. I couldn't believe it! With what we knew firsthand about him? Their lesson to me has stayed with me, and I have shared this with members who have come to me with sustaining concerns in other wards: voting "no" is a very serious thing, and should only be done if there is very good cause. This couple has actually served a couple of missions, and this was a good lesson in mercy and forbearance for me. Scriptures about being judged with the same judgment we mete out to others come to mind . . .

3) In the early stages of the Bremen Apostasy, I was visiting the Bremen 1st Ward (the epicenter of the apostasy), and saw massive "no" votes on routine callings (primary, YM/YW, teachers, etc.). I have never before nor since seen any contrary votes anywhere. The aftermath shows that there were gravely serious problems, and they were manifested superficially in voting no in sustainings. I have counseled people who ask that I would be very, very hesitant to vote "no."

That said, I think it takes a tremendous amount of courage to do so if conscious requires. Like HappyJack said, you are causing a scene by even quietly voting "no," and it would be very hard to do that even for just cause. 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Three stories:

1) A counselor of mine in another ward is very wealthy and politically connected. He told me that he was once called in by a general authority and told that they were calling a man as stake president, but that some concerns were expressed. He was asked for his input because of his status in the finance world. He told the GA that he had grave concerns about the man, and he gave specific examples with specific knowledge he had of business dealings. The GA thanked him for the information, and asked him if he did end up being sustained as stake president, despite the information and objections, what he intended to do. He answered that if, after having told that information, they went forward with the call, he would sustain him and would not weaken his influence with the stake by gossiping or murmuring. 

The man was sustained and set apart as stake president. One week later, he vanished, under federal investigation for embezzlement and fraud. 

2) An LDS family with 12 kids bought a farm from my uncle when I was growing up, and lived down the hill from us. They were terrible neighbors, and were vindictive and dishonest. He was an incompetent farmer, and their farm was in disarray and went to seed. Not being able to get a bank loan, my uncle sold them the farm on his word with an agreement to make payments to him. Two months later, the man wrote my uncle and told him that they considered their debt paid, and that they wouldn't be paying him anything further. Rather than evicting them legally, my uncle let it be and allowed them to live there many years. Later, after moving out of state, we learned that the man had been called into the bishopric (and after that, another one).

I asked my parents and uncle as a teenager how they would have voted if they had been present for the sustaining. Without hesitation, they all said they would have sustained him. I couldn't believe it! With what we knew firsthand about him? Their lesson to me has stayed with me, and I have shared this with members who have come to me with sustaining concerns in other wards: voting "no" is a very serious thing, and should only be done if there is very good cause. This couple has actually served a couple of missions, and this was a good lesson in mercy and forbearance for me. Scriptures about being judged with the same judgment we mete out to others come to mind . . .

3) In the early stages of the Bremen Apostasy, I was visiting the Bremen 1st Ward (the epicenter of the apostasy), and saw massive "no" votes on routine callings (primary, YM/YW, teachers, etc.). I have never before nor since seen any contrary votes anywhere. The aftermath shows that there were gravely serious problems, and they were manifested superficially in voting no in sustainings. I have counseled people who ask that I would be very, very hesitant to vote "no."

That said, I think it takes a tremendous amount of courage to do so if conscious requires. Like HappyJack said, you are causing a scene by even quietly voting "no," and it would be very hard to do that even for just cause. 

Those are some crazy stories.  But thanks for sharing.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Three stories:

1) A counselor of mine in another ward is very wealthy and politically connected. He told me that he was once called in by a general authority and told that they were calling a man as stake president, but that some concerns were expressed. He was asked for his input because of his status in the finance world. He told the GA that he had grave concerns about the man, and he gave specific examples with specific knowledge he had of business dealings. The GA thanked him for the information, and asked him if he did end up being sustained as stake president, despite the information and objections, what he intended to do. He answered that if, after having told that information, they went forward with the call, he would sustain him and would not weaken his influence with the stake by gossiping or murmuring. 

The man was sustained and set apart as stake president. One week later, he vanished, under federal investigation for embezzlement and fraud. 

2) An LDS family with 12 kids bought a farm from my uncle when I was growing up, and lived down the hill from us. They were terrible neighbors, and were vindictive and dishonest. He was an incompetent farmer, and their farm was in disarray and went to seed. Not being able to get a bank loan, my uncle sold them the farm on his word with an agreement to make payments to him. Two months later, the man wrote my uncle and told him that they considered their debt paid, and that they wouldn't be paying him anything further. Rather than evicting them legally, my uncle let it be and allowed them to live there many years. Later, after moving out of state, we learned that the man had been called into the bishopric (and after that, another one).

I asked my parents and uncle as a teenager how they would have voted if they had been present for the sustaining. Without hesitation, they all said they would have sustained him. I couldn't believe it! With what we knew firsthand about him? Their lesson to me has stayed with me, and I have shared this with members who have come to me with sustaining concerns in other wards: voting "no" is a very serious thing, and should only be done if there is very good cause. This couple has actually served a couple of missions, and this was a good lesson in mercy and forbearance for me. Scriptures about being judged with the same judgment we mete out to others come to mind . . .

3) In the early stages of the Bremen Apostasy, I was visiting the Bremen 1st Ward (the epicenter of the apostasy), and saw massive "no" votes on routine callings (primary, YM/YW, teachers, etc.). I have never before nor since seen any contrary votes anywhere. The aftermath shows that there were gravely serious problems, and they were manifested superficially in voting no in sustainings. I have counseled people who ask that I would be very, very hesitant to vote "no."

That said, I think it takes a tremendous amount of courage to do so if conscious requires. Like HappyJack said, you are causing a scene by even quietly voting "no," and it would be very hard to do that even for just cause. 

Thanks for sharing the stories. I think many would agree with this approach. I used to...but...

I now feel that sustaining people I personally feel are unfit is unethical. When asked to sustain someone to a calling, sustaining the person is often conflated with sustaining the person who issued the call. In the event of the counselor who sustained the SP despite having solid information about the man, it sounds like he was sustaining the general authority by sustaining the SP. I think this is a flawed system and I experienced something similar personally within the past 1 1/2 years.

When I was being released as bishop the SP told me who he planned to call. I was appalled. I shared my concerns about how there had been serious physical and sexual abuse in the home and reminded the SP how this man and his family had refused to attend our ward for the previous 5 years. They had been asked repeatedly by the SP to attend where assigned but they rebuffed the request each time. Now this was going to be the new bishop. I could not have been more clear in my opposition to this man for what I believe are very strong reasons but the wheels were already in motion. The SP already had 1st Presidency approval and he was telling me as a courtesy, not because he actually wanted my input.

The stake president pleaded with me repeatedly to sustain him publicly in our next meeting. I stewed about it all week and in the end decided to sustain my SP by sustaining the bishop. I regret it. Nothing terrible has happened. He's been OK. But I went against my conscience to sustain the SP at the time I should have been deciding if I could truly sustain the bishop. I mixed those things up and I think it was a mistake.

[cdowis]

One of our missionaries told me his experience while serving in Texas.  He was teaching an investigator who said he would never join the church while "Bro Brown" was a member (and he was the stake president).  He told him about some dishonest dealings he had done with him.

The elder was shocked and wanted to set the record straight, so went to the SP for clarification.

"Yes,  what he told you is true.  But you need to understand, church is church, and business is business."

So, I guess the SP was able to justify what he had done.

[bsjkki]

I was in this position once. The name was in a list of people being sustained to callings.  There is no way to separate this out when they list about 7 people at once to sustain. I raised my hand but mentally said to myself, but not that one. The person in question should not have been sustained to any calling and the information was brought to the attention of the Bishop and he was released after serving just a few weeks. Is it necessary to actually raise the hand in the "no" vote or to not just leave your hand down?  Voting no does seem very public and confrontational.  

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The SP already had 1st Presidency approval and he was telling me as a courtesy, not because he actually wanted my input.

The stake president pleaded with me repeatedly to sustain him publicly in our next meeting. I stewed about it all week and in the end decided to sustain my SP by sustaining the bishop. I regret it. Nothing terrible has happened. He's been OK. But I went against my conscience to sustain the SP at the time I should have been deciding if I could truly sustain the bishop. I mixed those things up and I think it was a mistake.

But what good would voting no have done? You had already registered your concerns/disapproval/dissent beforehand. I guess you could not raise your hand. But holding the lone hand up would have drawn attention, and given that it was already approved by the powers that be, I don't see any point in it in this case.

It is good when we have advance notice and can "put it away privily" before being on the spot with a sustaining vote, but most people don't have that luxury. 

When I was released as bishop from a previous ward, the stake president asked me for recommendations for my replacement. When one of mine was going to be the new bishop, he told me, and told me what counselors he had proposed. He asked me for my thoughts, and I told him that I felt both were outstanding, and that I fully sustained them, but that there were significant concerns about one of them from some ward members, and that I thought that there was a very real chance of some "no" votes. I ended up meeting with him and his wife after he had been called as the counselor, and talked about how to best address concerns with those certain members prior to the Sunday change in the bishopric. We (including the stake president) mutually agreed that it would be best not to talk to the members beforehand, and just fast and pray that everything would be all right. And it was --- but it was a stressful concern that week. 

It wasn't anything that would require Church discipline, but the concern and negative feelings were real and it was a real cause for concern going in. He did an outstanding job. I think in most cases, the angst on the part of the people with sustaining concerns is way overblown, though it is hard at the time. 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

One of our missionaries told me his experience while serving in Texas.  He was teaching an investigator who said he would never join the church while "Bro Brown" was a member (and he was the stake president).  He told him about some dishonest dealings he had done with him.

The elder was shocked and wanted to set the record straight, so went to the SP for clarification.

"Yes,  what he told you is true.  But you need to understand, church is church, and business is business."

So, I guess the SP was able to justify what he had done.

I guess he separates the TR question about being honest with his fellowman by being only his church life.

My family were good friends with another family for many years. The husband and my dad went into business by buying some apartments which became condos. My dad pretty much took care of everybody's issues, did all the grunt work involved in maintaining the building along with his kids.

Down the road the family friend wanted to buy my dad's share out and offered my dad a few acres of land out in the country where land was fairly cheap. Little did my dad know, this so-called friend, sold the water shares right out from underneath him. Which made the property worth far less. 

Through the years this man was a bishop, stake president and served a few missions. He was also a home builder, and many people were upset with him and he was dishonest in his dealings with them.

My dad really distrusted members of the church after that. But glad he did have a great home teacher for years that gave him hope in the LDS members. But my dad was inactive a good portion of my life. 

It sure doesn't help when members are able to hold high callings while being dishonest elsewhere.