Opposings and Sustainings ?

[bsjkki]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

If this man was doing the physical or sexual abuse in the home...isn't it highly unethical to allow him to be a Bishop?  If it was someone else in the home, the members of the ward should know about the situation for their own protection. People naively trust those in authority and their families.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, 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.

Thinking about this as an example of much of what happened in the early church, makes me sad sometimes to see how Mormonism has developed over time.  The principle of common consent is something I really like, but when it comes to practice we don't follow the spirit of this law at all, we're caught up in specific procedures, and tradition.  

I think as Joseph was trying to build a religion and in the process got some really creative ideas along the way, and some really bad ones as well.  Unfortunately over time, we've lost that ability as a church to get creative ideas and implement them.  The institution largely functions as conservatively as possible, changing very very little, keeping the status quo in place, not adjusting to the culture around it.  Joseph was constantly creating, changing, contradicting his earlier positions, the guy was all over the place.  This was a strength and a weakness of his.  Seems like we don't benefit from that strength anymore, and our weakness today is our inability to respond timely to the needs of the church members or to society as a whole.  Very little creativity at the top levels, most of the creativity from regular members gets filtered out and discarded by the mechanism of this large corporate machine.   Sad.

[Duncan]

One of my comps had an uncle and Grandpa with the name, let's say Marvin Mcgillicutty Sr. and Marvin Mcgillicutty Jr. So, Sr. and his wife go on a senior mission and Jr. by arrangement moves into their home. Somehow and I don't know he did this but he basically took over ownership of the home and when Sr. came home from serving a mission, he and his wife were kicked out of their own home by the son.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

This.  Sustaining should never be against one's conscience or deep concern for others.  It is a right that one has with their own prayers.  There comes a time when being true to yourself is a good thing...spiritually.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Jeanne

[Jeanne]

50 minutes ago, Duncan said:

One of my comps had an uncle and Grandpa with the name, let's say Marvin Mcgillicutty Sr. and Marvin Mcgillicutty Jr. So, Sr. and his wife go on a senior mission and Jr. by arrangement moves into their home. Somehow and I don't know he did this but he basically took over ownership of the home and when Sr. came home from serving a mission, he and his wife were kicked out of their own home by the son.

Oh...this is good.  Gives new meaning to "Homecoming".

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

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.  

I would probably not raise an opposing hand just to avoid embarrassment for the one being sustained; I just would not raise my hand to sustain and talk to the Bishop later. And like someone else said the Bishop may know something you don't that made him decide to call the person anyway. I guess officially that's not the right way to do it but I always err on the side of caution. 

[strappinglad]

I vaguely remember a story about Joseph not wanting a particular fellow for a calling, but he was stuck with him because the membership sustained him. What Joseph said about the situation was... informative. Dealing with humans often involves messiness. How God puts up with it all I don't understand . Maybe He sees potential we don't.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

If this man was doing the physical or sexual abuse in the home...isn't it highly unethical to allow him to be a Bishop?  If it was someone else in the home, the members of the ward should know about the situation for their own protection. People naively trust those in authority and their families.  

My question would be if the 1st Presidency had been informed of the issues or not.  If not, why not?  If so...well, I don't know how I would act as it seems completely unlikely to happen to me if there is legitimate claims of abuse in the home.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I vaguely remember a story about Joseph not wanting a particular fellow for a calling, but he was stuck with him because the membership sustained him.

I thought it was Sidney Rigdon, but apparently that was Hyrum and not members in general:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Rigdon,_Sidney

[strappinglad]

As usual Calm, you found the correct info. I had recalled it incorrectly. Thanks.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

1- 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.

2- 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. 3- 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. 

4- 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. 

1- Sustaining or opposing sends a signal to both leaders and members. In this case my sustaining signaled to members of my ward that I support the calling of the new bishop which I didn't. Thus it was unethical. I would have been more honest in opposing and then members could have taken that information and done with it what they will. Perhaps others, especially those were had some awareness of the issues, were looking to my reaction to see what they should do figuring that I had more information than they and that they could trust my decision.

2- In my situation, when I brought up concerns to the Stake Presidency, only the SP was aware of my concerns. The other two counselors who were newer to their roles had no idea about any of the problems. I know at least one was deeply troubled by it as well. So when you say "put it away privily" I'm hearing "sweep it under the rug."

3- This is how it is usually done so I don't fault you for making that decision. However, this illustrates the problem. There was a concern there would be opposition, but instead of addressing that before hand the sustaining was sprung on the people. They had a split second to hear and process the news and what would or would not be an appropriate reaction. So naturally there was no reaction. They went along, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem.

4- Did someone speak to the members who were likely to have concerns after the sustaining to verify that every thing was truly ok? Or is that just assumed because they didn't oppose publicly?

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Good questions/points.

Quote

1- Sustaining or opposing sends a signal to both leaders and members. In this case my sustaining signaled to members of my ward that I support the calling of the new bishop which I didn't. Thus it was unethical. I would have been more honest in opposing and then members could have taken that information and done with it what they will. Perhaps others, especially those were had some awareness of the issues, were looking to my reaction to see what they should do figuring that I had more information than they and that they could trust my decision.

I disagree a bit with you that the purpose of sustaining includes signaling members of our relative support or lack of support. If we have the opportunity/ability to express these privately, I think we should. I think it's much more a public covenant we make of our willingness to sustain and support the person called. Can we do this, even with objections or concerns? 

The tricky part is when people have no opportunity to do this, and are put in the tough spot of being "blindsided" in the moment. That's a tough one.

Quote

2- In my situation, when I brought up concerns to the Stake Presidency, only the SP was aware of my concerns. The other two counselors who were newer to their roles had no idea about any of the problems. I know at least one was deeply troubled by it as well. So when you say "put it away privily" I'm hearing "sweep it under the rug."

Well, in our case, since the concerns were fully vetted prior, I don't see any point in airing the dirty laundry or re-litigating via sustaining vote. I think it was much better to handle it this way than otherwise. I wish I knew more details about your situation, but then, I can't give much detail about the one I'm alluding to. It would help, but it's better left vague. 

Quote

3- This is how it is usually done so I don't fault you for making that decision. However, this illustrates the problem. There was a concern there would be opposition, but instead of addressing that before hand the sustaining was sprung on the people. They had a split second to hear and process the news and what would or would not be an appropriate reaction. So naturally there was no reaction. They went along, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem.

4- Did someone speak to the members who were likely to have concerns after the sustaining to verify that every thing was truly ok? Or is that just assumed because they didn't oppose publicly?

[Darn formatting won't let me fix this quote box!]

We (the new bishop, me, and the stake president) were very concerned about the people who would have concerns, and we verified and satisfied ourselves after the change that everything was good. After talking to the new counselor and his wife, we jointly decided not to pre-emptively talk to people before the vote, and the need to do so after the vote didn't arise. We were completely prepared to, if needed, but thankfully it wasn't. I am confident that there weren't secretly harbored doubts/concerns, and not just because they didn't vote opposed (who actually does that, nowadays?). I wish I could give further detail, but "further the deponent sayeth not."  

Edited October 20, 2016 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 We (the new bishop, me, and the stake president) were very concerned about the people who would have concerns, and we verified and satisfied ourselves after the change that everything was good. After talking to the new counselor and his wife, we jointly decided not to pre-emptively talk to people before the vote, and the need to do so after the vote didn't arise. We were completely prepared to, if needed, but thankfully it wasn't. I am confident that there weren't secretly harbored doubts/concerns, and not just because they didn't vote opposed (who actually does that, nowadays?). I wish I could give further detail, but "further the deponent sayeth not."  

Doesn't it seem like a problem that nowadays no one ever really opposes? It gives the illusion of unity but really just suppresses dissent to a level just below the surface. I agree that in most cases, if it's just a matter of personality, that people should be sustained. BUT seeing an opposing vote really shouldn't be akin to spotting a unicorn in the wild. The law of common consent was implemented for a reason and I think the church is missing the point when the vote is a mere formality and opposing views are suppressed.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doesn't it seem like a problem that nowadays no one ever really opposes? It gives the illusion of unity but really just suppresses dissent to a level just below the surface. I agree that in most cases, if it's just a matter of personality, that people should be sustained. BUT seeing an opposing vote really shouldn't be akin to spotting a unicorn in the wild. The law of common consent was implemented for a reason and I think the church is missing the point when the vote is a mere formality and opposing views are suppressed.

In the Smoot hearings, President Smith brought up an example to the Senate committee (to show that common consent actually can result in callings being overturned) of a stake president in Utah who was rejected by sustaining vote by the stake. The presiding apostle was furious, but had no choice but to propose another man in his place. This led to a senator to quip, "So, Mormons have veto power over God?" and they ridiculed the thought of a divine and inspired call being remanded by congregational vote. What a witch hunt those hearings were! --- the Church couldn't win, either way. 

I wonder what would happen today if a visibly large number of people voted opposed to a high-profile calling (bishop, stake president, etc.)? I have a very hard time imagining that happening. Like I said, the only time I have ever seen contrary votes is in Bremen, Germany in 1996, where over a third of the congregation opposed routine day-to-day ward callings. The ward was ripped apart by apostasy in the two years following, but the spirit of apostasy was clearly already present. These people were voting no for everything and everybody --- not unlike the lone person in conference lately.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

In the Smoot hearings, President Smith brought up an example to the Senate committee (to show that common consent actually can result in callings being overturned) of a stake president in Utah who was rejected by sustaining vote by the stake. The presiding apostle was furious, but had no choice but to propose another man in his place. This led to a senator to quip, "So, Mormons have veto power over God?" and they ridiculed the thought of a divine and inspired call being remanded by congregational vote. What a witch hunt those hearings were! --- the Church couldn't win, either way. .

That's a great line.

Obviously, no one in the church would claim to have veto power over God, so the mere presence of the principle of common consent recognizes on some level that because humans issue callings and are imperfect, not every calling will be God's will. The law of common consent allows for fallibility by giving voice to dissent. So why the hesitance to oppose? Because it's not "nice" or "proper" or "respectful"?

If the church could get to the place where as a people we truly recognize our role in building the kingdom, I think we would be much more vocal and not merely kowtow to "authority." As  a people we would be more engaged in the process, not less. Fallible leaders would be held accountable just as fallible members are. Bad ideas would be discarded and there would be open discussion about ways to improve the church. As it is, church members are asked to sit on their hands instead of opposing anyone or anything for virtually any reason. Instead of engaging the problems and the process members look to be spoon fed by leaders.

[Duncan]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a great line.

Obviously, no one in the church would claim to have veto power over God, so the mere presence of the principle of common consent recognizes on some level that because humans issue callings and are imperfect, not every calling will be God's will. The law of common consent allows for fallibility by giving voice to dissent. So why the hesitance to oppose? Because it's not "nice" or "proper" or "respectful"?

If the church could get to the place where as a people we truly recognize our role in building the kingdom, I think we would be much more vocal and not merely kowtow to "authority." As  a people we would be more engaged in the process, not less. Fallible leaders would be held accountable just as fallible members are. Bad ideas would be discarded and there would be open discussion about ways to improve the church. As it is, church members are asked to sit on their hands instead of opposing anyone or anything for virtually any reason. Instead of engaging the problems and the process members look to be spoon fed by leaders.

and it breeds resentment, that your voice isn't valued or heard or wanted. If you do oppose someone for what you think are legit reasons and they go with it anyways, I don't know how that would endear you to your leaders, especially if something bad happens afterwards and you're there thinking , "hate to say I told you so buuuuuuuuut" 

[ElPatron]

Yesterday, in our sacrament meeting, the bishopric presented names for releases and sustaining. The member of the bishopric appeared to go "off prompter" after he read the names and said "all those who can sustain the bishopric in making these changes, please signify...". I was struck by this as I thought we should be sustaining those receiving the callings and not the bishopric for making these changes. A member of our Stake Presidency was on the stand and I watched as neither he nor the Bishop reacted at all to the wording and I looked around at the congregation and there was also no reaction from them. I guess it just kind of led me to believe that this really has become more of a tradition and folks aren't really paying attention to the process. 

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, ElPatron said:

Yesterday, in our sacrament meeting, the bishopric presented names for releases and sustaining. The member of the bishopric appeared to go "off prompter" after he read the names and said "all those who can sustain the bishopric in making these changes, please signify...". I was struck by this as I thought we should be sustaining those receiving the callings and not the bishopric for making these changes. A member of our Stake Presidency was on the stand and I watched as neither he nor the Bishop reacted at all to the wording and I looked around at the congregation and there was also no reaction from them. I guess it just kind of led me to believe that this really has become more of a tradition and folks aren't really paying attention to the process. 

Whoa!

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, ElPatron said:

Yesterday, in our sacrament meeting, the bishopric presented names for releases and sustaining. The member of the bishopric appeared to go "off prompter" after he read the names and said "all those who can sustain the bishopric in making these changes, please signify...". I was struck by this as I thought we should be sustaining those receiving the callings and not the bishopric for making these changes. A member of our Stake Presidency was on the stand and I watched as neither he nor the Bishop reacted at all to the wording and I looked around at the congregation and there was also no reaction from them. I guess it just kind of led me to believe that this really has become more of a tradition and folks aren't really paying attention to the process. 

That is really interesting.  You should have talked to the bishopric afterwards to see if they really meant to imply that when we sustain people, we aren't actually sustaining them, but rather sustaining the bishopric in their choice.  I would love to know what they would have said.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, ElPatron said:

Yesterday, in our sacrament meeting, the bishopric presented names for releases and sustaining. The member of the bishopric appeared to go "off prompter" after he read the names and said "all those who can sustain the bishopric in making these changes, please signify...". I was struck by this as I thought we should be sustaining those receiving the callings and not the bishopric for making these changes. A member of our Stake Presidency was on the stand and I watched as neither he nor the Bishop reacted at all to the wording and I looked around at the congregation and there was also no reaction from them. I guess it just kind of led me to believe that this really has become more of a tradition and folks aren't really paying attention to the process. 

I wouldn't be too harsh or over-analyze the wording. What was meant was a sustaining vote of the proposed people. I really don't think that the counselor, in his head, thought "sustain the bishopric." Sometimes, when releasing people, people say, "those who can join the bishopric in thanking these people for their service, please raise your hand." Or, "those who join the bishopric in welcoming the Messerschmidt family to the Mountain Meadows 6th Ward, please raise your hand." It could easily, innocently run together in the person conducting's mind. 

[JAHS]

The only time I have seen someone oppose came from the person himself being sustained when the Bishop incorrectly presented him for the wrong position. It was corrected on the spot and he was sustained for the right position.

 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The only time I have seen someone oppose came from the person himself being sustained when the Bishop incorrectly presented him for the wrong position. It was corrected on the spot and he was sustained for the right position.

 

We have an older guy in our bishopric and he's fantastic but he does things kinda his own way, he was corrected at the pulpit sometimes by the Bishop, lovingly of course

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I wouldn't be too harsh or over-analyze the wording. What was meant was a sustaining vote of the proposed people. I really don't think that the counselor, in his head, thought "sustain the bishopric." Sometimes, when releasing people, people say, "those who can join the bishopric in thanking these people for their service, please raise your hand." Or, "those who join the bishopric in welcoming the Messerschmidt family to the Mountain Meadows 6th Ward, please raise your hand." It could easily, innocently run together in the person conducting's mind. 

This was my assumption as well.  If that's all it was it would have been cool if the Bishop had lovingly corrected him so that people could be reminded of the what we actually do when we sustain someone in a calling.

[ElPatron]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I wouldn't be too harsh or over-analyze the wording. What was meant was a sustaining vote of the proposed people. I really don't think that the counselor, in his head, thought "sustain the bishopric." Sometimes, when releasing people, people say, "those who can join the bishopric in thanking these people for their service, please raise your hand." Or, "those who join the bishopric in welcoming the Messerschmidt family to the Mountain Meadows 6th Ward, please raise your hand." It could easily, innocently run together in the person conducting's mind. 

I agree w/ this and I figured it was because he stopped reading off of the paper that was on the podium however it was more of statement to the fact that there was really no reaction to it. I think it would have been highly appropriate for the bishop to correct the wording on the spot but it didn't appear to me that it even phased him. Maybe it did...I don't know. I recall a few times where I've said something that was not correct as a member of the bishopric and the bishop I was a counselor to gently corrected me on the spot. I just feel that this step in the calling/release process has become more of a formality rather then an opportunity for someone to really express their opposition or an opportunity to accept the cause to truly sustain someone in all of it's meaning.

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I wouldn't be too harsh or over-analyze the wording. What was meant was a sustaining vote of the proposed people. I really don't think that the counselor, in his head, thought "sustain the bishopric." Sometimes, when releasing people, people say, "those who can join the bishopric in thanking these people for their service, please raise your hand." Or, "those who join the bishopric in welcoming the Messerschmidt family to the Mountain Meadows 6th Ward, please raise your hand." It could easily, innocently run together in the person conducting's mind. 

It seems like, unless I read it, I always end up changing something during a sustaining.  My only excuse is that I can't stand at the pulpit and think at the same time.

Edited October 25, 2016 by ksfisher