My "Nay" moment.

[CA Steve]

 The recent threads on MTC President Bishop and on how personnel interviews with leadership should be handled have me thinking about what I would do, if I were at general conference during the sustaining vote for leadership. In the discussion on leadership interviews asking about masturbation I mentioned that was something I included in my baptismal interviews on my mission many years ago, something I now look back on as a being unnecessary and a bit absurd. I like to think that now I would have the wherewithal to tell my mission president that I disagreed with that requirement and that I would not be doing it. Of course it is a whole lot easier when you are much older to tell someone your own age 'no' then it is for a  19 year old to tell his mission president 'no' or even question what his mission president is saying.

 

Obedience is so ingrained in our LDS culture, such that disobeying for the right reasons is sometimes seen as worse than obeying for the wrong one.  In the case of the MTC mission president it seems we have several levels of failure where all it would have taken is for someone to reject what they thought leadership wanted or needed, and this case may have been just a distant memory today. Instead we had sister missionary exposing herself under duress, bishops and perhaps general authorities refusing to believe such an event was possible and failing to follow up properly. The pedestal we place human men on in the church makes it difficult to say no to them or question their actions at any level, let alone the highest levels. When we believe that God is talking through these men, turning them down or believing they may be capable of wrong or even evil decisions or actions is almost like questioning God Himself.

 

I know right about this time some may be saying things like: ":Our leaders make mistakes" & "you have your own agency to decide for yourself" or something along those lines, and I agree with both those sentiments, though at times here it is difficult to get some people to actually agree that a specific mistake has been made. The old adage that LDS people say their leaders are fallible but don't believe it, runs through my mind every time a thread deals with that issue. But for arguments sake, let's say we all agree they make mistakes. Maybe you don't think they have made any serious ones or that the serious ones are way in the past, but that sure mistakes have been and can be made.

So what would you do if you think a serious mistake had been made? For example, I think a serious mistake was made in the policy change that affected the children of married gay people. Now my point isn't to argue whether or not it was a serious error, but to ask what would you do if you thought one was being made, right now, in our time. Say you think the Joseph Bishop situation is being badly mismanaged or whatever. What do you do? Or, if you can't place yourself in that situation, what should someone else do who thinks such a mistake has been made?

 

I like to think I would have the courage to stand up in general conference, when they asked for any opposing votes, and in a loud voice, say NO! I think leadership at the highest levels needs to hear us when we think they are making a mistake, and by "hearing us" I don't mean some general feedback up the chain from bishop to stake president to area authority and so on, where individual voices are squashed into a report filed in a stack of reports, but I mean the men sitting in those big comfortable seats on the dais at the conference center need to hear that there are people willing to attend conference just so they can use their right to voice their concerns to leadership's very ears.

Edited March 26, 2018 by CA Steve

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

 So what would you do if you think a serious mistake had been made? For example, I think a serious mistake was made in the policy change that affected the children of married gay people. Now my point isn't to argue whether or not it was a serious error, but to ask what would you do if you thought one was being made, right now, in our time. Say you think the Joseph Bishop situation is being badly mismanaged or whatever. What do you do? Or, if you can't place yourself in that situation, what should someone else do who thinks such a mistake has been made?

I think there is a difference between sustaining an individual to an apostolic office and sustaining the decisions of the apostolic quorums. For the first, have your facts at hand regarding his personal worthiness and share them as instructed at the end of the sustaining. For the second, and you feel the Brethren are not aware of a governance problem, I would start with the bishop and work your way up as you are able. If you are frustrated with how far you get, join an organized campaign which is very easy to do.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think there is a difference between sustaining an individual to an apostolic office and sustaining the decisions of the apostolic quorums. For the first, have your facts at hand regarding his personal worthiness and share them as instructed at the end of the sustaining. For the second, and you feel the Brethren are not aware of a governance problem, I would start with the bishop and work your way up as you are able. If you are frustrated with how far you get, join an organized campaign which is very easy to do.

 

How did that work our for this person? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Kelly_(feminist)

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

........................................I like to think I would have the courage to stand up in general conference, when they asked for any opposing votes, and in a loud voice, say NO! I think leadership at the highest levels needs to hear us when we think they are making a mistake, and by "hearing us" I don't mean some general feedback up the chain from bishop to stake president to area authority and so on, where individual voices are squashed into a report filed in a stack of reports, but I mean the men sitting in those big comfortable seats on the dais at the conference center need to hear that there are people willing to attend conference just so they can use their right to voice their concerns to leadership's very ears.

I admire the willingness of stout-hearted men and women to stand up and be counted there in genl conf or elsewhere, but that is realistically not likely to make much difference in the long run.  The Far West Record shows Joseph Smith being openly opposed during some council meetings, and there wasn't anything he could do about it -- except to be patient.  Common consent assumes full transparency and complete information, neither of which is often operative.  Members just do not realize the degree to which the Mormon Church is communal, not individual.

[CV75]

Just now, ttribe said:

How did that work our for this person? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Kelly_(feminist)

I'm sure she has no regrets. Those inclined to continue the campaign would be well-advised to fine-tune their approach.

[Jeanne]

Ask yourself first when sustaining..and with what you feel..what you know..or the general spirit of personal revelation..what you feel as a father and a mother..or a potential one.  If everyone in a congregation was true to themselves..you might be surprised at lives that might be better.  How else does one test a personal revelation or core feelings on anyone  or any manner of principle

Edited March 26, 2018 by Jeanne

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I admire the willingness of stout-hearted men and women to stand up and be counted there in genl conf or elsewhere, but that is realistically not likely to make much difference in the long run.  The Far West Record shows Joseph Smith being openly opposed during some council meetings, and there wasn't anything he could do about it -- except to be patient.  Common consent assumes full transparency and complete information, neither of which is often operative.  Members just do not realize the degree to which the Mormon Church is communal, not individual.

The bolded is very interesting Robert, and I fully agree with it. 

I wonder, do you extend that full transparency to include financial information? I would, and while it has not been as important to me as other issues, certainly I would argue that since the church closed it's books, the common consent votes have not meant as much.

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

 The recent threads on MTC President Bishop and on how personnel interviews with leadership should be handled have me thinking about what I would do, if I were at general conference during the sustaining vote for leadership. In the discussion on leadership interviews asking about masturbation I mentioned that was something I included in my baptismal interviews on my mission many years ago, something I now look back on as a being unnecessary and a bit absurd. I like to think that now I would have the wherewithal to tell my mission president that I disagreed with that requirement and that I would not be doing it. Of course it is a whole lot easier when you are much older to tell someone your own age 'no' then it is for a  19 year old to tell his mission president 'no' or even question what his mission president is saying.

 

Obedience is so ingrained in our LDS culture, such that disobeying for the right reasons is sometimes seen as worse than obeying for the wrong one.  In the case of the MTC mission president it seems we have several levels of failure where all it would have taken is for someone to reject what they thought leadership wanted or needed, and this case may have been just a distant memory today. Instead we had sister missionary exposing herself under duress, bishops and perhaps general authorities refusing to believe such an event was possible and failing to follow up properly. The pedestal we place human men on in the church makes it difficult to say no to them or question their actions at any level, let alone the highest levels. When we believe that God is talking through these men, turning them down or believing they may be capable of wrong or even evil decisions or actions is almost like questioning God Himself.

 

I know right about this time some may be saying things like: ":Our leaders make mistakes" & "you have your own agency to decide for yourself" or something along those lines, and I agree with both those sentiments, though at times here it is difficult to get some people to actually agree that a specific mistake has been made. The old adage that LDS people say their leaders are fallible but don't believe it, runs through my mind every time a thread deals with that issue. But for arguments sake, let's say we all agree they make mistakes. Maybe you don't think they have made any serious ones or that the serious ones are way in the past, but that sure mistakes have been and can be made.

So what would you do if you think a serious mistake had been made? For example, I think a serious mistake was made in the policy change that affected the children of married gay people. Now my point isn't to argue whether or not it was a serious error, but to ask what would you do if you thought one was being made, right now, in our time. Say you think the Joseph Bishop situation is being badly mismanaged or whatever. What do you do? Or, if you can't place yourself in that situation, what should someone else do who thinks such a mistake has been made?

 

I like to think I would have the courage to stand up in general conference, when they asked for any opposing votes, and in a loud voice, say NO! I think leadership at the highest levels needs to hear us when we think they are making a mistake, and by "hearing us" I don't mean some general feedback up the chain from bishop to stake president to area authority and so on, where individual voices are squashed into a report filed in a stack of reports, but I mean the men sitting in those big comfortable seats on the dais at the conference center need to hear that there are people willing to attend conference just so they can use their right to voice their concerns to leadership's very ears.

Saying no would mean that you don't support the person being called (or who has been called) was called of God and believe someone else should be called in their place.  So I would never say 'Nay' if that wasn't specifically what I was trying to convey.  I personally see it as a misuse of the right to sustain or not.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The bolded is very interesting Robert, and I fully agree with it. 

I wonder, do you extend that full transparency to include financial information? I would, and while it has not been as important to me as other issues, certainly I would argue that since the church closed it's books, the common consent votes have not meant as much.

Yes, of course, and it is also true for financial systems in general.  When there is secrecy, they just don't work as well, if at all.

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I admire the willingness of stout-hearted men and women to stand up and be counted there in genl conf or elsewhere, but that is realistically not likely to make much difference in the long run.  The Far West Record shows Joseph Smith being openly opposed during some council meetings, and there wasn't anything he could do about it -- except to be patient.  Common consent assumes full transparency and complete information, neither of which is often operative.  Members just do not realize the degree to which the Mormon Church is communal, not individual.

30 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The bolded is very interesting Robert, and I fully agree with it. 

I wonder, do you extend that full transparency to include financial information? I would, and while it has not been as important to me as other issues, certainly I would argue that since the church closed it's books, the common consent votes have not meant as much.

Common consent is a bit different in the Church. D&C 26:2 and 28:16 qualify common consent as being a function of much prayer and faith and the prayer of faith, and not so much transparency and complete information (where's the faith in that!). Common consent votes are not so essential as the communal common consent that is expressed in behavior, notably sustaining the apostles in carrying our their decisions and duties.

 

 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The recent threads on MTC President Bishop and on how personnel interviews with leadership should be handled have me thinking about what I would do, if I were at general conference during the sustaining vote for leadership. In the discussion on leadership interviews asking about masturbation I mentioned that was something I included in my baptismal interviews on my mission many years ago, something I now look back on as a being unnecessary and a bit absurd.

So you are disputing that masturbation is generally seen as violative of the Law of Chastity?

Quote

I like to think that now I would have the wherewithal to tell my mission president that I disagreed with that requirement and that I would not be doing it.

But you would want to continue to serve as a representative of the LDS Church, even though you were flouting the conditions for doing so?

How far would that go?  Are missionaries to be allowed to drink?  Look at pornography?  Carouse?  Punch another missionary who ticks 'em off?  What limiting principle do you propose here?

To be sure, the Law of Chastity is a sensitive and difficult topic.  When addressed, much tact and decorum and sensitivity is warranted.  But are you suggesting that missionaries should be at liberty to selectively obey the central tenets of our faith, and continue to serve as representatives of the Lord and His Church?

Quote

Of course it is a whole lot easier when you are much older to tell someone your own age 'no' then it is for a  19 year old to tell his mission president 'no' or even question what his mission president is saying.

How is "{w}hat {} the mission president is saying" re: the Law of Chastity different from what the mission president might ask pertaining to, say, the Word of Wisdom?  

Quote

Obedience is so ingrained in our LDS culture, such that disobeying for the right reasons is sometimes seen as worse than obeying for the wrong one.  

I get that disobedience to exploitative misuse of authority by a church leader is a good thing.  See D&C 121:37:

Quote

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

But here you seem to be conflating that with disobedience of established behavioral principles of the Church (the Law of Chastity, the Word of Wisdom, mission rules, etc.).  I think that is problematic.

Quote

In the case of the MTC mission president it seems we have several levels of failure where all it would have taken is for someone to reject what they thought leadership wanted or needed, and this case may have been just a distant memory today. Instead we had sister missionary exposing herself under duress, bishops and perhaps general authorities refusing to believe such an event was possible and failing to follow up properly.

That is a fair summary.

Quote

The pedestal we place human men on in the church makes it difficult to say no to them or question their actions at any level, let alone the highest levels. When we believe that God is talking through these men, turning them down or believing they may be capable of wrong or even evil decisions or actions is almost like questioning God Himself.

I think this is simplistic, but it may be accurate in some circumstances.

Quote

I know right about this time some may be saying things like: ":Our leaders make mistakes" & "you have your own agency to decide for yourself" or something along those lines, and I agree with both those sentiments, though at times here it is difficult to get some people to actually agree that a specific mistake has been made.

But not here, right?  Nobody is seriously disputing that Joseph Bishop committed some evil acts (even though the specific contours are yet to be determined).

Quote

The old adage that LDS people say their leaders are fallible but don't believe it, runs through my mind every time a thread deals with that issue.

I don't buy into that adage.  Not really.

Quote

But for arguments sake, let's say we all agree they make mistakes. Maybe you don't think they have made any serious ones or that the serious ones are way in the past, but that sure mistakes have been and can be made.

So what would you do if you think a serious mistake had been made?

You'll first have to define "a serious mistake."

Quote

For example, I think a serious mistake was made in the policy change that affected the children of married gay people.

Surely you can distinguish between incontrovertibly wrong, violates-the-tenets-of-the-Church-and-the-law-of-the-land-in-serious-ways kinds of "mistakes" and socially-unpopular-but-reasonable-minds-can-disagree-about-such-things decisions made in council by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve after extensive reasoned discussion, prayer, fasting and so on?

Are you seriously going to compare allegations of attempted rape by Joseph Bishop with the the policy change?

Quote

Now my point isn't to argue whether or not it was a serious error,

Sorry, but that is exactly what you are arguing.  

Quote

but to ask what would you do if you thought one was being made, right now, in our time.

Again, "one" being . . . what?  A decision made in council by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?

If I disagree with a decision like that, I would approach it along the lines of this counsel from Elder Oaks.

But that is world apart from allegations a priesthood leader has molested or raped a young woman.  As a family member or friend of the victim, I would confer with the victim and encourage her to immediately contact the police.  As a bishop receiving such information as a confession from the abuser or as an allegation from the victim, I would follow the Church's guidelines.  That would include ensuring the immediate safety of the victim.  And contacting the abuse helpline to make sure that all laws are complied with.

Quote

Say you think the Joseph Bishop situation is being badly mismanaged or whatever.

I don't know what this means.

Quote

What do you do? Or, if you can't place yourself in that situation, what should someone else do who thinks such a mistake has been made?

Again, you'll need to provide more context.

Quote

I like to think I would have the courage to stand up in general conference, when they asked for any opposing votes, and in a loud voice, say NO! I think leadership at the highest levels needs to hear us when we think they are making a mistake, and by "hearing us" I don't mean some general feedback up the chain from bishop to stake president to area authority and so on, where individual voices are squashed into a report filed in a stack of reports, but I mean the men sitting in those big comfortable seats on the dais at the conference center need to hear that there are people willing to attend conference just so they can use their right to voice their concerns to leadership's very ears.

No, I would not disrupt a public event hosted by the Church and in the Church's facilities in the way you describe.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I like to think I would have the courage to stand up in general conference, when they asked for any opposing votes, and in a loud voice, say NO! I think leadership at the highest levels needs to hear us when we think they are making a mistake, and by "hearing us" I don't mean some general feedback up the chain from bishop to stake president to area authority and so on, where individual voices are squashed into a report filed in a stack of reports, but I mean the men sitting in those big comfortable seats on the dais at the conference center need to hear that there are people willing to attend conference just so they can use their right to voice their concerns to leadership's very ears.

Have you seen Sam Young's petition and march coming up on 3/30 in SLC.  Might be of interest to you, I think this is a good cause.  

http://protectldschildren.org/march-for-children/

 

[rpn]

I have written more than a few letters at various church levels about things that I think are problematic.  (Sometimes I get a response, other times I don't.  Sometimes things change --- once almost on a dime, making me think I wasn't the first one to bring it to someone's attention.   I keep writing so that if they haven't seen a problem before, they can't claim lack of notice or opportunity.)

But I don't think sustaining means I'm agreeing with everything leaders do.   I think it means I recognize that they are the ones currently serving in these roles, because God either wants them there, or no one is listening to His instructions, or however awful to individual members it is necessary for His plan (remember the response about saving the women in the  fire that their death was necessary to hold the perps accountable).   I think it means I will listen carefully to their advice and counsel, and before I reject it, I will study it out and seek my own confirmation that it is from God.   But sustaining them doesn't mean I have to accept that what they are suggesting IS the exact way God wants something.   

 

[rongo]

CA Steve:

Re: your OP . . .

I've shared this before. My first counselor in another ward is politically connected. He has a JD and an MBA and an influential job. He was once told by a GA that a man was going to be called as a stake president, and he was asked for feedback on that call. He told him that he had grave misgivings based on business dealings and things he knew about his integrity. The GA asked him what he would do if he was sustained as such the next day, and he said that he would sustain him, because he had frankly shared his concerns and he had gone ahead with it, anyway. The man was sustained, and two weeks later, fled the country under investigation for fraud. 

I was heartened that the Church was vetting ahead of time, but disheartened that what was learned through the vetting wasn't heeded. If and when we are privy to such information, I think it belongs to our integrity to hold firm to our convictions. And, I would hope that there wouldn't be reprisals for doing so. But, this for me would be only when egregious things are known firsthand. It get trickier when things are suspected or when the problem is philosophical. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, rpn said:

I have written more than a few letters at various church levels about things that I think are problematic.  (Sometimes I get a response, other times I don't.  Sometimes things change --- once almost on a dime, making me think I wasn't the first one to bring it to someone's attention.   I keep writing so that if they haven't seen a problem before, they can't claim lack of notice or opportunity.)

[Kenngo1969]

One can agree that certain changes might be a good thing, but may have misgivings about how such changes are sought.  Often, one in such a position is damned-if-he-does-and-damned-if-he-doesn't: Despite his belief that certain changes might be a good thing, if he expresses misgivings about the march/protest/campaign (such as, perhaps, believing that people may be better off marching/protesting/campaigning in their own right than they would be running the risk of being accused of attempting to use children as proxies/pawns), then he is tarred with a broad brush as "Not Caring About THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  

Edited March 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Storm Rider]

Unless I know something personally about the individual being presented to the congregation to be sustained, then I raise my hand to support them.  I make the assumption that those involved have interviewed the individual and prayed about their decision; that the individual themselves has reviewed their life and feels both worthy and prepared to take on the responsibility of the calling.  

Simply because I disagree with some policy or action is not a valid reason, for me, to voice a nay when asked to sustain them.  

CA, you have voted with your feet. There is no stronger way to demonstrate your disagreement with the Church of Jesus Christ.  Others preceded you and others will succeed you. As for me, if someone wants to know my opinion they can ask; if the leaders are not asking then I am not talking to them about it.  Opinions are like ....

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Opinions are like ....

Rear-ends: Everybody has one, and some of them are better than others.  

Sure.  No problem.  Any time.  You're welcome.

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Unless I know something personally about the individual being presented to the congregation to be sustained, then I raise my hand to support them.  I make the assumption that those involved have interviewed the individual and prayed about their decision; that the individual themselves has reviewed their life and feels both worthy and prepared to take on the responsibility of the calling.  

Simply because I disagree with some policy or action is not a valid reason, for me, to voice a nay when asked to sustain them.  

That's my general feeling as well. Unless I (1) know something specific about the individual being called that would impact his standing in the church and (2) have reason to believe that those extending the calling did not have that information prior to extending the calling, then I would sustain the person in his calling.

The only other exception would be when I have direct knowledge that there was a clerical mistake in the calling. For instance, when I was a Priest, the Bishop announced to the congregation that I had been called to serve as the First Counselor in the Bishopric, rather than as the First Assistant in the Priest's Quorum. I was one of only two people who objected to the calling. Conspicuously, the First Counselor was not the other one. 

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's my general feeling as well. Unless I (1) know something specific about the individual being called that would impact his standing in the church and (2) have reason to believe that those extending the calling did not have that information prior to extending the calling, then I would sustain the person in his calling.

The only other exception would be when I have direct knowledge that there was a clerical mistake in the calling. For instance, when I was a Priest, the Bishop announced to the congregation that I had been called to serve as the First Counselor in the Bishopric, rather than as the First Assistant in the Priest's Quorum. I was one of only two people who objected to the calling. Conspicuously, the First Counselor was not the other one. 

Lay clergy, lay clergy, lay clergy!  I love it.  Thanks for sharing!  

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I like to think that now I would have the wherewithal to tell my mission president that I disagreed with that requirement and that I would not be doing it. Of course it is a whole lot easier when you are much older to tell someone your own age 'no' then it is for a  19 year old to tell his mission president 'no' or even question what his mission president is saying.

Towards the end of my mission, my mission president received a phone call from the Missionary Department, asking him to take on an additional missionary that needed to be transferred from his mission in Texas. My MP asked why the transfer was happening. He was told that this missionary had done absolutely nothing wrong, but his MP in Texas didn't want to work with him anymore because he kept telling the MP that some of the things he was doing were wrong. My MP happily accepted the offer, and soon we had a fantastic addition to our mission labouring alongside us. I've always loved that when a mission president complained to the Missionary Department about a 'disagreeable' Elder, the solution was to send him to a mission where he would be appreciated. Of course, he never found anything to complain about in our mission because my MP, who had been counselled in the MTC to not add extra rules, etc., followed that counsel strictly. And he welcomed the sharing of concerns from his missionaries, whom he treated in all ways as fellow servants.

My favourite former bishop started his mission as a convert of two years. He has frequently told all of us about the time that he let the assistants to the president do something he knew was wrong, what the outcome was, and how he resolved from that moment forward never to let that happen again. And he didn't. He used the story to teach us that it was our duty to call him out if we ever knew he was acting in the wrong.

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I have written more than a few letters at various church levels about things that I think are problematic.  (Sometimes I get a response, other times I don't.  Sometimes things change --- once almost on a dime, making me think I wasn't the first one to bring it to someone's attention ...)

I have mentioned before a concern that I took to our previous stake presidency some years ago. I pointed out to all three of them that they were acting out of harmony with the handbook. They stared at me blankly; I genuinely don't think they could see it. So my next stop was the area president. I never got a personal response, but our stake president came back from the next coordinating council meeting with news that the Church had 'clarified' a policy. Problem solved.

Quote

I keep writing so that if they haven't seen a problem before, they can't claim lack of notice or opportunity.

Exactly! The bishop I mentioned above used to remind us how dependent he was on information sharing. His line: 'Revelation rarely happens in a vacuum'.

And in the situation with my stake presidency mentioned above, not implementing the correct policy was hurting people. When people are getting hurt (or even when the risk is there), it is incumbent upon on to tell someone.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

He told him that he had grave misgivings based on business dealings and things he knew about his integrity. The GA asked him what he would do if he was sustained as such the next day, and he said that he would sustain him, because he had frankly shared his concerns and he had gone ahead with it, anyway. The man was sustained, and two weeks later, fled the country under investigation for fraud. 

It's a shame that the general authority didn't listen. It's an equal shame, in my opinion, that your previous first counsellor didn't tell the general authority that, based on what he knew, he would be raising his hand the next day in opposition. And then he should have done this. I've done this once before. I know other people in the ward shared my concerns, but I was the only one to raise my hand. It made me sad. Shortly afterwards, the person in question was arrested for tax evasion.

[Gray]

If Joseph Bishop were being presented for sustaining, I would say nay. But without other information I don't see how his behavior would directly affect who I might sustain, unless it came to light that a current church leader had aided in covering for Bishop.