In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

[ttribe]

Just realized this man's father was the Stake President in the Chattanooga Stake when I was serving in a branch of that Stake during my mission.  I mostly remember the Stake President being VERY strict.  Interesting.

 

ETA: IIRC, Pres. Smartt (the father) had a habit of asking members about their consumption of caffeinated soda during their temple recommend interviews.  Apparently, that got back to SLC and he got a bit of a reprimand for that one.  Small world, I suppose.

Edited April 26, 2018 by ttribe

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

My mission was great!  My MP was really laid back but he still expected a lot from his missionaries.  He just wasn't strict, and yes, we always ate really well after zone conference!

LUCKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no, they never fed us, and I think most people went to zone conference only to get the gossip and see people. I had one for a couple of months and the second one was mine for the duration and he had never served a mission and he kind of let the APs run the mission, well that turned into a disaster and then things changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I am not putting any stock in it.  And I don't want to make light of it, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for that.

I did add this addendum to my post above, which I'll include here in case you missed it:

I'm guessing the name came from this American politician of the early 1900s who served  as U.S. attorney general and later as U.S. secretary of state and was in the cabinet under three U.S. presidents.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Just realized this man's father was the Stake President in the Chattanooga Stake when I was serving in a branch of that Stake during my mission.  I mostly remember the Stake President being VERY strict.  Interesting.

 

ETA: IIRC, Pres. Smartt (the father) had a habit of asking members about their consumption of caffeinated soda during their temple recommend interviews.  Apparently, that got back to SLC and he got a bit of a reprimand for that one.  Small world, I suppose.

He's the man I was talking about, the one I remember as being a very good man.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

I've only skimmed posts so maybe I missed it.....but what exactly did this guy do?  I'm only seeing talk about victims. 

I don't think anyone knows.  

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He's the man I was talking about, the one I remember as being a very good man.

I'm not placing any value judgment on whether P. Smartt, II was a "good" or "bad" man.  I just remember that, as a young missionary, I found him to be very...intense...and with a reputation in his Stake of being very strict.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I'm not placing any value judgment on whether P. Smartt, II was a "good" or "bad" man.  I just remember that, as a young missionary, I found him to be very...intense...and with a reputation in his Stake of being very strict.

My recollection is that he was very energetic about promoting missionary service.

[Duncan]

According to this blog the Church has this nutty stuff in the past, I knew of some of this but a wife of a mission president and an elder? an some other mission president in the 1890's?-of which I cannot find who it is😣

http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2018/04/using-publicity-to-criticize-church.html

[bsjkki]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't know.  It seems weird that a church claiming to be the church of Christ lies about the reason a mission president is being released.  It also perpetuates the culture that men in authority do nothing wrong.  Why couldn't the church leaders called a mission conference, tell the missionaries that the mission president was sent home because he betrayed his trust given to him in his position and was unworthy to continue in that calling.  Why couldn't church leaders then said that those involved were not responsible for what happened and should be treated with nothing more than love and respect.

This might have been the most valuable lesson these missionaries could have learned on their mission.  Being called to a position does not mean that sin can not happen.  They should trust God more than they trust church leaders.  It is a lesson that might have completely changed my life when I thought I could trust my church leaders. Lying for the Lord never seems like a righteous concept that should be used.  What kind of message does that send when eventually they find out the truth.  Not only could they not trust their mission president, but now they can't trust the general authorities.  So no.  I can't understand why they would fabricate a cover story for what really happened.  

According to the Trib article they did not lie but let people make inaccurate assumptions. 

“Shortly before Smartt’s actions were discovered, his wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which is often a debilitating disease. The diagnosis was widely known among missionaries and came to be seen as the catalyst for the couple’s sudden departure, though LDS leaders never offered any reason for their absence beyond saying that the president had been released.”

And as much as like your approach, it does not take into account the wishes of the victims. Do you really want to make things harder for them? All of these Sisters finished their missions. 

Four years later the truth is coming out. Maybe that’s okay. Maybe, if a crime was committed, the victims are ready to face the legal system and prosecute.

The Trib called this being “between a rock and a hard place.”

[Calm]

Reddit (and therefore take it as unconfirmed) has one person claiming to know that the MP was engaging in polygamy with the sister missionaries.  Since none of the sister missionaries were sent home, it sounds like it wasn't sexual at the point it was stopped.  They were probably mostly clueless about what he was intending until they found out what he had been intending when he got investigated, which would be a huge shock and sense of violation, imo.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Reddit (and therefore take it as unconfirmed) has one person claiming to know that the MP was engaging in polygamy with the sister missionaries.  Since none of the sister missionaries were sent home, it sounds like it wasn't sexual at the point it was stopped.  They were probably mostly clueless about what he was intending until they found out what he had been intending when he got investigated, which would be a huge shock and sense of violation, imo.

Hard to know for sure what was going on. Without going into details there was a MP in the 80's in the midwest telling sister missionaries to stop wearing garments and dress sexy to get into doors. Don't know if anything else was going on but someone I know in the mission called his Stake President over it. Unfortunately the person the Church sent to investigate was a friend of the MP and (according to the person in the mission) wasn't exactly doing a good job in the investigation. He wasn't released but did tone things down a bit, but was still seen as extremely creepy.

In my own mission there wasn't that sort of problem, but a MP who had more or less abrogated doing his job and let the APs run wild. Unfortunately the APs really were wild and started up what they called a secret combination. To enter the combination you had to break all mission rules. (Yes including the big F) Nearly everyone in two zones were excommunicated when the Church found out about it. 

So bad things happen and the usual way the Church finds out about it is via Stake Presidents - either local or from home wards of missionaries.

And let's not forget the infamous French mission in the 50's where a mission president started up polygamy with many of the sister missionaries. That probably lurks in the background of all this. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Storm Rider]

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Hard to know for sure what was going on. Without going into details there was a MP in the 80's in the midwest telling sister missionaries to stop wearing garments and dress sexy to get into doors. Don't know if anything else was going on but someone I know in the mission called his Stake President over it. Unfortunately the person the Church sent to investigate was a friend of the MP and (according to the person in the mission) wasn't exactly doing a good job in the investigation. He wasn't released but did tone things down a bit, but was still seen as extremely creepy.

In my own mission there wasn't that sort of problem, but a MP who had more or less abrogated doing his job and let the APs run wild. Unfortunately the APs really were wild and started up what they called a secret combination. To enter the combination you had to break all mission rules. (Yes including the big F) Nearly everyone in two zones were excommunicated when the Church found out about it. 

So bad things happen and the usual way the Church finds out about it is via Stake Presidents - either local or from home wards of missionaries.

And let's not forget the infamous French mission in the 50's where a mission president started up polygamy with many of the sister missionaries. That probably lurks in the background of all this. 

I think there is a misunderstanding, it was not the Mission President, but one of the missionaries who also served as a counselor in the Mission Presidency. 

[Duncan]

they kept a blog, I feel sick for his family and all these missionaries

http://puertoricosanjuanmission.blogspot.ca/

[Calm]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Hard to know for sure what was going on. Without going into details there was a MP in the 80's in the midwest telling sister missionaries to stop wearing garments and dress sexy to get into doors. Don't know if anything else was going on but someone I know in the mission called his Stake President over it. Unfortunately the person the Church sent to investigate was a friend of the MP and (according to the person in the mission) wasn't exactly doing a good job in the investigation. He wasn't released but did tone things down a bit, but was still seen as extremely creepy.

In my own mission there wasn't that sort of problem, but a MP who had more or less abrogated doing his job and let the APs run wild. Unfortunately the APs really were wild and started up what they called a secret combination. To enter the combination you had to break all mission rules. (Yes including the big F) Nearly everyone in two zones were excommunicated when the Church found out about it. 

So bad things happen and the usual way the Church finds out about it is via Stake Presidents - either local or from home wards of missionaries.

And let's not forget the infamous French mission in the 50's where a mission president started up polygamy with many of the sister missionaries. That probably lurks in the background of all this. 

There are other posters claiming the same level of knowledge or more elsewhere who are saying he was just a typical sleazebag, so I wouldn't assume he actually used plural marriage as part of his pressure tactics.

Saw several being disgusted that critics would use the hardship of a sick woman and a devoted husband caring for her to create a disgusting rumor, it must be very hard on those who understood it that way and explained the departure for those reasons to others to find out the truth.

I so get why it wasn't announced if the reason was to avoid placing abused sisters in difficult positions, it would be so hard to bond with members, investigators, and other missionaries if one was always wondering if the other person was speculating if she was one of the abused and honestly given how gossip and self doubt works, if they had made any announcementof his release for unworthiness, I bet that is where speculation would go, so I agree with the article the Church leadership was between a rock and a hard place on this one.

[Marginal Gains]

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

According to the Trib article they did not lie but let people make inaccurate assumptions. 

“Shortly before Smartt’s actions were discovered, his wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which is often a debilitating disease. The diagnosis was widely known among missionaries and came to be seen as the catalyst for the couple’s sudden departure, though LDS leaders never offered any reason for their absence beyond saying that the president had been released.”

And as much as like your approach, it does not take into account the wishes of the victims. Do you really want to make things harder for them? All of these Sisters finished their missions. 

Four years later the truth is coming out. Maybe that’s okay. Maybe, if a crime was committed, the victims are ready to face the legal system and prosecute.

The Trib called this being “between a rock and a hard place.”

By the Church’s own standard, that’s lying.

Quote

When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

I do though understand the point about protecting the victims. But there is a an obligation to protect potential future victims too. Rock and a hard place.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's presented like that in the church by leaders though.  But I do think that some people personally present it that way and that some members learn this from their parents or just assume that's what it means based on a superficial interaction with the process.  And I disagree with your claim that because someone must be worth to receive the priesthood it means that that person has God's stamp of approval.  But, having said that, i think that there are members who see things this way because of a spiritually immature understanding worthiness and callings and I think the church could help with that.  

The church is constantly try to get us to take more responsibility for our spirituality, testimony, and gospel learning but most of us don't follow through like we need to on our own.  Very few members seem to be regularly studying their scriptures (let alone feasting on them), regularly praying, regularly fasting with purpose, etc.  In such circumstances, spiritual immaturity is a consequence (and I'm not saying that in a judgmental way.  It's all part of the process of becoming like Christ.  It's a work in progress for all of us and we all have a messed up understanding of the gospel in different areas).  

Every year you are asked to raise your hand and sustain the leaders as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. If that’s not presenting Church Leaders as having God’s stamp of approval, then what is it?

To say that the Church does not present Church leaders (any Church leader) as having the stamp of approval from God is a blatantly wrong statement.

Quote

“We thank thee, O God, for a prophet.”1 Do you and I really understand what that means? Imagine the privilege the Lord has given us of sustaining His prophet, whose counsel will be untainted, unvarnished, unmotivated by any personal aspiration, and utterly true!

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

Quote

All leaders in the Lord’s Church are called by proper authority. No prophet or any other leader in this Church, for that matter, has ever called himself or herself. No prophet has ever been elected. The Lord made that clear when He said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you.”10 You and I do not “vote” on Church leaders at any level. We do, though, have the privilege of sustaining them.

Quote

The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age.17Counterbalances and safeguards abound so that no one can ever lead the Church astray. Senior leaders are constantly being tutored such that one day they are ready to sit in the highest councils. They learn how to hear the voice of the Lord through the whisperings of the Spirit.

 

I’m struggling to find a quote that suggests Church Leaders are appointed without God’s stamp of approval...

Quote

I have heard President Monson say, “Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies.” I know this is true, and it gives me hope looking beyond my own inadequacies.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/04/whom-the-lord-calls-the-lord-qualifies?lang=eng

Edited April 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

9 hours ago, bsjkki said:

According to the Trib article they did not lie but let people make inaccurate assumptions. 

“Shortly before Smartt’s actions were discovered, his wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which is often a debilitating disease. The diagnosis was widely known among missionaries and came to be seen as the catalyst for the couple’s sudden departure, though LDS leaders never offered any reason for their absence beyond saying that the president had been released.”

And as much as like your approach, it does not take into account the wishes of the victims. Do you really want to make things harder for them? All of these Sisters finished their missions. 

Four years later the truth is coming out. Maybe that’s okay. Maybe, if a crime was committed, the victims are ready to face the legal system and prosecute.

The Trib called this being “between a rock and a hard place.”

It absolutely was a lie.  This is the story the replacement story that was told to the missionaries.

Quote

Elder Cornish said that after some discussion among some very senior Brethren it was decided that President would be released so he and Sister Smartt could go back to get the very best medical help available.  So he was released and Elder Cornish is serving as a “temporary” president, for about a week, until another longer term temporary president can be called from the Seventy and make arrangements to come down here.

 I know the church has a long history of misleading members by painting a picture about it's history  in the best possible light.  How has that worked out?  And you missed the main point of what I was saying.

Quote

This might have been the most valuable lesson these missionaries could have learned on their mission.  Being called to a position does not mean that sin can not happen.  They should trust God more than they trust church leaders.  It is a lesson that might have completely changed my life when I thought I could trust my church leaders. Lying for the Lord never seems like a righteous concept that should be used.  What kind of message does that send when eventually they find out the truth.  Not only could they not trust their mission president, but now they can't trust the general authorities.  So no.  I can't understand why they would fabricate a cover story for what really happened.  

And this part.

Quote

Why couldn't church leaders then said that those involved were not responsible for what happened and should be treated with nothing more than love and respect.

Maybe another very important lesson would have been to teach that there is no shame in being a victim.  I think that would have been a much bigger help to those who had been preyed upon than misleading the missionaries into believing something that just wasn't the real reason this mission president was removed.  Everyone still found out, just like a more accurate history of the church ultimately has come out.  Now how do those victims feel about what happened?  Do you think they forgot what occurred to them?  Or do they feel like they played a part in something so bad that the church resorted to, as you say, a misleading story to cover it us.  And there is not quivering about that point.  It is a cover up..  

At some point, I hope the church learns that truth is stronger than misleading stories.  At some point I hope that the church learns that letting the light of day shine in is stronger than the cover of darkness.  So no, this is not a rock and an hard place.  This is about doing what is right.  This is about being truthful.  You are never going to convince me that deception is a better choice than being truthful and not misleading people.  It is a lesson I taught my children.  It is a lesson that is undermined by the actions of this church.  Honestly, I can't see how you can defend such actions.  

I might add, the whole "rock and an hard place" was solely the churches response to try and once again put the very possible spin on why they told the misleading story in the first place.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There are other posters claiming the same level of knowledge or more elsewhere who are saying he was just a typical sleazebag, so I wouldn't assume he actually used plural marriage as part of his pressure tactics.

Saw several being disgusted that critics would use the hardship of a sick woman and a devoted husband caring for her to create a disgusting rumor, it must be very hard on those who understood it that way and explained the departure for those reasons to others to find out the truth.

I so get why it wasn't announced if the reason was to avoid placing abused sisters in difficult positions, it would be so hard to bond with members, investigators, and other missionaries if one was always wondering if the other person was speculating if she was one of the abused and honestly given how gossip and self doubt works, if they had made any announcementof his release for unworthiness, I bet that is where speculation would go, so I agree with the article the Church leadership was between a rock and a hard place on this one.

Calm, I honestly don't understand your position and others of protecting the sisters to spare them difficulty.  Why would it be difficult to bond with members, investigators and other missionaries?  They are the ones that stood up to evil.  We have been living through the whole Me Too movement.  Do you think this movement is wrong?  Should these women not stood up and exposed evil men?  Do you feel those who have stood up have been ostracized by society for what they went through?  Are they less supported by those who love them?  Do you fell that perhaps exposing what happened and telling their stories has actually helped them heal from what occurred to them?  Do you have less respect, less love, for these women who stood up against evil?

Honestly, this cover story the church is using as the excuse for not being truthful seems to absolutely play into the hands of "Keep quiet and don't let anyone know you have been victimized".  Because if people do find out what happened to you, you will not be able to bond with other members, investigators or missionaries.  I find the message you are sending and the spin story the church put on this incident to be quite disturbing and unhealthy.  Do you think these abused missionaries healed better by keeping what happened to them a secret?  Do you think when they were having a horrible day they couldn't just be honest with their companion and say that they needed some personal time.  That their companion, knowing what had happened would be nothing more than loving and supportive?

THESE WOMEEN DID NOTHING WRONG!  That should be the forceful message the church should have taught.  And that show healing first starts.  

[Marginal Gains]

Compare the Church statement released Thursday...

Quote

“This is a tragic and heartbreaking case of deception and betrayal that has impacted many lives. When church leaders learned of what had occurred, the mission president was immediately and dishonorably released from his position, sent home and excommunicated from the church. The victims, as adults, chose not to pursue criminal charges,” Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement released Thursday morning.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900017024/lds-church-releases-statement-regarding-mission-presidents-misconduct-in-2014.html

...with what actually occurred ‘on the ground’ at the time...

Quote

“Shortly before Smartt’s actions were discovered, his wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which is often a debilitating disease. The diagnosis was widely known among missionaries and came to be seen as the catalyst for the couple’s sudden departure, though LDS leaders never offered any reason for their absence beyond saying that the president had been released.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/04/26/the-case-of-puerto-rico-when-the-mormon-church-promptly-removed-a-mission-president-who-deceived-and-victimized-young-female-missionaries/

Quote

 

So Elder Cornish called us shortly into the office to fill us in.  About two weeks ago our mission mom experienced some very disturbing numbness and lack of feeling in her legs.  (The Smartt’s are both in their very early 40‘s.) Diagnostics were done and it was concluded locally that there was a tumor about ping-pong ball sized in her brain, and the local doctor wanted to admit her and plan the surgery.  President said that would not happen.  She was flown home for more tests at the University of Alabama, where they know some of the doctors and have many friends.  President even received permission from a senior authority in the Church to go be with his wife as more tests were done.  He would be gone for one or two days, then he would be going to Area Offices for some training meetings with the authorities there.  The next time we saw President he said that the tests led to a diagnosis of MS, not a tumor.  I guess that was bad news and good news.  Sister Smartt has returned to Puerto Rico.

 

Back to the story.  Elder Cornish said that after some discussion among some very senior Brethren it was decided that President would be released so he and Sister Smartt could go back to get the very best medical help available.  So he was released and Elder Cornish is serving as a “temporary” president, for about a week, until another longer term temporary president can be called from the Seventy and make arrangements to come down here.

 

 

 

https://kenpatterson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/gunshots.html?m=1

 

Is the Church statement from Thursday an honest reflection of what actually happened at the time?

Edited April 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Every year you are asked to raise your hand and sustain the leaders as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. If that’s not presenting Church Leaders as having God’s stamp of approval, then what is it?

To say that the Church does not present Church leaders (any Church leader) as having the stamp of approval from God is a blatantly wrong statement.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

 

I’m struggling to find a quote that suggests Church Leaders are appointed without God’s stamp of approval...

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/04/whom-the-lord-calls-the-lord-qualifies?lang=eng

What I meant when I said that was that I don't think the church teaches that a calling alone is God's stamp of approval.  The church teaches that we are to seek confirmation of callings so that we can know for ourselves, especially in regards to the prophet.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What I meant when I said that was that I don't think the church teaches that a calling alone is God's stamp of approval.  The church teaches that we are to seek confirmation of callings so that we can know for ourselves, especially in regards to the prophet.

 

 

Yet, if you ever said that you received confirmation that the prophet shouldn't have the calling, then you'd be apostate.

So the message usually is, verify as long as you agree.

 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet, if you ever said that you received confirmation that the prophet shouldn't have the calling, then you'd be apostate.

So the message usually is, verify as long as you agree.

 

Well yes, in a way maybe.  Unless someone was actively and publicly teaching that Pres. Nelson was an imposter I doubt they would be labeled an apostate.  That's a given though.  The church does have a truth claim that it teaches.  It's not neutral and it does not behave in a neutral manner.  It teaches that something is true and then asks it's members to get confirmation.  

But that doesn't mean that the church teaches that a calling alone is God's stamp of approval of the individual person.

[HappyJackWagon]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well yes, in a way maybe.  Unless someone was actively and publicly teaching that Pres. Nelson was an imposter I doubt they would be labeled an apostate.  That's a given though.  The church does have a truth claim that it teaches.  It's not neutral and it does not behave in a neutral manner.  It teaches that something is true and then asks it's members to get confirmation.  

But that doesn't mean that the church teaches that a calling alone is God's stamp of approval of the individual person.

I disagree. A few years ago I was told by the stake president the name of the person being called as the new bishop in my ward. I was adamantly opposed (with good reason IMO) about this person serving and I told the SP why. He already knew of the issues of physical abuse in the home (because I had previously made him aware) but still felt comfortable calling this fellow. He had already been approved by the First Presidency so my opposition couldn't really make any difference but I told the SP I couldn't vote to sustain him in the ward. He asked me if I'd oppose or simply not vote at all. I didn't know and told him, yet my position on the stand would have been pretty obvious either way. So I was left with the conundrum of whether I should sustain a new bishop, "called of God" as the SP assured me, or whether I would rely on my own confirmation that it was a bad choice. I was waffling on my decision of how I would handle it when the SP essentially told me that if I didn't sustain the bishop that meant I wasn't sustaining the SP and I wasn't sustaining the first presidency.

Ultimately I caved and sustained the bishop, only as a way of sustaining the SP and FP but I still feel it was a mistake. But what would have happened if I opposed the bishop? The SP could have taken away my TR for not sustaining the my leaders, the bishop, SP, and FP. So in a way I was forced to accept the call as God's stamp of approval through his called leaders. If I hadn't there would have been negative consequences. So even IF you are right and the church doesn't teach that a calling is God's stamp of approval (and I still disagree ), in situations like this it is enforced as such.

Edited April 27, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree. A few years ago I was told by the stake president the name of the person being called as the new bishop in my ward. I was adamantly opposed (with good reason IMO) about this person serving and I told the SP why. He already knew of the issues of physical abuse in the home (because I had previously made him aware) but still felt comfortable calling this fellow. He had already been approved by the First Presidency so my opposition couldn't really make any difference but I told the SP I couldn't vote to sustain him in the ward. He asked me if I'd oppose or simply not vote at all. I didn't know and told him, yet my position on the stand would have been pretty obvious either way. So I was left with the conundrum of whether I should sustain a new bishop, "called of God" as the SP assured me, or whether I would rely on my own confirmation that it was a bad choice. I was waffling on my decision of how I would handle it when the SP essentially told me that if I didn't sustain the bishop that meant I wasn't sustaining the SP and I wasn't sustaining the first presidency.

Ultimately I caved and sustained the bishop, only as a way of sustaining the SP and FP but I still feel it was a mistake. But what would have happened if I opposed the bishop? The SP could have taken away my TR for not sustaining the my leaders, the bishop, SP, and FP. So in a way I was forced to accept the call as God's stamp of approval through his called leaders. If I hadn't there would have been negative consequences. So even IF you are right and the church doesn't teach that a calling is God's stamp of approval (and I still disagree ), in situations like this it is enforced as such.

It's too bad the SP handled it that way.  

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think there is a misunderstanding, it was not the Mission President, but one of the missionaries who also served as a counselor in the Mission Presidency. 

Yup my bad. Point is though that these things happen and typically the Church finds out by missionaries calling others.