I've heard that in at least some cases, the powers that be discussed the objection with the member voting no after the meeting. I can't personally confirm that. I think the no votes in GC are simply ignored.
I did hear that the last vote back when it was a real vote and not just a vote to "sustain", was when a proposed bishop was voted down by the congregation in Preston Idaho in 1909 or 1911. J. Golden Kimball was presiding over the meeting at the time.
I don't have a citation for that. I think I heard it in a lecture by Michael Quinn, and I'm not even sure of that, so take this with a grain of salt.
That it used to be an actual vote and the candidate could lose - that I am sure of.
I was probably ten years old when I raised my hand a bit late, meaning to get in on the "sustain" vote, but wound up being the only hand raised during "all opposed?" The bishop or whoever, actually chuckled and said, "I assume you were in support?" over the microphone.
The bishop was THAT bad. The stake president had a short memory though. When the BP was released, the three that walked out were sustained in as the next bishopric. I was excommunicated by them.
It's done to give the illusion of a democratic vote, when the reality is that its nothing of the kind. "When your leaders speak, the thinking is done." *barf*
Even if they considered your nay vote, how are you or they qualified to judge whether or not person x should or can do the calling? All you are doing is voting to disqualify for sustainment because you never talked to the person about the calling. This is a load of crap. Why have a disqualification vote if it is majority only? Anything negative should disqualify, but since when has the Mormon church ever done anything properly when it comes to procedure and law? They are above it all because they are the one true church. They just want to ramrod through sustainment so if you don't do what a leader wants you to do, they can remind you that you sustained them. Its all about control and blackmailing into buying their authority.
Anyway, I thought that an incompetent person somehow becomes competent for their calling because of the power of discernment that led to their being called in the first place now grants them that competency. In other words, if a member is called by god, then god will bless them if they pray or whatever so they will now become competent in whatever their assignment is. So why even bother with a vote? It is irrelevant. There are no such things as counseling training or divinity degrees that most recognized clergy have. Mormon leaders are uneducated, inexperienced and ill equipped for their callings. Period.
Consider Bishops and Stake Presidents. What special training or education do they have to serve in their callings before they are called? Answer: NONE.
The church simply ignores opposing votes. Sometimes they will talk to the opposer, but nothing ever comes from it that I've seen.
I recall a murderer in our Ward once (killed his parents and dog with a shotgun while they slept as a teenager during a drug episode) who was later as an adult called to serve in YM's. There were several (only time I'd ever seen this) opposers, but he was still called and served anyway. The only concession was that he didn't serve in scouts, mainly cause the BSA have rules against convicted murderers serving as scout leaders. At least in this, they have more sense that the church does. Of course, the problem here is that the leadership kept saying: you must forgive him. Yea, like that works. Certain bad act forever disqualify people from certain things. The church doesn't recognize this. It was unfair to the boys, their familys and to this guy as well.
It's all an illusory joke that isn't funny at all.
I have seen it once - IIRC, it was a minor position within the ward - and the 'no' voter was asked to meet with the bishop afterwards..... It made no difference to the outcome. Even as a TBM, I thought the votes to sustain the GA's in GC were meaningless fluff
I saw it in my ward when I was a kid. Someone voted "nay" to the new bishop. It was a big deal and they had to stop the whole meeting/vote. The SP met with the guy and then we had the vote again and the dissenter sustained.
The one was when I was on my mission in a faraway land and they were sustaining the GAs who were at the other end of the world. A member dissented and as the above accounts were made, a time out was called and the person taken aside and talked to, then brought back and the vote was taken again with the person consenting.
The other case occured a couple of decades ago, here in the US. our best friends at the time told us about his father who'se pedigree was GA all the way. He was at firt sustained as either BP of B, can't remember which, but then, he was so horrible that the membership got together for his ouster and succeeded! I knew these people fairly well and I think that he was mentally sick. I think he was a megolomaniac. One day, as we were visiting his son in the hospital after he almost died in a car accident, I saw this man walking down the hall towards the room muttering to himself "I'm the boss, I'm the boss, I'm the boss...", as he was running his thumbs up and down his suspenders!
LOL! Nothing ever happened like that in my ward except one time this guy in his 60's (who married a 30 somethin' year old... ) got up on the stand and was preaching about politics and how you should vote for so-and-so for president during election season and then the bishop had to come up behind him, and whisper in his ear to cut it short. One of the few memories that actually made church bearable...
The subtle but important distinction is that your uplifted hand shows your commitment to 'sustain'/go along with that which has already been decided. It is not intended to affect the outcome but rather to enforce the compliance of the membership. You are agreeing to swallow any/all crap that gets shoveled from the podium onto your heads.
I do remember in one ward in SW Idaho back in the '80's there were 'opposed' hands raised about some welfare project, but they were just ignored. Most of the time it's no different from what happens when a 'vote' is called for in the N. Korean parliament.
One incident in the same ward: a man was called to be bishop who was about the most arrogant, incompetent dipstick imaginable. A groan went through the congregation when his name was announced. He was 'sustained' but almost immediately there began a steady stream of complaints to the SP. Bishop Dipstick lasted barely a year then was released. If the congregation had been permitted to voice their true feelings at the beginning that ward would have been spared a truly miserable year.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2011 12:39AM by justthinking.
Yes, it happened in my home ward when I was about 12. Two elderly men in the ward raised their hands in opposition to a bishop being called. They took them out in the foyer and talked to them and then they came back in and we sustained again and they went along. I heard later that these men had had a business dealing that went bad with the man who was called as the bishop and that is what had caused the dust up.
My mother did. She was asked what she had against Brother so-and-so? She told the Bishop, and it was quite a serious matter, but she was told to sustain him, as she must sustain the priesthood. So she voted in favour when they took a re-vote.
Within a couple of months, it had all gone horribly, horribly wrong and he was released. He came to see my mother, told her he had been very angry with her for not initially supporting him. But then he said: "Actually, I am now glad you did vote against me. They were wrong to put me forward for that position. I wish they'd listened to your voice of dissent!"
Not sustaining versus non-sustaining, but the whole notion about the superior authority and inspiration of duly annointed and appointed leaders. Growing up as a kid in the ChurchCo environment, I increasingly became aware of a repeating pattern in which people who seemed to have the highest levels of integrity, wisdom and insight were constantly being put in positions of having to grovel and submit to the supposed "authority" and "inspiration" of people who craved positions of power and authority for their own sake and who had very little to offer in the way of wisdom or integrity.
I started wondering the upside-down religion I was in. Why should the most decent, genuinely giving and honest people be constantly submitting to the authority of their inferiors?
raised his hand to oppose a new bishop. He had first hand experience dealing with him in a professional setting and knew him to be of questionable character.
When sacrament meeting was concluded he was quickly confronted by members of the stake (I assume the stake presidency) for an explantion as to why. My friend calmly explained to them - in detail - the repeated lack of integrity exhibited by this new bishop in the workplace. My freind was asked to retract his vote. He refused and walked out.
I wonder if the real reason they confronted him was to intimidate him into silence. Maybe that's why they have these "those opposed" votes, to identify potential problems.
I had about 20 "sustainings" to do in our ward one Sac meeting. It can get rather confusing and routine at times if you're the one doing it. Well on my last one, I forgot to say, "if there are any opposed, please show by the uplifted hand." No one noticed except this High Councilman who came almost leaping out of the congregation to stop the meeting. He came right up to the stand, grabbed the microphone, and took over the meeting so that he could back track and ask for "any opposed" on a library position. And then he had to explain how the "Lord requires a standard of procedure that must be followed...(and) how members MUST be given an opportunity to oppose as was the protocol in heaven before this world was created EVEN as we voted for Christs plan prior to coming here. I'm sorry to have embarrassed you Brother Rod, but this process must be followed to the T." Yeeeah. Okay.
When I was very small my father voted NO. The vote was for sustaining Brother for a position in our branch. (I was too young to know what the position was)
My father knew Brother RL pretty well, and knew he was in the habit of beating his wife and children. When sustaining votes were called for my dad raised his hand to vote opposed,and when asked why by the Branch President he simply said he did not feel this brother was living in accordance with the Holy Spirit, and he felt the position in question called for someone who would be in tune with the spirit.
Brother RL did NOT recieve the calling, and afterward told my dad that he was relieved, he felt he could not handle the calling but had not been able to refuse the Branch President, believing of course that that would be like saying NO to God Himself. He improved in controlling his temper, and he and my father were friends till their dying day.
HOWEVER- this incident did not set well with the branch president or the other brethren in the branch. For a full year none of the men in the branch would speak to my dad or shake his hand. (except Brother RL) Except---when it was time for branch conference and the district leaders were in attendance. Then the men all made a point of greeting him, shaking his hand, he was asked to give opening prayer, all very buddy-buddy. Next week, no district visitors, and again no one speaking to my dad. It was a long, strange year. This would have been around 1958-9. What an Old Boys club.
When I was called to be 2nd counselor in primary, i felt like i couldn't say no. During the sustaining, there was a lot of murmuring when my name was announced but noone said anything. It was awkward for me. And hard for me to do a good job in the position when I felt like people were watching me waiting for me to screw up. They were right, my heart wasn't in it but i stuck with it. I wish someone had opposed or that i had had the guts to say no, would have saved me a lot of useless stress.
Recently I have noticed that callings/people are grouped together for a sustaining. For example, just this Sunday, 4 people were called to be ward missionaries. They all stood up and were sustained as a whole group. I've seen this done for primary workers too.
I was in a SM a number of years ago and a guy was named for sustaining as a BP,one sister opposed and they ignored her,she stood up and shouted that she was not sustaining that man who drank alcohol and frequented pubs,total silence,she was ushered into the foyer,but she would'nt give in,one PH told her we are an obedient people,she walked away and attended another ward for a few months,only returning when the man had shown he was incapable of the position,wish I had walked right out at that time.
I once posted about my ex-branch president who drove from one Marine base to another to cast a negative vote in a stake conference because a jerk we both knew was being advanced in the priesthood to elder. The new elder had serious, serious problems, and the BP knew that it was going to turn out bad. So Roy went there and did more than just raise his hand. Afterward they interviewed him. He told SP & Co. a lot of information that he knew from being this guy's branch president, and they just did that thing about how their decision was based on inspiration and yada-yada. The guy became an elder, went through the temple with his wife and child, and shortly after his wife had a second child (on the front lawn because he never took her to the hospital), he killed his wife during a fit of rage.