IN my 35+ yrs as an active member I never saw anybody NOT sustained or have the calling w/D. Ive jeard of 2 stories were they were opposed, the people called out & talked to & than sustained. But never opposes to the to the point of having it w/d. Any of you?

No but I have also seen twice where people raised their hands against this person getting their calling but he/she got it any way.

Once the person who was being called to a position raised their own hand when asked "anyone opposed?" and the stake president conducting said, "you're out voted" and it got a big laugh. I think that person truly didn't want the position.

a nonny mouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once the person who was being called to a position
> raised their own hand when asked "anyone opposed?"
> and the stake president conducting said, "you're
> out voted" and it got a big laugh. I think that
> person truly didn't want the position.


Every time someone tells me that "Oh, no, the church never makes you take a calling you don't want" (as I tell the story of my mother being bullied into taking a calling she didn't want), I'm going to remember this anecdote.

Do callings have to be unanimous? If someone opposes, and the higher up talks to them and they continue to oppose, can't they just give the job to them anyway and say the opposer is wrong?

If someone opposed because they knew of some sin that the candidate had committed it would reflect poorly on the leaders. Figuring they claim that God inspires them to make these callings.

Granted this is all nonsense anyway.

I think the point is to make the members responsible to the person being called - not to overrule the bishop or bring to light sins. I've heard more than one bishop say "You raised your hand to the square to sustain ____ to their position. Now if they ask you to do something, you are obligated to do it. You've promised God in church you would." Or something along those lines. So when I sustain Sister Bitchy to be RS president and she asks me to put on a big RS social for her, despite having a calling in Primary, then theoretically, I have to help her when she asks. I promised to sustain her in her position and that means I have to help her when she needs it.

I don't think the almighty leaders, with their giant priesthoods, really want feedback on whether or not they've made the right decision to put someone in a position. They want leverage.

We vote to support our deacons, elders and pastors. Everyone goes through a private process to make sure they want the job before it's put to the congregation. I have never seen anyone voted against.

However, when it comes to matters of policy or budget, there is often a mixed vote. We have called congregational meetings several times a year, and those can get pretty heated.

We used to have an annoying guy who voted no to everything just to be an idiot.

Some have heard this before, so they will know who I am.

The man that was the bishop when I got back into the church did oppose my sustaining. The current bishop talked with him and with me, then went to the SP. They decided I would still get the calling. The previous bishop kept going higher. About six months later it was a GA that determined I was to be released. The current bishop was worried about the appearance of being released so soon, giving me another fairly big calling to replace the other to try and prevent ward gossip.

I like to think it caused some cog dis in others besides myself. It took me another 10 years before I left, but it definitely had an impact. I had several I worked with in both callings that if they didn't know the full reason recognized some of it. I had comments from others about so much for forgive and forget on the part of the bishop.

That same exbishop was my son's home teaching partner. That son resigned 5 years before I made the break.

I saw once in a stake conference several people raise their hands to "anyone opposed" for one man's stake calling. I don't remember the circumstances, but I remember my parents saying he had done some pretty shady stuff. One of the speakers then railed on the congregation, saying we needed to sustain our leaders and go with what they say. It just taught me as a teenager that the church is going to do whatever it wants, despite how members feel about it.

It's reminds me of the "free elections" that dictators hold.

As I understand they used to mean something back in the early church - Joseph Smith tried to boot Sidney Rigdon as his first councilor but the people voted against him.

Nowadays since everyone is told that callings come directly from God, you can't very well vote against God, now can you?