Has anyone ever seen someone vote 'opposed' in a Church meeting?

[wuapinmon]

I've been a member for 18 years now, and I've heard tell, but never met anyone who has actually seen it done other than an old YM Pres who said he had to vote 'nay' once because they were calling some guy into a Scouting position who had a child abuse conviction way back in his past. I'm just wondering how common it is.

I thought about it when my dad was called into the bishopric, and I probably should have, but I was just starting college, and I feared he'd cut me off. It turned out to be the calling that changed him, for the better, as a person, so I'm glad I didn't, but sometimes I feel like I should have.....but then I think that it would've been mostly for me.

[Clark Addison]

When I was a kid, we had an old guy that came to Stake Conference every time, I never saw him except for then. Whenever the sustainings were done, he would lift his hand high in the air to oppose. I don't know if he was even a member, but it never seemed to have much impact, other than the whole stake got used to him, so when they would ask for the first opposed, everyone would look around to see where he was.

Other than that, I've never seen it, though I have talked to a few people who have. I would be surprised if no one on the board has seen one.

[Gidget]

Never seen it and don't know anyone who has either. What is the protocol in the instance that it happens?

I did think about doing it once when I was in high school. I had just been baptized and a priest who was one year older than me had just gotten an important calling (can't remember what it was). I had just watched him smoke pot the night before his sustaining. He was once of those cool kids in school though and everyone loved him it seemed so I was intimidated. And I didn't know enough about what the ramifications would be of me doing it, so I didn't.

[byu71]

I have never seen it done when sustaining an individual. Heard about it once and supposedly the Bishop went out and met with the person and came back and proceded with one no vote. Don't know if it was fact or fiction.

I have seen personally though a no vote. When I was young we split our Stake. At the Stake Conference we had an apostle, can't remember who, who asked for a sustaining vote for splitting the Stake. One old lady voted no. As a kid I remember the Apostle asking her to please vote yes, she wouldn't. Finally he announced the vote with one no vote sustaining the split.

I was shocked and thought old women are weird.

[kccougar]

Never seen it and don't know anyone who has either. What is the protocol in the instance that it happens?

The protocol is simply for the one asking for the sustaining vote to note who opposes and speak to them after the meeting.

I've seen it happen one time, many years ago. If I recall correctly, after the sustaining was over the bishop or one of his councilors slipped out of the meeting to talk to the person.

[TheAzzuri]

I've never seen it either, but as far as I know the bishop meets with both the "opposer" and the "opposee" separately and privately. What I don't know for sure is if it happens immediately or if it happens after sacrament meeting. My guess is immediately, but that's just a guess.

[NorthShoreCoug]

Never seen it and don't know anyone who has either. What is the protocol in the instance that it happens?

I believe the presiding authority is supposed to meet with the person who objected and find out their objections. I suppose they are then to use judgment as to how to proceed.

It is hard to imagine many situations where I would raise my hand in objection. Mostly, these would involve knowing of someone who has engaged in criminal offenses that might pertain to the specific calling - fraud/forgery/burglary for someone being entrusted with money (ward financial clerk, for example), child abuse/molesting for someone being asked to work in Primary/YW/YM, that sort of thing. I could see a few additional situations where I might privately approach the bishop after abstaining, rather than actually objecting. Someone can always be released, and generally, being called out publicly isn't in the best interest of the people involved.

[Solon]

I believe the presiding authority is supposed to meet with the person who objected and find out their objections. I suppose they are then to use judgment as to how to proceed.

It is hard to imagine many situations where I would raise my hand in objection. Mostly, these would involve knowing of someone who has engaged in criminal offenses that might pertain to the specific calling - fraud/forgery/burglary for someone being entrusted with money (ward financial clerk, for example), child abuse/molesting for someone being asked to work in Primary/YW/YM, that sort of thing. I could see a few additional situations where I might privately approach the bishop after abstaining, rather than actually objecting. Someone can always be released, and generally, being called out publicly isn't in the best interest of the people involved.

My father-in-law did it once. His wife (my mother-in-law) was called to some calling but the calling authorities never consulted him. So, when the person in the meeting read out her name and she stood up, this was the first time he had heard of her receiving (or accepting) a calling. So, he opposed (my wife was around 12 I think, at the time), and that shocked the entire ward. They waited until after the meeting and then asked his permission. Of course, he said yes and his wife was sustained the next Sunday.

My father-in-law is better now, and I've never seen this side of him, but still . . . . what a piece of work.

[SteelBlue]

I've seen it a couple of times. Most recently 3 years ago when our Bishop was sustained. A man none of us had ever seen was sitting in the back row (and had coincidentally just been turned down for some monetary aid by the Bishop of another ward meeting in the building) and seemed perhaps to be slightly under the influence. When they asked if anyone was opposed he called out "yeah, I'm opposed". The SP said "thank you sir, we'll meet with you after the meeting to discuss your opposition." He then went on as if nothing had happened. In other words, a vote of opposition does not stop the sustaining.

When the opposer left the meeting just a few minutes after his vote the SP sent his exec. sec. down to find him and ask him about his vote. The man was passed out in the women's bathroom.

[byu71]

When the sustaining happened in conference did anyone else notice when Elder Uerchdorf (sp) asked if there were any opposed he looked down and immediately moved on.

He announced "it appears it is unanimous" (or something like that).

I just make this observation in passing. I have no problem with doing that. I don't think it is good use of time to be peering out over the whole audience looking for a no vote.

[TheAzzuri]

When the opposer left the meeting just a few minutes after his vote the SP sent his exec. sec. down to find him and ask him about his vote. The man was passed out in the women's bathroom.

I'm guessing that ruined his already stellar credibility. I also wonder why stuff like this never happens where I am.

[creekster]

I have seen it. The protocol is for the presiding authority to meet with the person opposing immediately after the meeting in which the opposition is expressed. The opposition vote does not stop or prevent the effect of the sustaining vote. The vote is in the nature of a ratification by the members, but the calling has already occurred.

[wuapinmon]

I have seen it. The protocol is for the presiding authority to meet with the person opposing immediately after the meeting in which the opposition is expressed. The opposition vote does not stop or prevent the effect of the sustaining vote. The vote is in the nature of a ratification by the members, but the calling has already occurred.

Armed with this info, I wonder what would happen if a majority present voted "no."

[Solon]

Armed with this info, I wonder what would happen if a majority present voted "no."

Armageddon.

[SoonerCoug]

My parents told me that they have seen it once or twice. On a side note, the sustaining vote in Mormonism is identical to that used in Communist Party meetings. Russian converts are very surprised by it, and Commies feel right at home in Sacrament meeting.