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

[Solon]

My parents told me that they have seen it once or twice.

Do you mean your parents have seen an opposing vote, or a majority opposed?

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.

MRD and I used to call the sustaining portion of sacrament meeting "the fascist election." Only one candidate, and the party secures your election with a public arm-salute.

(yes, we're irreverent)

[SoonerCoug]

Do you mean your parents have seen an opposing vote, or a majority opposed?



MRD and I used to call the sustaining portion of sacrament meeting "the fascist election." Only one candidate, and the party secures your election with a public arm-salute.

(yes, we're irreverent)

A single opposing vote.

[Katy Lied]

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.

Yes but at least we dont follow our unanimous vote with 40 minutes of cheering applause.

[creekster]

Yes but at least we dont follow our unanimous vote with 40 minutes of cheering applause.

Your ward doesn't do that?

[creekster]

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

It would not change the calling, althoguh with sufficient reaon, the calling could be revoked. The sustaining vote is for the members to ratify, not to authorize.

[Solon]

It would not change the calling, althoguh with sufficient reaon, the calling could be revoked. The sustaining vote is for the members to ratify, not to authorize.

This is how it works today, I guess, but it doesn't seem to have always been the case:

In 1843, Joseph Smith wanted Sidney Rigdon out of the first presidency, and to replace him with Amasa Lyman. Rigdon, in his General Conference address, asked to be retained, and the members voted it so when asked.

Joseph Smith said, "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. You may carry him, but I will not."

[TripletDaddy]

It would not change the calling, althoguh with sufficient reaon, the calling could be revoked. The sustaining vote is for the members to ratify, not to authorize.

Isn't it more ceremonial now than anything? Is there a procedure to follow if nobody ratifies? Assume for a second that there is no Yes vote and no No vote.

I think the most practical aspect of a public sustaining is simply to allow members to see and identify the person receiving the call. Half the time I have no clue who these people are that are getting called to be 3rd Enrichment night planner or Alternate Gospel Essentials teacher.

I don't really buy the oft-cited interpretation that we will be held accountable for not being obedient to those leaders whom we sustain with a raised hand. That would suggest a major loophole in the system....simply don't sustain anyone but then subsequently be obedient. Is there anything magical in raising your hand in a Yes vote? It isn't even a vote, so I should stop calling it that.

If we are going to get busted for not doing our home teaching, the fact that we sustained so and so as the EQP will not have much bearing on the matter. Our daily commandments and requirements are fairly clear, regardless of who the Bishop may be at the time.

[creekster]

This is how it works today, I guess, but it doesn't seem to have always been the case:

In 1843, Joseph Smith wanted Sidney Rigdon out of the first presidency, and to replace him with Amasa Lyman. Rigdon, in his General Conference address, asked to be retained, and the members voted it so when asked.

Joseph Smith said, "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. You may carry him, but I will not."

Not sure that that event is any different. IOW, JS chose to ingore the popular vote? You are right,however, that it is different now.

[Solon]

Not sure that that event is any different. IOW, JS chose to ingore the popular vote? You are right,however, that it is different now.

Joseph Smith had to keep him on despite his wishes. It's even more crazy since, in this case, he was unable to choose his own counselor, something you'd think would be a given.

[Hallelujah]

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.

Yes. About 10 years ago.

[BlueHair]

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.

I've always thought the permission thing was weird. A few years back the Bishopric stopped by and asked me if they could call my wife to be in the Young Women's program. I told them to ask her. She was sitting right next to me. She accepted then called them back the next day and backed out. It was a strange experience all the way around.

[LA Ute]

Joseph Smith had to keep him on despite his wishes. It's even more crazy since, in this case, he was unable to choose his own counselor, something you'd think would be a given.

Lots of things happened in the early Church that seem very odd now. They were still figuring things out.

[Solon]

Lots of things happened in the early Church that seem very odd now. They were still figuring things out.

Oh, that's the explanation? Thanks for pointing that out. So, I guess we can go ahead and characterize the vast differences between 19th century and 21st century Morminism as a bunch of primitives inventing their LDS wheel.

Your paradigm of progress is the antithesis of all other dispensations in LDS belief. In every other scenario, the TRUTH is revealed and then it slowly decays through gradual apostasy until another restoration occurs.

Apparently this time around, it was a gradual evolution to today's enlightened, well-oiled machine. Forgive me if I seek a less simplistic explanation.

[YOhio]

Oh, that's the explanation? Thanks for pointing that out. So, I guess we can go ahead and characterize the vast differences between 19th century and 21st century Morminism as a bunch of primitives inventing their LDS wheel.

Your paradigm of progress is the antithesis of all other dispensations in LDS belief. In every other scenario, the TRUTH is revealed and then it slowly decays through gradual apostasy until another restoration occurs.

Apparently this time around, it was a gradual evolution to today's enlightened, well-oiled machine. Forgive me if I seek a less simplistic explanation.

Oooh! You're sassy today!

[Tex]

Oh, that's the explanation? Thanks for pointing that out. So, I guess we can go ahead and characterize the vast differences between 19th century and 21st century Morminism as a bunch of primitives inventing their LDS wheel.

Your paradigm of progress is the antithesis of all other dispensations in LDS belief. In every other scenario, the TRUTH is revealed and then it slowly decays through gradual apostasy until another restoration occurs.

Apparently this time around, it was a gradual evolution to today's enlightened, well-oiled machine. Forgive me if I seek a less simplistic explanation.

We've evolved as a society to accept homosexuality as normal behavior, so why not? "Evolving standards of decency," remember?

In all seriousness, LA Ute has a perfectly reasonable explanation. It explains many things that are different today than in the early church. Prophet or no, Joseph was still a 20- or 30-something man who was *gasp* fallible, along with many of the other brethren. Over time, experience and further revelation has taught us how improve upon things.