Opposing a Newly Called Member?

[Anddenex]

When I venture to communicate with people on Youtube, I read a statement that once said, "The LDS church is controlling, for example, if you ever try to oppose someone who is called to the Bishopric you will be disfellowshipped or excommunicated."

At the time, I was thinking, that is probably never going to happen, however I have been thinking:

If a person opposes the calling a Bishopric member, or a Stake Presidency member, and they find the accusation to be faulty, what happens to the individual who opposed the member?

Has anybody here been in a ward where this has happened? If so, what is the doctrine or guidelines the church follows. I have never read anything on this subject.

[Just_A_Guy]

This happened when my grandfather was sustained as a branch president in California back in the '50s. AFAIK, nothing happened to the guy that objected.

[Heber13]

My understanding of the process is that if a person does is opposed to the calling, then the presiding authority at the meeting is supposed to meet with the opposer privately.

If the accusations are faulty, then they move ahead with the person being called, and nothing happens to the person who opposed. If done privately, no one else should know what the false accusations are.

If the person opposing becomes a problem with not sustaining the leader publicly and verbally, disciplinary action can take place.

[applepansy]

Nothing happened to the person who opposed sustaining a new bishop in a ward we lived in.

[beefche]

I'm going to take an educated guess and say that the commenter on the youtube video is either the one who objected or close to someone. And I'm going to continue with my educated guess that the objector didn't just object, talk to the presiding authority and let that person handle it. I'm thinking the objector went public with the accusations, criticisms of the the leadership and criticized the church or taught something false.

But, those are all speculations.

[Gwen]

I've objected before and I'm still here. lol I'm going to go with beefche that this person has no idea what they are talking about or did a lot more than object and are still bitter about it.

[Vort]

When I venture to communicate with people on Youtube, I read a statement that once said, "The LDS church is controlling, for example, if you ever try to oppose someone who is called to the Bishopric you will be disfellowshipped or excommunicated."

At the time, I was thinking, that is probably never going to happen, however I have been thinking:

If a person opposes the calling a Bishopric member, or a Stake Presidency member, and they find the accusation to be faulty, what happens to the individual who opposed the member?

Has anybody here been in a ward where this has happened? If so, what is the doctrine or guidelines the church follows. I have never read anything on this subject.

This is blatantly false. My father-in-law was one of the best men I have ever known. He even served as bishop while Sister Vort was growing up. He worked with the son of a fellow ward member, a friend, who acted in a very dishonest manner and basically swindled him. This man was later called to be bishop. My father-in-law stood up and publicly objected to his calling. He was interviewed by the stake presidency, and the man was ordained and served as bishop.

What disciplinary action was taken toward my father-in-law? Not a thing. Not. A. Thing. He continued to serve in various callings, be fellowshipped, and be loved until the day he died.

Anti-Mormons are very often liars. In my opinion, you would do well to ignore them whenever possible.

[Anddenex]

I'm going to take an educated guess and say that the commenter on the youtube video is either the one who objected or close to someone. And I'm going to continue with my educated guess that the objector didn't just object, talk to the presiding authority and let that person handle it. I'm thinking the objector went public with the accusations, criticisms of the the leadership and criticized the church or taught something false.

But, those are all speculations.

It is roughly under the same idea. Anti-Mormon, never a member, but he was told by a member who is now in their congregation, and was a LDS member at some point.

[Anddenex]

This is blatantly false. My father-in-law was one of the best men I have ever known. He even served as bishop while Sister Vort was growing up. He worked with the son of a fellow ward member, a friend, who acted in a very dishonest manner and basically swindled him. This man was later called to be bishop. My father-in-law stood up and publicly objected to his calling. He was interviewed by the stake presidency, and the man was ordained and served as bishop.

What disciplinary action was taken toward my father-in-law? Not a thing. Not. A. Thing. He continued to serve in various callings, be fellowshipped, and be loved until the day he died.

Anti-Mormons are very often liars. In my opinion, you would do well to ignore them whenever possible.

Thank you. When I first read these words from an anti-Mormon, I felt the same way. However, I have never experienced or been in a sacrament meeting when this has happened. I also have never come across any statement in Handbook 2, specifying how this is handled.

Without finding or reading any official statement I assumed what Just_A_Guy and Heber13 shared.

This is good to know people who have experienced, or new someone personal, to provide knowledge now, verses living off my opinion.

I must say though, your father-in-law's experience brings up some other questions of mine.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Anddenex

[Bensalem]

I'm going to take an educated guess and say that the commenter on the youtube video is either the one who objected or close to someone. And I'm going to continue with my educated guess that the objector didn't just object, talk to the presiding authority and let that person handle it. I'm thinking the objector went public with the accusations, criticisms of the the leadership and criticized the church or taught something false.

But, those are all speculations.

Maybe the guy is just uneducated about what really happens.

[Bensalem]

I would like to ask a related question that effected me personally: A member and I were starting a new job together offered by a third member who owner her own business. As we went through her orientation before starting the job she and her husband (also a member) noticed the smell of alcohol on the fellow applicant. She asked me if I knew of any issues with this member and since I didn't I said no. Some time after he was rejected for the job, his wife confided in me that he did have an issue with alcohol.

My question is: If he had been called to serve in the church should I have objected, evaluated the calling and the likelihood of his issues hampering him, or assumed the Bishop must know and sustained him? Likewise, if you were the wife, should you raise an objection?

Edited July 20, 2012 by Bensalem

[Anddenex]

I would say it really depends on the position the individual is called to.

I have a friend who struggled with coffee who was called into the Primary Presidency. One time she was asked to give a lesson on the word of wisdom and she wouldn't give the talk. She said, how could I give a lesson on the word of wisdom if I am breaking it, it is hypocritical. She later stopped drinking coffee.

If a man is struggling with alcohol and is called to the Bishopric, then I think this would be an appropriate time to object.

However, this view is from my minds eye.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Anddenex

[skippy740]

I heard a story (don't remember from where or the exact details), but a man was called to be bishop. A sustaining vote was asked. Any opposed? One woman stood up for all to see. Apparently this woman was the one that the newly called bishop was having an affair with.

Take it for what it's worth - a story heard from who knows how long ago - and of course, one would think that one of the two would've confessed to the prior bishop.

It's only a story.

[Convert55]

A sustaining vote is not really a vote of acceptance in the democratic since. In other words the Bishop is asking each member if they can support the person being called and help them be successful. In my view, that is what we are agreeing too.

I have seen where a non-member was called to a church position; like in primary, scouts, or in a Sunday school position. Callings don't come without an interview and some assurances no matter what the member's/ non-member's status is.

The Bishop is likely aware of some interviewee's bad habits and may be making a call as an incentive to improve ones life. I know that is how I feel every time I receive a call.

If you believe that the person has not repented of a deep moral transgression, then it is your duty to oppose the sustaining and express your views in private with the Bishopric.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Convert55

[Magen_Avot]

As EQP I once opposed the Aaronic Priesthood for a newly baptised 51 yo member with reasons the BP knew about. Even though the BP knew my reasoning he discussed it briefly with me after I opposed it. He ordained the guy anyway in the HP Quorum, outside my pervue. The story is much longer than whats here but I felt obligated to oppose in order to defend of the guy I opposed. I know that sounds contradictory but it's really about the person being sustained and how they can best be blessed, it's not about 'me', IMO.

[Martain]

Have they repented? Are they repenting? Does the Bishop know and has he or is he counseling with them? If the Lord remembers their sins no more, neither will I. If the bishop does not see the situation as a hindrance to them being called then neither do I.

Yet what if they have not repented or are not repenting? What if the Bishop does not know and has not counseled with them? Did I not sustain and agree to uphold my Bishop? Am I sustaining him if I withhold from him pertinent facts pertaining to the decision he is making?

Outside of knowing paragraph one, I would raise my hand in opposition. Then when asked privately I would voice why. Is such not our duty and responsibility?

D&C 64

12 And him that repenteth not of his sins, and confesseth them not, ye shall bring before the church, and do with him as the scripture saith unto you, either by commandment or by revelation.

13 And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—

Yet having done this what then?

Bishop's are judges in Israel and have a stewardship given to them by the Lord. While it is not our place to judge the sinner, it is his. If even still he judges them worthy of the calling, who am I to object? I raised my hand and agreed to sustain and uphold my Bishop in his calling and decisions and so I shall. It would then be my pleasure to raise my hand in approval when the matter is again put forth to the ward.

Have I done anything wrong? No but I have done that which is right and just before the Lord. None need fear that in doing the above they would be punished or condemned for objecting.

Yet sadly there are those who even after coming forward refuse to accept the judgement of the Bishop. In pride and a spirit of rebellion they will reject the decision of their priesthood leader and instead take the matter into their own hands causing a great deal of pain and suffering for all those involved.

Such are guilty of not only pride and a spirit of rebellion but sins even worse than those which they cry.

D&C 64

9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God audge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

If you can't in good conscience raise your hand to sustain someone then raise your hand to object. Make known your reasons and concerns and then humble yourself to accept what ever decision the Bishop through his rights of stewardship makes.

D&C 64

12 And him that repenteth not of his sins, and confesseth them not, ye shall bring before the church, and do with him as the scripture saith unto you, either by commandment or by revelation.

13 And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—

Edited August 5, 2012 by Martain

[ClickyClack]

If a person opposes the calling a Bishopric member, or a Stake Presidency member, and they find the accusation to be faulty, what happens to the individual who opposed the member?

Has anybody here been in a ward where this has happened? If so, what is the doctrine or guidelines the church follows. I have never read anything on this subject.

There is a gentleman in our ward who is quite cantankerous and grumpy... to put it mildly. He raised his hand against the stake president for personal, grumpy, personality reasons. No disciplinary action was taken.