DiscussMormonism.com

Hi,
Just curious, has anyone ever read of a past doctrine, teaching, or person receiving a "nay" vote in sustaining it/them...much less a rejection of the teaching or person?

Has anyone been in a service and seen a "nay" vote? I never did.

In writing this I wonder if there is anything in the hand book that deal with what to do if more hands were raised in the negative? I'll have to check it out...Any ex-brethern ever have to deal with this.

Thanks

Mark

My father raised in his hand on the "Is anyone opposed?" question during a Sacrament Meeting. He was Young Men's President. The Bishop read the wrong name of one of the boys being called to the Teachers Quorum Presidency.

The Bishop simply said, "It looks like there is a discrepancy. We'll discuss it in my office after Sacrament."

I saw it happen once in a ward in California when I was a kid, some 34 years ago or so.

Dr. Shades wrote:I saw it happen once in a ward in California when I was a kid, some 34 years ago or so.

I posted the same question on another forum and the feed back was that when folks have witnessed this, the person was either removed and never seen again ( exaggeration)... to... removed, counseled, and more or less escorted back with the positive vote.

I am really curious to know how and when this process started, and was it actually democratic or congressional assimilating in today's token practice... or was it always a meaningless exercise to appease the saints? I have tried google without much luck.

Thanks
Mark

Markk wrote:I am really curious to know how and when this process started, and was it actually democratic or congressional assimilating in today's token practice... or was it always a meaningless exercise to appease the saints? I have tried google without much luck.

Thanks
Mark

In the early Church, especially during the Joseph Smith era, the sustainings were much more democratic and negative votes were much more common than they are today. I'm not sure how common they were in the early Utah period, but I would guess that it is when the shift began.

It happens frequently.

Brigham Young went to Cedar City to release from his position as Stake President one of the massacre participants, William Dame. Dame, however, vigorously denied his participation. He was able to invoke a disciplinary court against himself right after the massacre and received vindication (however, there were participants on the council). I've seen an unpublished manuscript MA manuscript which attempts to defend him. But there were people who witnessed his role in it.

Pres. Young proposed a replacement. He could not get a unanimous vote; they didn't want Pres. Dame replaced. In anger, Pres. Young left the congregation, leaving Dame in place for another number of years.

Dame was arrested. On the first day of John D Lee's trial, Dame was released for lack of evidence.

I had a 'nay' vote when I was Branch President. A brother in the branch did not believe that the sister proposed for Primary President was worthy.

We sorted out the issue during Sacrament Meeting, and the sister was unanimously sustained (including the brother who had objected) at the end of the meeting.

I don't recall exactly, but it seems there was a general conference or two, in the 90's I think, that a few partipants that were present voted a non-sustaining vote for the presendency.

Might have been related to the sept. 6

When I object to someone, I simply don't attend, or I abstain from the vote.

I don't know that "frequently" is an accurate description. After all, you had to go back over 150 years to come up with an example. ;-)

However, I will say that I think a mountain is being made out of a mole hill here as far as the voting process is concerned.

Most of the time, people don't object to folks being placed in new callings. However, once in a while, there is a problem, or a mistake has been made. That's why the process is in place.

Yahoo Bot wrote:It happens frequently.

Brigham Young went to Cedar City to release from his position as Stake President one of the massacre participants, William Dame. Dame, however, vigorously denied his participation. He was able to invoke a disciplinary court against himself right after the massacre and received vindication (however, there were participants on the council). I've seen an unpublished manuscript MA manuscript which attempts to defend him. But there were people who witnessed his role in it.

Pres. Young proposed a replacement. He could not get a unanimous vote; they didn't want Pres. Dame replaced. In anger, Pres. Young left the congregation, leaving Dame in place for another number of years.

Dame was arrested. On the first day of John D Lee's trial, Dame was released for lack of evidence.