DiscussMormonism.com

An interesting thing happened yesterday in priesthood, where the discussion turned to the responsiblity of members to give sustaining "votes" to church officers.

It was beginning to sound from the comments that folks were saying we really have no choice about people being presented for sustaining and that it was our obligation to sustain no matter what.

I decided to test this a little.

Somebody else had already mentioned Judas so I followed up by asking if, knowing the end from the beginning, what our response should be should Judas be presented for a sustaining vote.

Big pause. The teacher said he didn't understand my question.

I reframed it. "If Judas is presented for a sustaining vote as the new apostle, knowing what we know now, should be sustain him or not?"

The first response was a hedge, saying nobody knew how he would turn out when he was originally called.

I refocused the question--"But let's say we did know, should we sustain him?"

The teacher side-stepped the issue and went on to something else.

My concern is that the majority of members of my group seem to think it proper to sustain a wicked man to a church office.

I cannot believe this is correct, and wonder how it is we have come to such a place in the development of the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In the incident where a nine year old girl was abused during lesson time by her Mormon, Priesthood Holding, teacher there is no doubt that he had previously received a unanimous sustaining vote for his appointment to that position.

So what does the sustaining vote actually mean?

Should the ward be allowed a reasonable period of prayerful contemplation about the name put before them for a sustaining vote? For instance, this man's name could have been put before the ward members a week before his appointment was confirmed. That would give God seven days to tell the members whether or not to sustain him.

I think asking the ward to sustain someone who they have just found out is going to be appointed to a position makes the sustaining vote a nonsense.

We had the same lesson yesterday (from the George Albert Smith manual). I didn't say any of the things I was thinking, but the conclusion of the class seemed to be keep your head down, don't think too much about it, and just obey, and you'll be safe that way.

I have to agree with Drifting that viewing the sustaining process this way renders it pointless.

I also agree that officers should be presented at least a week in advance for any sustaining vote; that is if the vote is acutally supposed to be a vote and actually supposed to have any meaning.

As it is now, it is more of a ratification. And a rather blind ratification, at that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Maybe to make it more applicable to the modern LDS church you could have asked about sustaining Joseph F. Smith (Church patriarch 1942-46) who was released in Oct 49 due to concerns about the nature of his relationship with a male undergraduate student at U.of U.

Fence Sitter wrote:Maybe to make it more applicable to the modern LDS church you could have asked about sustaining Joseph F. Smith (Church patriarch 1942-46) who was released in Oct 49 due to concerns about the nature of his relationship with a male undergraduate student at U.of U.

Are you kidding me?

Do you have a source for this?

The culture surrounding the sustaining of officers and callings is blind obedience. My last bishop did some stupid things. He really offended my wife and I and also other families. There is even a family that quit coming to church while he was bishop and then returned to church after the bishop was released.

During our conflict with the bishop and something he did, my wife contested with the primary president about how she and the bishop decided to handle a situation. Her attitude was like, you are supposed to do whatever the bishop thinks, without question. It's just crazy!

We then took our complaint to the stake president and he made us feel better but I started praying for a new bishop after that.

consiglieri wrote:Are you kidding me?

Do you have a source for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fie ... _patriarch)

Fence Sitter wrote:Maybe to make it more applicable to the modern LDS church you could have asked about sustaining Joseph F. Smith (Church patriarch 1942-46) who was released in Oct 49 due to concerns about the nature of his relationship with a male undergraduate student at U.of U.

I wonder what his personal Patriarchal Blessing prophesied...