When I am at the stand asking for a sustaining vote and any who object, I make it a point to look over the congregation thoroughly - and, for the objection part, look behind me at those sitting on the stand, as well. I just think I should do what I can to make sure everyone knows I take the time to look and grant the possibility that there might be someone who would object.
In most situations, with most callings, the sustaining will be automatic and almost unthinking (which is not the ideal, but is what it is) - but there can be situations where someone knows something not available to the person extending the calling and hidden by the person accepting the calling, and I believe that such a possibility is important to validate in the minds of the members.
"By common consent" should not be an empty phrase.
The Scream
1 week ago
10 comments:
I like this. I think it's fine, even good, that objections pretty much never happen in practice. We should be open and forgiving and supporting of each others' best efforts in these (unpaid!) callings. But I like the idea of just taking a moment to look around--to let everybody see you looking around--as a visual reminder that it is taken seriously.
Apparently, there are wards where it is common for several objections to be raised for almost every calling. But it's rare.
"I think it's fine, even good, that objections pretty much never happen in practice."
I agree, Cynthia. I'm glad we generally are accepting of those who are called - at least publicly.
dehurt, I've heard of wards like that - but in my lifetime I've seen personally a vote of opposition at the ward level only once. It was done quietly, and the Bishop simply thanked everyone for their votes, made eye contact and nodded to the person who opposed and them talked privately with taht person after the meeting.
The proposed person never was set apart, and nothing ever was said about it to the congregation or anyone else. It simply didn't happen, so almost nobody was even aware of it.
That's the perfect way to handle it, imo - for situations where the opposition stops a setting apart and when it doesn't.
I like that I get to take resonsibility for sustaining those who are called to serve,but wonder if I would have the courage to go quite this public were I to know something that might compromise their worthiness in my opinion.I would certainly feel better about speaking to a Bishop in private,given that I might not know if an issue had been dealt with.In practise,it seems to me that most people might err on the side of caution when it comes to possibly embarassing themselves and those with the call,making the exercise pointless in it's potential to screen for unworthiness.I'm quite sure that was never the intention.
Great point, Anonymous. I think a confidential word to the Bishop immediately following Sacrament Meeting would be fine and understandable - especially if you were aware of something but not sure if it had been addressed already prior to the call being issued.
Some wards are on top of things and do the setting apart right after the meetings end, so it owuld have to be prior to that point.
I have raised objections afterward with the Bishop over certain callings. This was an interesting situation since I had alluded to it previously in PEC, but it went over everyone's head.
If a calling was a ward council position or a permanent priesthood advancement, I would probably publicly oppose, but for a "lower authority" calling a private word is fine.
One thing that our current ward does is call generic primary, ss, YM & YW workers. It is time to think carefully about such callings if your child could be working with that individual.
I never would have dared to pose any objection... I would have been far too scared...
I did have a bishop who knew of my situation (being abused by men in authority) who came to me and asked my opinion about a man that he wanted to call that I would have to work with in my calling. Although it felt strange at the time, I am really grateful that he did that. It helped me to feel a bit safer.
That's really cool, jen. God bless Bishops who are sensitive in ways like that.
When I was a stake executive secretary, the stake president insisted (based in part on training he received from GAs) that the request for sustaining vote was a test of faith for the sustainer. If someone raised their hand to oppose a call...ing, *their* faith and obedience was in question. I'm sure that would have been overcome if the person had information of a very significant kind, but the presumption went against the opposer.
Earlier, when I was a juvenile probation officer, I knew a young man being presented for advancement in the aaronic priesthood had quite recently been arrested for threatening a younger child with a knife in order to steal the child's candy (yes, minor in scope, but still a felony committed with a weapon), along with other illegal acts. I stepped out of the chapel rather than raising my hand to sustain or oppose, particularly since the information I had was subject to confidentiality requirements of my employment. When I posed it as a hypothetical to one of the bishop's counsellors later, he was quite indignant that I would even *consider* raising my hand to oppose. He insisted that the proper thing was to sustain what the bishop had proposed.
Yeah, Nick, sometimes we are our own worst enemies.
Post a Comment