Church Admin Question

[liberty]

Can a member on probation enter a dissenting vote?

HofL

[jo1952]

Can a member on probation enter a dissenting vote?

HofL

Good question. I have another. If a member in "good standing" enters a dissenting vote, can they remain a member in good standing?

[boo]

Yes. there is no " pre-qualification ' test that must pass

[sevenator]

A member who is not in good standing cannot sustain or oppose anything brought before the ward or quorum. I suppose they could raise their hand, but they would basically be ignored by the bishop or the counselor conducting the sustaining vote.

A member in good standing, if making a dissenting vote, will be taken aside after the meeting and basically asked for the reason. If the reason is valid, the matter should be pursued and brought to closure. If the matter has been settled and the dissenter unaware, he/she would be made aware at that point. The dissenting vote would have no bearing on the member's good standing. Actions that follow, however, may have an effect.

From Handbook 2: Administering the Church:

If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position. Dissenting votes from nonmembers need not be considered.

[jo1952]

A member who is not in good standing cannot sustain or oppose anything brought before the ward or quorum. I suppose they could raise their hand, but they would basically be ignored by the bishop or the counselor conducting the sustaining vote.

A member in good standing, if making a dissenting vote, will be taken aside after the meeting and basically asked for the reason. If the reason is valid, the matter should be pursued and brought to closure. If the matter has been settled and the dissenter unaware, he/she would be made aware at that point. The dissenting vote would have no bearing on the member's good standing. Actions that follow, however, may have an effect.

From Handbook 2: Administering the Church:

If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position. Dissenting votes from nonmembers need not be considered.

This is how it is done on a local level. At GC, though those in attendance are given the opportunity to either sustain or dissent, a unanimous sustaining is assumed and presented by the individual assigned to perform that duty. The sustaining is pre-written into the presentation as though there are no dissents.

[sevenator]

There could be dissents relating to GC. It used to be that there was a ward or stake clerk in the chapel for the broadcasts and one of their duties was to note (as in a regular sacrament meeting) if the voting was unanimous or not.

That said, even when physically in attendance at GC, the standard from the handbook would stand. Any meeting with the dissenters would be done in private, after the meeting. The dissent would be noted and the regular program of the meeting would continue. The sustaining isn't really "pre-written", but the meeting wouldn't be stopped to address the matter.

[jo1952]

There could be dissents relating to GC. It used to be that there was a ward or stake clerk in the chapel for the broadcasts and one of their duties was to note (as in a regular sacrament meeting) if the voting was unanimous or not.

That said, even when physically in attendance at GC, the standard from the handbook would stand. Any meeting with the dissenters would be done in private, after the meeting. The dissent would be noted and the regular program of the meeting would continue. The sustaining isn't really "pre-written", but the meeting wouldn't be stopped to address the matter.

Thank you for the information, Sevenator. I seem to recall such a time as you described in your first paragraph. Today, it seems, more and more people stay home to listen to or watch GC either on TV, or on the Internet. Even when I first joined the Church back in 1974, I preferred to stay at home so that I could listen to GC on the radio in the comfort of my own home. As such, for the most part, dissents would not have been known about by many of the members.

If the meeting isn't stopped, then it IS pre-written.

I have serious concerns for how this process works in the Church today.

[sevenator]

The process is flawed because the meeting isn't stopped to address a dissenting vote? Is that your contention here?

Just because the meeting isn't stopped does not mean the concern is not addressed. Would you want the meeting to be stopped so that someone could just air a grievance based on false pretenses? In front of the entire ward/stake/ church? What would that accomplish? What end would that serve? There are a great many matters that deserve discretion and privacy in consideration of all parties involved. You seem to be making the case for valid dissenting votes and that's fine, but even then members shouldn't have things aired out in the middle of a meeting. Vote in the negative and discuss the matter with the appropriate leader.

Since you seem to be slanting toward GC here, tell me...for whom among the general authorities are you wanting to cast a dissenting vote?

[jo1952]

The process is flawed because the meeting isn't stopped to address a dissenting vote? Is that your contention here?

No, that is not my contention. My contention is that, although the laity appears to have the ability to either sustain or dissent, we do not actually have the ability to dissent----only to sustain. IOW, the sustaining done in GC is a foregone conclusion.

Just because the meeting isn't stopped does not mean the concern is not addressed. Would you want the meeting to be stopped so that someone could just air a grievance based on false pretenses? In front of the entire ward/stake/ church? What would that accomplish? What end would that serve? There are a great many matters that deserve discretion and privacy in consideration of all parties involved. You seem to be making the case for valid dissenting votes and that's fine, but even then members shouldn't have things aired out in the middle of a meeting. Vote in the negative and discuss the matter with the appropriate leader.

Do not forget that we are considering those in "good standing" who may have very legitimate knowledge to present through dissent. As such, I would want a legitimate dissent to be addressed. Otherwise, my point finds weight wherein a member in good standing cannot dissent at the GC level without then being considered to NOT be in good standing.

The Lord gave Joseph procedures to follow. I understand that dissent should be held privately IF the offense was done privately. Still, if an offense effects the members, the members have the right to know. In the early Restored Church, such things WERE aired in front of the Church; and the members were told about it. Some of it remains aired within our canonized Scripture not only for the entire Church to see; but also for the entire world to see. In GC it is okay only to sustain in front of the entire Church. It is impossible for a dissent to be seen or acknowledged or dealt with before a sustaining is confirmed. At every GC there are individuals being released and new individuals being sustained for various positions. It is entirely possible that members in good standing are privy to knowledge which should prevent some of the new individuals from being sustained; or at the least there are circumstances which should be investigated. How is it possible for someone who has legitimate cause for dissent to stop someone from being sustained? I am NOT pointing to anyone in particular; I am speaking about procedures. At the local ward and stake levels, a dissent halts a sustaining until the issue is dealt with. Once dealt with, if a sustaining is still the appropriate action to take, the sustaining is re-presented. At least that is how things used to proceed.

It has gotten to the point that even a discussion of the procedures themselves are difficult, if almost impossible, to speak about. Today many things ARE upside down.

[Nan]

I can't even imagine if they stopped gc for dissenting votes how many they would have that would come from people who want things like gay marriage being okay, women holding the priesthood, ect. What a mess that would cause.

[ajax]

I can't even imagine if they stopped gc for dissenting votes how many they would have that would come from people who want things like gay marriage being okay, women holding the priesthood, ect. What a mess that would cause.

It would make great TV.

[sevenator]

The process is flawed because the meeting isn't stopped to address a dissenting vote? Is that your contention here?

No, that is not my contention. My contention is that, although the laity appears to have the ability to either sustain or dissent, we do not actually have the ability to dissent----only to sustain. IOW, the sustaining done in GC is a foregone conclusion.

Just because the meeting isn't stopped does not mean the concern is not addressed. Would you want the meeting to be stopped so that someone could just air a grievance based on false pretenses? In front of the entire ward/stake/ church? What would that accomplish? What end would that serve? There are a great many matters that deserve discretion and privacy in consideration of all parties involved. You seem to be making the case for valid dissenting votes and that's fine, but even then members shouldn't have things aired out in the middle of a meeting. Vote in the negative and discuss the matter with the appropriate leader.

Do not forget that we are considering those in "good standing" who may have very legitimate knowledge to present through dissent. As such, I would want a legitimate dissent to be addressed. Otherwise, my point finds weight wherein a member in good standing cannot dissent at the GC level without then being considered to NOT be in good standing.

The Lord gave Joseph procedures to follow. I understand that dissent should be held privately IF the offense was done privately. Still, if an offense effects the members, the members have the right to know. In the early Restored Church, such things WERE aired in front of the Church; and the members were told about it. Some of it remains aired within our canonized Scripture not only for the entire Church to see; but also for the entire world to see. In GC it is okay only to sustain in front of the entire Church. It is impossible for a dissent to be seen or acknowledged or dealt with before a sustaining is confirmed. At every GC there are individuals being released and new individuals being sustained for various positions. It is entirely possible that members in good standing are privy to knowledge which should prevent some of the new individuals from being sustained; or at the least there are circumstances which should be investigated. How is it possible for someone who has legitimate cause for dissent to stop someone from being sustained? I am NOT pointing to anyone in particular; I am speaking about procedures. At the local ward and stake levels, a dissent halts a sustaining until the issue is dealt with. Once dealt with, if a sustaining is still the appropriate action to take, the sustaining is re-presented. At least that is how things used to proceed.

It has gotten to the point that even a discussion of the procedures themselves are difficult, if almost impossible, to speak about. Today many things ARE upside down.

While a meeting (ANY meeting - Sacrament, Stake Conference, General Conference, whatever) is not "stopped" for a dissenting vote, and the sustaining not "stopped", the person presented for a sustaining vote would not be set apart until the matter had been resolved.

Jo, I feel like you're spending a lot of energy on "what if" situations. I would want legitimate dissension addressed, just like you stated you would. I have seen votes in the negative addressed in the manner prescribed in the handbook. The fact of the matter is that it is extremely rare. If things I have read here regarding experiences with various bishops and other leaders in the church are factual (not suggesting that they aren't), then perhaps it shouldn't be so rare.

I have also witnessed people abstain from sustaining an individual for personal reasons that do not have any effect on the worthiness or ability of the person presented for sustaining. The mechanisms of the instructions given to Joseph are still in place, but it is not possible for a member in Buenos Aires to vote in the negative on a sustaining in real-time during General Conference. It's just not possible. Is that problematic? I suppose it could be but it has been my personal experience that any legitimate concerns, brought to the attention of the appropriate leaders, are always addressed. If you have experience to the contrary, then please speak to that.

[davedan]

Sustaining are not votes. Sustainings have more to do with the giving consent.

Sustainings are done for the members in good standing to show they are in good standing.

Sustaining are giving consent for the called person to receive revelation and have authority on your behalf in the area of their calling.

By casting a decenting vote without justification would be to manifest that you are NOT in good standing but have some prideful "bone to pick"

[EmmaLee]

"No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65).

This instruction was reemphasized three months later:

"All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2).

Below is from - http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/04/com ... hetocracy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“The Church has a right to reject or approve of revelations… Before a revelation can be accepted by the Church, as a law, it must in some form or other be presented to the Church and accepted by the Church” [9]. Interestingly Apostle Taylor (who was removed from his position for practicing polygamy after the Manifesto, explained that he never sustained the Manifesto when it was presented and therefore was not required to be obedient to that principle. So what is the role of Common Consent, is it supposed to be a test for the membership as to whether they follow their leaders or is it intended to a mechanism to work as a check/balance to ensure the Church is on course?"

9. Wilford Woodruff, cited in Von Wagoner et al, The Lectures on Faith: A Case Study in De-canonization in Dialogue, 1987, vol. 20, no. 3, 74.

“And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:7)

Mosiah said, “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.” (Mosiah 29: 26)

The Lord said, “And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.” (D&C 26: 2)

The Lord said, “For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” (D&C 28: 13)

The Lord said, “And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference;” (D&C 124:144)

[jo1952]

I am observing a problem. I do not have the answers. Perhaps some method of pre-GC meetings at local levels are in order in which members can be told who is going to be presented for various sustainings in order for any dissents to be addressed. That way the automatic setting aparts which take place after GC will NOT take place while any legitimate dissents are in question; because the sustaining would not even be presented unless everything is in proper order.

God has also taught us a method to follow for sustaining or dissenting. That is not happening at the most important level within the Church. The words are formally gone through for presenting BOTH sustaining motions AND dissenting motions. However, the ONLY announcement being made is a "unanimous" sustaining motion. That motion has been pre-written into the presentation process. It is NOT a presentation of the truth of what has taken place; not unless those who have written and/or are giving the presentation are gifted with world-wide mind-reading and "sight"-seeing abilities. This in itself is a deception taking place during times when even the elect can be deceived; and we are embracing it. There has been no period of time for the procedure of dissents to be addressed before the "unanimous" sustaining is announced, which is followed quickly by the setting apart. Do we not recognize that this is what is actually taking place? God gives us what we want. We should be careful what we ask for; especially during troubled times.

Davedan, are we to believe that everyone who is presented for a sustaining at GC is automatically to be considered someone in good standing? If so, please explain why God gave us procedures to present dissents in the first place.

Sevenator, do I understand you correctly? Is the legitimate dissent not worth asking for or to follow up because it is rare?

Satan can deceive even the enlightened; in fact, he can appear as an angel of light. God has given us a method of at least attempting to keep him out of our midst. Why are we so willing to abandon this tool, especially at the GC level? Why is ANYONE upset that I suggest we follow the procedures the Lord gave us?

[jo1952]

"No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65).

This instruction was reemphasized three months later:

"All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2).

Below is from - http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/04/com ... hetocracy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“The Church has a right to reject or approve of revelations… Before a revelation can be accepted by the Church, as a law, it must in some form or other be presented to the Church and accepted by the Church” [9]. Interestingly Apostle Taylor (who was removed from his position for practicing polygamy after the Manifesto, explained that he never sustained the Manifesto when it was presented and therefore was not required to be obedient to that principle. So what is the role of Common Consent, is it supposed to be a test for the membership as to whether they follow their leaders or is it intended to a mechanism to work as a check/balance to ensure the Church is on course?"

9. Wilford Woodruff, cited in Von Wagoner et al, The Lectures on Faith: A Case Study in De-canonization in Dialogue, 1987, vol. 20, no. 3, 74.

“And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:7)

Mosiah said, “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.” (Mosiah 29: 26)

The Lord said, “And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.” (D&C 26: 2)

The Lord said, “For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” (D&C 28: 13)

The Lord said, “And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference;” (D&C 124:144)

Wow, Stella! Thank you. I hadn't realized there were so many evidences of this! Especially, the following which specifically addresses General Conference:

The Lord said, “And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference;” (D&C 124:144)

WHY are we not following this COMMANDMENT???!!!!

[samizdat]

We are following that commandment. At the stake and local level, when people see General Conference in the chapels where I live (central Mexico) there have been a few dissenting votes. They are then invited to go to the stake or ward leadership to explain why they feel that way.

Another thing, in General Conference in 1980, there were THREE dissenting votes in live conference, and they were noted. The three were later excommunicated, given that their protest was over the ERA.

Here is the link to that conference. The video is rather instructive. http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jo1952]

We are following that commandment. At the stake and local level, when people see General Conference in the chapels where I live (central Mexico) there have been a few dissenting votes. They are then invited to go to the stake or ward leadership to explain why they feel that way.

Another thing, in General Conference in 1980, there were THREE dissenting votes in live conference, and they were noted. The three were later excommunicated, given that their protest was over the ERA.

Here is the link to that conference. The video is rather instructive. http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I mentioned, most people (at least in the USA), watch or listen to GC at home. Should they hear a name being read for a position about whom they have knowledge which needs to be taken into consideration, there is zero opportunity for a dissent to be acknowledged. Of course, we can take the issue to our local leaders; but the dissent was NOT recognized at General Conference the way we are commanded.

As you have demonstrated, dissenting votes are NOT recognized at the GC level---the dissents, though investigated at Ward or Stake leadership levels on behalf of the GC level---are NOT being taken into consideration at the time the GC presenter announces that the sustaining is unanimous. As such, the presentation that the sustaining is unanimous is a lie. Effectively, we are NOT keeping the Commandment...though at least some areas may be trying to go through the motion of keeping the Commandment; which, btw, I am glad to hear.

In order to keep this Commandment, we need to find a way to really keep it. These times are too perilous not to find an effective way to keep it, and especially to be honest about it. Currently, we are not being honest. Obviously, if there are people voicing dissent during GC while they are in a Ward or Stake building listening to GC, then it is a lie for the presentation to be made during GC that the sustaining is unanimous. The Commandment is that it is during General Conference that the voice of the people should be heard; but it is not being heard. Rather, a pre-written, foregone conclusion of unanimous sustaining is being heard and recorded. I would offer that this is also being recorded in Heaven. As such, a lie is being recorded in Heaven, and the Church will need to explain why.

Personally, I don't want to face the Lord and have to answer the question why I supported the perpetuation of any untruth; especially not with the excuse that the Commandment was just too hard to keep, and so I did nothing and went with the flow. I realize that some will think this is insignificant, or that I am making a big deal out of something so commonly accepted by the members. Now that I have had my eyes opened to what is actually taking place, I cannot un-know this.

[Nan]

actually sustaining is you raising your hand and saying that you will help them in any way to accomplish the calling they have been called too. So I guess i would be more concerned if I was doing my part to help others than standing around judging whether other's are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

[sevenator]

Sevenator, do I understand you correctly? Is the legitimate dissent not worth asking for or to follow up because it is rare?

No, you do not understand me correctly. I did not in any fashion insinuate that legitimate dissent is not worth asking for.

I'll quote myself from my above post:

I would want legitimate dissension addressed, just like you stated you would.

I stated that I have seen dissenting votes in Sacrament meetings and that I have seen them addressed. I also stated that in my experience, it is rare. I am a 43 year-old lifetime member of the Church and can count the number of times I've seen this on one hand.

It is NOT POSSIBLE for people sitting at home on the couch to cast a dissenting vote DURING THE MEETING. I realize you don't like this notion, but that's the way it is. Also, if there were a dissenting vote in the Tabernacle or Conference Center, the conductor of the meeting would not announce "the voting has been unanimous". How would it look to 15,000 people who saw one (or more) dissenting votes cast followed by the statement "the voting has been unanimous"? The effect would be huge and immediate and it would not escape the eyes or ears of the majority of the membership in the meeting, and we all know how fast word of mouth gets around these days.

I understand you're line of thought and reasoning but I do not agree with the stance you are taking. I believe this commandment is being followed. I believe you are perceiving a problem that doesn't exist in practicality because I've seen the process work.

[jo1952]

As I continue to ponder this issue, I am also struck by how we are not supposed to go to God in order to be commanded in all things. Inasmuch as this commandment has already been given to us, it seems that the members should be coming up with ideas on how to keep this commandment, lest we wind up having our leaders giving us more and more laws to follow in order to be able to keep this commandment.

As it is, our compliance with the current routine will cause a continuation of the lie that all positions are being sustained unanimously; which means that the presenter is being caused to lie.

I used to feel so warm and secure when I saw members of the Church sustaining all names for all of the positions individuals were being called to fulfill. I would raise my hand right along with the others. It made me feel good inside. But I wasn't listening to what was actually happening; I did not see or hear. I just thought to myself, "isn't this wonderful?"---I was lulled into security, even though I was perpetuating a lie. Now, though, I see that this was a false sense of security. I see that I went right along with the flow, and that I was mistakenly supporting something which was not representing the truth of the situation.

So now what? I don't WANT to be commanded on how to keep a commandment. What, then, are my choices? Having this discussion is one of my choices. I am only one voice. I believe Father understands the circumstances. Perhaps, because everyone is given different gifts from the same Holy Spirit, we will be able to share those gifts and come up with some ideas. Isn't that part of the Gospel message; that by using the gifts of the Holy Spirit which are given to each individual member of Christ's church, that we can then function as the body of Christ? If we, as many, are able to function as the body of Christ, we should not need to be commanded in all things. I don't think this is too much to ask of ourselves. Christ has asked us to follow Him. He was able to overcome with Father's help. We can overcome with Christ's help; as His body, we can overcome.

[jo1952]

It is NOT POSSIBLE for people sitting at home on the couch to cast a dissenting vote DURING THE MEETING. I realize you don't like this notion, but that's the way it is. Also, if there were a dissenting vote in the Tabernacle or Conference Center, the conductor of the meeting would not announce "the voting has been unanimous". How would it look to 15,000 people who saw one (or more) dissenting votes cast followed by the statement "the voting has been unanimous"? The effect would be huge and immediate and it would not escape the eyes or ears of the majority of the membership in the meeting, and we all know how fast word of mouth gets around these days.

I understand you're line of thought and reasoning but I do not agree with the stance you are taking. I believe this commandment is being followed. I believe you are perceiving a problem that doesn't exist in practicality because I've seen the process work.

I have not seen a scan of the audience. In fact, I am not so sure that the presenter takes more than a moment after asking for dissents, before he continues with making the statement that the sustaining is unanimous. Also, there are more active members in the Church than are able to attend GC in person. We are perpetrating a lie which I can no longer embrace.

[Nan]

I guess I am not understanding the lie that you say is being perpetrated? Is it that everyone agrees with who the general authorities are? I think the better question is has God called that person to be in that position? Do you not understand that callings are given to us to help us grow and progress, not because we are going to be necessarily wonderful at them. So yes, some people may be given callings that men will say they failed at. But God's definition of success is different than man's. It seems to me that you are being very busy with being critical of the church and the way you perceive it being run than actually working on the things you need to change in your own life. You, like the rest of us, are not yet the person that God would have you be. I think you are falling in one of satan's traps.

[davedan]

Sustaining is a "vote of consent" and NOT a "vote of election".

Members in good standing manifest that they are willing to submit to the authority of the person being sustained.

The sustaining "vote of consent" is more about the people consenting and not about the person being sustained. The question is NOT "do you think this person was called by God" or "do you think this person will or has done a good job so far". We are not entitled to this revelation. We did not extend the call.

The purpose of the sustaining "vote of consent" is to manifest that we will humbly submit to God's priesthood authority.

If you give an opposing vote, without some specific knowledge of unresolved moral impropriety, then you more condemn yourself.

[gkearney]

I have two situations where I have encountered this kind of situation.

First was many year ago when my father was in the stake presidency. I would sometimes tag along with him. We went to a small ward where a new bishop was to be called. The majority of the ward did not sustain him. I have no idea what the issue was as I was just a boy and it was not my place to be told in any event. The man moved away a few months later he never did serve as bishop there as far as I know.

The second time was when my older son was high school. We lived in a small very catholic town. Must of the kids at church went to the local catholic high school as did my son. His Sunday school teacher was rabibly anti catholic and would insist on sprinkling this into his classes every chance he could get. My son and many of the other church youth would object. I objected as well fist to him and the to the bishop. The problem continued and if anything got worse with the teacher telling the class he was only trying to counter what they were learning in school. Finally I and two other parents went and told the bishop that unless this man was released we would have no choice but to signify that we could not sustain him in the upcoming ward conference. We did this so as not to but the bishop on the spot. The teacher was released. I took over teaching the class.