I've been in a congregation one time when people raised their hand to oppose the sustaining of an action--they were splitting the ward boundaries due to new branches being established. Several people raised their hand to oppose and the stake dude said that he will meet with those individuals after SM. The new branches stuck, so whatever the opposition was it didn't change any results.
I'm curious--would you/have you ever opposed something? If so, what would it be?
The only time I've ever been tempted to raise my hand in opposition was when an individual was called to a ward position. I knew some things about that person that made me wonder if he was worthy. But, at the same time that thought entered, the thought came to me that the bishop and stake president knew of the situation and therefore would not have called him if there was a worthiness issue.
__________________
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
I've never had the slightest inclination to oppose anything proposed in SM. I figure they know what I know and hey! if it's REALLY bad, let's just sit back and see how it all rides out...
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
In a branch conference, a husband and wife opposed my continuing as branch president, his stated reason being that I had chastised him for persecuting certain other branch members. The stake president, the branch high councilman, the husband and I discussed the issue and the stake president gave the man two choices: sustain me or be disfellowshipped. I was sorry he sustained me because he was obviously insincere in doing so.
There was one person in our ward a few years back that I knew from personal experience was dishonest in business. If he had ever been called to the bishopric I would have oppossed it. Fortunately it never happened.
In a branch conference, a husband and wife opposed my continuing as branch president, his stated reason being that I had chastised him for persecuting certain other branch members. The stake president, the branch high councilman, the husband and I discussed the issue and the stake president gave the man two choices: sustain me or be disfellowshipped. I was sorry he sustained me because he was obviously insincere in doing so.
So much for agency there. Join us or else.
__________________
Lo, there I see my mother, my sisters, my brothers Lo, there I see the line of my people back to the beginning Lo, they call to me, they bid me take my place among them In the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live...forever
What agency? Agree or be disfellowshipped on what is in reality a vote? That is not agency, that is coercion, period. Furthermore, to threaten disfellowshipment without a reason, without a court, without sin, that stake president was completely out of line.
__________________
Lo, there I see my mother, my sisters, my brothers Lo, there I see the line of my people back to the beginning Lo, they call to me, they bid me take my place among them In the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live...forever
What agency? Agree or be disfellowshipped on what is in reality a vote? That is not agency, that is coercion, period. Furthermore, to threaten disfellowshipment without a reason, without a court, without sin, that stake president was completely out of line.
But, Val, you're assuming a lot here. We only have a very brief explanation. I felt the same way as you, but then I had to remind myself that we are talking about a Stake President. I honestly don't think the conversation consisted solely of "Sustain or be disfellowshipped." I'm sure there was a discussion and counsel and prayers that happened in which we are unaware.
__________________
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
Well, it sounds like he was opposed to the calling without good reason. I think that would qualify as "not sustaining priesthood authority". You can get your temple recommend pulled for stuff like that.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
BY threatened to ex some guy if he continued in his intended path to exit the Tabernacle. It was over architecture or something - remember that story? "Glad you turned around, cuz if you'da gone out the door, I'da had to excommunicate you."
And people wonder why we're such
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
In using the word "disfellowshipped", I was trying to keep it simple and avoid translating into English something that doesn't translate well into English, although the effect is about the same. Try prohibited from active participation in church meetings and activities and loss of temple recommend pending a church court.
What agency? Agree or be disfellowshipped on what is in reality a vote? That is not agency, that is coercion, period. Furthermore, to threaten disfellowshipment without a reason, without a court, without sin, that stake president was completely out of line.
Val, I think you are trying to make it too simplistic and black and white. I guess in one way you could say it's a vote but not exactly. It's a sutaining vote but not like a vote in an election. You say that it's not agency but coercion. Then baptism is the same "coercion"? Either accept the baptismal requirements or not. Is that coercion? No, it's agency. As stated in another post if this guy and hiw wife had temple recomends, they also covenented to sustain their local athorities. Was that covenant coerced? No, it was their agency. And not to "sustain" their local athorities is breaking a covenant. And you say there is no sin in that? No one said anything about not holding a court. That is a step that always happens. So the stake president was not out of line but his hands were tied. He either does his job by giving him his options or the sin would be on his head. The guy that opposed the sustaining had is agency all along the way, from the very beginning.
Now what the guy right by opposing the sustaining? In this case I think his reasoning was flawed. It appears that he was chastised for his own bad behavior at one time and held a grude because of it. Now, had he had a knowledge of something that may have made the sustainee unworthy, then he should have opposed it. And if it was found that it had been taken care of, then he would have to sustain the person. If it wasn't then the shoe may have been on the "sustainee" to be disfellowshiped or more. OK , said enough.
