Without the Vote of that Church

for almost a week now i've been trying to finish a blog entry about why i didn't go to church on sunday. it's probably time to move on.

or at least modify the message a bit. back when i was nine or ten, in one my clearest childhood church memories, some guy up at the podium announced some changes in some auxiliary organization in the ward. i honestly don't remember what the changes were, or who got called to what, but i do still see as clearly as any image in my mind from that time, that one of the jellings girls raised her hand to oppose the calling.

nobody in the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints opposes callings. after all, our leaders have the priesthood of god and can trace their authority from person to person directly to jesus himself. callings are, therefore, obviously by divine revelation. to oppose a calling is to doubt not just the bishop or stake president or prophet's priesthood, but to challenge the wisdom and providence of the almighty god.

yet that jellings girl did just that, in a move that i've never seen repeated in over twenty years since. the man at the podium calling for the vote got a bit flustered and told the girl that he'd talk with her after the meeting.

i never knew if anyone ever actually sat down with the jellings girl, and i don't know what motivated her to oppose the calling of whoever it was that the good bishopric had decided to call. all i know is that a couple of years later, the girl's father got sent to prison for molesting her and her siblings. two other men in that ward were also subsequently convicted of sexually abusing children.


"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

"All things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and by faith, for all things you shall receive by faith." D&C 26:2

"All things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." D&C 28:13


back in the early days of the church, the membership seemed to have a different conception of voting and consent than we do now. members voted against priesthood ordinations, against the calling of elders quorum presidents, bishops, even apostles. for example, you can go to the doctrine and covenants and find a revelation from the Lord calling john hicks to be elders quorum president in nauvoo in january 1841. by october of that year, the membership had rejected him, and he was released. of course, john page, whose calling as an apostle was also objected to, remained.

these days, it's unheard of to reject even the ordination of a punk ass teenage boy to be an elder and represent the church to the rest of the world as a missionary. a couple of years ago, the stake i live in called a man to the stake young men's presidency and no one did anything more than fidget, despite the fact that the man had divorced his first wife when she accused him of cheating on her (allegations supported by an investigation by the man's bishopric).

certainly no one was found who objected to the calling of apostle quentin cook, even though cook's legal career before his calling to full-time church service was marked by considerable controversy, with allegations of fraud, misconduct and conflict of interest involving his dual representation of a major health care organization and a city which owned a hospital whose takeover by the health care outfit cook orchestrated.

so what's the problem here? could it be that the lds church membership deliberates and thoughtfully consents to every single calling and ordination presented to them?

hardly.

the paradigm inculcated into the membership is an obligatory, not a consensual, one. in other words, when an adulterer or a child molester or a corrupt businessman is presented to the membership, the membership is asked to offer a "sustaining vote." those in favor then raise their hands not to signify consent so much as to submit to the decision and obligate themselves to support it. a friend of mine (who converted to the lds church in his late teens) put it another way: "Whomever the Lord chooses will be in this position for The Lord's own reason. Just enjoy the Gospel and welcome whoever it is with a smile."

to oppose a calling is to refuse to submit; indeed, opposing a calling is a public rebuke to the judgment of a divinely called man of god. worse, opposition signals a breach of unity in the community of faith. even in a society versed in over two hundred years of democracy, the taboo against openly opposing the will of the brethren is nearly insurmountable. only the naivete of a newly formed church or the humiliation suffered by an abused young girl is enough to overcome and produce the dreaded raised hand of opposition.

as a result, those who truly oppose the decisions of church leaders almost never voice opposition, never receive validation if they do, and as a result, express their opposition by simply removing themselves from "the fellowship of the saints." almost anyone, for example, who has spent much frequenting the wards and stakes of this church has witnessed members either stop or start attending weekly meetings as a result of leadership changes. the faithful chalk up that behavior to lack of faith. of course, it's more appropriately labeled lack of consent.

so what to do? for over a hundred years the status quo has reigned. names get presented to the membership, and the membership pledges their sustaining vote. of course, there are reasonable justifications for the current system. a tidy veneer of unity and order dominates, and the leadership doesn't have to confront dissent. hesitant and inexperienced leaders are bolstered by the feeling that not only do their callings come from god, but that their congregants will support them come what may.

still, i'd like to see a little more dissent. will discontented members continue their involvement with the church if they felt that they had an outlet to express their concerns? would the leadership be responsive to the diversity of concerns in the membership? i dunno.

there's certainly the pitfalls of democratic dynamics associated with opposition voting. good women and men might get rejected for reasons more related to community politics than for genuine concerns over integrity and competence. on the other hand, community politics frequently dominates leadership decisions anyway, resulting in plenty of dishonest and incompetent leaders.

if the lds church were at least open to manifestations of honest opposition, folks like me might feel more comfortable associating with people like tim brown. and who knows? we might get stuck with fewer child molesters.