PREFACE: I have a confession to make: In an earlier blog, I intentionally used harsher language than normal in describing wrongful acts by erstwhile LDS missionaries. The reasons are threefold:
1. I wanted to emphasize the serious damage done to LDS-Catholic relations, LDS missionary efforts in that area and as a whole, and to the reputation of the Church.
2. I wanted to spur discussion (as I do in my courses–usually successfully). I appear to have succeeded–perhaps in ways that I did not intend. I wanted to take the most rigorous position consistent with Gospel principles, that is the “Hammer them, then take them by the hand and help them back” approach. Obviously, I didn’t entirely succeed here–to miscalculations on my part. I repeat my apologies.
3. I wanted a lead-in for this Gospel-related entry. NoS was quite right in his comment that the essence of the Gospel was repentance and forgiveness. However, as he and others were a little slow on the uptake on my first reason for the harsh language (no doubt because of my miscalculations mentioned in the second reason–I’m sorry for this, NoS!), I didn’t want to give away the game before I had fully developed this entry (I’m sorry for this, too, NoS!).
Now, for the blog entry itself:
Recently, I’ve been asked many times about the LDS practice of the “sustaining vote” for people holding leadership positions. One question is: “Is it OK to vote not to sustain?” and “If so, what happens when somebody votes, ‘No’?” While I am definitely not one of the Brethren, I do have some thoughts, based on my reading of the Bible and the relevant parts of the Church Handbook of Instructions:
First of all, the sustaining vote is not about the person’s technical qualifications for the calling. Joseph Smith only had a third grade education–wholly inadequate for the calling to translate the modified Egyptian script that is the original Book of Mormon. I think of the cliche’, “Whom the Lord calls, He qualifies.” As Evengelical Pastor Charles Swindoll says (I wish I knew where! Can somebody help?), the “best qualified” of all of Jesus’ original Apostles was Judas Iscariot–and he was a traitor!
Second, the purpose of the sustaining vote is to find out if there is some disqualifying factor. As I said earlier, lack of technical qualification is not a disqualifying factor. What is disqualifying is a sin of moral turpitude. For example, we would not want to have a child molester as Nursery Leader, nor would we want an embezzler as Ward Finance Clerk.
Third, fully repented-of sin removes the person from the category of “sinner” [See The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 96].
Fourth, just because you think the leader made mistakes in applying his calling doesn’t necessarily mean that the person exercised “unrighteous dominion” (He may have, and he may not have.).
Finally, it is not a sin merely to vote not to sustain–especially if the you sustain him anyway. As I understand, you are merely voicing a factor that might disqualify one from a calling. When you vote not to sustain, that vote is tabulated, and you are contacted for the reason. If that reason is sufficient to disqualify for a calling, a release is issued; if not, then the sustaining goes forward and the called one is set apart.
Here are some scenarios that illustrate what I’m talking about. Comments are welcome.
1. Now that the legal troubles of the former missionaries in San Luis, Colorado appear to have have ended, let us assume that they are also returned to full fellowship, and one of them has been called as Bishop of your Ward. If I were in that Ward, I would wholeheartedly sustain him, because competent Church authorities have determined that his repentance is complete. Thus, there is nothing that would disqualify Bishop X.
2. I have been called as Bishop of your Ward, and, unlike NoS, you are not convinced that my earlier blog reveals a hatred so great that you must conclude that I am utterly devoid of the Spirit of Christ, and engaging in unrighteous dominion, to boot. Should you vote to sustain? My answer: Yes; personal failings are insufficient to disqualify for a calling.
4. I have been called as Bishop of your Ward, and, like NoS, you are convinced that my earlier blog reveals a hatred so great that you must conclude that I am utterly devoid of the Spirit of Christ, and engaging in unrighteous dominion, to boot. Should you vote to sustain? My answer: No, for the unrighteous dominion reason stated above, plus personal apostasy. However, if I am set apart anyway, you should heed my lawful counsel, and sustain me anyway.
I will need your prayers, at any rate! 😉
4. You believe that a person called to be Bishop, an outspoken member of another political party, is an ignoramus who advocates policies that would be disastrous for the country. I maintain that you should sustain this person, because, even if your belief is wholly true, idiocy is not a disqualifying factor.
5. You believe that a person called to be Bishop, an outspoken member of another political party, is a racist, sexist, bigoted, warmonger, who is trying to slaughter poor people, and destroy the Constitution of the U.S. You should vote not to sustain; bigotry, warmongering, attempted murder, and undermining the Constitution are all serious violations of major commandments listed in the Scriptures.
6. Similarly, you should vote not to sustain a KKK member who is called to any position. Not only is this person a bigot, he is also a member of a terrorist group.
7. However, voting not to sustain a freemason is unwarranted, since the FAM is not a terrorist group–despite conspiracy theories! 😉
8. How about a former KKK member? In my mind, a former Klansman who denounces Klan dogma is no longer a racist, and he has turned his back on terrorism. Sustain him as you would any other person who has fully repented.
9. However, I would not only not sustain a person on the sex offender list, even though he has fully paid his societal debt–even to the point of having his civil rights restored. Sadly, there are too many liability issues, and the law may prohibit him performing that calling.
What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Why not tell me why?
I agree mostly except for #9. It depends on the crime he or she committed to get on the sex offender list, and the calling. There are some (maybe most) on that list that are guilty of relatively minor crimes (ie. He was 20, she was 17, her father gets upset and the next thing he knows he’s on the list for the next 20 years).
On a related note, about a year ago the bishop announced to the elder’s quorum and the relief society in separate meetings that a man wanted to attend our ward that had once molested the child of one of his home teaching families. The bishop assured us that he knew him and was confident he was not going to offend again, and he was going to be supervised while at church and only stay for sacrament meeting, and sit near the front. I think some members were pretty opposed to it and I never heard anything more of it. I think the Bishop (or the man) probably had a change of heart and it never happened. But I told my wife that I was more concerned about the creeps I didn’t already know about than the one that I did.
Anyway, that’s a pretty unrelated story. Certainly I would oppose that man being called to anything, especially involving kids without question. But my main point is that they are not all like that.
Hi Mike!
I agree with you–in principle. Under normal conditions, if I were confident that any person has repented, I would have no problem with sustaining them. However, nowadays, sex offenders are NOT your typical sin-to-repentance scenarios.
Within commuting distance of my home, there has been two headline-making murders of preteen girls–by registered sex offenders (See http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/jessica_lunsford/1_index.html and http://www.alimonyreform.org/victim-letters.html). Moreover, the Church narrowly escaped financial ruin when an alleged repented sex offender molested a young boy–even though the Bishop warned against contact with the molester (See http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-05-2001/0001566613&EDATE=).
The problem is that leaders have a mandate not only for helping people “come unto Christ,” they must also protect the good name of the Church. While I recognize that child molesters need Jesus Christ as much as we do (and vice versa!), legal and liability constraints force us to give up on the few, so that the many can still “come unto Christ.”
Am I making sense?
Our approach is very simple- we detail the mandate Joseph was given from the Bible, then look at how well he did to fulfill that. We discuss Twelve Doctrines that his followers are known to believe in and compare those with the purpose of his mandate- The Book of Mormon.
Steven,
That does make sense, assuming we are just talking about the serious offenses. My point though is that there are some on the list that, although they have committed a crime, do not warrant being restricted from ever receiving a calling.
Hi work!
That is a good policy for filling callings. I would add that sometimes we must deviate from total devotion to our mandate in order to maintain our ability to fulfill any part of our mandate at all.
For example, in the early days, the Church was NOT abolitionist [TPJS, 120], but it became that later [D&C 101:79]. To have been abolitionist in say, 1833, would have enabled slave States to more easily slaughter Latter-day Saints. I am sure that Missouri would not have been content to merely expel the LDS if they only had the numbers they had in 1833….
Do I make sense?
Hi Mike L.!
Again I agree–in principle. Sometimes, however, even though a crime is insignificant, a TYPE of crime may be a disqualifying factor, because to allow exceptions on a case-by-case basis may allow too many of the higher-degree crimes to fall through the cracks.
That was why a nanny who exposed herself to a five-year-old boy got a mandated 15-year sentence, even though her employers coersed her to work twenty-hours for seven-days per week. To have done otherwise would have set a precedent that a REAL predator could exploit.
Do I make sense?
Steven, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree then. I perhaps I could see your point if we don’t know what crime they committed–we just know that he or she is on the list. But assuming we know what the crime was, I just don’t see how them being on the list should make a difference. Just like everyone else, they should be judged based on what they did, which may or may not disqualify them. It seems pretty arbitrary to me to allow some past criminals to serve, as long as they are not on the list. Who decided they should be on the list? Some court somewhere, not a devine decree.
And I agree that the type of the crime should matter, but I don’t see the sex offender list as a perfect indicator of what the type of the crime is. The difference between a child molester and a 10-year old in a relationship with a 17-year old is not just a matter of degree. They are completely different types of crimes, in my opinion, and yet they both put the offender on the list.
(As you can probably tell, I believe that our society has over-reacted and puts people on the list who shouldn’t be there at times because they aren’t a threat to the general population. The result of putting too many people on the list is that the list get diluted and becomes less useful. But you’ll never hear a politicial making this stance since it is very politically incorrect)
Sorry, that should have been:
“20-year old in a relationship with a 17-year old”
Hi Mike!
As I said before, we agree–in principle. I, too, believe that the USA is an over-litigous society. Having said that, I must also point out the qualification that we must prudently pick our battles, or we’ll have the effect of taking the flag and jumping off a cliff–without a parachute.
It is one thing to deliberately hold off passing the Sacrament until the end of Sacrament Meeting, because neither the CHI nor the Scriptures prohibit it; it is quite another to intentionally run the risk of the government to arrest us and take our kids away because we endangered them by allowing a registered sex offender (even if the crime is a minor one!) entre’ where children are present.
I’m all for allowing truly repentant sinners–especially when they commit minor ones, but NOT when it endangers our ability to help anybody AT ALL.
In short, I’m all for ignoring penny-ante sex crimes, but the real world constrains my alility to do so.
Do I make sense?
My argument has been based on the idea that just because someone is on the sex offender list does not make them necessarily (depending on the crime) more likely to abuse the members than someone who has committed any other crime.
If I understand you correctly, you are acknowledging that (maybe?), but you are saying if they did abuse the members afterward, then the church would be liable since they knew that person was on the sex offender list?
If that’s what you are saying, then I can see your point.
But are you also arguing that people on the list can inherintly be trusted less than other criminals just because they are on the list? Let me put this another way. Let’s say 2 people commit the same crime, and you know all of the details about both crimes, but only 1 gets on the list and the other hires a great lawyer and manages to not get on the list. The crimes are both minor and you believe both of them to have repented. Would you vote to sustain the one that is not on the list, and vote against the one that is on the list?
> My argument has been based on the idea that just because > someone is on the sex offender list does not make them
> necessarily (depending on the crime) more likely to abuse
> the members than someone who has committed any other
> crime.
Agreed. It’s just that, when an offender repeats a crime, or commits a worse one, the effects are worse.
> If I understand you correctly, you are acknowledging that
> maybe?), but you are saying if they did abuse the members
> afterward, then the church would be liable since they
> knew that person was on the sex offender list?
>
> If that’s what you are saying, then I can see your point.
That’s pretty much what I’m saying. There are also potential criminal responsibility. “Depraved indifference,” I believe they call it in New York State.
> But are you also arguing that people on the list can
> inherintly be trusted less than other criminals just
> because they are on the list?
No, I am not arguing that; just that the cost of trusting when we shouldn’t is probably high enough to warrant not trusting.
> Let me put this another way. Let’s say 2 people commit
> the same crime, and you know all of the details about
> both crimes, but only 1 gets on the list and the other
> hires a great lawyer and manages to not get on the list.
> The crimes are both minor and you believe both of them to > have repented. Would you vote to sustain the one that is
> not on the list, and vote against the one that is on the
> list?
It depends on the crime and why the one was acquitted. If he was acquitted simply because it was obvious that he didn’t do it, then I would have no problem sustaining. If he was acquitted because, though the evidence was legitimate and damning, it was excluded on some technicality, then I would object.
Also, I might object if the person were acquitted because the evidence did not overcome “reasonable doubt,” but did make it more likely than not that he did it. It is one thing to not condemn in a courtroom; it is another to expose the Church to legal problems.
Does that make sense?