The experience below is an example of an historical occurrence of a church moving in unanimity. Names, places, etc. were removed, but the sense still available, I think/hope.
"When I first came...the churches here practiced unanimity in all cases, except the exclusion of an unrepentant member, in which case he could not exercise a veto by his vote over his own case. It takes only ONE vote to table an issue here. So in effect, the nay vote is a veto.
"...Church...wanted to have electricity in their meeting house so that they could have night meetings...When the motion was made and seconded, and the votes were called for...nodded her head 'No'. The deacon was moderating, and therefore tabled the issue; and went on with other things in their conference. A few months passed, and the dear sister told of her earlier experience, and how her family had taken their Aladdin Lamp to meeting, and what a wonderful service they all had. Suddenly, it crossed her mind: they had done that before there was electricity available. She asked the deacon to bring the issue off the table; which he did, and the motion was passed with unanimity.
"I learned...as a young man, that there was never anything so pressing that it could not wait until all the saints were brought to agreement. And with all my heart I agree with that practice."
Should a church move in unanimity rather than the rule by majority vote?