- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I like your definition of sustaining, Wayfarer: Quote:Yet, to sustain, is to stand in support of them, and to uphold them. It is my firm belief that this means appropriate opposition to those things which are not in the best interests of the church.
It’s fairly easy to figure out how to sustain local leaders this way. But how does this work with the Q15? We have been told not to write to them. How do we show appropriate opposition, when we can’t even have a voice with them? Obviously, opposition through social networking is frowned upon (e.g. Sis Dalton’s oblique commentary on the pants and prayer thing). How do we do it? How can we do it?
By influencing change at the local level and letting it percolate upward. Ime, maybe half of the changes I have seen in the Church in my lifetime have been initiated from the top, while the other half have been the result of grassroots unease or actually ignoring formal or informal policies. Fwiw, I don’t want to have millions of people writing to the apostles. They can’t answer the avalanche of letters they would receive, and I don’t want those letters answered by functionaries, leaving the people who wrote the letters thinking the answers came from the leaders themselves. I like the concept and principle of solving local things locally and only escalating things up the chain that are truly serious and can’t be solved locally. I know how screwed up that gets at the local level with too many leaders, but I I still like the concept and principle behind how it is supposed to work.
turinturambar wrote:I like your definition of sustaining, Wayfarer:
Quote:Yet, to sustain, is to stand in support of them, and to uphold them. It is my firm belief that this means appropriate opposition to those things which are not in the best interests of the church.
It’s fairly easy to figure out how to sustain local leaders this way. But how does this work with the Q15? We have been told not to write to them. How do we show appropriate opposition, when we can’t even have a voice with them? Obviously, opposition through social networking is frowned upon (e.g. Sis Dalton’s oblique commentary on the pants and prayer thing). How do we do it? How can we do it?
you ask a very good question — one for which I don’t have a good answer.Whether or not they accept letters, there are times when we must stand and be counted. I agree with Ray, above, saying that we have the right and obligation to do so locally. When the Prop 8 letter came out, I voiced opposition in my ward, and the ward leaders recognized that the FP did not require compliance to the encouragement in that letter. Since then, and of course my voice was but a very small voice in all this, the church leaders have not continued the same tactics as they did with Prop8, and several recent marriage equality measures passed in states without any official LDS opposition. This gives me a little hope that they listen, at least to something.
Prop 8 had me morally at ends with the Church: I could not ethically support the church in its position, and I took an extended “church vacation” by virtue of having to work abroad where the church was virtually non-existent for two years. I needed that time. When I came back, I have come to accept the church on some very specific terms: If I see something I oppose, I will voice my opposition, graciously, tactfully, but firmly. If this causes the church to decide to sever its relationship with me at some point: so be it.
At this point, I am quite content to remain a fully active member. I love the leadership of the FP, and I support where they are taking the church. It feels right to me. Yes, there is room for improvement in the dialog around same-sex and women’s issues, but the dialog is open, and I see some progress, albeit slowly. I’m not sure I would have it any other way.
A corollary to this thread that I’m interested in is this: just how do we think that TSM has been “called of God” as THE prophet, seer and revelator and president of the Church? In system we’ve got, the senior apostle, the president of the Q12 always becomes the next president of the Church. It would be practically inconceivable for the senior apostle to get passed over for someone lower down the totem pole, right? So considering that, is TSM just the lucky guy who outlived all his predecessors? Did God perhaps “call home” some of the more senior apostles to make way for TSM? If Boyd Packer were to pass away tomorrow (God forbid) does that mean God didn’t want him to be the prophet? Or did he just get old?
Considering the priesthood line of succession in the Q12 and how it’s gone, unchanged and unchallenged since BY, I don’t think it’s tenable to say that TSM was “called of God” in the sense that of all of the millions of priesthood holders in the Church, TSM was called out from among us at this time to be the prophet. I think the best that can be said is that TSM was called to be an apostle 50 or so years ago, and over that time God has tutored and moulded him to someday assume the leadership position of President of the Church, and as such to qualify for the mantle of THE prophet, seer and revelator.
Anyway, just curious how exactly others believe TSM was “called of God.”
wayfarer wrote:Kipper wrote:Back in the late ’80s when I was trying to reactivate in the church, and thru the ’90s I would cringe whenever TSM would be a speaker at conference. I just did not like his style and methods for getting his points across. It was like he was trying to fool me or manipulate my emotions into believing and I wasn’t buying it. Fast forward ~20 years and now he is the current President and Prophet of the church. I struggle and still don’t enjoy his talks, he brings too much personal character to the pulpit, but I can sustain him as a prophet called to lead this church because I believe he was chosen by God to do so and no man could lead this church in an inappropriate way or direction, at least for our salvation. God would not let it happen. That’s what I believe.
I love the idea that we as saints can land at the same place through different paths. Not to take away what you said above, but I have always enjoyed Pres Monson’s talks, and love the personal character he brings to the pulpit.Yea, me too. We do not all draw from the same life experiences or from the same mold.
wayfarer wrote:I can imagine that being the leader of the church would involve an extreme difficulty: what thrills one person might likely put off another. But pleasing mankind isn’t necessarily what it’s all about. Properly thought of, a prophet will say and do what needs to be said and done.
I do not share with you the idea that god would not allow a man to lead the church in an inappropriate direction — mistakes have happened, and at times very profound mistakes. The statement by Wilford Woodruff in reference to Declaration 1 that the Lord would never lead the church astray was in the context of the end of polygamy, supposedly ending in 1890 when he made that statement, yet the practice secretly continued until at least 1904 — my great-grandfather being one of those officially sanctioned by the leadership to continue getting new plural wives. As well, there were positions around blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, etc., where the church’s position is perhaps less than what the Lord would want.
Good point, but I wonder are these mistakes all related to our salvation or are they institutional? I am really not in touch with the Church as an institution lately. I have also heard this statement more recently (isn’t it also in scripture in some form?) so I am trying to understand the real meaning and am trying to understand if it applies to the duty to lead saints to salvation and not the process of running an organization. I really mean it when I say I can’t see the forest for the trees. As a side note but relevant, a former bishop said during a discussion in GD class one day when we were talking about some specific event in church history “…even if he was wrong, he was right…” meaning “he” was a sustained leader and was to be followed.
wayfarer wrote:Yet, to sustain, is to stand in support of them, and to uphold them. It is my firm belief that this means appropriate opposition to those things which are not in the best interests of the church. As I have had some leadership callings, I expect that those in my charge are willing to tell me when I am wrong, appropriately and discreetly, but nevertheless, firmly. Without the combined mind of all, the leader is less than effective. It should never be the case that I just dictate, and people will follow — that is someone else’s plan.
Yea but when I raise my hand to sustain local or general church leaders there is no place to say …”as long as I agree that the decisions are appropriate”. That may be my feeling or your belief but I don’t think that is the intention of the institution. I don’t mean to sound disagreeable on this point I just don’t fully understand. I mean, I think I understand that sustaining and supporting means submitting.
wayfarer wrote:
That said, where we land is to support Pres Monson as a prophet, and I do.Kumahito wrote:A corollary to this thread that I’m interested in is this: just how do we think that TSM has been “called of God” as THE prophet, seer and revelator and president of the Church?
In system we’ve got, the senior apostle, the president of the Q12 always becomes the next president of the Church. It would be practically inconceivable for the senior apostle to get passed over for someone lower down the totem pole, right? So considering that, is TSM just the lucky guy who outlived all his predecessors? Did God perhaps “call home” some of the more senior apostles to make way for TSM? If Boyd Packer were to pass away tomorrow (God forbid) does that mean God didn’t want him to be the prophet? Or did he just get old?
Considering the priesthood line of succession in the Q12 and how it’s gone, unchanged and unchallenged since BY, I don’t think it’s tenable to say that TSM was “called of God” in the sense that of all of the millions of priesthood holders in the Church, TSM was called out from among us at this time to be the prophet. I think the best that can be said is that TSM was called to be an apostle 50 or so years ago, and over that time God has tutored and moulded him to someday assume the leadership position of President of the Church, and as such to qualify for the mantle of THE prophet, seer and revelator.
Anyway, just curious how exactly others believe TSM was “called of God.”
Could it be that all the Q12 are in a state worthy, ready and able to be the next church president? So at the time they are called into the Q12 they are called and when it’s time for the senior apostle to take over, any one of them have been prepared and now are given the keys.
Bruce in Montana wrote:I’ve always felt that God calls prophets and church members call leaders (church presidents included). If the early church had voted to not sustain JS as prophet, I don’t think God would have realized some mistake on his part and picked someone else.
I guess I would honestly research what a Prophet is….what a Revelator is….and what constitutes a Seer.
If the current folks meet those descriptions, then sustain them.
If not…
Although I do not believe in putting my trust in any imperfect human being, I’m open to truth whereever it is found.I agree that it’s important to consider what a prophet, revelator and seer is.
Not necessarily just Webster’s definition, but a more personal one, since spirituality is personal.
Prophet: somebody who interprets divine willWe are given brains to think & emotions and spirit to feel – so in a personal sense, we are all prophets of our own lives.
Unfortunately, many tend to need a parental figure – so when some decide GA’s aren’t good enough, they switch to another more liberal parental figure & blindly adopt their ideas.
God is love based on understanding – striving for what is best, through trial & error (active faith).
Relevator: somebody or something believed to reveal divine will or truthJesus taught that the “kingdom of God cometh not with observation, neither shall they say, lo here or lo there, behold the kingdom of God is within you.”
For centuries, many have tried to convince people that in order to experience God, you must go through them – nonsense, according to Jesus & personal experience with the spirit.
Truth/wisdom (wise application of truth) is a personal effort.
Seer: predictor of futureJesus was psychic, although most don’t label him such.
I think we all have spiritual abilities – maybe to read energy & to see the path it’s headed for.
Some may think that scriptures (esp Revelations) is predicting the future, but everything in practicality tells me that spiritual lessons are not about history lessons nor emergency prep courses, but about now.
“I AM THAT I AM” – not “I was” or “I will be.”
Still, if I consider possible consequences, in light of current possible choices, I’ll will make better decisions, so it’s in my interest to develop such spiritual consciousness.
Kipper wrote:Could it be that all the Q12 are in a state worthy, ready and able to be the next church president? So at the time they are called into the Q12 they are called and when it’s time for the senior apostle to take over, any one of them have been prepared and now are given the keys.
On my mission one of the presidents of the 70 toured and interviewed our mission. I asked him a couple of questions about the temple, and a few questions about church leadership. This 70 – who came across as a kind sincere man – seemed to frankly answer my questions the best he could. One of the things he told me was that when a new man is called to the Q12, that part of the ordination is a phrase along the lines of you are given all they keys and authority to run the church but they only become active when you are the senior apostle. So in effect he told me that when the Q12 are called they are in a sense always ready to become the president of the church and already have the keys. Of course I have no way of verifying is this is true or not, but it was an interesting and memorable interview.
Quote:I think I understand that sustaining and supporting means submitting.
I would say that “full” support and sustaining, theoretically, “involves” an element of submission, absolutely, but I disagree completely that it “means” submitting.
I have offered my honest input in every calling in which I have served in my life, even when I disagre with something that is being said or proposed. Just yesterday, I mentioned to my Bishop after Sacrament Meeting a concern I had as a result of something one of the speakers said in a talk (a relatively minor thing, but something that is important to me). He thanked me sincerely, because it hadn’t registered that what was said might be interpreted the way I saw it potentially being interpreted by some people.
I went to him and told him my concern specifically because I “support and sustain” him – and I view sharing what I shared as critical to my effort to do so. Withholding something of importance is NOT sustaining or supporting, imo; in fact, I see it as the opposite of sustaining and supporting – or only sustaining and supporting in a bastardized way.
I always try to do so humbly and meekly, and every leader I have had has been grateful for my honest input and the way I have given it.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:I think I understand that sustaining and supporting means submitting.
I would say that “full” support and sustaining, theoretically, “involves” an element of submission, absolutely, but I disagree completely that it “means” submitting.
I have offered my honest input in every calling in which I have served in my life, even when I disagre with something that is being said or proposed. Just yesterday, I mentioned to my Bishop after Sacrament Meeting a concern I had as a result of something one of the speakers said in a talk (a relatively minor thing, but something that is important to me). He thanked me sincerely, because it hadn’t registered that what was said might be interpreted the way I saw it potentially being interpreted by some people.
I went to him and told him my concern specifically because I “support and sustain” him – and I view sharing what I shared as critical to my effort to do so. Withholding something of importance is NOT sustaining or supporting, imo; in fact, I see it as the opposite of sustaining and supporting – or only sustaining and supporting in a bastardized way.
I always try to do so humbly and meekly, and every leader I have had has been grateful for my honest input and the way I have given it.
Thanks for the clarity that helps me understand what sustaining (can) mean. I would like to know or see if the church has an official definition on what it means to sustain.
For the record when I said “I think I understand that sustaining and supporting means submitting.” is was more of a question than a statement. Taken from hearing comments from church leaders like “…even if he is wrong he is right.”
The idea that we have to accept and follow leaders even when we feel they are wrong is one of the most repellent ideas I have encountered in the Church – and lots of other places, as well. It’s Lucifer’s plan, in a nutshell, and I abhor it. Having said that, I am fine with accepting a leader’s decision with which I disagree if I feel it isn’t causing extreme harm (after stating my opinion in the most appropriate setting), but I have no problem with opposing something I feel is causing serious harm. It’s a fine line we walk when we try to avoid extremes and walk a middle path.
I have solidified my ideas on this topic. I CANNOT sustain President Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Here is the reason why: It is made obvious in the scriptures that you cannot tell if a person is a prophet or not except through revelation. Again and again the prophets of God were rejected by the people they were called to teach. What this tells me is that if you want to know if someone is a prophet of God, you gotta ask God, because the natural man actually seems prone to rejecting true prophets. Incidentally, I would note that no prophet of God in history was ever called simply by outliving the competition. It requires spiritual development, which is clearly spelled out in the scriptures.
Of course, in the absence of revelation, I am told that I can still sustain President Monson and the apostles as prophets, etc., because that is a calling in the church. So in essence, I’m just saying that they have been called by the church to be prophets, etc., and so I don’t need to worry about whether they have actually established a connection with God and been authorized to speak in His name.
Sounds nice, but there’s a big problem with that. Although I could SAY it’s just a calling, most people don’t see it that way. They see him as an actual prophet of God, authorized to impart the Lord’s will to us. In the church, when I sustain someone as a prophet, that is what is understood. That’s why he’s called a living prophet and why we are so proud to have such a thing. And that’s a big problem for me.
If I found out someone was going around speaking in my name without my authorization, I’d be very unhappy about it. Especially if they were teaching things that weren’t what I wanted people to hear, like what a great job they are doing when they aren’t! How can I sustain someone as a prophet, with the implications that he is speaking for God, if I don’t know for sure that God really called him? Especially when many of the things he says contradict the scriptures?
So I cannot sustain President Monson as a prophet unless the Spirit confirms to me that he is one. Which the Spirit has declined to do.
By the way, I had the meeting with my bishop to discuss all this. I explained my reasoning as I have here (minus the part about President Monson contradicting scripture). My bishop understood. He at first told me that he couldn’t give me a temple recommend until I felt I could sustain the leaders as prophets, etc., but later changed his mind and said that when I felt good about signing a temple recommend, he would also be okay with it. I declined. I am not worried about not being able to attend the temple. It is a nice place, but the Lord has made my home a temple. I am just as happy here.
Funny thing was, the bishop tried to bring up all the common arguments for rationalizing that the presidents of the church are prophets, like the idea of them outliving everyone else and a few other things, too. I don’t know why, but though I gave him my undivided attention when he tried to explain these things and did not attempt to contradict him, his words died on his lips every time. Was he realizing how flimsy those ideas really are? Or was some other phenomenon taking place? I don’t know. But I found it very interesting that he had no power whatsoever to argue against me. He’s a good guy, by the way. I’ve appreciated how supportive he is of me and how he listened openly to what I had to say without judgment.
CtS, I respect that reasoning (especially the part about having to have a personal witness / testimony / understanding / etc. to accept someone as “The Prophet”), and I am not trying to challenge your decision – but I feel like I need to point out a few things that I believe are factually inaccurate: Quote:“Incidentally, I would note that no prophet of God in history was ever called simply by outliving the competition.”
Actually, pretty much every Prophet in our scriptures became “The Prophet” because “The Prophet” before him died.
Quote:“Especially if they were teaching things that weren’t what I wanted people to hear, like what a great job they are doing when they aren’t!”
President Monson’s central message for pretty much all of his ministry has been that we aren’t doing a great job at what he has preached as the center of the Gospel all of his time as an apostle – helping and serving the poor and the needy. He often teaches that through stories that sound warm and fuzzy, but the message has been constant and straightforward – and it hasn’t been a message of what a great job we are doing.
Also, I really am curious to know the “many” things he says that contradict the scriptures.
Again, I’m not trying to challenge your decision, but I honestly think the two things I mentioned above are not an accurate description of President Monson.
I consider Monson a prophet because of his messages. I had an issue with Gordon Hinckley because of that dismal interview with Larry King. How do we reconcile two people having different revelations about the same issue? This must happen often as I’m sure many people have have had a witness or personal revelation that TSM is a prophet and many have not. Personally I have been able to sustain him because I know the protocol was followed and that includes being prepared along with several other apostles for many years. Not because of intense prayer or pleading for a revelation. (Not ment to be ad hominem :angel: , only describing personal experience). Probably not the right reasons but I also look inside myself for opposing viewpoints or feelings and haven’t surfaced any. This is with a personal history of not appreciating President Monson for 30 years because of all his warm fuzzy stories meant to manipulate my emotions that I sometimes wonder if the origins are true. Even my relationship with my wife consistently turns up different personal revelations about the same issues that have caused consequences not so positive in our home however she is a temple goer and I am not, but that’s another thread I’ll hopefully get to soon.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.