- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
rebeccad wrote:
I don’t know. I really struggle with this one. I will sustain them until they tell me to do something I think is wrong.
So is that really sustaining them? Or do I need to trust in their guidance more than my own to count as sustaining?
You can still “sustain” them when they tell you to do something you think is wrong, but that doesn’t mean you have to do what they say.
rebeccad, I really do believe that part of complete sustaining is helping people realize when they are wrong – and it’s listed as one of the definitions wayfarer posted in the OP. That takes quiet, humble, meek confidence – but I really do believe it. I know I want to be sustained in that way when I’m a leader.
Quote:I don’t know. I really struggle with this one. I will sustain them until they tell me to do something I think is wrong.
So is that really sustaining them? Or do I need to trust in their guidance more than my own to count as sustaining?
One thought on this.
In the temple there is a promise to follow someone if they are following the Lord. I think the same principle applies here.
If the leader is telling you something that is out of accordance with the church then they are not sustaining their leaders. If that is the case I do not believe you are under obligation to follow them.
For example the church teaches that it’s role is to teach principles and let people govern themselves. If a leader is doing otherwise they are not in accordance with church teachings and you are not under any obligation.
However, if you were to take that problem and start gossiping to all your neighbors, friends, family what a louse the leader is, at that point you would probably have clearly crossed the line. Again the D&C gives a good formula that if you have an issue with someone you should deal with it privately. Being a “yes” man or woman isn’t the same thing as sustaining, IMO.
We may define “sustain” in many ways, but I believe this is indicative of the working definition the church uses: BobDixon wrote:We may define “sustain” in many ways, but I believe this is indicative of the working definition the church uses:
Quote:The pressure came in the form of what church leaders called an “invitation” to show religious loyalty. Regardless what objections an individual Mormon resident might have about the MTC development and its impact on an established local neighborhood, church members were rather unceremoniously cracked into line to support the project through language that Mormons understand to be more than mere suggestion.
They were asked to “sustain” their leaders.What makes this particularly remarkable is that neighbors had been expressly told by church leaders that they were free to treat the MTC building height controversy as a secular, non-religious, issue. They were told by their stake president that they were free to engage in the civic process without fear of affecting their church standing.
And that is, in fact, what they were doing: responding to encouragement to be actively engaged in civic affairs.
The sharp reversal by the church last week — its turning a civic matter into a test of religious faith — sends a clear message: Be engaged, but only so long as you don’t contradict us…
So, here is a valid question. If the people in those stakes don’t back down and continue to protest the MTC building plans…ARE THEY SUSTAINING THEIR LEADERS?
PS. I’m not changing my vote yet…it’s still no for the time being.
cwald wrote:
So, here is a valid question. If the people in those stakes don’t back down and continue to protest the MTC building plans…ARE THEY SUSTAINING THEIR LEADERS?PS. I’m not changing my vote yet…it’s still no for the time being.
Doesn’t sound like it to me, which is why I posted this. We may have a very loose definition of “sustain”, but I don’t think that’s the working definition the leaders are using.
Also the word “sustain” is pregnant with meaning. Opposing the building plan is “not sustaining”, which equates to “no temple recommend” and “no job” if you work for the church. I doubt it was chosen carelessly, and they knew exactly what they were implying.
Members who did not actively support Prop 8, and even those who publicly opposed it, were not supposed to be disciplined by the Church in any way. They were not required to lose their temple recommends as a result, which, to me, means, at the most practical level concerning temple attendance, that the Church understands that “sustaining leadership” does not mean “obeying everything that is said no matter how you feel about it”. Some local leaders will disagree with me, but I don’t care. I’m just not into Lucifer’s plan.
Old-Timer wrote:Members who did not actively support Prop 8, and even those who publicly opposed it, were not supposed to be disciplined by the Church in any way. They were not required to lose their temple recommends as a result, which, to me, means, at the most practical level concerning temple attendance, that the Church understands that “sustaining leadership” does not mean “obeying everything that is said no matter how you feel about it”.
Some local leaders will disagree with me, but I don’t care. I’m just not into Lucifer’s plan.
+1000 – Ray, sometimes I actually like you!
Quote:Ray, sometimes I actually like you!
Sorry, I’ll try harder to stop it.
Old-Timer wrote:Some local leaders will disagree with me, but I don’t care. I’m just not into Lucifer’s plan.
Whoa, hold on there! Can we get that last sentence moderated?!?!
😆 Yes! I recognize the leaders of the LDS church as the legitimate leaders of the church. I support them in their roles and believe them to be doing the best job that they can. I like what M&G said about them being the maintainers or guardians of the structure and rituals of the church. When it comes to baptizing DD in the coming year or when she gets married in the distant future, I am glad that there are these structures and supports in place.
I no longer believe the leaders of the church to be intermediaries between myself and God. I am not sure that God has selected these individuals to lead the church as the terms “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” might imply. It is entirely possible that the processes involved in filling role vacancies evolved over time and involve a minimum of inspiration. However these men get into their positions, I view the process as legitimate and the positions being held as legitimate church leadership posts.
I further believe that “support/sustain” is up to me to define and give. If it is demanded or coerced then it ceases to be “support” and morphs into something else. One of the ways that I believe that I support the leadership is to bring to their attention things that I believe are amiss or unhelpful. I do not reach out to “steady the ark,” I respectfully voice my opinion to those that are in a legitimate position to make course corrections.
So, taken together, I answer yes to this question.
Yes. But sustaining means to me that I want them to be the best and most effective at what they do. Being a sycophantic “yes man,” never questioning or disagreeing, showing total dependence and lack of free will, that
IS NOTsustaining leaders. That is undermining them as surely as anything else. I wish them well. I sometimes wish they would be better. I try to help make that happen.
I sustain them, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with them all the time. There is one older GA whose statements I find troubling. But I still sustain him, because he does other things I find worthwhile.
I certainly have no problem considering Thomas S. Monson the prophet of God. He strikes me as a decent man.
Do we find inspiration elsewhere? Of course. At the very least, orthodox Mormon doctrine teaches personal revelation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.