What does it mean to sustain?

[Anonymous]

As you may know, I am in the process of rebuilding my faith. As a framework for doing so, I have considered many things, including but not limited to the Articles of Faith and the temple recommend questions. I will below give you some insight into where I’m at, but the question is “What does it mean to sustain?”

Background: (Definition of sustain: strengthen or support physically or mentally) I can honestly raise my hand and/or answer in the affirmative to the temple recommend question when asked if I sustain TSM as president, prophet, seer and revelator, etc. I am not a fan of TSM and grew tired of his “little Tommy” and visiting the widows as a 21-year-old bishop stories long before he was president. I am not convinced he has received any revelation, and I think almost all of what he says is uninspired and quite pointless. Nevertheless, I do believe he holds the keys and I do believe he is as capable as any of the prophets of receiving revelation, although I am not convinced any of the recent ones have actually received any revelation. I don’t think he is a bad person, although I do think he’s a bit prideful. I can forgive him and overlook his human frailty, just as I can the other prophets including scriptural prophets and Joseph Smith. I am not by any means a “14 fundamentals” person – I’m not even sure I’m a 1 fundamental person (I didn’t like ETB, either). So, yes, I can say I sustain the prophet and feel totally honest in saying so, but I’m not going to do something he says just because he says so. I do mentally sustain TSM and the rest of the Q15.

Others are an entirely different story. I don’t necessarily sustain the “other general authorities and auxiliary presidencies as presently constituted,” nor do I necessarily sustain local leaders of the church. But this may be because my interpretation of “sustain” is different from the mainstream or other definitions – I don’t really know. I don’t believe each of these individuals is actually called by revelation – I am a firm believer in the “inspiration, relation, desperation” theory, with the latter two being much more common than the first. As a counselor in two bishoprics, I have seen inspiration in bishops and I have witnessed a lot more lack thereof. I think my current bishop is wholly uninspired as was his predecessor. I think they both fall into the “desperation” category as our ward has shrunk considerably over the past 15 years and the pickings are slim.

Also, it is pretty clear that all members “sustain” some people differently than they sustain others. For instance, people sustain the bishop in a much different way than they do the Scoutmaster or a Primary teacher. Unless one is directly involved with the Scoutmaster they likely pay little attention to him and most people probably can’t name very many Primary teachers unless they’re in Primary. I think they do sustain those people at least mentally (even though they probably weren’t even listening when they raised their hands), but not in any active way. And frankly, I don’t think most people actively sustain the bishop or stake president. But then again, this is all based on my perspective of what it means to sustain. If sustaining means a simple profession that I believe someone is called of God to be a Primary teacher (for example), I sustain hardly anyone. If it means to support them in their callings by rendering assistance to them, then I sustain some, but not most. If it means some kind of metaphysical psychic support, I suppose I’m capable of that.

All right, so have at it. Particularly in relation to local leaders, what does it mean to sustain?

[Anonymous]

Does it matter what we think sustain mean? I’m sure we will get some nuanced responses here…but so what?

When it comes down to it we know what the church meaning of sustain is. And what the membership expects and believes it means. I’m fine if we want to fantasize about the ideal church. But IMO, the one that gets described in the next page or two of responses simply didn’t exist today..

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

So here is what I think I will do. For every nuanced response to this OP Question, I will ask if you can say that in SS and or an interview and still get a TR. Fair?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Vote yes is you’re ok with what they’re doing or called to do and are willing to support them ( show up and do what needs to be done when they ask for help).

Don’t vote if you don’t care.

Vote no if you’re willing to stand up and say why.

Sustaining has less to do with raising your hand out of reflex and more to do with helping move Sis Jones on a Saturday when you’d rather be watching the game. Nuancing your sustaining based on how you feel about the person and whether God Almighty chose him to be 2nd counselor in the SS or if TSM has ever actually recieved a revelation than being part of the enterprise of taking care of your neighbor. IMHO.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Does it matter what we think sustain mean? I’m sure we will get some nuanced responses here…but so what?

When it comes down to it we know what the church meaning of sustain is. And what the membership expects and believes it means. I’m fine if we want to fantasize about the ideal church. But IMO, the one that gets described in the next page or two of responses simply didn’t exist today..

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I don’t think we do all know what the church meaning of sustain is nor what the membership expects and believes it means. I think it all depends on each individual’s own perceptual lens. I agree the ideal church doesn’t exist, but that’s partly because what’s ideal to you is not necessarily ideal to me.

Could I say what I said in SS or a TR interview and still get a recommend? It depends on the SS (and this is posted here and not on LDS.net for that reason), but probably not for the recommend – but then again, in those questions a simple yes or no is all that’s required, no explanation is necessary or even proper. I am asking because I don’t know what it means to sustain a local leader, even though I have been one, and I don’t know what the church meaning of sustain is.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

Vote yes is you’re ok with what they’re doing or called to do and are willing to support them ( show up and do what needs to be done when they ask for help).

Don’t vote if you don’t care.

Vote no if you’re willing to stand up and say why.

Sustaining has less to do with raising your hand out of reflex and more to do with helping move Sis Jones on a Saturday when you’d rather be watching the game. Nuancing your sustaining based on how you feel about the person and whether God Almighty chose him to be 2nd counselor in the SS or if TSM has ever actually recieved a revelation than being part of the enterprise of taking care of your neighbor. IMHO.

Thank you for your input. Actually, I’m not asking about the raising one’s hand part – I think that is meaningless tradition. So, if helping Sr. Jones move is sustaining, who am I sustaining and how? (FWIW, I do participate in such activities if asked, and since I have a truck I do get asked.) Does helping her move enable me to answer yes when asked in the TR interview if I support the local leaders of the church? I’m not arguing here, I’m looking for clarification – I’m not sure I’m seeing the connection between sustaining my local leaders and loving my neighbor (which seems to be a whole different subject).

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m looking for clarification – I’m not sure I’m seeing the connection between sustaining my local leaders and loving my neighbor (which seems to be a whole different subject).

If the EQP calls and asks for help then I believe it would be sustaining him in his calling to lend a hand. I also believe that there is at least some level of sustaining in acknowledging their right to lead. I have no problems with the LDS org chart as presently constituted. I feel that all those fine people were legally appointed and I wish them well as they do their thing. I certainly have no illusions about “one mighty and strong” that would step in and shake things up.

OTOH – It wouldn’t be too difficult to say that to truly sustain the leadership is to accept any calling. I remember a talk about the hypocrisy of singing “We thank the O God for a Prophet” and then not following his counsel in all things. (If I remember correctly the specific counsel named was to not go on dates before 16 yrs.)

[Anonymous]

To sustain, in my view, is to be willing to let the person be called to the position. It means I do not oppose the local leadership’s decision to call them. It’s simply a filter that allows members to influence the local leadership in their decision’s to appoint someone as a leader. It can be effective at times when the person has severe deficits the local leadership is not aware of (such as the newly baptized member who called my wife and offered sex years ago — I opposed his call, and the local leadership agreed with me, and didn’t call him to the position).

After the newly called person is in the position, they have to earn my trust in their leadership, and win my permission to lead me. They have to campaign while they are in office, so to speak, to earn my commitment — just like any leader. So, when I raise my hand to sustain them, I am not agreeing to necessarily support any initiative they present, or follow any of their instructions. If they come out with time consuming, ineffective iniatives, I am under no obligation to follow them if I choose not to. If they assign me work without asking me, then I am under no obligation to follow simply because I “sustained” them.

Only when my own personal filter and revelation inspires me to follow, will I do so.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m looking for clarification – I’m not sure I’m seeing the connection between sustaining my local leaders and loving my neighbor (which seems to be a whole different subject).

If the EQP calls and asks for help then I believe it would be sustaining him in his calling to lend a hand. I also believe that there is at least some level of sustaining in acknowledging their right to lead. I have no problems with the LDS org chart as presently constituted. I feel that all those fine people were legally appointed and I wish them well as they do their thing. I certainly have no illusions about “one mighty and strong” that would step in and shake things up.

OTOH – It wouldn’t be too difficult to say that to truly sustain the leadership is to accept any calling. I remember a talk about the hypocrisy of singing “We thank the O God for a Prophet” and then not following his counsel in all things. (If I remember correctly the specific counsel named was to not go on dates before 16 yrs.)

I agree, Roy, I have no problem with the way the church is organized, either – it seems pretty efficient and it seems to work. There is in my mind some acknowledgement of sustaining in helping an EQP do his job. In our ward it’s usually a home teacher asking for help with moves, but nonetheless it is sustaining him and indirectly the leadership. That’s not really what I’m getting out of GBSmith’s comment, but maybe I’m just misinterpreting it. While it is loving my neighbor to help with a ward move when asked, it’s also loving my neighbor in helping the non-member across the street when a tree limb falls in his yard or helping a non-member friend with a remodeling project, or making sure the member that lives nearby is prepared for the coming winter storm without being asked or assigned to do so.. Love thy neighbor is one of the two great commandments, not necessarily connected to sustaining of anyone or anything (except God, I suppose).

Likewise, I have no ill will toward my stake president, bishop or HPGL. They’re all good people, and I do wish them well in their assignments. I actually like the stake president and I believe he has shown shown glimmers of inspiration at times. I wouldn’t accept a calling or an invitation to speak from him, however. I like the HPGL as well, and to include everybody, I don’t dislike the bishop, I’m just not fond of him. So is just acknowledging that he’s “legally appointed” (in your words) sustaining him?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

To sustain, in my view, is to be willing to let the person be called to the position. It means I do not oppose the local leadership’s decision to call them. It’s simply a filter that allows members to influence the local leadership in their decision’s to appoint someone as a leader. It can be effective at times when the person has severe deficits the local leadership is not aware of (such as the newly baptized member who called my wife and offered sex years ago — I opposed his call, and the local leadership agreed with me, and didn’t call him to the position).

After the newly called person is in the position, they have to earn my trust in their leadership, and win my permission to lead me. They have to campaign while they are in office, so to speak, to earn my commitment — just like any leader. So, when I raise my hand to sustain them, I am not agreeing to necessarily support any initiative they present, or follow any of their instructions. If they come out with time consuming, ineffective iniatives, I am under no obligation to follow them if I choose not to. If they assign me work without asking me, then I am under no obligation to follow simply because I “sustained” them.

Only when my own personal filter and revelation inspires me to follow, will I do so.

Thanks, SilentDawning. So when you’re asked the question in a TR interview I presume you answer in the affirmative (or would if you don’t actually go to TR interviews)?

[Anonymous]

cwald, you know I love you, but sometimes you really need to have another mild barley drink and bite your tongue. :silent:

This is “StayLDS.com” – so try to remember that in moments like this.

Sustain means lots of things, and I will try to respond more fully when I’m not waiting for a plane.

[Anonymous]

What a great question! What does it mean to sustain someone? Is it the same as nourishing and sustaining that person in that calling? Hm?

This got me to thinking, what do I mean when I sustain someone? To be honest, a lot of the time it’s reactionary. My hand will raise seemingly on it’s own when asked.

Upon further thought I came up with this. To sustain someone is to accept them in that position. Does it mean that I think the calling was inspired? Nope. Does it mean that I won’t undermine their authority? Absolutely. Does it mean that I will help out (when I can) for them to be successful? Yes.

Let me ask you all this. When you are sustained to a calling, what does that mean to you? What are your feelings? What do you expect (if anything) from those sustaining you?

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Thanks, SilentDawning. So when you’re asked the question in a TR interview I presume you answer in the affirmative (or would if you don’t actually go to TR interviews)?

Yes, I would say “yes, I sustain local leaders”…this is because I physically raise my hand, which indicates I am OK with the leadership’s decision to call the person. That’s all it means to me. If I always opposed, or always sat their neutral, and non-participatory in the hand-raising, then I could not answer Yes to the question. I opposed once in 30 years and abstained hardly ever.

[Anonymous]

Meh Mormon wrote:

Upon further thought I came up with this. To sustain someone is to accept them in that position. Does it mean that I think the calling was inspired? Nope. Does it mean that I won’t undermine their authority? Absolutely. Does it mean that I will help out (when I can) for them to be successful? Yes.

Let me ask you all this. When you are sustained to a calling, what does that mean to you? What are your feelings? What do you expect (if anything) from those sustaining you?

Thanks, good thoughts.

In answer to your questions, in the days when I did have callings I really didn’t expect anything, but I do tend to be independent.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

So is just acknowledging that he’s “legally appointed” (in your words) sustaining him?

I believe that is the beginnings or a bare bones version of what it means to sustain. If you didn’t or wouldn’t have raised your hand to oppose his call, you recognise the right of those leaders above him to make the call, and you don’t make life difficult for him or subvert his authority – then I might say that you are at least a little in the sustaining portion of the spectrum.

DarkJedi wrote:

So when you’re asked the question in a TR interview I presume you answer in the affirmative (or would if you don’t actually go to TR interviews)?

Suppose there is a spectrum of sustaining with the most hardcore definitions of sustaining on one extreme end and subversive apostasy on the other end. If I find myself on the sustaining side of the median then I feel justified in answering yes with no further explanation necessary.

I might further ask what it might mean to sustain the POTUS or local sherriff? Is it sustaining to be a law abiding, tax paying citizen who doesn’t make deals with terrorists or obstuct investigations? Must you have voted for them or agree with all their policies?

[Author]

Posts