What does it mean to sustain?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

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.

I have remained neutral before, and actually think that’s what I will do when I return. I’m not sure in my mind that the raising of the hand relates to the TR question – but as I said, I see the raising of the hand as a meaningless tradition. You are causing me to think about that relationship, though, and I appreciate it. The real crux of the issue in my mind really relates more to the Articles of Faith than the TR question. I’m not sure I believe these guys (or anyone in the ward or stake) are “…called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority…,” and if that really relates to sustaining. Obviously I think it does somehow or I wouldn’t be bringing it up.

As a side note, I have only seen a no vote twice and in both instances the person was called anyway. I am aware of one other instance where a person was going to be called but someone who was aware of something spoke to the bishop ahead of time and the call was rescinded before ever being put to the sustaining vote.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

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?

There likely is a spectrum – few things, I’ve found, are black and white. Thanks for that thought.

I’m not sure I’d relate the political elections to this, but it’s worth thinking about. FWIW, I didn’t vote for the current POTUS, and I don’t agree with his policies. I do, however, respect the office and respect that the majority of my fellow citizens who also voted, voted for him. And likewise, while I did vote for the previous POTUS, I also didn’t agree with all his policies and actions. Either way I paid my taxes, not in support of either but because I believe in honoring the law (even if I don’t agree with it) and don’t want to go to jail.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

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.

This is probably true. I probably don’t have much to offer, especially if I can’t speak honestly and openly.

I hope folks like staylds can change the culture and what it means to the average member and leader to “sustain” so as to make Mormonism a bigger tent. Good luck.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I hope you keep posting cWald!

[Anonymous]

You can speak honestly and openly, cwald – as long as there is something that “sustains” the mission of the site. If you can’t sustain the site’s mission, then and only then should you have another mild barley drink and bite your tongue.

Don’t stop commenting. Just show respect for us and our mission when you do. You essentially said, in different words, “What you are about to read it bull**** and a fantasy. It’s a crock, and it’s not worth reading when it comes to the real world.” Seriously, that was the meaning of what you typed. That isn’t respectful at all, and it is incredibly condescending and dismissive of sincere people for whom it’s NOT a fantasy. What everyone has shared and will share WORKS for them, so it shouldn’t be dismissed and ridiculed like you did.

That’s the only type of comment you shouldn’t share here. Everything else you share regularly is fine.

Now, back to the question of the post.

[Anonymous]

To sustain:

Quote:

1. to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure.

This implies helping someone, and the religious organizational example might be the two men who held up Moses’ arms during battle. It implies cooperating with someone in what they do.

Quote:

2.to bear (a burden, charge, etc.).

In the Church, this means helping to run the organization – doing something to take a portion of the load off of others by assignment (“charge”). This is associated generally with callings.

Quote:

3. to undergo, experience, or suffer (injury, loss, etc.); endure without giving way or yielding.

This implies standing by someone through difficulty.

Quote:

4. to keep (a person, the mind, the spirits, etc.) from giving way, as under trial or affliction.

This deals with providing support of some kind, so another person doesn’t fall, fail, etc. This includes constructive criticism and counterpoint, and I have sustained a leader by disagreeing on more than one occasion. In fact, I believe it is impossible to sustain someone fully without understanding and accepting this definition.

Quote:

5. to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.

This deals with on-going commitment – not just “sustaining” now and then, for whatever reason.

There’s a lot more I could say about each aspect, but that’s enough for now.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

To sustain:

Quote:

1. to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure.

This implies helping someone, and the religious organizational example might be the two men who held up Moses’ arms during battle. It implies cooperating with someone in what they do.

Quote:

2.to bear (a burden, charge, etc.).

In the Church, this means helping to run the organization – doing something to take a portion of the load off of others by assignment (“charge”). This is associated generally with callings.

Quote:

3. to undergo, experience, or suffer (injury, loss, etc.); endure without giving way or yielding.

This implies standing by someone through difficulty.

Quote:

4. to keep (a person, the mind, the spirits, etc.) from giving way, as under trial or affliction.

This deals with providing support of some kind, so another person doesn’t fall, fail, etc. This includes constructive criticism and counterpoint, and I have sustained a leader by disagreeing on more than one occasion. In fact, I believe it is impossible to sustain someone fully without understanding and accepting this definition.

Quote:

5. to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.

This deals with on-going commitment – not just “sustaining” now and then, for whatever reason.

There’s a lot more I could say about each aspect, but that’s enough for now.

I think this is interesting. You could read most of these as “being willing to put up with incompetence, indifference, lack of time, and all the frailties of a volunteer leader, without calling for their removal”. Many members interpret the word “sustain” as meaning you do what the priesthood leader says you should do, and get behind all their programs with your effort and work. But I argue that you could also interpret it as a passive stance of tolerance for individual growth, and the fact that many priesthood leaders do not have the time to discharge all of their responsibilities properly in some wards.

This meaning has more relevance to me right now as I feel this is what I’m doing and have done in the past.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

To sustain:

Quote:

1. to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure.

This implies helping someone, and the religious organizational example might be the two men who held up Moses’ arms during battle. It implies cooperating with someone in what they do.

Quote:

2.to bear (a burden, charge, etc.).

In the Church, this means helping to run the organization – doing something to take a portion of the load off of others by assignment (“charge”). This is associated generally with callings.

Quote:

3. to undergo, experience, or suffer (injury, loss, etc.); endure without giving way or yielding.

This implies standing by someone through difficulty.

Quote:

4. to keep (a person, the mind, the spirits, etc.) from giving way, as under trial or affliction.

This deals with providing support of some kind, so another person doesn’t fall, fail, etc. This includes constructive criticism and counterpoint, and I have sustained a leader by disagreeing on more than one occasion. In fact, I believe it is impossible to sustain someone fully without understanding and accepting this definition.

Quote:

5. to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.

This deals with on-going commitment – not just “sustaining” now and then, for whatever reason.

There’s a lot more I could say about each aspect, but that’s enough for now.

I think this is interesting. You could read most of these as “being willing to put up with incompetence, indifference, lack of time, and all the frailties of a volunteer leader, without calling for their removal”. Many members interpret the word “sustain” as meaning you do what the priesthood leader says you should do, and get behind all their programs with your effort and work. But I argue that you could also interpret it as a passive stance of tolerance for individual growth, and the fact that many priesthood leaders do not have the time to discharge all of their responsibilities properly in some wards.

This meaning has more relevance to me right now as I feel this is what I’m doing and have done in the past.

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I think most people are of the more passive variety as you describe, Silent Dawning, but of course that is from my point of view, and I shall explain further below.

You gave a lot to digest there Ray. Some of these definitions would indicate that I do not sustain because they are more active than passive and I have tended to gravitate toward the passive definition (probably because I have been pretty passive). For instance, your first definition could be done passively in cooperating, but if cooperating means accepting a calling then I am not in a position to sustain – I am unwilling to accept a calling for multiple reasons not the least of which is I don’t really believe they are inspired (I haven’t been “called of God”).

Your second definition even speaks more directly to that idea. I recognize that there are EQPs, RSPs, HTs, etc., because the bishop cannot possibly do all that on his own (and it gives others an opportunity to serve), nevertheless I have seldom borne anyone else’s load except perhaps when serving as a counselor. I don’t generally make anyone’s job easier by actively helping them, but I don’t generally or purposely make anyone’s job harder, either.

Standing by someone in difficulty I can do, and helping keep a person from giving way I can do. (My thought related to these is that I certainly haven’t been sustained by anyone except my family in the last 10 years).

The last one I believe most members drop the ball on, frankly. They (we) raise their hands to sustain someone in sacrament or conference and that’s the last of anything that’s ever done to help that person in the ways you describe in any way.

So by your definitions and commentary, I don’t sustain my local leaders (and I’m fine with that because I actually believe I don’t anyway), but neither do most people in the church IMO.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

The last one I believe most members drop the ball on, frankly. They (we) raise their hands to sustain someone in sacrament or conference and that’s the last of anything that’s ever done to help that person in the ways you describe in any way.

So by your definitions and commentary, I don’t sustain my local leaders (and I’m fine with that because I actually believe I don’t anyway), but neither do most people in the church IMO.

I’m not real sure how these generalities and judgements about “most people in church” helps the discussion. IMO.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

The last one I believe most members drop the ball on, frankly. They (we) raise their hands to sustain someone in sacrament or conference and that’s the last of anything that’s ever done to help that person in the ways you describe in any way.

So by your definitions and commentary, I don’t sustain my local leaders (and I’m fine with that because I actually believe I don’t anyway), but neither do most people in the church IMO.

I’m not real sure how these generalities and judgements about “most people in church” helps the discussion. IMO.

OK, I don’t think anyone will argue that most (active) members of the church accept a calling when extended by the ward/stake, and most (active) members of the church hold home or visiting teaching assignments and as such sustain their bishops, SPs, EQP, RSPs, and so forth. That’s only part of Ray’s definition, though.

When was the last time you (collectively, not specifically you GBSmith) helped an RS teacher with a lesson? How about the early morning seminary teacher? Have you ever called the Scoutmaster and said “I hear you have a campout next weekend, do you need another adult or do you need drivers?” When was the last time you mowed the YMPs yard because you knew he didn’t have time because of his church commitment? Have you ever gone to the clerk and said “Hey, the EQP told me you’re trying to get an address on this guy. I’ll track him down?” How about the people who just had a stillborn – have you offered them any kind of assistance at all other then the meal you were asked to provide by the RSP? I think all of those things fit into Ray’s definition of sustaining, and I don’t think very many can answer positively to any of those questions. Hence, my opinion that most members do not sustain their local leaders under Ray’s broad definition.

[Anonymous]

I think it generally is impossible to “fully” sustain each and every person in their calling AND “fully” sustain each leader, especially since there are multiple “leaders” relative to each member.

I fully sustain my leaders, but I do that in some cases by saying no to some things (since saying yes would put me in a situation where I wouldn’t be able to do other important things) and also by expressing disagreement when I feel it is important to do so, especially when I believe they will “fall” or “fail” if they pursue a particular path or program. In cases where I believed a plan is way out of line, I even have told leaders I wouldn’t fight them but I also wouldn’t support the plan publicly. I also sustain my leaders sometimes by shutting up and letting them do what they want to do without opposition, when I don’t think what they want to do will be overly damaging in the aggregate.

Sustaining is more complicated than most members understand, I believe – and I am comfortable using “most members” in that phrasing.

I’ll share a non-church issue that illustrates this point:

I don’t live in Utah. I live in a school district that is relatively small minority Mormon. All of the parents of kids in one middle school received a voice message saying that the principal was concerned about the dress code and, specifically, how tight the pants are that some kids are wearing to school – “especially the girls”. This principal is not Mormon.

I immediately called the school, the district office and a school board member and expressed my deep concern about that message. I told them that I can’t think of an appropriate way to “measure” compliance with tightness of pants, and I also am concerned about the legal implications of any attempt to enforce a specific standard – as well as the license it would give to perverts to approach young girls and comment on their bodies in the name of enforcing the dress code. I told them that I was sharing my concerns because I believe in supporting them in their responsibilities – and I believe that focus is dangerous in multiple ways they might not have considered.

I believe I am “sustaining” them – FAR more than I would be if I turned off my brain and accepted the message without providing any input.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

The last one I believe most members drop the ball on, frankly. They (we) raise their hands to sustain someone in sacrament or conference and that’s the last of anything that’s ever done to help that person in the ways you describe in any way.

So by your definitions and commentary, I don’t sustain my local leaders (and I’m fine with that because I actually believe I don’t anyway), but neither do most people in the church IMO.

I’m not real sure how these generalities and judgements about “most people in church” helps the discussion. IMO.

I think they have tremendous value. There is the stated letter of the law, and then what goes on in practice. Common practice serves as a guide for many people — it directs the herd.

You can use the usual behavior of the members as a guide for defining what sustaining means…it means raising your hand that you’re OK with allowing the leadership to call a person to a position. Nothing more.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

GBSmith wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

The last one I believe most members drop the ball on, frankly. They (we) raise their hands to sustain someone in sacrament or conference and that’s the last of anything that’s ever done to help that person in the ways you describe in any way.

So by your definitions and commentary, I don’t sustain my local leaders (and I’m fine with that because I actually believe I don’t anyway), but neither do most people in the church IMO.

I’m not real sure how these generalities and judgements about “most people in church” helps the discussion. IMO.

When was the last time you (collectively, not specifically you GBSmith) helped an RS teacher with a lesson? How about the early morning seminary teacher? Have you ever called the Scoutmaster and said “I hear you have a campout next weekend, do you need another adult or do you need drivers?” When was the last time you mowed the YMPs yard because you knew he didn’t have time because of his church commitment? Have you ever gone to the clerk and said “Hey, the EQP told me you’re trying to get an address on this guy. I’ll track him down?” How about the people who just had a stillborn – have you offered them any kind of assistance at all other then the meal you were asked to provide by the RSP? I think all of those things fit into Ray’s definition of sustaining, and I don’t think very many can answer positively to any of those questions. Hence, my opinion that most members do not sustain their local leaders under Ray’s broad definition.

It would be nice if as members of the one true church we did better at being good Christians but I expect we do about as well as baptists, methodists, episcopalians, etc..

SilentDawning wrote:

I think they have tremendous value. There is the stated letter of the law, and then what goes on in practice. Common practice serves as a guide for many people — it directs the herd.

You can use the usual behavior of the members as a guide for defining what sustaining means…it means raising your hand that you’re OK with allowing the leadership to call a person to a position. Nothing more.

Generalities aren’t based on much more than the observer’s level of aggravation at the time. I do wish I didn’t get defensive about someone from the outside looking in and telling me and mine what I think and feel and do or don’t but there it is. Don’t get me wrong. My level of cognitive dissonace and outrage at what ever I’m supposed to be outraged about is as much as anyone but labelling a group as always being something is just a poor excuse for not having a decent argument or worse than that leaving you open to the charge of being “offended”. What do you think, too much?

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

It would be nice if as members of the one true church we did better at being good Christians but I expect we do about as well as baptists, methodists, episcopalians, etc..

Generalities aren’t based on much more than the observer’s level of aggravation at the time. I do wish I didn’t get defensive about someone from the outside looking in and telling me and mine what I think and feel and do or don’t but there it is. Don’t get me wrong. My level of cognitive dissonace and outrage at what ever I’m supposed to be outraged about is as much as anyone but labelling a group as always being something is just a poor excuse for not having a decent argument or worse than that leaving you open to the charge of being “offended”. What do you think, too much?

At heart I don’t disagree with you GBSmith. Just a point here, Baptists, Methodists, etc., aren’t asked to sustain their leaders in the way we are. Perhaps that makes some of them better followers of Christ in keeping the two great commandments.

Although as a practitioner of the dark arts I know the value of using emotion and especially anger , I’m not sure I do agree that generalities are based on any level of aggravation – I do think people are quite capable of making observations without prejudice. Your statement does make sense from a logical point of view and you are welcome to your view.

Can we return to the topic now?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Generalities aren’t based on much more than the observer’s level of aggravation at the time. I do wish I didn’t get defensive about someone from the outside looking in and telling me and mine what I think and feel and do or don’t but there it is. Don’t get me wrong. My level of cognitive dissonace and outrage at what ever I’m supposed to be outraged about is as much as anyone but labelling a group as always being something is just a poor excuse for not having a decent argument or worse than that leaving you open to the charge of being “offended”. What do you think, too much?

To truly settle the question, you would have to be able to determine the number of people who raise their hand in support of a leader, and the percent of these people who actually support the programs the priesthood leader tries to implement. Their support could be measured by the extent to which these sustainers actually do the programs.

I think we can quantify this easily in my own Ward, and thus determine if this is a generality based on personal offence taken, negativity or some other distorting perception or actual practice. Here goes.

When our Bishop was sustained in our Ward, it appeared that everyone raised their hand. No one objected. Therefore, the number of people who said they would sustain the Bishop was close to 100%.

Now, let’s measure their actual behavior. For five years, home teaching of assigned families in the HP group of my ward was about 35% — allowing for those brethren who tried but whose family would not allow them to visit (I counted visits very liberally). I think this is an objective number of the extent to which the High Priests sustained the Bishop’s efforts to implement home teaching. Elder’s quorum home teaching was about 15% of assigned families. Therefore, somewhere between 65% and 85% of the brethren who agreed to sustain the Bishop, did NOT actually back up that commitment with supportive behavior of the Church’s mainstay program — home teaching.

This leads to the conclusion that most people (>50%) SAID they would sustain this Bishop, but in reality, did not actually do so. So, this generality holds up in the Ward to which I belong.

I also think it provides a practical definition of what it means to MOST members to sustain someone — it means that you raise your hand when asked to sustain him. It does not mean you have to actually support his Ward initiatives.

I recognize this is only one Ward — but to truly settle the question, you would have to know the US wide home teaching average percent.

[Author]

Posts