What does it mean to sustain?

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I don’t care much in this setting how most members define sustaining. It isn’t the question in the title; it’s does very little to help me “stay LDS”; more importantly, it doesn’t help me be happy and at peace while staying LDS; it doesn’t reflect how I define sustaining.

I would rather sustain in a way that makes sense to me than worry about exactly how every other member in my ward is sustaining. I think worrying (or even thinking much) about how others sustain isn’t productive, in most situations, and does absolutely nothing for my own ability to sustain as I want to do so.

[Anonymous]

I think its a forgone conclusion that we discuss matters here and let others walk away with their own conclusions. Not necessarily a Middle Way, but Your Own Way.

I personally think the discussion of what it means — whether a personal definition, or one that members at large appear to believe on average — can be highly useful in helping certain people StayLDS — although it may not help you personally Ray…

For example, one reason my wife doesn’t hold a TR is because she doesn’t believe she can sustain our local Bishop. She held a TR continuously until he did some things that made her detest attending the ward and his meetings. He has behaved in ways that has really hurt sacrament meeting attendance, alienated people from attending, etcetera. This has left my wife with this feeling she cannot sustain him — meaning support him on a day to day basis — her own definition. Therefore, she believes she can’t get through a TR interview.

If my wife read through this thread, and realized that one possible definition of sustaining (based on apparent common practice/behavior) is simply “allowing the leadership to call someone to a position”, then her conflict with the TR question “do you sustain your local leaders” — evaporates. Realizing that most members probably adopt this minimal definition, passively (as with my home teaching example) may also help her see that she can hold a TR worthily — provided she agrees to allow the leaders to call people to positions when she is not aware of any glaring worthiness issues.

We all nuance words, and meanings. And I think the definition that the herd appears to use, in practice, provides a minimalist’s definition that could make someone without a TR feel good about answering the question “Do you sustain your local leaders” in a TR interview.

I’m not advocating this definition exclusively, but it works for me, and could very much help some people stayLDS if it works for them. In fact, I think I will be able to raise my hand MUCH more enthusiastically than ever before as a result of this thread. Thanks to the OP who posed this question — as you have helped me construct our own meaning and have put another drop in my bucket of StayLDS.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I think its a forgone conclusion that we discuss matters here and let others walk away with their own conclusions. Not necessarily a Middle Way, but Your Own Way.

I personally think the discussion of what it means — whether a personal definition, or one that members at large appear to believe on average — can be highly useful in helping certain people StayLDS — although it may not help you personally Ray…

For example, one reason my wife doesn’t hold a TR because she doesn’t believe she can sustain our local Bishop. She held one continuously until he did some things that made her detest attending the ward and his meetings. He has behaved in ways that has really hurt sacrament meeting attendance, alienated people from attending, etcetera. This has left my wife with this feeling she cannot sustain him — meaning support him on a day to day basis — her own definition.

If my wife read through this thread, and realized that one definition of sustaining is simply “allowing the leadership to call someone to a position”, then her conflict with the TR question “do you sustain your local leaders” — evaporates. Realizing that most members probably adopt this minimal definition, passively (as with home teaching) may also help her see that she can hold a TR worthily provided she agrees to allow the leaders to call people to positions — people who do not have any glaring worthiness issues she is aware of.

I’m not advocating this definition exclusively, but it works for me, and could very much help some people stayLDS if it works for them. In fact, I think I will be able to raise my hand MUCH more enthusiastically than ever before…thanks to the OP who posed this question — as you have helped me construct our own meaning.

We all nuance words, and meanings, and I think the definition that the herd appears to use, in practice, provides a minimalist’s definition that could make someone without a TR feel good about answering the question “Do you sustain your local leaders” in a TR interview.

I agree with you SD. I came to StayLDS to do what its name implies – stay, and have discovered by coming here that I need to find My Own Way, which also happens to match up as a Middle Way. Part of that, as I have stated, is rebuilding my faith and beliefs, and one of those I struggle with is sustaining. Like your wife, SD, I do have some issues with local leaders and I know activity in the church is based in part on sustaining those leaders. My issues are slightly different than Mrs. SD’s but not all that different – I don’t think my bishop is an inspired leader (based on his actions or lack thereof), and I don’t believe he is “called of God” (as in the AofF – I know, they’re not scripture). Can I sustain him anyway? That’s what this thread is really about.

So, Ray, I do value the discussion, it is helping me stay LDS. I know now that I do not fit into your broadest definition of sustaining – but then, as I have stated, I don’t think very many do. I might fit into some other definitions, though. If I had to do nothing other than raise my hand once a year to acknowledge he has been duly appointed leader of the ward, I might without too much difficulty get to that point.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

My issues are slightly different than Mrs. SD’s but not all that different – I don’t think my bishop is an inspired leader (based on his actions or lack thereof), and I don’t believe he is “called of God” (as in the AofF – I know, they’re not scripture). Can I sustain him anyway? That’s what this thread is really about.

According to my definition, it doesn’t matter if he’s inspired, called of God or anything — sustaining is simply giving your permission to let him have a shot at the leadership position. And the bar appears fairly low — there should be nothing grossly wrong about his character that would prompt you to oppose.

This definition (which I know may not work for you) means he can get in the position, give bad advice, try hard, fail, make questionable decisions, etcetera, and you look at it as his time in the leadership position. And you can still say you sustain your leaders, because on an ongoing basis, you give your personal permission for people with imperfections to lead by raising your hand when they ask for a sustaining vote.

What I like about this definition is that many of my own concerns are less important — in the past, my faith crisis was promoted by the high expectations church leaders create when they claim leaders are called of God etcetera. With this minimalist definition I propose, I can select those initiatives my inner clock feels are valuable and ignore the ones that are not of value — and still sustain my leaders.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I personally think the discussion of what it means — whether a personal definition, or one that members at large appear to believe on average — can be highly useful in helping certain people StayLDS — although it may not help you personally Ray…

I agree and didn’t mean to imply differently. That’s the main reason I posted all the possible definitions – so they could be discussed and not have one possible definition become the default. I am sharing what works for me personally, and I say all the time that one of the wonderful aspects of this site is that people get to read lots of different things that work for different people – which hopefully helps them find something that works for them.

I also value these discussions greatly. Sorry, everyone, if that wasn’t clear.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

What I like about this definition is that many of my own concerns are less important — in the past, my faith crisis was promoted by the high expectations church leaders create when they claim leaders are called of God etcetera. With this minimalist definition I propose, I can select those initiatives my inner clock feels are valuable and ignore the ones that are not of value — and still sustain my leaders.

I’m not there yet, SD. While I don’t think the SS secretary or ward librarian (or whatever it’s called now) necessarily has to be called of God, I really do believe that the bishop and stake president, for example, should be. I’m not sure if that’s doctrine or not (I lean toward the idea that it is), and as you know I’m still sorting out what’s doctrine and what isn’t. Your definition would work for me if I could get past that.

[Anonymous]

I think whether or not a particular leader is “called of God” depends largely on whether the person doing the calling is “inspired of God” – and, frankly, whether there’s a burning need for God to be involved to some degree, for some reason, in the calling. Those are two very subjective, difficult to determine criteria – so I don’t spend a lot of emotional capital on trying to figure it out in most cases. I also think it doesn’t matter much if someone is called of God if they wind up not “leading of God”.

However, as I said, I have experienced situations where I absolutely believe the calling was “of God” – and, interestingly, one of those cases was when the person turned down the calling, saying he wasn’t ready for such a calling but needed the assurance that God knew his heart and was willing to answer a private prayer asking to know if he could serve God in a formal calling if he changed his life in the way he knew he should. I had struggled mightily with trying to figure out who should be asked, and I questioned the answer I got even more when I learned about the man’s situation. I didn’t know him as anything but a name on a page, and what I heard about him before our meeting didn’t ease my concerns. When I left, however, I was humbled that his name had jumped out at me so forcefully.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I think whether or not a particular leader is “called of God” depends largely on whether the person doing the calling is “inspired of God” – and, frankly, whether there’s a burning need for God to be involved to some degree, for some reason, in the calling. Those are two very subjective, difficult to determine criteria – so I don’t spend a lot of emotional capital on trying to figure it out in most cases. I also think it doesn’t matter much if someone is called of God if they wind up not “leading of God”.

You’ve hit the nail on the head there, Ray. I think it can be spiritually confirmed to individuals that someone, like the prophet, a stake president, or bishop is called of God, and people can receive confirmation that their own calling is inspired. I have, in fact, received such confirmations (or at least what I thought were such confirmations), but I think most of the time we don’t get those confirmations and sometimes only get them if we seek them. Short of that confirmation, we all make judgements of others and I agree, part of that judgement is whether or not one thinks his leader is inspired based on his actions. That is the crux of my situation – based on my bishop’s actions, at least those I can observe, I think he’s wholly uninspired. I don’t think God needs to direct everything he does, but there are certainly things a loving God would prompt him to do that would make a huge difference in my (and other’s) view of him. Maybe God, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to do that, but there’s no way for me to determine if that’s the case. Coupled with that, if the SP isn’t called of God and isn’t inspired, how can he call a bishop and be inspired about it? There’s a whole domino effect there, and of course we end up on the slippery slope again. I also agree that someone called of God needs to “lead of God.”

Unfortunately, this has been such an emotionally charged issue in my life that I do put lots of emotional capital into it – it’s a biggie to me and as I have said, I’m pretty sure it’s doctrine. So here I sit – not believing a local leader that matters is inspired or called of God yet I’m expected to accept a calling from him (which would indicate sustaining of him)?

Please don’t take this to indicate the conversation we’ve been having here hasn’t been helpful, it has. I clearly have personal and doctrinal issues to work on.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

What I like about this definition is that many of my own concerns are less important — in the past, my faith crisis was promoted by the high expectations church leaders create when they claim leaders are called of God etcetera. With this minimalist definition I propose, I can select those initiatives my inner clock feels are valuable and ignore the ones that are not of value — and still sustain my leaders.

I’m not there yet, SD. While I don’t think the SS secretary or ward librarian (or whatever it’s called now) necessarily has to be called of God, I really do believe that the bishop and stake president, for example, should be. I’m not sure if that’s doctrine or not (I lean toward the idea that it is), and as you know I’m still sorting out what’s doctrine and what isn’t. Your definition would work for me if I could get past that.

I’m not sure what in the definition I drafted precludes a person being called of God. Anyone can be called, for any reason, and your hand-raising simply indicates you agree with letting him be installed as a leader in that position. Nor do you agree to do everything they say, or necessarily get behind every initiative they undertake. In fact, non-cooperation with at least some of the sustained person’s initiatives is common practice, as I described earlier.

And non-cooperation can be a valuable learning tool for leaders. When a sustained, called of God leader launches an initiative and no one follows, then the membership’s non-compliance provides valuable learning for the leader. Why are they not following? Have I ignored their personal needs that are deeply relevant to the success of this initiative? How could I improve my process next time? Is what I’m asking them to do TRULY of value? Is it worth the sacrifice I am asking of them? Non-cooperation encourages leaders to learn and progress — even sustained, call-of-God ones.

In fact, according to my definition of sustaining, a person can be called of God, accept the position, and then screw up royally for a long time, causing untold hardship on the ward members. In my view a call from God doesn’t necessarily mean the person will be good for the Ward or stake or even be right most of the time. The reason for the divine call may be to give the person a strong personality overhaul that could not be achieved through other means. Also, I have my own agency, and my own inspiration/filter that is constantly taking the stimulii from the leaders and ward members, and determining what is right for me personally. Sustaining someone does not divest me of the right to “worship God according to the dictates of my own conscience”.

We have a Bishop right now who, if called of God, may well be there primarily for his own personality overhaul. He doesnt’ listen, tells everyone what to do, doesn’t care, etcetera. People are leaving the Ward in droves. I have this feeling that if he was in fact called of God, he’s the one benefiting from the call and not very many people he is leading. And any benefit he receives may well come from the non-cooperation he gets from the people who sustained the decision to let him lead.

Non-cooperation with called-of-God, sustained leaders can turn ineffective men into inspiring leaders — provided they accept the feedback with humility.

Not sure if I’m addressing your concern though If you could articulate how the draft definition of sustaining conflicts with someone being called of God, I’m all ears.

[Anonymous]

I think was misinterpreting what you said, SD. I think I understand that you’re saying it doesn’t really matter what happens or what anything else is about, your vote doesn’t mean you necessarily sustain that person as called of God or whatever because it’s just a vote that you agree that the person should be in that position for whatever reason. I’m still not there. Again, while I don’t give a hoot if the librarian is called of God, I do care if the bishop is and I do care that a bishop can reign as a tyrant or be uninspired. Your definition works well for you, apparently, and I have pondered on it. It won’t work for me. I also struggle with the whole loving God idea (which does connect a bit to God being involved in our lives), because I believe a loving God wouldn’t call a tyrannical or uninspired bishop because of the pain it would inflict upon his other children. It’s one thing to search for the lost sheep, it’s quite another to allow them to be eaten by wolves while you save that sheep. I don’t want to argue your point, it just doesn’t work for me.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

That is the crux of my situation – based on my bishop’s actions, at least those I can observe, I think he’s wholly uninspired. I don’t think God needs to direct everything he does, but there are certainly things a loving God would prompt him to do that would make a huge difference in my (and other’s) view of him. Maybe God, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to do that, but there’s no way for me to determine if that’s the case.

DW is a couselor in the RS. She reported to me that in one of her meetings the RS pres. was putting herself done for never getting one of those spiritual promting to go visit sister Jones that we hear so much about. She said that she considers herself a workhorse and expressed that this was somehow second class to a spiritially inspired leader. She asked the presidency to do make certain committments to be worthy of being led by the spirit.

I think it is unfortunate that this fine sister has been conditioned to think that unless she has some vaguely supernatural experience she is not doing her job quite right.

Let’s say for a moment that God is not part of the system and everyone is limited by their humanity, would it be easier to sustain these individuals?

I personally have given up trying to speculate what God wants based on the environment I see around me. I’m not sure that the two are related.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think was misinterpreting what you said, SD. I think I understand that you’re saying it doesn’t really matter what happens or what anything else is about, your vote doesn’t mean you necessarily sustain that person as called of God or whatever because it’s just a vote that you agree that the person should be in that position for whatever reason. I’m still not there. Again, while I don’t give a hoot if the librarian is called of God, I do care if the bishop is and I do care that a bishop can reign as a tyrant or be uninspired. Your definition works well for you, apparently, and I have pondered on it. It won’t work for me. I also struggle with the whole loving God idea (which does connect a bit to God being involved in our lives), because I believe a loving God wouldn’t call a tyrannical or uninspired bishop because of the pain it would inflict upon his other children. It’s one thing to search for the lost sheep, it’s quite another to allow them to be eaten by wolves while you save that sheep. I don’t want to argue your point, it just doesn’t work for me.

I’m Ok with the idea that the definition doesn’t work for you. But I would like some clarification — in raising your hand, are you saying that you believe the person is called of God?

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, there is literally nothing in the handbook or anywhere else that says sustaining someone by raising our hands indicates we accept that the person was called of God in any literal way – no matter what some members might think. The higher the hierarchical position, the more such an understanding is implied, but it certainly isn’t explicit at the lower levels, especially.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’m Ok with the idea that the definition doesn’t work for you. But I would like some clarification — in raising your hand, are you saying that you believe the person is called of God?

I’ve come here with an open mind to try to redefine what I believe about sustaining (and I still have to work out the whole “called of God” thing), but yes, as now constituted my idea of sustaining includes that the person is called of God. That definition is evolving, but that’s still where I am right now.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’ve come here with an open mind to try to redefine what I believe about sustaining (and I still have to work out the whole “called of God” thing), but yes, as now constituted my idea of sustaining includes that the person is called of God. That definition is evolving, but that’s still where I am right now.

So, you mean that in raising your hand, you are stating that you believe the person is called of God, but only if they are a Stake President or Bishop — correct? I’m not challenging the idea, I am simply trying to make the connection between sustaining and called-of-God leaders.

[Author]

Posts