What does it mean to sustain?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

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.

Yes and no. At one point, when I was TBM, I truly believed everyone – even the nursery leader – was called by revelation (at least inspiration). My evolution of thought on the process has come about during my crisis of faith. I actually don’t believe any of them are called of God anymore, but I do think some of them should be – particularly those in leadership positions. When I raised my hand in the past to sustain, I was indicating that I believed they were called of God in my mind and in my beliefs at the time. I haven’t come full circle yet, and part of that is because (how many times can I say this?) I am still struggling with the whole called of God thing.

[Anonymous]

I’m curious about where in our doctrine it says that by raising your hand you are stating you believe they have been called of God. I haven’t heard that before. Again, I am not disagreeing, I simply want to understand where you are getting that impression/belief/implied meaning of raising your hand.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

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.

I haven’t been ignoring you, Ray, and you make a good point. I put little stock in handbooks these days, anyway, and would be much more likely to have a belief based on scripture than on any handbook or what any GA said. I constantly encounter non-doctrine that most members of the church would probably think is doctrine (that’s why I take breaks from LDS.net). That’s another thing I’m sorting out, what is and isn’t doctrine. I agree with you that sustaining the Q15 as prophets, seers and revelators implies that they are called of God (and I believe they might be) and that less implication is present in lower levels. The whole process of calling an SP or bishop would indicate that there should be some revelation involved (and GAs have testified of such in the past), so I’m not there yet. I have concluded that the nursery leader and librarian and home teachers are not called of God. I also recognize that the AofF is referring to the priesthood, not callings – but I’m not sure all priesthood holders are called of God, either.

My head is starting to wrap around what you and SD are saying, my thoughts are evolving.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I’m curious about where in our doctrine it says that by raising your hand you are stating you believe they have been called of God. I haven’t heard that before. Again, I am not disagreeing, I simply want to understand where you are getting that impression/belief/implied meaning of raising your hand.

It doesn’t (see my reply to Ray). But when I was a TBM I believed it, and I’m pretty certain I wasn’t the only one and that there are still millions who do believe it. TBMs have a lot of doctrine that isn’t doctrine, as I am sure you are well aware.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

I’m curious about where in our doctrine it says that by raising your hand you are stating you believe they have been called of God. I haven’t heard that before. Again, I am not disagreeing, I simply want to understand where you are getting that impression/belief/implied meaning of raising your hand.

It doesn’t (see my reply to Ray). But when I was a TBM I believed it, and I’m pretty certain I wasn’t the only one and that there are still millions who do believe it. TBMs have a lot of doctrine that isn’t doctrine, as I am sure you are well aware.

I read the 6:35 pm post September 1 (the one I think you mean to Ray). I think you might be confusing sustaining, with believing people are called of God. For me, they are two different things. Now, SOME people might sustain because they feel they are simply supporting God who wants the person in the leadership position at a certain time, but I have never heard that before.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

I’m not sure if I have much else to contribute to this discussion….if there was a new thread on whether leaders are inspired (or an old one to read), that might make for a new discussion. I personally see the purported inspiration of leaders and the meaning of sustaining as two different things, but as we all know “my thoughts are not your thoughts…” (not to imply that I’m divine either!).

[Anonymous]

I certainly can admit when I’m wrong, SD, and a big part of my own crisis if faith was the realization that I was wrong about many things – at one point I actually decided I was wrong about everything from God on down which enabled me to start rebuilding. And, of course, a huge part of that rebuilding is deciding what I was wrong about and what is actually true. Again, my thoughts on sustaining are evolving as a result of this conversation.

I’m not so sure I’m wrong, though, about what others (specifically referring to “normal” active TBM types) believe when they sustain. There is an implication there that the person being sustained has been called of God, again, more so with some callings than others, but to some extent the implication is always there, even though it’s not contained in any handbook or explicitly spelled out in the scriptures. But then, there are many such examples of this unwritten “doctrine” among TBMs. And maybe it’s not that way everywhere, but I think in my area it’s pretty much taken for granted in people’s minds that every time they raise their hands to sustain someone, that person has been duly called of God.

[Anonymous]

I feel bad to be posting on this one so late. Somehow I missed it, and now I’m not going to go back and read everything. Here’s my take on sustaining.

Sustaining means supporting. It can’t mean (at least IMO) supporting them in doing things that are wrong or that God doesn’t require, only in the mantle aspects of their calling. E. Oaks gave a talk in Singapore about a year ago in which he called a boy up to the stand and put his jacket on him. He said the jacket was like the mantle, and the boy was how all the church leaders are, much smaller than the mantle. He said we need to have respect for the mantle, but not necessarily for the boy. We sustain by helping the boy as he tries to fill that mantle, but not necessarily by being blind to the ways he falls short.

The simple fact is that most of the members who are gung-ho sustainers take it to mean that every word that drops from a leader’s mouth is a pearl of wisdom. To me that’s evidence that they don’t listen very well or think very clearly about the things they are hearing. I hear human motivations and understanding behind a lot of what is said. I acknowledge they have the keys (which means they are in that role), and they are good-hearted people (I don’t believe they are evil, although pride is definitely in evidence with a few of them, and some are smarter than others). I do see them make mistakes plenty, and I do hear them say things that aren’t correct. I sustain them by hoping they do well in their callings and listening AT ALL to what they say.

[Anonymous]

Just a thought:

Jacob 4:14

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiff-necked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may is tumble.

Couple more thoughts:

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.” D&C 21:5

“Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” D&C 1:38

“Because of…the apparent imperfections of men on whom God confers authority, the question is sometimes asked,—to what extent is obedience to those who hold the priesthood required? This is a very important question, and one which should be understood by all Saints. In attempting to answer this question, we would repeat, in short, what we have already written, that willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the Priesthood, is indispensable to salvation; but we would further add, that a proper conservative to this power exists for the benefit of all, and none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood. We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do any thing they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God, who seeks for the redemption of his fellows, would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right with himself to the favour of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was place found for it among men. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty (!) authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their Presidents, they should do it without asking any questions.

When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves, and wish to pave the way to accomplish that wrong; or else because they have done wrong, and wish to use the cloak of their authority to cover it with, lest it should be discovered by their superiors, who would require an atonement at their hands.”

—”Priesthood,” Millennial Star 14/38 (13 November 1852), 594–95; italics in the original.

“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

Brother Joseph W. Young remarked this morning that he wished the people to receive the word of the Lord through his servants, be dictated by them, and have no will of their own. I would express it in this wise: God has placed within us a will, and we should be satisfied to have it controlled by the will of the Almighty. Let the human will be indomitable for right….

Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in the path that leads to everlasting life; then will envy, the child of ignorance, vanish, and there will be no disposition in any man to place himself above another; for such a feeling meets no countenance in the order of heaven. Jesus Christ never wanted to be different from his father: they were and are one. If a people are led by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and they are cognizant of the fact through their faithfulness, there is no fear but they will be one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye.”

—Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150, 12 January 1862.

At first glance the first two and the second two and contradictory, however at a closer look there is an important lesson to learn here. Questioning is good, question everything. This is how we learn and develop our own testimony. We will never reach exaltation following our leaders blindly. That being said when it come to the words of the prophet we have to develop faith and not look beyond the mark. We have to learn that God’s ways are higher than our ways and acknowledge that his words are the same as God saying them Himself (when acting as the prophet). Plato’s analogy of the cave has been the best explanation to this concept I have read. Thou not written about religion truth is universal and it apples very well.

[Anonymous]

zeppelinate wrote:

That being said when it come to the words of the prophet we have to develop faith and not look beyond the mark. We have to learn that God’s ways are higher than our ways and acknowledge that his words are the same as God saying them Himself (when acting as the prophet).

“Looking beyond the mark” is a form of ambiguous statement that sounds like it means something, but doesn’t have a concrete definition. Sure, even someone as liberal on the belief spectrum as me, I agree that we should listen to God and seek for the best application of that inspiration we receive. My view of what God is, what revelation is, and what a prophet is has changed a lot. I don’t dismiss the role of prophet-archetypes in our society. We progress in light and truth, progress towards whatever the kingdom of God is, as we collectively (and individually) improve our selves and our environment around us.

To me “sustaining” a leader means to help make them the best leader possible. It means to help them help the community they serve with the talents and energy I have to give. Sometimes the best way to do that is disagree with them. If you feel they are wrong, if you see brothers and sisters being harmed, it’s just as much a duty to point that out. That can be done in a community-building and supportive way. It can be done in a contentious and negative way. We gain the wisdom to that better by trial and error, through life experience.

Ineffective leaders surround themselves with an echo-chamber of “yes men.”

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“Looking beyond the mark” is a form of ambiguous statement that sounds like it means something, but doesn’t have a concrete definition.

I both agree and disagree with your statement. Looking beyond the mark is only as ambiguous as one chooses to make it. To the Jews during the time of Christ it was very real and lead to the great apostasy.

There is power in seeking personal revelations in all things and not following our leaders blindly, however there is also a lot of room there for the adversary to play on ones conscience. In the end I think we have to ask ourselves if our position is coming from a place of humility or pride. What the prophet says will not always fit our personal beliefs like polygamy for example. Many strong and faithful members (Joseph Smith included) really struggled with this law. Though God doesn’t want us to follow blindly He does expect us to understand that his laws and understandings are higher than ours. Sometimes the conviction and personal understanding will not come until after the trial of faith.

For me personally, I am very grateful I only need to receive revelation once that our prophet is the mouthpiece of God. Then I don’t have to struggle with my own biases and lack of understanding on every issue. Yes I will be expected to develop a personal conviction concerning the issue, but now I have the gift of time. Some convictions in my life didn’t come until after years of practicing the principles to the best of my understanding. Sometimes we wont have the luxury of time on our side.

I understand all the arguments surrounding some of what Brigham Young said too, but that’s a whole other topic.

[Anonymous]

This is a somewhat old thread (my old thread) written when I first came here. The thread helped come to the understanding I now have of sustaining, and while I always felt that I sustained the prophet (although not in the same way Zeppelinate apparently does or thinks I should), the real question had to do with local leaders. I can now say I do sustain my bishop and stake president, although again this view is not totally orthodox in the same way I think most TMB types might think.

FWIW, Zeppelinate, I do recognize President Monson as the duly appointed and authorized CEO of the church, I do believe he holds proper priesthood authority to act in that office, and I do believe he has the authority to receive revelation for all mankind (and the church) in general. I in no way believe his general remarks are revelation, nor do I believe that in everyday circumstances that he is God’s mouthpiece – even in GC. I believe the type of revelation he is authorized to receive is very rare, and that most of what he does is administrative and policy related, and that’s fine. There is no reason for God to be constantly telling him or us what to do and how to do it, and in fact I believe the opposite is actually true, that God expects us to do these things ourselves. Yes, I do sustain the prophet.

Likewise, local leaders, who don’t hold the same keys and authority as the president and the rest of the Q15, are, IMO, rarely actually inspired by direct revelation from God and are left with agency to act for themselves. This is the part that I was stuck on when I wrote this thread question and that I have now come to a belief relating to it. I do believe my bishop and SP are duly appointed and authorized to act in their respective capacities in what are mostly administrative roles which also include ministering to the membership. There is no reason for God to constantly be telling them how to do things or what to do, either. For the most part they are good men (mine are very good people) doing the same as everyone else – trying to do their best. They can receive revelation, but it is rare that they do. I do sustain them, but that does not necessarily mean that I must do everything they ask of me (which isn’t anything at the moment) without question – for I am also doing my best to do what I think is right.

That brings up the point of personal revelation, also mentioned by you. Like revelation to church leaders at all levels, I believe personal revelation is also very rare. I must view this in the frame of my crisis of faith which did and does hang on a hinge of personal revelation among other things. I’m not going to go into great detail about that here, but will say that I have expressed my ideas and questions about this in other places on the site, and a general understanding of it can be found in my own introduction thread found here: http://staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4529” class=”bbcode_url”>http://staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4529.

Other than attending church, which I plan to rectify soon, I’m good on the TR questions. That doesn’t mean I don’t have questions or doubts.

I noticed that you are a new member Zep, and I’d like to hear more about your background so I know where you’re coming from. I’d encourage you to write an intro of your own.

[Anonymous]

zeppelinate wrote:

For me personally, I am very grateful I only need to receive revelation once that our prophet is the mouthpiece of God. Then I don’t have to struggle with my own biases and lack of understanding on every issue.

I think that’s currently the most popular way to view our leaders among active and LDS members: to seek confirmation on the whole instead of parts. I don’t agree with that personally, but it is a valid approach. If it works you, that is highest priority in our community.

So with that qualification: What do you do with prophets that are wrong?

Our community isn’t about winning arguments. So I am not trying to say your approach is wrong. But this topic comes up a lot here. How do you deal with the paradox in practical terms?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

So with that qualification: What do you do with prophets that are wrong?

In my limited experience I am only aware of one prophet who was “wrong” when leading the church. The interesting thing to note is that over 30 years Brigham had a reporter follow him everywhere he went and recorded everything he said when addressing the public. The words of Brigham Young can fill a library. In books and books of his words there are only a few things he said that has been considered wrong and has since been corrected (after all that’s what the atonement is for right?) This is not yet a celestial church, but it will become one. Sure, that’s enough to make anyone question everything that’s been said from a prophet’s mouth since. For me I have to remember a few things I’ve read. 1-President Benson taught if we follow the prophet and he was wrong we would still be blessed for it. 2-Uchtdorf taught that prophets are only human, which makes them fallible, however, when acting as the prophet they will never lead us astray. 3-“Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” D&C 1:38

This tells me that on the occasion our prophet might be wrong it is not a serious enough reason that I will be lead astray as a result of following him. That promise I cannot guarantee of myself when I start second guessing him and assume I have the right answer. Humility brings me peace to allow our prophet to make mistakes and still get me to my destination safer, and more quickly than if I carved my own path. I spent a lifetime carving my own path. My progression came through being humble and submissive to His will. I also believe that if we ask and we are in tune with the spirit we will feel peace with following our prophets. Now if we are only seeing through one set of eyes we’ll get flooded with ambiguous and contradicting thoughts at be wondering through our decisions blinded concerning spiritual things.

[Anonymous]

As Brian said, if your view works for you, I am really happy. We all need to have a view that works for us, and this site is about each person finding a view that works for each person.

I respect your view for you, but, like Brian, I see things differently. That’s ok. In fact, that’s one of my favorite things in life – that we can see things differently and still love and serve each other.

Quote:

President Benson taught if we follow the prophet and he was wrong we would still be blessed for it.

I personally don’t believe that. If I follow anyone when I believe they are wrong to such an extent that it hurts people unnecessarily, I do not believe I will be blessed for it. I believe in personal agency and accountability, and I believe I will be judged based on how closely I act in accordance to my own conscience. Thus, D&C 121 (NO power or influence ought to be used to demand obedience simply because of position or title) means exactly what it says, to me – that even prophets shouldn’t be followed / obeyed simply because they are prophets. If my conscience can’t accept something said by anyone, their position or title shouldn’t compel me to accept what it said. I can sustain and support the person without following them like a robot in everything they say or ask.

(It’s also interesting that PRESIDENT Benson never said that. It was Elder Benson who said it, and he never repeated it after he became the President of the Church. He never repeated a lot of things he had said earlier in his life once he became the President.)

Anyway, again, welcome to this forum. I hope we can interact and learn from each other, and I hope you can accept differing perspectives on various things. It’s part of what I love about this place.

[Anonymous]

You’re right it was Elder Benson thanks for correcting me.

I understand and I respect your point of view and am open to challenging mine. So first I’d ask, has a prophet ever told us to do something that would hurt people unnecessarily? If I were put in that position it would certainly be a trial of faith, but I don’t feel the Lord would ever ask that. Then again Nephi was commanded to kill Laban, Joseph Smith was asked to take multiple wife’s (which clearly hurt Emma), many of the prophets were told to leave their families and follow Christ. It would certainly be a trial of my faith if I were put into any of those positions. However, here’s my fear with taking such a strong position like that. Currently we would look at the church as being pretty conservative, however they have not always been this way. Looking back at our history I would label the church as quite radical. Because of disobedience and the lack of faith of members the Lord changed many things in this church, but has promised to restore them at some point. I believe that in the near future the LDS church will take that radical approach again. I believe there will be many things we will be asked to do again that might not sit well with our cultural beliefs, personal biases, limited knowledge, and a temporal perspective. In my opinion, this is when we will experience the second great apostasy. Many people will have learned to trust in the flesh of man and in their own wisdom and when faced with hard decisions have not learned to trust in the lord. It’s easy to follow a conservative movement, but it takes a deep level of personal conviction to follow a radical one.

I’m not saying this is where you’re at, but I know many in my circle of influence who are. I believe there is a mighty sifting coming soon and we’ll have a greater need of a leader.

[Author]

Posts