The Ritual Of Sustaining

[Stone holm]

As I move towards my fortieth year in the Church, there is one ritual that has started to annoy me somewhat. The mass sustainings which we do at Ward, Stake and General Conferences. It's not like you could ever just quietly raise your hand in opposition without triggering an interview with someone from the podium. Not that I have ever been prompted to do so. But you are being asked to sustain people you don't know and it's not like you have prayed about it or something . And then of course later if you falter or hesitate you get reminded of having sustained Joe Blow as this or that. Does anybody else think this to be more of a coercive ritual than anything close to consent?

[JLHPROF]

It's true - while there have been cases of people raising objections, nowadays people just sustain blindly since they assume that any calling is by inspiration.

 

When the practice was instituted people actually voted according to the spirit.  The most famous times being when they refused to sustain rebellious general authorities in the days of the prophet Joseph.  Nobody would dare vote that way now.

[Stone holm]

It's true - while there have been cases of people raising objections, nowadays people just sustain blindly since they assume that any calling is by inspiration.

 

When the practice was instituted people actually voted according to the spirit.  The most famous times being when they refused to sustain rebellious general authorities in the days of the prophet Joseph.  Nobody would dare vote that way now.

Have sometimes wondered if they proposed Toaster Oven as Asst Ward Clerk whether anyone would object. I think I have actually only been in one or two meetings where hands were raised in objection. I did sit in on a High Council Court as the clerk which was convened to investigate what should be done when a large percentage of the members had voted in opposition to a sitting Bishop at a Ward Conference...a scene I had not witnessed.

[mfbukowski]

. I did sit in on a High Council Court as the clerk which was convened to investigate what should be done when a large percentage of the members had voted in opposition to a sitting Bishop at a Ward Conference...a scene I had not witnessed.

Huh?

[Stone holm]

Huh?

Uh, yeah the Stake Presidency convened a high council court of inquiry and hauled in most of the leading members of the Ward to try and figure out what was going on, it went on for, as I remember, several months. I had to write up the minutes. In part it was for the Stake Presidency to figure out whether to release the Bishop or reprimand people as back biters . It was a basic mess, the Ward was so divided.

[Palerider]

I lived in a ward where an individual who was coming out of prison (where they had been introduced to the church) was going to be coming into the ward for full fellowship.

The crimes were so heinous that their case had been taken by the Stake president directly to President Hinkley, who had approved their coming into the ward with full fellowship. The nature of this type of criminal has aproximately a 95% rate of recitivism.

The stake presidency called a meeting of the adults to explain the situation. Members who were aware of the crimes were so agitated that some were quite hostile to the entire situation and I think they actually spoke the feelings of the majority of the ward, for none disagreed with them.

The stake presidency basically said, "We understand your concern but the individual has been cleared by the first presidency so they're coming here whether you like it or not." And they ended the meeting.

It was the first time in my life I wish I had thought of D&C 21:2 (All things shall be done by consent of the church)and asked for a vote whether to sustain the stake president's decision or not.

I've kicked myself numerous times for not thinking of it (I was kind of in shock at the time) and also wondered why, on such a truly significant matter, that option was not offered to the ward.

Would this person have ever re-committed their crimes? No one knows. Including the prophet.

Do all God's children deserve second, third and fourth chances, etc? Of course.

But there are ways to do that while minimizing the risk to your general membership.

Personally, I think the LDS act of sustaining is an empty ritual that has lost whatever power it ever had.

It is used when it suits the leadership.

[pogi]

It has always been my understanding that sustaining is not the same as voting a person into office.  They have already been called and we are simply being asked to offer support.

[Stone holm]

I lived in a ward where an individual who was coming out of prison (where they had been introduced to the church) was going to be coming into the ward for full fellowship.The crimes were so heinous that their case had been taken by the Stake president directly to President Hinkley, who had approved their coming into the ward with full fellowship. The nature of this type of criminal has aproximately a 95% rate of recitivism.The stake presidency called a meeting of the adults to explain the situation. Members who were aware of the crimes were so agitated that some were quite hostile to the entire situation and I think they actually spoke the feelings of the majority of the ward, for none disagreed with them.The stake presidency basically said, "We understand your concern but the individual has been cleared by the first presidency so they're coming here whether you like it or not." And they ended the meeting.It was the first time in my life I wish I had thought of D&C 21:2 (All things shall be done by consent of the church)and asked for a vote whether to sustain the stake president's decision or not.I've kicked myself numerous times for not thinking of it (I was kind of in shock at the time) and also wondered why, on such a truly significant matter, that option was not offered to the ward.Would this person have ever re-committed their crimes? No one knows. Including the prophet.Do all God's children deserve second, third and fourth chances, etc? Of course.But there are ways to do that while minimizing the risk to your general membership.Personally, I think the LDS act of sustaining is an empty ritual that has lost whatever power it ever had.It is used when it suits the leadership.

So what happened when they called for the vote to welcome them into the Ward?

[Stone holm]

It has always been my understanding that sustaining is not the same as voting a person into office.  They have already been called and we are simply being asked to offer support.

True. But if there is no significance then we should not talk of common consent.

[Palerider]

One other thing I forgot to mention as a matter of interest.

If I recall correctly from some of the history that I've read, it's my understanding that when plural marriage was discontinued and Wilford Woodruff's manifesto was "sustained" at conference, a large number in the tabernacle abstained from voting. They would not sustain it but neither would they approve it either.

Kind of interesting.

[Palerider]

 

So what happened when they called for the vote to welcome them into the Ward?

 

It so happened that they came in as a part of a ward boundary change at the same time. So no vote was required.

[Palerider]

 

True. But if there is no significance then we should not talk of common consent.

 

Precisely.

[Sky]

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/03/we-sustain-our-leaders

[pogi]

It's not like you could ever just quietly raise your hand in opposition without triggering an interview with someone from the podium. 

 

The only reason that you would raise your hand in opposition to someone is if you know that they are "guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold."

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent

In which case, you would want to be called in for an interview to disclose what information you have.

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have…"(Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:124.)

 

 

Not that I have ever been prompted to do so. But you are being asked to sustain people you don't know and it's not like you have prayed about it or something . And then of course later if you falter or hesitate you get reminded of having sustained Joe Blow as this or that. Does anybody else think this to be more of a coercive ritual than anything close to consent?

 

Again, if you don't know of anything that would disqualify a person from serving in that office (such as pedophilia, adultery, etc.), then we don't have a reason to oppose.  In relation to sustaining, that is how common consent works.  In essence, we are being asked, "is this person who we think he is, or are there things that we don't know about him that would disqualify him from serving in this position?  If you don't know of anything , we are asking for your sustaining."  If people know of anything disqualifying, than we are expected to oppose a sustaining, whereby that person could not serve by means of common consent, if it is determined that the opposition is legitimate.  No coercion, but we are expected to offer our support if we have no legitimate reason not to.  Obviously, we are not expected to continue to sustain a leader whom we have perviously sustained if any disqualifying attribute comes to our attention, in which case we would make it known to the proper authority. 

Edited November 25, 2013 by pogi

[Palerider]

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/03/we-sustain-our-leaders

 

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/priesthood/prophets/common_consent.html

Common consent is a fundamental principle of decision making at all levels in THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. In selecting new officers and making administrative decisions, Church leaders are instructed to seek the will of God. Once the Lord makes his will known and a decision is reached, the matter is brought before the appropriate quorum or body of Church members, who are asked to sustain or oppose the action. This process provides for direction of the Church by revelation, while protecting the agency of the members to verify in their own minds whether decisions have been proper and made according to the will of God.

The principle of common consent has functioned in the Church since its inception, though the actual practices incorporating this principle have evolved significantly. The revelation on LDS Church government, received when it was organized in April 1830, states: "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65). This instruction was reemphasized three months later: "All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2). LDS practices may have been influenced in these earliest years by the Book of Mormon model of theocratic government that conducted its "business by the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:25-26), and by biblical example (e.g., Ex. 24:3; Num. 27:19).

[Stone holm]

The only reason that you would raise your hand in opposition to someone is if you know that they are "guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold."

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent

In which case, you would want to be called in for an interview to disclose what information you have.

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have…"(Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:124.)

 

 

 

Again, if you don't know of anything that would disqualify a person from serving in that office (such as pedophilia, adultery, etc.), then we don't have a reason to oppose.  In relation to sustaining, that is how common consent works.  In essence, we are being asked, "is this person who we think he is, or are there things that we don't know about him that would disqualify him from serving in this position?  If you don't know of anything , we are asking for your sustaining."  If people know of anything disqualifying, than we are expected to oppose a sustaining, whereby that person could not serve by means of common consent, if it is determined that the opposition is legitimate.  No coercion, but we are expected to offer our support if we have no legitimate reason not to.  Obviously, we are not expected to continue to sustain a leader whom we have perviously sustained if any disqualifying attribute comes to our attention, in which case we would make it known to the proper authority.

I somehow think that most members believe they are doing something more than a background check. We are being asked to consent to a person serving in some leadership position, and if we rightly or wrongly later question something they have done that we personally disagree with or they plan something we are not particularly enthused about we will be quickly reminded that we raised our hand to sustain them in his calling. The implication being that we promised and consented to their future actions and proposals. Whatever the original intent may have been, it is now used as a way of inspiring acceptance of leadership by guilt.

[pogi]

I somehow think that most members believe they are doing something more than a background check. We are being asked to consent to a person serving in some leadership position, and if we rightly or wrongly later question something they have done that we personally disagree with or they plan something we are not particularly enthused about we will be quickly reminded that we raised our hand to sustain them in his calling. The implication being that we promised and consented to their future actions and proposals. Whatever the original intent may have been, it is now used as a way of inspiring acceptance of leadership by guilt.

 

That to me sounds like unrighteous dominion.  I don't doubt that it happens, but that is not the overall purpose of sustaining and common consent. 

 

I do think that there is a proper and improper way to disagree with a leader however.  We can make our disagreements known, but if there is no moral/ethical/spiritual objection, we should support their final decision even if we don't particularly like it.

Edited November 25, 2013 by pogi

[Stone holm]

That to me sounds like unrighteous dominion.  I don't doubt that it happens, but that is not the overall purpose of sustaining and common consent.

As I said the original intent may have been one thing, but the practical reality is that it appears to be serving primarily a different purpose these days.

[pogi]

As I said the original intent may have been one thing, but the practical reality is that it appears to be serving primarily a different purpose these days.

 

I would caution generalizing such an accusation.  

 

I have been fortunate enough not to come in contact with the use of my sustaining vote for unrighteous dominion.  I have never had any body guilt me either, probably because I support my leaders even if I don't particularly like their decisions as long as I have no moral, ethical, or spiritual objection, as I said previously.  Some people take disagreement to a non-sustaining level and do need to be called out and reminded of their obligation to support their leaders. 

Edited November 25, 2013 by pogi

[Palerider]

In our Bishopric we had a high counselor assigned to our ward that gave us guidance regarding a family that was going through difficult times spiritually.

 

We weren't sure how to help or what all of the problems were. 

 

His advise was, " If you want to know what's going on with mom and dad, just ask the kids. They'll tell you what's going on in the home."

 

At the time I thought, "What an awful thing to say or advise. To ask the children in a family to divulge the intimacies of their parents' private relationship and their home."   I couldn't believe he had actually said it.

 

I quietly decided deliberately not to follow his counsel, even though I felt that I shouldn't question or criticize him openly because I should be sustaining him.

 

If I wanted (or needed) to know what was going on in a home, I was going to have the courage to visit with the parents themselves, not ask the kids.

 

I now wish I had told him exactly what I thought at the time.  When we curtail our own integrity out of a false sense of loyalty, we do neither ourselves or the person we owe our loyalty to, any good.

 

They deserve our best judgement not our thoughtless adhesion. Our unity to truth, not our devotion to uniformity.

[thesometimesaint]

It is not a vote in the traditional democratic sense of the word. Like we for our Senators. It is our vote signifying that we sustain that individual in that calling. If even one person has a legitimate reason for not sustaining that person they are honor bound to make that reason known to the presiding official.  If confirmed to be true that person will not put in that calling.

[CV75]

Does anybody else think this to be more of a coercive ritual than anything close to consent?

IOn one level, since we sometimes know little or nothing about the individual’s worthiness, the sustaining is a personal act of faith, hope and love in the Lord (especially in those cases where we haven’t prayed about it ahead of time—hopefully at least we said our prayers that morning and have a sense as to what to do). As we join with others of the same mind, this becomes a form of putting the “common” in the common consent to be led by the Lord, to show confidence that He made the calling and will watch over things, work things out when they go wrong, not let the Church go astray, etc.

 

On another level, it serves as a reminder and expectation that we not give up on the sustained person for the smallest infraction (real or perceived). He needs our prayers, example, counsel, etc. As we unite with others in this attitude, this individual right and privilege become part of the greater common consent. And on yet another level, it helps us consider our approach to things if we see the need for correction, so that we do it in as Christlike a manner as we can.

 

Perfect love casteth out all fear, and love is made perfect in unity (1 John 4:12; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Mosiah 18:21). We cannot have common consent of any kind without this unity in Christ, and vice-versa.

 

So for me, it is not coercive but an opportunity to particpate in common consent with the Lord.

[Tacenda]

In our Bishopric we had a high counselor assigned to our ward that gave us guidance regarding a family that was going through difficult times spiritually.

We weren't sure how to help or what all of the problems were.

His advise was, " If you want to know what's going on with mom and dad, just ask the kids. They'll tell you what's going on in the home."

At the time I thought, "What an awful thing to say or advise. To ask the children in a family to divulge the intimacies of their parents' private relationship and their home." I couldn't believe he had actually said it.

I quietly decided deliberately not to follow his counsel, even though I felt that I shouldn't question or criticize him openly because I should be sustaining him.

If I wanted (or needed) to know what was going on in a home, I was going to have the courage to visit with the parents themselves, not ask the kids.

I now wish I had told him exactly what I thought at the time. When we curtail our own integrity out of a false sense of loyalty, we do neither ourselves or the person we owe our loyalty to, any good.

They deserve our best judgement not our thoughtless adhesion. Our unity to truth, not our devotion to uniformity.

Especially when the children have a skewed view. That's terrible advice. I sometimes wonder if our bishop goes through our son who is friends with his son to see how we're doing. I wish he'd come right out and ask us. When I sub, sometimes a student will talk about something at home, nothing serious but maybe embarrassing, but I know that it's not the full story.

[Kevin Christensen]

It helps to look up the meaning of the word "sustain" in a good dictionary.

To uphold. To support. To provide with provisions. To suffer, to allow, to permit. To endure, as in "he sustained a broken leg."

If you comprehend the range of meanings that the "sustain" carries, and think of it not in terms of a community vote of approval or unquestioning obedience (it is neither), but of the the fact that our baptismal covenant and temple covenants are with the Lord, not with anyone in the church, you can see what is really going on. When I sustain someone, I am telling God that no matter what the person is like, or whether I like or agree with that person, I will not let anything that happens interfere or impede my personal covenants with God. I will be willing to both provide help, and put up with any crap that comes along, and if crap does come along I will be there to help clean up the mess. It also means that when people sustain me in my callings, they have the same attitude with respect to my presence in the community. It means I understand Isaiah 55:8-11, and trust the God's ways are higher than mine, and see long term processes, not just the present moment's problems and frustrations.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Stone holm]

I would caution generalizing such an accusation.  

 

I have been fortunate enough not to come in contact with the use of my sustaining vote for unrighteous dominion.  I have never had any body guilt me either, probably because I support my leaders even if I don't particularly like their decisions as long as I have no moral, ethical, or spiritual objection, as I said previously.  Some people take disagreement to a non-sustaining level and do need to be called out and reminded of their obligation to support their leaders.

As I said, I have never been inclined ever to raise my hand in opposition. But in some ways, I believe your comment reinforces my concern when we talk about our "obligation" to support our leaders. My personal suspicion is that many Mormons feel they are obligated to raise their hands to sustain whether they are all that enthused or not, and they believe even considering not doing so to be evidence of unfaithfulness and sin on their part. From my personal observation the best you see people mustering the courage to do is not raise their hand at all, which you see a fair amount of happening. The whole process to my mind has devolved to a conditioning process like the frequent recitation of pledges in some countries. So that eventually even questioning something triggers an inhibition.j