The Ritual Of Sustaining

[Stone holm]

To tell the truth, I told my wife I was a little shocked to discover there were some people that sort of felt the same way that I did about the ritual.  Of course my wife agrees with all of you who quickly came to the defense of the ritual as a show of support and that it was showing you were on the Lord's side, etc. etc.

[Stone holm]

This subject recently came up in an interesting conversation.  

 

My ward has, for the past few years, had some problems with some of the leadership not following the "traditional" format for activities, and frequently going off-manual in their attempts to make their programs "fun".  This has been frustrating to some of the parents in the ward, and it finally came to a breaking point a few weeks ago when an activity was planned (and executed) that was disturbingly reckless and dangerous (psychologically and physically) to the participants.

 

In discussing the issue with one of the people who planned the activity (as well as with the Bishop and Stake President), I informed them that I'm not the one in charge, so all I can do is pull my child from the program until changes are made.  The leader in question played the "sustaining" card, and the conversation went like this:

 

Yep...maybe its just a guy thing?  Since the whole thing seems never to happen to the Sisters, or maybe we just have lived in different types of Wards than other people.  But I have heard people get the sustaining card pulled on them all the time, either in situations like you just indicated or in the form of pep talks when people may not be terribly enthusiastic about a project.

[pogi]

This is how the conversation would have gone with me:

 

 

Him:  So, Brother Pogi, did you sustain me when I was called?
 
Me: Yes, I did raise my hand.
 
Him: So, you're going back on that now?  
 
Me: No, I still sustain you, but if I am going to support you, that means I have to keep you and my kid from falling.  So, if you are going to make my kid participate in disturbingly reckless and dangerous (psychologically and physically) activities, I will manifest my sustaining by not allowing it to happen, thereby holding you up and keeping you from making a big mistake. 

 
Him: But I was called by the Bishop, don't you trust his inspiration on the matter…?  

 

Me: Yes, I trust his inspiration.  I don't trust yours at this moment, but that is why I am here to offer you support.

 

Sustaining people is a great concept, but we still have to use our brains when new "data" is presented about the person's judgment and abilities.

Exactly!

Edited November 25, 2013 by pogi

[Calm]

Nicely framed.  I definitely agree that sustaining includes trying to provide correction if one feels that it is important, not just compliance no matter what.

[bluebell]

To tell the truth, I told my wife I was a little shocked to discover there were some people that sort of felt the same way that I did about the ritual.  Of course my wife agrees with all of you who quickly came to the defense of the ritual as a show of support and that it was showing you were on the Lord's side, etc. etc.

 

Wait.  Who here (besides you) has said that sustaining someone 'shows you are on the Lord's side'?  Honest question as I'm wondering if I missed it.

[Stone holm]

Wait.  Who here (besides you) has said that sustaining someone 'shows you are on the Lord's side'?  Honest question as I'm wondering if I missed it.

Oh you think that sustaining a person shows you are not on the Lord's side?

[pogi]

Oh you think that sustaining a person shows you are not on the Lord's side?

 

That's a false dichotomy.

[bluebell]

Oh you think that sustaining a person shows you are not on the Lord's side?

 

I don't believe it shows one way or the other. 

 

As I said before, I've never known anyone who has stated that they believed it showed one way or the other either.  That's why I'm very interested in who on this thread has said that.

[Bob Crockett]

As I was doing research for one of my MMM projects, I read a biography in the HBLL, the rare books department, of William Dame. The biography was a master's thesis by a Dame relative (not a descendant). He was prosecuted along with John D. Lee for the MMM, but the Department of Justice dismissed his indictment the day before trial began (to avoid double jeopardy and preserve the right to further trial).

Dame, along with Isaac Haight, was one of the two ranking Nauvoo militia officers. Dame had long protested his innocence, and had somehow engineered a court to be convened against himself in St. George, a double high council court. That court vindicated him, although some of the persons on that court were obvious perpetrators. Nonetheless, several witnesses put Dame in control.

Dame was president of a stake in Cedar City, as I recall. (Might have been Kanosh; I can't remember.)

Brigham Young himself went down to release Dame. Two thirds of the stake refused to accept his release and to sustain his replacement. Pres. Young thundered at the congregation that they'd have to bear the consequences of Dame for another 10 years, and he left him in.

The master's thesis author adopted the view, which I've seen way too often in the biographies of MMM perpetratrors, that he must have been innocent because the Lord left him in his Church calling. In this case, the law of common consent prevailed over the President's wishes.

Dame, with four wives, died childless. An irrelevant fact. But I remember seeing a photograph of him as an elderly man with four unhappy-looking wives.

I personally believe that the law of common consent is a throwback to the way Protestant churches ran their affairs in the mid 1800s (like, calling everybody "Elder" and referring to the ranking authorities by their first name and middle initial.) I've seen the law work in my own callings; knowing there'd be objections to a calling, local authorities would work in advance to resolve them before the vote. Interesting to be a part of that.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Palerider]

Practically speaking, the sustaining would serve no function except to foster contention.  They obviously knew something no one else knew.

 

I love how someone who wasn't there becomes an all-star armchair, Monday morning, quarterback....."obviously"

 

The decision was already made and it became a question of obedience.  Quite probably the first presidency knew some things the membership did not know.  Perhaps- just as an example, - the individual was now physically incapable of returning to his crimes- that is not something to be made public.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot......"secret knowledge........."

 

I don't think I've ever heard the words "probably, possibly, maybe, perhaps," so much as in a discussion with LDS when they are reaching to keep the church true.....

 

 

There could be a whole host of conditions which were disclosed privately which convinced the first presidency that their decision was a good one.

 

I'm sure there were probably ten, maybe even twenty, perhaps as many as fifty.......

Edited November 26, 2013 by Palerider

[Stone holm]

This is how the conversation would have gone with me:

 

 

Him:  So, Brother Pogi, did you sustain me when I was called? Me: Yes, I did raise my hand. Him: So, you're going back on that now?   Me: No, I still sustain you, but if I am going to support you, that means I have to keep you and my kid from falling.  So, if you are going to make my kid participate in disturbingly reckless and dangerous (psychologically and physically) activities, I will manifest my sustaining by not allowing it to happen, thereby holding you up and keeping you from making a big mistake. 

 Him: But I was called by the Bishop, don't you trust his inspiration on the matter…?  

 

Me: Yes, I trust his inspiration.  I don't trust yours at this moment, but that is why I am here to offer you support.

 

Exactly!

Trying to imagine how that would have gone for me twenty years ago...no that won't work because I would have probably kept my kids in the program back then, so imagining I had kids in the programs now...nope, cause it would probably have been...hey, great idea about time you showed some initiative, sorry I skipped your sustaining vote, but you are welcome to play the sustaining card on my wife, but make sure she uses a sharp knife when she cuts your head off.

[Stone holm]

I don't believe it shows one way or the other. 

 

As I said before, I've never known anyone who has stated that they believed it showed one way or the other either.  That's why I'm very interested in who on this thread has said that.

Let me get this straight. Not sustaining a person does not show you are on the Lord's side and sustaining somebody does not show you are on the Lord's side. Interesting. So the whole sustaining ritual has nothing to do with being on the Lord's side. I will have to think about the implications of that.

[Stone holm]

Practically speaking, the sustaining would serve no function except to foster contention.  They obviously knew something no one else knew.

 

I love how someone who wasn't there becomes an all-star armchair, Monday morning, quarterback....."obviously"

 

The decision was already made and it became a question of obedience.  Quite probably the first presidency knew some things the membership did not know.  Perhaps- just as an example, - the individual was now physically incapable of returning to his crimes- that is not something to be made public.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot......"secret knowledge........."

 

I don't think I've ever heard the words "probably, possibly, maybe, perhaps," so much as in a discussion with LDS when they are reaching to keep the church true.....

 

 

There could be a whole host of conditions which were disclosed privately which convinced the first presidency that their decision was a good one.

 

I'm sure there were probably ten, maybe even twenty, perhaps as many as fifty.......

Well , we don't have to strain to make the Church true, but sometimes we will stretch things a bit to provide cover for traditions and leaders. Right now it's not practical to institute the Australian ballot to sustain leaders, I suppose we could draw lots like the Amish do and it certainly sometimes feels like you have drawn the short straw when you receive a calling. But the Church is still true even if some things do not always make sense. But if our present process of sustaining people is suppose to be the law of common consent, then maybe a little more thought should go into what exactly are we doing and why are we doing it.

[strappinglad]

But if our present process of sustaining people is suppose to be the law of common consent, then maybe a little more thought should go into what exactly are we doing and why are we doing it.

The same could be and has been often said about the ' ritual ' of partaking of the sacrament. To partake with no thought of the seriousness of the action does not , in my opinion, do one much good and may even work to ones detriment. You are correct in that when giving a sustaining vote , more attention should be paid to the reality of your actions.

[Calm]

Interesting, Robert. Always nice to learn something new.

Strapping lad gets the bonus point for making the "most relevant for ourselves" post (#64) on the thread.

[Stone holm]

The same could be and has been often said about the ' ritual ' of partaking of the sacrament. To partake with no thought of the seriousness of the action does not , in my opinion, do one much good and may even work to ones detriment. You are correct in that when giving a sustaining vote , more attention should be paid to the reality of your actions.

It is an elegant comparison, but the analogy does not walk. When you are taking the Sacrament you know what you are focusing on and some idea of what you are contemplating. For the average member chances are extremely good if its a Stake calling at Stake Conference that they have no clue about the person they are sustaining. And unless the person is being elevated from another GA position the chances are extremely good that the member has no knowledge whatsoever about the person they are sustaining as a General Authority. So if a person thinks very long and hard about a sustaining vote (which unless you happen to be amongst the group issuing the call is not possible) , they would have to at least question what in the blue blazes are they doing other than rubber stamping a decision and giving a sign of support that the person receiving it has to know if weighed by the amount of thought given to it is ,well, weightless. So what in fact are we saying if we are saying this is part of common consent?

[strappinglad]

Does one really need to know the person called in order to give a sustaining vote? I don't think so. If I am a new member to a ward and at the first sacrament meeting I attend there is a call to sustain a new Relief Society President and councilors , my raised arm indicates TO ME that I am willing to sustain those so called. When I go to a ward outside my boundary and a position is announced I refrain from sustaining as I am not under the jurisdiction. What if I go to a ward that is not my home ward but still within my Stake , and they are having a ward conference and there is a call to sustain the stake officers , should I vote to sustain or not? I don't. I suppose it would not hurt to do so. Again, I THINK about what I am doing. It is not just rote obedience.

[mfbukowski]

 

Practically speaking, the sustaining would serve no function except to foster contention.  They obviously knew something no one else knew.

 

I love how someone who wasn't there becomes an all-star armchair, Monday morning, quarterback....."obviously"

 

The decision was already made and it became a question of obedience.  Quite probably the first presidency knew some things the membership did not know.  Perhaps- just as an example, - the individual was now physically incapable of returning to his crimes- that is not something to be made public.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot......"secret knowledge........."

 

I don't think I've ever heard the words "probably, possibly, maybe, perhaps," so much as in a discussion with LDS when they are reaching to keep the church true.....

 

 

There could be a whole host of conditions which were disclosed privately which convinced the first presidency that their decision was a good one.

 

I'm sure there were probably ten, maybe even twenty, perhaps as many as fifty.......

 

The whole question is whether or not one trusts the first presidency and thinks they actually think things through and are trustworthy individuals who make reasonable decisions based on what is best for the individual and the church.

 

I obviously think they do and they are,  you obviously believe they don't and are not.

 

Surprise surprise!

 

I just can't fathom that you actually believe that you know as much about the individual's private situation as the first presidency and the stake presidency did.

 

That just shows your total anti-church prejudice in action.

Edited November 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Does one really need to know the person called in order to give a sustaining vote? I don't think so. If I am a new member to a ward and at the first sacrament meeting I attend there is a call to sustain a new Relief Society President and councilors , my raised arm indicates TO ME that I am willing to sustain those so called. When I go to a ward outside my boundary and a position is announced I refrain from sustaining as I am not under the jurisdiction. What if I go to a ward that is not my home ward but still within my Stake , and they are having a ward conference and there is a call to sustain the stake officers , should I vote to sustain or not? I don't. I suppose it would not hurt to do so. Again, I THINK about what I am doing. It is not just rote obedience.

I think you can vote to sustain anyone called to any position in the Church as long as you are willing to support anyone in that position or duty.  Consider any calling or duty in the Church you can think of and then realize that what it's all about is helping someone to do something. 

 

A Primary worker, for example.  What's that all about?  Helping children.  Now ask yourself if you would vote to sustain anyone in their Primary duties?  Not to do something that is not something they should be doing with children in Primary meetings, but to do what the Church has asked Primary workers to do as they help children. 

 

I don't see any good reason for you to object to someone fulfilling their primary duties, whoever they are, and whatever they've done in the past.  It may be that some people need more help and support to fulfill their duties as they should and as the Church expect, but that's what the other Church members are for as they sustain and support that other member.   To help that person fulfill their duties, just as other Church members should sustain and support any other Church member in any other Church duty or office.

[Stone holm]

The whole question is whether or not one trusts the first presidency and thinks they actually think things through and are trustworthy individuals who make reasonable decisions based on what is best for the individual and the church.

 

I obviously think they do and they are,  you obviously believe they don't and are not.

 

Surprise surprise!

 

I just can't fathom that you actually believe that you know as much about the individual's private situation as the first presidency and the stake presidency did.

 

That just shows your total anti-church prejudice in action.

Although, I would probably have tried to welcome the ex con into the Ward as merely a Christian act, I would not have based upon some supposed superior knowledge of a Stake Leader or First Presidency. Although I would have wound up defending the result in all likelihood, I would not have done so by playing the I am in authority so shut up card...to that extent I agree with Pale Rider that the approach described smacks of unrighteous dominion.

[mfbukowski]

Although, I would probably have tried to welcome the ex con into the Ward as merely a Christian act, I would not have based upon some supposed superior knowledge of a Stake Leader or First Presidency. Although I would have wound up defending the result in all likelihood, I would not have done so by playing the I am in authority so shut up card...to that extent I agree with Pale Rider that the approach described smacks of unrighteous dominion.

On the part of the stake presidency, of course you are right.  But IF I am right how could they better have handled it?  "There are extenuating circumstances and we are convinced it is a good decision?"

 

It's really not anybody's business.

[Stone holm]

On the part of the stake presidency, of course you are right.  But IF I am right how could they better have handled it?  "There are extenuating circumstances and we are convinced it is a good decision?"

 

It's really not anybody's business.

Well yes and no. Yes, I believe the Christian thing to do would to welcome the person into the Ward, no, I think the Stake President should have kept working at it until it was resolved.

[mfbukowski]

Well yes and no. Yes, I believe the Christian thing to do would to welcome the person into the Ward, no, I think the Stake President should have kept working at it until it was resolved.

Huh?

 

And you know he did not do this because......???

 

It seems that you too are prejudiced against the church and will believe anything you read on the internet written by a critic.  What's up with that?

[Stone holm]

Huh?

 

And you know he did not do this because......???

 

It seems that you too are prejudiced against the church and will believe anything you read on the internet written by a critic.  What's up with that?

Only going by the facts as stated.

[Palerider]

Huh?

 

And you know he did not do this because......???

 

It seems that you too are prejudiced against the church and will believe anything you read on the internet written by a critic.  What's up with that?

 

 

The facts about the church are plenty damning in and of themselves. I have no reason to fabricate because in my opinion the best weapon against falsehood is the truth, and by shining the light of truth on something we have a much better chance of helping it.

 

You are terribly wrong, especially in what you have written regarding Stone Holm, to accuse him of prejudice. But I suppose everyone who disagrees with you regarding the church is either twisted or a liar or just plain stupid.

 

Am I prejudiced? Of course I am. I will always be biased for the truth and I freely admit that. 

 

Just remember your "friends" don't always tell you what you need to know............

 

Everybody tone it down.