Sustaining- "interesting" Interpretation

[HappyJackWagon]

Our Priesthood lesson this past Sunday was about Sustaining our leaders. Everything was fine until the SP & Bishop who were both attending, chimed in with what it means to truly sustain our leaders.

 

The Bishop said that when we raised our hand to sustain him we promised not only to support, assist, and uphold him as God's authorized servant but that ANY idea or initiative he put forward we would treat as if it were our own idea. There's no room for disagreement or questioning of any kind. His initiatives are our idea.

 

I set back and thought, "Whoa, that's a really liberal interpretation of what it means to sustain a leader."

It sounded very self serving but before I could ask a clarifying question the SP chimed in by saying.

 

If we don't fully sustain our leaders in the way the bishop says we don't truly have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

WHAT?

 

Instead of making a big deal of it I thought I'd let it slide for now, except when I got home my son told us about priest quorum where the bishop taught the same philosophy of sustaining. He used it as a kind of coersion to get them all to agree to sign up for 4 hours of missionary team ups every week.

 

"You've already sustained me so you have to do what I ask" was the message received so they all signed up.

 

Apparently this bishop, and the SP  agrees, that by sustaining their calling I have written them a blank check that they can write for any amount they choose. I sustained them so now I'm stuck with ANYTHING they say.

 

I imagine some on this board will actually agree with this sustaining philosophy but I view it as a form of spiritual slavery. What say you?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I agree with you that seems odd. This life is all about individuality. We should all be allowed our own personal beliefs and opinions, otherwise it's a dictatorship.

[hagoth7]

“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] 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 would despise the idea. 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 do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When 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.”
(Joseph Smith – Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595)

 

But what then if what they are told to do is right...rather than wrong?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Unrighteous dominion. 

Someone should make a ponderizing shirt emphasizing the pertinent parts of Section 121. In, like, papyrus font. 

[Gray]

The way they're interpreting "sustain" seems coercive. 

[mfbukowski]

I think that the purpose of sustaining is to give ourselves a kind of "body memory" that we actually did something to support the individual.  We have to be awake and listening to know what we are raising our arms for.

 

Sustaining is for us more than a vote for the person- it is like the playground line in the sand we step over to be on one team or the other.  It is the handshake which makes the covenant to support the person.

 

"Oh- that guy?  Well OK I really don't know any reason he should not have that job, and if he asks for help I suppose I would give it to him, within limits."

 

But this guy has gone way over the edge in my opinion.

[iWriteStuff]

"You've already sustained me so you have to do what I ask" was the message received so they all signed up.

That could only have been cooler if he followed it with a mic drop: Bishop OUT!

 

[Storm Rider]

Our Priesthood lesson this past Sunday was about Sustaining our leaders. Everything was fine until the SP & Bishop who were both attending, chimed in with what it means to truly sustain our leaders.

 

The Bishop said that when we raised our hand to sustain him we promised not only to support, assist, and uphold him as God's authorized servant but that ANY idea or initiative he put forward we would treat as if it were our own idea. There's no room for disagreement or questioning of any kind. His initiatives are our idea.

 

I set back and thought, "Whoa, that's a really liberal interpretation of what it means to sustain a leader."

It sounded very self serving but before I could ask a clarifying question the SP chimed in by saying.

 

If we don't fully sustain our leaders in the way the bishop says we don't truly have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

WHAT?

 

Instead of making a big deal of it I thought I'd let it slide for now, except when I got home my son told us about priest quorum where the bishop taught the same philosophy of sustaining. He used it as a kind of coersion to get them all to agree to sign up for 4 hours of missionary team ups every week.

 

"You've already sustained me so you have to do what I ask" was the message received so they all signed up.

 

Apparently this bishop, and the SP  agrees, that by sustaining their calling I have written them a blank check that they can write for any amount they choose. I sustained them so now I'm stuck with ANYTHING they say.

 

I imagine some on this board will actually agree with this sustaining philosophy but I view it as a form of spiritual slavery. What say you?

 

Nope, that is not a proper or accurate description of sustaining leaders in the Church or it is really bad description of what they mean or intended.  

 

We always have the ability to disagree; we retain our free agency.  It is my belief that some leaders that lead inappropriate invite damnation upon their heads by this type of unrighteous dominion.  When members follow blindly by this type of domination then the members will be blest, but the leader is in peril. 

[rockpond]

Our Priesthood lesson this past Sunday was about Sustaining our leaders. Everything was fine until the SP & Bishop who were both attending, chimed in with what it means to truly sustain our leaders.

 

The Bishop said that when we raised our hand to sustain him we promised not only to support, assist, and uphold him as God's authorized servant but that ANY idea or initiative he put forward we would treat as if it were our own idea. There's no room for disagreement or questioning of any kind. His initiatives are our idea.

 

I set back and thought, "Whoa, that's a really liberal interpretation of what it means to sustain a leader."

It sounded very self serving but before I could ask a clarifying question the SP chimed in by saying.

 

If we don't fully sustain our leaders in the way the bishop says we don't truly have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

WHAT?

 

Instead of making a big deal of it I thought I'd let it slide for now, except when I got home my son told us about priest quorum where the bishop taught the same philosophy of sustaining. He used it as a kind of coersion to get them all to agree to sign up for 4 hours of missionary team ups every week.

 

"You've already sustained me so you have to do what I ask" was the message received so they all signed up.

 

Apparently this bishop, and the SP  agrees, that by sustaining their calling I have written them a blank check that they can write for any amount they choose. I sustained them so now I'm stuck with ANYTHING they say.

 

I imagine some on this board will actually agree with this sustaining philosophy but I view it as a form of spiritual slavery. What say you?

 

Sadly, if I were in your shoes, I would no longer be able to sustain those two men.  Claiming that they are entitled to that kind of blind obedience is unrighteous dominion.

[JAHS]

I agree that sounds a little extreme, although I am sure the Bishop would not mind if a member privately voiced his concerns over some issue he does not agree with and give the Bishop a chance to clarify. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Try a good dictionary. "Sustain" is a super word, just right, just what the society needs for its members to function with each other, in all our flawed, quirky glory.

1. to keep up; maintain prolong.

2. to supply as with food or provisions.

3. to hold up, support

4. to bear, endure

5. to suffer; experience: “She sustained a broken leg.”

6. to allow: to admit, to favor

7. to agree with; confirm

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[rockpond]

I sustain the Prophet, Apostles, and General Authorities.  They published the Church Handbook.  So, if my SP wants to do something that contradicts the Church Handbook, who do I sustain?  (Using the OP example of "sustaining".)

[Tsuzuki]

That's a nice segue into "In that case, I take it back."

[JAHS]

I sustain the Prophet, Apostles, and General Authorities.  They published the Church Handbook.  So, if my SP wants to do something that contradicts the Church Handbook, who do I sustain?  (Using the OP example of "sustaining".)

The stake president has the authority to trump what the handbook says according to inspiration he receives for his congregation, depending on the circumstance. But I would hope he would first check with higher ups before he does anything too radically divergent from the handbook. 

[Calm]

Perhaps, but adding to doctrine is not one of those things allowed and that is essentially what this bishop and stake president have done.

[theplains]

The way they're interpreting "sustain" seems coercive. 

 

Maybe "sustain" denotes the act of not publicly disagreeing with teachings of the Stake President

and other leaders at General Conference and/or in publications of the church when the audience

believes them to be unscriptural in nature.

 

Regards,

Jim

[rockpond]

The stake president has the authority to trump what the handbook says according to inspiration he receives for his congregation, depending on the circumstance. But I would hope he would first check with higher ups before he does anything too radically divergent from the handbook.

While I agree that the Brethren would likely support a certain amount of latitude for an SP to customize things within his stewardship, where is it stated that a SP can act in contradiction to the Handbook?

[JAHS]

While I agree that the Brethren would likely support a certain amount of latitude for an SP to customize things within his stewardship, where is it stated that a SP can act in contradiction to the Handbook?

 

I am referring mostly to what you said. At the beginning of the Handbook it says:

 

"Church leaders should seek personal revelation to help them learn and fulfill the duties of their callings. 

Leaders also learn their duties by studying the instructions in Church handbooks. These instructions can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply when seeking the guidance of the Spirit."

 

Normally they would not act in contradiction, but there may be situations where accommodations need to be made for some circumstances; that is where the revelation comes in to play on how to handle it, obtaining permssion and councel from higer ups if needed. For example the handbook also says:

 

"Branch, district, and mission presidents should follow these instructions as far as they are applicable."

[JAHS]

Perhaps, but adding to doctrine is not one of those things allowed and that is essentially what this bishop and stake president have done.

 

What doctrine are they adding? Or are they perhaps incorrectly enforcing an exagerated application of existing doctrine?

 

I wonder if this ward has had problems in the past of members either not fulfilling their callings or doing incorrect things on their own that are contrary to policy or what the Bishop feels is right for his ward? 

However, assuming what the OP said is exactly what the Stake President said, I am pretty sure if a GA were present he would be squirming in his seat and would have a talk with the SP afterwards.

[rockpond]

I am referring mostly to what you said. At the beginning of the Handbook it says:

"Church leaders should seek personal revelation to help them learn and fulfill the duties of their callings.

Leaders also learn their duties by studying the instructions in Church handbooks. These instructions can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply when seeking the guidance of the Spirit."

Normally they would not act in contradiction, but there may be situations where accommodations need to be made for some circumstances; that is where the revelation comes in to play on how to handle it, obtaining permssion and councel from higer ups if needed. For example the handbook also says:

"Branch, district, and mission presidents should follow these instructions as far as they are applicable."

Nothing in that statement authorizes a SP to contradict the Handbook.

[rockpond]

What doctrine are they adding? Or are they perhaps incorrectly enforcing an exagerated application of existing doctrine?

I wonder if this ward has had problems in the past of members either not fulfilling their callings or doing incorrect things on their own that are contrary to policy or what the Bishop feels is right for his ward?

However, assuming what the OP said is exactly what the Stake President said, I am pretty sure if a GA were present he would be squirming in his seat and would have a talk with the SP afterwards.

Thy are adding doctrine in their new definition of "sustain".

Sounds like we agree that a GA would have squirmed at such a definition.

[mfbukowski]

One might consider an opposing vote or several at the next ward conference

[filovirus]

If you have twenty minutes, this is a good review about the Law of Common Consent. I think they are overstepping a bit.

https://www.mormonchannel.org/listen/series/the-mormon-channel-qa-audio/the-law-of-common-consent-episode-10

[JAHS]

Nothing in that statement authorizes a SP to contradict the Handbook.

 

Now you're nitpicking.

"follow these instructions as far as they are applicable" means that they may have to use the spirit of revelation to determine wich of those things in the Handbook are not applicable. That's what I mean.

But of course since it says that in the handbook they are not contradicting it. 

[sunstoned]

One might consider an opposing vote or several at the next ward conference

This is a valid idea.  It might even spawn a dialog that could lead to a resolution.