Sustaining- "interesting" Interpretation

[Rain2]

One of the bishopric in one of my old wards gave a talk once. He told of a stake president who really went against women wearing open toed shoes in one of his talks once. After church his wife asked her husband if he thought "these" shoes or "these" shoes were appropriate for church. He agreed they were. At that point the wife told him they were open toed.

The counselor mentioned that what was really interesting was to see which women were obedient and quite wearing them and which kept wearing them. Some of the women went home and immediately threw away hundreds of dollars worth of shoes and the counselor just praised this obedience.

I just sat there and thought, "the wife was the only one who clarified what the stake president meant?"

Yes, your situation sounds way overboard. I'd be going to them humbly to see if that's actually what they meant to convey.

[Stargazer]

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?

Well, I know not what others here might think, but I happen to think that is the most incredibly extreme view of "sustaining" that I have ever heard. Upon reflection, I do believe I would say that I categorically reject this definition of "sustaining". Shudder.

Are you sure you heard this correctly? You didn't happen to hear some other words than what were spoken?

[Stargazer]

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

A bit?

[janderich]

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".)

There is no conflict here. The leaders of the church must follow the spirit of the Lord. You listen for the promptings of the still small voice and follow the direction you receive. The only ones who are confused on this matter are those who are so unable to hear the spirit of the Lord that whey either follow the wrong spirit, or allow themselves to be lead by mere mortals.

 

Elder Packer gave the concluding remarks at the Leadership Meeting when the new Handbook II was distributed. Here is what he said:

And now, this simple scripture: “But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to conduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit” (D&C 46:2).

I repeat: “But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to conduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.”

If we understand that, we will not be led astray in our administration.

...It is a spiritual work that we are about, and a spiritual work must be guided by the Spirit.

...In our day and age there is always the danger of establishing the Church without establishing the gospel. It is not enough. We need to have the Church in the lives of the members and the gospel established in the hearts of the members. (President Boyd K. Packer "Concluding Remarks", 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, 2010)

And I would add that if we understand D&C 46:2 we will not be lead astray in our followership.

[iWriteStuff]

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.

Out of curiosity, which area/region are you in?

[KevinG]

If I saw my leaders driving towards a cliff I might sustain them by suggesting they hit the brakes.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

Actually this is an extremely conservative, orthodox, faithful ward. 75% + Sac attendance. 90% endowed with current recommend and the stats continue to be great from there. 25 current temple ordinance workers (this is outside Utah, btw).

 

There has been only one notable exception and that is with the family of the new, current bishop. He and his family refused to attend their home ward (the current ward) for the 4+ years previous to being called as bishop. He only returned when called as bishop. Strange situation. Very few people know the real story behind why they unofficially left the ward but it wouldn't help his credibility if they did. IOW- he didn't sustain the bishop or SP in a very visible way and now is requiring us to think/believe the way he tells us.

 

I've been toying with the idea of talking to him but I really don't see that it will do any good and could make things worse. But then I'm not really one to shy away. I just need to figure out a way to present it in a gentle and non-confrontational way

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, I know not what others here might think, but I happen to think that is the most incredibly extreme view of "sustaining" that I have ever heard. Upon reflection, I do believe I would say that I categorically reject this definition of "sustaining". Shudder.

Are you sure you heard this correctly? You didn't happen to hear some other words than what were spoken?

I heard it correctly but I'll give him the opportunity to clarify.

[Alan]

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?

As a serving bishop myself I can only say that this approach scares the living daylights out of me!

I'm not ready to be infallible just yet!

Obviously, if what this bishop and SP have said is reported correctly, it is just plain wrong in my view.

[JAHS]

Actually this is an extremely conservative, orthodox, faithful ward. 75% + Sac attendance. 90% endowed with current recommend and the stats continue to be great from there. 25 current temple ordinance workers (this is outside Utah, btw).

 

There has been only one notable exception and that is with the family of the new, current bishop. He and his family refused to attend their home ward (the current ward) for the 4+ years previous to being called as bishop. He only returned when called as bishop. Strange situation. Very few people know the real story behind why they unofficially left the ward but it wouldn't help his credibility if they did. IOW- he didn't sustain the bishop or SP in a very visible way and now is requiring us to think/believe the way he tells us.

 

I've been toying with the idea of talking to him but I really don't see that it will do any good and could make things worse. But then I'm not really one to shy away. I just need to figure out a way to present it in a gentle and non-confrontational way

Well, he said what he said. It's possible that the members will either just sort of ignore the extreme position he took, and carry on business as usual, which sounds like it's pretty good anyway. Or wait and see if what he said starts having a negative effect on the members. It could possibly cause some contention among some of the members who might have taken what he said very seriously and others who did not. Then something might need to be said or done. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, he said what he said. It's possible that the members will either just sort of ignore the extreme position he took, and carry on business as usual, which sounds like it's pretty good anyway. Or wait and see if what he said starts having a negative effect on the members. It could possibly cause some contention among some of the members who might have taken what he said very seriously and others who did not. Then something might need to be said or done. 

My concern is less about the contention if could cause with the members and more about how many members will adopt this manner of thinking and this particular definition of sustaining.

 

We often talk about how silly it is to view prophets as infallible but teachings like this take that idea even farther down the extremism rabbit hole.

[rockpond]

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.

Not nitpicking, just clarifying because I don't think the issue is as simple as we're making it out to be.

For example, the handbook says that we aren't to set quotas for temple attendance. Let's say a SP decides to set quotas for members and create a reporting structure for those quotas.

Is that okay? Would you consider that to be using he handbook "when applicable"?

[rockpond]

There is no conflict here. The leaders of the church must follow the spirit of the Lord. You listen for the promptings of the still small voice and follow the direction you receive. The only ones who are confused on this matter are those who are so unable to hear the spirit of the Lord that whey either follow the wrong spirit, or allow themselves to be lead by mere mortals.

Elder Packer gave the concluding remarks at the Leadership Meeting when the new Handbook II was distributed. Here is what he said:

And I would add that if we understand D&C 46:2 we will not be lead astray in our followership.

I agree but that approach leads to some ambiguity when everyone is (imperfectly) following their own spiritual promptings. I am, however, becoming more and more comfortable with that ambiguity.

[filovirus]

A bit?

As of right now all I have is second hand information (third hand information about HJW's son) from one instant in this Bishop's tenure. As it sounds, it is completely wrong to use authority in that manner and does go against the oath and covenant of the priesthood. I hope HJW can approach the bishop to get a better understanding of of what he meant.

It's tough for me to condemn someone with so limited information.

[Tacenda]

One of the bishopric in one of my old wards gave a talk once. He told of a stake president who really went against women wearing open toed shoes in one of his talks once. After church his wife asked her husband if he thought "these" shoes or "these" shoes were appropriate for church. He agreed they were. At that point the wife told him they were open toed.

The counselor mentioned that what was really interesting was to see which women were obedient and quite wearing them and which kept wearing them. Some of the women went home and immediately threw away hundreds of dollars worth of shoes and the counselor just praised this obedience.

I just sat there and thought, "the wife was the only one who clarified what the stake president meant?"

Yes, your situation sounds way overboard. I'd be going to them humbly to see if that's actually what they meant to convey.

Reminds me of the time the women in my Stake were told to wear shoes and not be barefoot when our Home Teacher's visit. Holy cow!

[St. Bookmark]

Sounds like the bishop and sp have some kind of miss understanding of the gospel by what you said" I would talk with the bishop and ask in a nice way to explain again what he was saying to give him the benefit of doubt. Mostly since your son was involved is why I would go the extra step to understand the teaching other wise I would forget it.

[Stargazer]

As a serving bishop myself I can only say that this approach scares the living daylights out of me!

I'm not ready to be infallible just yet!

Obviously, if what this bishop and SP have said is reported correctly, it is just plain wrong in my view.

 

What, you wouldn't like to be King of the Ward?  Long live King Alan !!! 

 

That's what it bloody sounds like, the way HJW's leaders put it.  It scares the living daylights out of me, as well.  Your Majesty.

[Stargazer]

Sounds like the bishop and sp have some kind of miss understanding of the gospel by what you said" I would talk with the bishop and ask in a nice way to explain again what he was saying to give him the benefit of doubt. Mostly since your son was involved is why I would go the extra step to understand the teaching other wise I would forget it.

 

That's funny.  Usually, the word is spelled as one: "misunderstanding".  But the way you've written it here is more appropriate than the standard,  Miss understanding, indeed!  They missed it, all right.  By about a mile.

[Stargazer]

My concern is less about the contention if could cause with the members and more about how many members will adopt this manner of thinking and this particular definition of sustaining.

 

We often talk about how silly it is to view prophets as infallible but teachings like this take that idea even farther down the extremism rabbit hole.

 

Oh, gosh.  I was teaching our high priests group and came upon the R-rated movie topic.  I tried to step carefully through the notion that we shouldn't rely upon the doggoned twits on the ratings board to determine what we should or should not watch, by way of whether something is rated R or not.  But our previous bishop who is now in the stake presidency spoke up in words that clearly indicated he was speaking ex cathedra, and stomped my intended point all to pieces by affirming the "Don't watch R-rated movies" trope.  I hope my eye-rolling didn't get noticed by too many of my fellow HPs.  I decided to go the safe route and appear to sustain him by just dropping my line of attack and continuing with the rest of the lesson.

 

Later, I asked him in private if he really thought that "Saving Private Ryan," rated R, was forbidden while it was perfectly OK to watch "The Expendables 3", rated PG-13?  Or worse, "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me", also PG-13?  I say "worse" only because Austin Powers is one long sexual innuendo.  In "The Expendables 3" there are at least 500 violent murders.  At least "Saving Private Ryan" has the decency to be somewhat historically accurate (leaving aside the mission itself, which never happened).  He saw my point.  Perhaps next time this subject comes up he will moderate his stance a tad.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Stargazer

[Calm]

What, you wouldn't like to be King of the Ward? Long live King Alan !!!

That's what it bloody sounds like, the way HJW's leaders put it. It scares the living daylights out of me, as well. Your Majesty.

It completely takes away the idea that someone has stewardship over themselves and their family. No need to seek revelation, just agree to what your leaders say and if by some awkward chance you accidentally feel a moment of spiritual input that contradicts what they say, squash it. It is false.

Nah, don't buy it. I would definitely ask for clarification or just ignore it.

PS: I ignore, dump or alter my own ideas constantly so technically I am thinking it still works for me.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Calm

[Jeanne]

Well,..what would be real interesting is if the Bishop should sometime come up with a real baaaad idea...

[theplains]

Reminds me of the time the women in my Stake were told to wear shoes and not be barefoot when our Home Teacher's visit. Holy cow!

 

Maybe going barefoot is more the custom than wearing socks in that stake area.  But either way, the

church should not dictate what women can wear in their homes when visited by Teachers.  If anything,

the women should tell the Teachers what not to wear.

 

Regards,

Jim

[St. Bookmark]

That's funny. Usually, the word is spelled as one: "misunderstanding". But the way you've written it here is more appropriate than the standard, Miss understanding, indeed! They missed it, all right. By about a mile.

Auto correct, I tried and tried to make it one word but auto would not have it so I >sustained< the auto correct. ( sarcasm)

[Stargazer]

Maybe going barefoot is more the custom than wearing socks in that stake area.  But either way, the

church should not dictate what women can wear in their homes when visited by Teachers.  If anything,

the women should tell the Teachers what not to wear.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Oh my gosh, I'm in agreement with you twice in a row!  And hell hasn't even frozen over!!  Wow.

[Stargazer]

Auto correct, I tried and tried to make it one word but auto would not have it so I >sustained< the auto correct. ( sarcasm)

 

You're either on a Mac, an Android device, or an iPhone.  Those things drive to distraction trying to make me type what I didn't intend.  Windows lets me bull forward as cockeyed as I please.  Even Windows Phone.