Terryl Givens on What It Means to Sustain

[Gray]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2016/02/terryl-givens-on-what-it-means-to-sustain/

Here is the crux of his argument:

Quote

The word sustain only appears in the scriptures once, so I think it is a pretty important moment to infer its exact meaning. D&C 134.5, admonishes us to “sustain and uphold” the respective governments in which we reside. Now notice that we don’t have to like or agree with a great deal that our governments do. But I take “sustain” in that case to mean we support the general framework, share its common purposes, and work for its betterment. To sustain the elected leaders of a government would similarly mean to recognize their legitimately derived authority, and not work to undermine that authority, even if we voted for the other guy (or woman).  So adapting this scriptural usage to the sustaining of our own leaders, I take the same cues. We recognize their legitimately derived authority.

So essentially, he believes you can sustain while disagreeing with church leaders. Sustaining is about recognizing legitimate authority, while working to make things better in the church through righteous influence.

 

Quote

We pray for them and share their common purpose of building the kingdom, although we may not agree with or embrace their particular course of action at any given moment. But by recognizing their authority, and working within the parameters of kingdom governance to exert our influence on the church’s course in righteous ways, we can be faithful to our covenants even if dubious about particulars, and be true to our consciences at the same time.

Curious about what people think of this. It's something I'm wrestling with now. 

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with Givens.

[Scott Lloyd]

Seems to me like it's being taken out of context in a way that some might use to rationalize murmuring. (Not saying Givens would do such rationalizing, but others, drawing on the same reasoning, might.)

 

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2016/02/terryl-givens-on-what-it-means-to-sustain/

Here is the crux of his argument:

So essentially, he believes you can sustain while disagreeing with church leaders. Sustaining is about recognizing legitimate authority, while working to make things better in the church through righteous influence.

Curious about what people think of this. It's something I'm wrestling with now. 

It is interesting he speaks in terms of government. The Church is governed by councils. Councils and those who participate in them operate under certain eternal principles. Disagreement within those settings is carried out with, and in turn fosters in others and the group, charity and inspiration.

Inasmuch as individuals govern themselves in relation to the councils, it is wisdom, when they disagree, to engage charity and inspiration as much as possible, or behave as if one is in council even when not part of the formal body.  Because ““intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; [and] mercy hath compassion…,” such a dissenting voice will be heard one way or another and not left to kick against the pricks.

Individual governance also means to treat individuals, no matter their office in the Church governing system, charitably as children of God.

[The Nehor]

Kind of a weak argument. The one time "sustains" is used is in a declaration written by the Twelve with the Prophet not consulted until after the fact and I am supposed to take this to be the general meaning?

[Ahab]

What he said seems like common sense to me, as I've understood what it means since I became a member,  oh, 27 years ago now. 

I've never accepted the idea that I should do whatever an officer in the Church tells me to do, or that I should just automatically accept anything offered to me. 

When I say I sustain an officer of the Church as an officer of the Church I only mean that I accept the fact that that person has been made an officer in the Church by other duly appointed and authorized officers of the Church.

And when I say I accept someone as a prophet of God, which I know is not an office but based on something they have said as a person speaking for God, I am doing that only because I know they have in fact spoken for God.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2016/02/terryl-givens-on-what-it-means-to-sustain/

Here is the crux of his argument:

So essentially, he believes you can sustain while disagreeing with church leaders. Sustaining is about recognizing legitimate authority, while working to make things better in the church through righteous influence.

 

Curious about what people think of this. It's something I'm wrestling with now. 

I like and agree with Bro. Given's remarks here, particularly when read in the light of, and in conjunction with, this 1987 Ensign article by Elder Oaks.

Elder Oaks goes into far more detail about, and provides far more instruction regarding, the sustaining of Church leaders despite disagreeing with them.  Publicly speaking against the Brethren is not one of the options available to us.

Taken together the remarks of Elder Oaks and Bro. Givens are very helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kevin Christensen]

Years ago my wife and I turned to the dictionary and found enlightenment:

Sustain⁹⁶

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2.  to supply as with food or provisions:
3.  to hold up; support
4.  to bear; endure
5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6.  to allow; admit; favor
7.  to agree with; confirm.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

Curious about what people think of this. It's something I'm wrestling with now. 

To put a finer point on the italicized part of the second quote:

Parameters of kingdom governance: councils that are presided and participated in with charity.

Exert our influence: D&C 121:41-46.

Church’s course: The Lord sets the agenda through His Prophet; execution is delegated from Him to the highest officers and councils to the lowest on an organizational basis, and to every individual on a covenant basis.

Righteous ways: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

[HappyJackWagon]

I agree.

I frame sustaining as "acknowledgement of authority" to act in their capacity as church leaders and as a desire to do what I can to help them succeed. I might similarly sustain a CEO as the authority to perform certain tasks for the corporation he/she leads (though I would  choose different language) even when I view a decision, policy, or direction as questionable or wrong.

"Do you sustain the president of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints as the prophet, seer and revelator and as the only person who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys."

Yes- I recognize and accept that as president he is authorized to act and speak on behalf of the church. He is the final authority for the church. "Prophet, seer and revelator" are titles granted to him, similar to vice president or CEO, CFO etc. in a traditional corporation.

It's a crude analogy but it works well enough for me. It doesn't mean I agree with every decision or policy.

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree.

I frame sustaining as "acknowledgement of authority" to act in their capacity as church leaders and as a desire to do what I can to help them succeed. I might similarly sustain a CEO as the authority to perform certain tasks for the corporation he/she leads (though I would  choose different language) even when I view a decision, policy, or direction as questionable or wrong.

"Do you sustain the president of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints as the prophet, seer and revelator and as the only person who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys."

Yes- I recognize and accept that as president he is authorized to act and speak on behalf of the church. He is the final authority for the church. "Prophet, seer and revelator" are titles granted to him, similar to vice president or CEO, CFO etc. in a traditional corporation.

It's a crude analogy but it works well enough for me. It doesn't mean I agree with every decision or policy.

Yikes.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Years ago my wife and I turned to the dictionary and found enlightenment:

Sustain⁹⁶

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2.  to supply as with food or provisions:
3.  to hold up; support
4.  to bear; endure
5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6.  to allow; admit; favor
7.  to agree with; confirm.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I sometimes wonder what we would do if we didn't have dictionaries to turn to.

Among other things I also sustain dictionaries. 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Yikes.

Works for my Stake President so the  "yikes" doesn't bother me much

 

[rockpond]

I think Given's point is important... too often I come across church members who seem to feel that we must agree with everything the Brethren say, do, or ask of us in order to sustain them.  That is certainly not the case.

Gray - Thank you for posting this essay.

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree.

I frame sustaining as "acknowledgement of authority" to act in their capacity as church leaders and as a desire to do what I can to help them succeed. I might similarly sustain a CEO as the authority to perform certain tasks for the corporation he/she leads (though I would  choose different language) even when I view a decision, policy, or direction as questionable or wrong.

"Do you sustain the president of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints as the prophet, seer and revelator and as the only person who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys."

Yes- I recognize and accept that as president he is authorized to act and speak on behalf of the church. He is the final authority for the church. "Prophet, seer and revelator" are titles granted to him, similar to vice president or CEO, CFO etc. in a traditional corporation.

It's a crude analogy but it works well enough for me. It doesn't mean I agree with every decision or policy.

I pretty much agree with all you said with the understanding that the "titles" of prophet, seer, and revelator are descriptive titles rather than just empty, meaningless words.

Whether or not he measured up to those titles he would still be the President though and as such the leader on Earth of the organization. 

[Senator]

20 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Yikes.

Why "Yikes"?

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Works for my Stake President so the  "yikes" doesn't bother me much

 

Works for mine too (as well as my Bishop who I'm now serving with).  We actually agree on most topics and I've been completely honest with both of them.  We've had some very interesting conversations and they both agree that one does not have to agree with everything the Brethren say (including the recent policy regarding SSM).  

Why the "yikes", Mystery Meat?  Just curious...

 

.

Edited February 4, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Works for mine too (as well as my Bishop who I'm now serving with).  We actually agree on most topics and I've been completely honest with both of them.  We've had some very interesting conversations and they both agree that one does not have to agree with everything the Brethren say (including the recent policy regarding SSM).  

Why the "yikes", Mystery Meat?  Just curious...

 

.

I think it is wonderful that you can be open and honest with your bishop and discuss things..!

[Calm]

Perhaps MM is concerned about this phrasing:  ""Prophet, seer and revelator" are titles granted to him".

It sounds like these are just 'names' given to them that have no meaning in and of themselves.  I would be interested in what HJW means by that.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm

[CV75]

For some there inevitably comes a point when disagreement with what the Brethren “say” morphs into various forms of opposing, condemning, hindering and obstructing “their particular course of action at any given moment” or “the church’s course;” anything from lukewarm sustaining to escalated contention.

What are some things one can do to recognize when the Holy Ghost is pointing out that is happening?

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps MM is concerned about this phrasing:  ""Prophet, seer and revelator" are titles granted to him".

It sounds like these are just 'names' given to them that have no meaning in and of themselves.  I would be interested in what HJW means by that.

I mean exactly that. They are titles. But having the title doesn't necessarily mean they have the spiritual gift of "seeing" or "revelating". They are the designated seer and revelator for the church. A prophet, seer and revelator who does not prophesy, see, or reveal because he doesn't have that gift could be considered as a placeholder or office holder to pass down the authority to act as such should the individual in that calling also have the gift.

But I see them as titles. While I acknowledge God "could" function through him in these roles I don't assume that he always does. Otherwise I would expect a lot more on the prophesy, seer, and revealing side of things.

[Mystery Meat]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps MM is concerned about this phrasing:  ""Prophet, seer and revelator" are titles granted to him".

It sounds like these are just 'names' given to them that have no meaning in and of themselves.  I would be interested in what HJW means by that.

Yup. I think it is dishonest to answer the question by saying these are simply empty titles that they have effectively granted to themselves. God determines who is a prophet, seer and/or revealator, especially His prophets, seers, and revealators. No man taketh this honor unto himself. I think this is such an obvious perversion of the question that you have to be dishonest to not have this in mind when it is asked. A temple recommend interview is nothing less than a chance to bear testimony. And if you are testifying that you don't think these men are called of God as prophets, seers and revealators, I think you are not qualifying for the recommend. 

But I ain't your key holder, so it doesn't really matter.   

[Mystery Meat]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I mean exactly that. They are titles. But having the title doesn't necessarily mean they have the spiritual gift of "seeing" or "revelating". They are the designated seer and revelator for the church. A prophet, seer and revelator who does not prophesy, see, or reveal because he doesn't have that gift could be considered as a placeholder or office holder to pass down the authority to act as such should the individual in that calling also have the gift.

But I see them as titles. While I acknowledge God "could" function through him in these roles I don't assume that he always does. Otherwise I would expect a lot more on the prophesy, seer, and revealing side of things.

Except that the prophet as rights to all spiritual gifts, including (if not especially) the gift of seeing and revelating.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I mean exactly that. They are titles. But having the title doesn't necessarily mean they have the spiritual gift of "seeing" or "revelating". They are the designated seer and revelator for the church. A prophet, seer and revelator who does not prophesy, see, or reveal because he doesn't have that gift could be considered as a placeholder or office holder to pass down the authority to act as such should the individual in that calling also have the gift.

But I see them as titles. While I acknowledge God "could" function through him in these roles I don't assume that he always does. Otherwise I would expect a lot more on the prophesy, seer, and revealing side of things.

One who does not prophesy, see or reveal in accordance with the will of God but purports to I would regard not as a "placeholder or office holder" but as a pretender.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I mean exactly that. They are titles. But having the title doesn't necessarily mean they have the spiritual gift of "seeing" or "revelating". They are the designated seer and revelator for the church. A prophet, seer and revelator who does not prophesy, see, or reveal because he doesn't have that gift could be considered as a placeholder or office holder to pass down the authority to act as such should the individual in that calling also have the gift.

But I see them as titles. While I acknowledge God "could" function through him in these roles I don't assume that he always does. Otherwise I would expect a lot more on the prophesy, seer, and revealing side of things.

Suppose you are expecting or demanding that the prophet convey more than God is willing to bestow. That would say more about you than about the prophet.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd