What does it mean to you to sustain General Authorities?

[apexviper]

Since a couple of threads were closed I decided to take a different approach since this topic is different.

To you, what does it mean to sustain a General Authority?

[MarginOfError]

Whether it be a general authority, a bishop, or a deacon's quorum president, I sustain them by considering the counsel, accepting the parts that I feel through my own personal revelations will benefit me, and declining the parts that I feel won't. I also sustain them by informing them when I think they're making bone-headed decisions. And then I let them decide if what I've told them is something worth considering or not.

[Suzie]

Praying for them, listening and taking into consideration their words and counsel and by helping if they ask me to (and of course, if I am also able to fulfill such request).

[applepansy]

Sustaining also means obedience to their counsel even if we disagree.

I had a profound experience with a Bishop I didn't agree with. I wasn't overtly disobedient but I didn't have good feelings toward him. I discussed the problem with my dad. His advice was "Sustaining includes obedience. Even if you don't agree with the counsel received from your Bishop, Stake President or GAs, if you are obedient you will be blessed. Even if the person in the position of authority is wrong, you will be blessed and things will work out for your good." He was right.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that it always means obedience even when we disagree (though I think that sometimes that is, indeed, the case).

But I do think it means approaching their counsel with the hope that they are right; that we consider our own opinions and desires and values at least as potentially problematic as we consider theirs; and that if we ultimately do feel that our positions on a particular issue can't be reconciled--rather than public carping, we stand still (after, perhaps, a private and tactful conversation with the authority in question) and wait for further light and knowledge to come through those who prerogative it is to receive said light and knowledge and promulgate it to the body of saints.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

Sustaining to me means if my leaders are following the spirit of the Lord, in other words they are hearkening unto the Lord, then I am under covenant to follow. When these leaders speak from their stewardship, by the spirit, I am bound to follow; however, I choose to follow.

As for me, these are the elements I ponder when sustaining any of my leaders:

1) Stewardship

2) Doctrine

3) Is it good (all things that are good come from God)

4) Handbook of Instructions

If a leader counsels me out of his stewardship...then it is my responsibility to pray and receive revelation for my self. If a leader counsels me within his stewardship, and it matches with doctrine, it is good, and follows the Handbook there is no reason for me not to follow. Rationalization will only bring sorrow to me and my family.

[Sharky]

Sustaining someone, in any sense is just what the word implies ... "sustain" ... to help, to assist.

It would also imply or mean not undermining someone whom you sustain, not speaking out publicly against them. That said, helping them understand a difference of opinion is not a bad thing if done correctly.

In the sense of church leaders that you sustain, as with anything, you must take what they say, what they tell you, what they counsel, & determine for yourself what place in your life that you will give it, you choose that for yourself (something called agency).

[LittleWyvern]

I post this here against my better judgement, knowing full well that if recent trends hold this post will be picked apart and used to debate my honesty. Regardless, because I was actively participating in that other thread, I thought it would be good to at least put something here for the sake of dispelling any doubts about what I feel sustaining is.

To me, sustaining a leader is to support them: thus, sustaining involves praying for a leader and helping them in any way that I can. Sustaining also involves recognizing and honoring the position that person holds, and prayerfully listening to their counsel and determining how to bring that counsel into my own life. I do this, however, with a caution not to deify those I sustain or forget that they are human beings. If a leader says something that makes me uneasy or seems weird, then I make an effort to study it further or discuss it with fellow Church members: sustaining is a group effort as well as an individual effort after all.

[Just_A_Guy]

[Routine post in the which JAG picks apart LW's previous post and debates his honesty, after which Godwin's Law gets invoked, Pam's age gets mocked, and this all ends in tears with the thread being closed.]

[pam]

Whether it be a general authority, a bishop, or a deacon's quorum president, I sustain them by considering the counsel, accepting the parts that I feel through my own personal revelations will benefit me, and declining the parts that I feel won't. I also sustain them by informing them when I think they're making bone-headed decisions. And then I let them decide if what I've told them is something worth considering or not.

So since this thread is regarding sustaining General Authorities, do you tell President Monson when he has made a bone headed decision in your opinion?

[pam]

[Routine post in the which JAG picks apart LW's previous post and debates his honesty, after which Godwin's Law gets invoked, Pam's age gets mocked, and this all ends in tears with the thread being closed.]

Oh my heck..I've never cried over that.

At least not that anyone has seen.

[Praetorian_Brow]

Sustaining is an ongoing effort as we recognize their authority to speak on our behalf.

The initial sustaining with everyone in the congregation seems a bit odd, considering its more of a customary tradition that seems to be used only for unity sake. There are rare instances of someone voting against, but I wonder what the effect actually is, other than a cursory consultation. In a culture that decries public shaming and seems to have an aggressive policy of enforced unity, it seems a strange thing indeed that a person would have to face public condemnation and ostracization if they did actually exercise their vote in a negative. Then again, does the vote actually mean anything, considering the person being voted for would have very little consequences if they were discovered, other than them unlikely being denied a calling that was extended to them by God, based on our interpretations. In the end the person who voted against would have to face the wrath of every member of the church regardless of whether they had valid concerns.

[Quin]

I respect the office, if not the man.

I believe it to be incumbent on each of us not to follow blindly, but to actively choose what is right. AKA, using our agency, instead of just handing it over.

There are some things I go along with, even though I do not agree with them

(modesty standards are a good example).

There are some things I go along with, that I do not like, even though I agree with with them

(the law of chastity is a good example).

There are some things I have absolutely no opinion on whatsoever. (Lots!)

There are some things I ardently support. (Even more!)

And there are some things I absolutely disagree with, and will neither sustain, nor let stand.

(I reported one particular bishop who was counseling a battered woman in my DV group to submit to her husband and repent to the Stake Presidency, and had a shouting match with him in the hallway.... As an example.)

I believe HF gave us these brains, and hearts, and spirits to USE.

I may not always be right, but I am of the opinion that I would rather explain why I acted come judgement, than why I did nothing.

"Just following orders" sticks in my craw.

Q

[LittleWyvern]

[Routine post in the which JAG picks apart LW's previous post and debates his honesty, after which Godwin's Law gets invoked, Pam's age gets mocked, and this all ends in tears with the thread being closed.]

I hope you're only joking, but in all seriousness I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything...

[applepansy]

Sustaining is an ongoing effort as we recognize their authority to speak on our behalf.

The initial sustaining with everyone in the congregation seems a bit odd, considering its more of a customary tradition that seems to be used only for unity sake. There are rare instances of someone voting against, but I wonder what the effect actually is, other than a cursory consultation. In a culture that decries public shaming and seems to have an aggressive policy of enforced unity, it seems a strange thing indeed that a person would have to face public condemnation and ostracization if they did actually exercise their vote in a negative. Then again, does the vote actually mean anything, considering the person being voted for would have very little consequences if they were discovered, other than them unlikely being denied a calling that was extended to them by God, based on our interpretations. In the end the person who voted against would have to face the wrath of every member of the church regardless of whether they had valid concerns.

Usually a vote against is done privately. I personally know of changes made because of a dissenting vote. I only know because somebody involved told me later what had happened. In my experience it wasn't ever a member of the bishopric who made it public knowledge.

I've never seen the wrath you speak of.

[Praetorian_Brow]

Oh, I don't disagree that most votes against are spoken privately, but what is the purpose of asking for votes against publicly when its already culturally decided that a vote is only good in private?

The wrath I speak of is public opinion and backroom speculation/gossip or the unspoken but remembered moment when a person dared to stand against the might of the church and all its congregation. People remember such things and do doubt would hesitate to extend the same invitations as they once did. Plus, the person who voted against will probably have speculation thrown at them as to why, which leads to more questions.

[MarginOfError]

So since this thread is regarding sustaining General Authorities, do you tell President Monson when he has made a bone headed decision in your opinion?

If there were a mechanism for doing so, I would happily pass my opinions up to President Monson. I certainly do so with my local leaders and it usually ends well for all parties involved.

[skippy740]

To sustain someone in their calling is a covenant. This is why we raise our right hands - it is a covenant, like an oath - just like the BSA Oath, the baptismal prayer, and being sworn in on a jury.

We sustain even in their weakness. Weakness is more apparent on a local calling level, but we still sustain them. We sustain by bringing our thoughts and concerns to the leaders, and then trusting in them to make the decisions they have been entrusted with the stewardship over.

Sometimes we sustain just by being in compliance with their request. We may not like it, but we show obedience and respect for our leaders by doing so.

[Just_A_Guy]

I hope you're only joking, but in all seriousness I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything...

I know, LW. It just seemed like a bit of levity and self-mocking wouldn't go amiss.

[classylady]

To you, what does it mean to sustain a General Authority?

What does it mean to me to sustain a General Authority? I may ruffle a few feathers here, but my testimony is such that I know the Lord will not allow a prophet to lead us astray. I probably am one that my obedience may seem to be "blind" obedience. That's okay with me. I would rather obey than go against counsel. Does that mean I am perfect in my obedience? No, but I would like to be. Does that mean that I can't think for myself? No. I am smart and educated with a college degree. But, I know that the Gospel has been restored on the earth. I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I know that Pres. Monson is our prophet today. If he says "jump", I'll jump. Does that mean I'm blindly obedient?

Edit: I'm not sure how to explain exactly how I feel. Words fail me. I understand the negative connotation of "blind obedience". But, yet at the same time I don't have to question every single piece of counsel or article in the Ensign from one of the GA's.

Edited February 26, 2014 by classylady

[Backroads]

To sustain someone in their calling is a covenant. This is why we raise our right hands - it is a covenant, like an oath - just like the BSA Oath, the baptismal prayer, and being sworn in on a jury.

We sustain even in their weakness. Weakness is more apparent on a local calling level, but we still sustain them. We sustain by bringing our thoughts and concerns to the leaders, and then trusting in them to make the decisions they have been entrusted with the stewardship over.

Sometimes we sustain just by being in compliance with their request. We may not like it, but we show obedience and respect for our leaders by doing so.

This, rather than write out my own.

[Guest]

It seems to me lately that members have an expectation of the leaders to sustain them.

[Quin]

What does it mean to me to sustain a General Authority? I may ruffle a few feathers here, but my testimony is such that I know the Lord will not allow a prophet to lead us astray. I probably am one that my obedience may seem to be "blind" obedience. That's okay with me. I would rather obey than go against counsel. Does that mean I am perfect in my obedience? No, but I would like to be. Does that mean that I can't think for myself? No. I am smart and educated with a college degree. But, I know that the Gospel has been restored on the earth. I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I know that Pres. Monson is our prophet today. If he says "jump", I'll jump. Does that mean I'm blindly obedient?

Nope.

At least not in my opinion.

Q

[Palerider]

When I read all these comments it just makes me wish even more that more people get the opportunity to be called to serve as a Bishop or Stake President. More priesthood holders need a taste of what it's like to sit in that office.

[pam]

I get the feeling that much of the current trend is to sustain leaders only when what they teach or command or counsel is in line with what they want to hear or they personally believe.