What does it mean to you to sustain General Authorities?

[SpiritDragon]

Maybe I just haven't been close enough to anything to feel like there is any reason not to sustain the brethren whether locally or globally. As far as keeping the commandments are concerned, well I've already made covenants for myself to do so; thus when the church leadership reminds me of these covenants I have no need to think they are leading me astray.

Quibbles over other topics such as what the ward eats at the ward Christmas party have always astounded me as stupid irrelevant points to grumble over.

To me sustaining church leaders comes down to serving in my callings and doing my home teaching. In this way I lighten the load they have to carry by doing my part. This is what it means to sustain to me.

If on the other hand I am not doing my part, then I add to the burden by becoming a concern myself.

Lift where you stand.

[Quin]

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

You & Pam seem to share an idea/theme here that I don't fully grok.

Maybe because I've only been around a few years, so I don't have a good comparison between lately & before.

So, if you've got the time, could you expand on that?

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.

Ditto!

I see a lot of the opposite: people following even though it's not what they believe... Or questioning in order to find common ground to settle perceived problems ... To either change their belief or alleviate their problems with what's been handed down. But I live in a microcosm of who I know. So, like with Eowyns, I'm a little baffled/curious and would like to understand better.

Thanks!

Q

Edited February 26, 2014 by Quin
Cut and paste is not my friend.

[Suzie]

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.

I notice that when we discuss this particular issue we usually go into extremes, we either discuss about "blind obedience" or the extreme of "questioning every single piece of counsel". I suppose we should define blind obedience as well as the word questioning.

Having said that, sometimes it isn't about "blind obedience" or "questioning" every single piece of counsel we receive, but about doing what we are supposed to do which is listening, pondering the counsel in our hearts, taking it to the Lord in prayer and receiving confirmation of the Lord through the Spirit.

[Guest]

It just seems like, wth many, the focus is shifting less to actually sustaining, and instead to demanding and scrutinizing.

[applepansy]

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.

For me and from what I've observed in my 5 decades of belonging to the church.... yes there is gossip, and some might judge unrighteously when a person is voted against.

But most remember they don't know the whole story and suspend judgement. Treating a person differently because we don't know why someone objected is wrong in my eyes. When all is said and done its the Bishop's call. So, if we're sustaining our leaders, and the Bishop resolves whatever the issue was, then all speculation should stop. Those who continue to judge situations such as this without full knowledge are placing themselves at odds with leadership. And to me that's a sad place to be because when we do that the Spirit leaves.

The people I've known personally, (one in particular) who have had someone object instead of sustain, have not had the problems you describe. Maybe I'm sheltered. I live in a good ward with good people (who still have problems with each other sometimes). When these situations have occurred, once its resolved its resolved.

My heart breaks for the person who decides to hold a grudge when they don't know the circumstances. oh Heck, my heart breaks for a person to decides to hold a grudge, period. :)

[applepansy]

It just seems like, wth many, the focus is shifting less to actually sustaining, and instead to demanding and scrutinizing.

I agree.

This is the time we've been warned about. The Lord is sifting the Saints.

Edited February 27, 2014 by applepansy

[Palerider]

It just seems like, wth many, the focus is shifting less to actually sustaining, and instead to demanding and scrutinizing.

Amen

[MrShorty]

If I followed the history of the closed threads that lead up to this thread, let me add this to the original question: What do you think it means to sustain the general authorities when you don't really agree with them? We often talk about the need to "get your own testimony" of principles that GA's teach. What does "sustain" mean when you have studied the principle in question, taken it to the Lord in prayer, and feel reasonably confident that the Lord has told you that the principle being taught (or, at least, the one you perceived them to be teaching) is wrong or being taught out of context or some such?

MoE suggesed that, if he could, he would raise his concerns with Pres. Monson. But, with 15M members of record, the church is just too large to allow each of us to raise our concerns directly with Pres. Monson, or whichever GA is in question.