Sustaining our Leaders - A Blog

[The Folk Prophet]

Let me give an example from my mission that caused a ward to be disbanded, many members disciplined.  The Bishop began to allow the Relief Society president to conduct Sacrament meetings.  The Bishop allowed young women (young and old) to pass the sacrament.  I think this is an obvious scenario where any individual in the Church would know their leader is wrong.

 

Or the bishop who starts allowing women to baptize or something.... :)

 

Solid point.

[Traveler]

One thought I wanted to get past.

 

Sustaining a leader does not mean that you must believe they are infallible.  There are two counselor for every president in all priesthood organizations - (including the G-dhead).  The purpose of the counselors is not to agree with everything concerning the president.  In disciplinary courts counselors are often given opposing assignments intended to mitigate their counsel. 

 

The "hive mind" is a most interesting concept to me.  I believe that Agency, Sustaining and Priesthood Authority are terms that describe elements of Celestial divinity - and are not even all elements to be considered which must be present in a marriage and is of greater importance that Church.  Sustaining marriages is more important that sustaining church and national leaders - but the reality is that once we understand the fabric of enduring human society - there is no difference in sustaining one's marriage - one's marriage partner and one's religious and political leaders.

 

As members are required to sustain their leaders - leaders are required to sustain eternal marriages.

[Traveler]

Or the bishop who starts allowing women to baptize or something.... :)

 

Solid point.

 

How then - how do we sustain leaders when they are wrong?

Edited August 5, 2015 by Traveler

[Vort]

My mission president taught me a simple truth: To sustain one's leaders (or anyone else) is to help make them successful in their calling.

 

In almost no cases does this consist of telling them how wrong they are. But yes, if your bishop is having the young women distribute the sacrament instead of the young men or otherwise abusing his position, he needs to be told to stop. One does not "sustain" a corrupt leader that leads his congregants to do wrong.

 

But this is a rare thing. I seriously doubt that even 1% of bishops are in this category. The overwhelming majority of the time, the difficulties come because of personality clashes or because the bishop is being "unfair" in the minds of some when he apportions out assignments or whatever. In such cases, the appropriate course of action is to smile, say "Of course, Bishop", and then go do what he has asked. We have covenanted to devote all our time, money, and talents to the building up of the kingdom, and the bishop is the guy with the keys and authority to direct that. In cases where we really cannot do what is asked of us, a simple "I'm sorry, Bishop, but I have thus-and-such commitment at that time" is probably sufficient, perhaps coupled with a sincere, "What would you have me do?" Criticizing the bishop to his face or behind his back is probably never justified in the large majority of cases.

[The Folk Prophet]

What does right or wrong, fallible or infallible have to do with it?

 

Authority is authority.

 

Obviously in extreme things you step up. If you find out your bishop is secretly murdering people and keeping their heads in his refrigerator then you call the police. We can throw out extreme "what ifs" all day long.

 

Broadly speaking, our leaders have the authority to choose and act under their stewardships.

[pam]

How then - how do we sustain leaders when they are wrong?

 

Do leaders instantly know everything there is to know about their calling when called and sustained?  No.  But we can sustain them by helping them learn just as we learn how best to perform our own callings.

[The Folk Prophet]

In almost no cases does this consist of telling them how wrong they are. But yes, if your bishop is having the young women distribute the sacrament instead of the young men or otherwise abusing his position, he needs to be told to stop.

 

It should be pointed out, I think, that he should be told to stop by one who has the authority to tell him to stop. As a member of the ward I would report this issue to the Stake President (if I had a good relationship with the bishop I might ask him what the stink he thinks he's doing with a smile first). If I were a counselor to the bishop I would counsel him -- but it still would not be within my purview to demand that he stop. Once more...I would go to the Stake President.

[Traveler]

My mission president taught me a simple truth: To sustain one's leaders (or anyone else) is to help make them successful in their calling.

 

In almost no cases does this consist of telling them how wrong they are. But yes, if your bishop is having the young women distribute the sacrament instead of the young men or otherwise abusing his position, he needs to be told to stop. One does not "sustain" a corrupt leader that leads his congregants to do wrong.

 

But this is a rare thing. I seriously doubt that even 1% of bishops are in this category. The overwhelming majority of the time, the difficulties come because of personality clashes or because the bishop is being "unfair" in the minds of some when he apportions out assignments or whatever. In such cases, the appropriate course of action is to smile, say "Of course, Bishop", and then go do what he has asked. We have covenanted to devote all our time, money, and talents to the building up of the kingdom, and the bishop is the guy with the keys and authority to direct that. In cases where we really cannot do what is asked of us, a simple "I'm sorry, Bishop, but I have thus-and-such commitment at that time" is probably sufficient, perhaps coupled with a sincere, "What would you have me do?" Criticizing the bishop to his face or behind his back is probably never justified in the large majority of cases.

 

In the Church we can start with a bishop or quorum leader.  It is important to note that the High Priest quorum leader is the stake President.  A High Priest Group leader is not a Quorum President.  In some cases ladies have worked through Relief Society Presidents but eventually all problems must be settled in the Priesthood structure.  So concerns can be and should be voiced through bishops and priesthood quorum presidents, if not settled then stake presidents, then regional reps, then the Quorum of the 12 and finely the First Presidency.  In essence this was how Jethro instructed Moses.

 

If, as one is going through this process, the advice being given is consistent - it is likely that the consistency will remain with the First Presidency as well - but the point is that we have a covenant of the priesthood given in D&C 84 that point out that sustaining Jesus will result in sustaining even our home teachers.  We are under covenant with G-d to sustain and accept our leaders - especially if there is a problem.

[Anddenex]

 but it still would not be within my purview to demand that he stop. Once more...I would go to the Stake President.

 

I would agree; however, the key word is the one emphasized.  A counselor, nor ward member, has the right to "demand" a leader to stop; although, a counselor should strongly encourage, or strongly invite, the bishop to change. If not, then take it right to the stake president.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

"I need revelation to support the prophet"

 

Here is an experience related to me of someone who was having problems with Brigham Young.  The Lord gave him a revelation and told him, "I [the Lord] don't always agree with what he does, but he is the prophet."

That's an interesting revelation, and I think that is sometimes how the Lord sees things.

In my opinion, in such a situation, you will never be wrong by following the Lord, even if it contradicts the prophet.

(Of course, it behooves each of us to be absolutely certain that it is the Lord we are following, and not our own false revelations or deceptions.)

 

For sure it is not sustaining our leaders to pretend to go along when we are full of doubt.

 "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."  It is a matter of spiritual maturity.

You mean spiritual immaturity? Spiritually mature people are fully capable of having their questions answered and doubts resolved through personal revelation. The quote you reference from Mark is an example of such a person in the process of having his doubts resolved.

 

And we should never "pretend" to go along with anything. We should go along - or we should not according to our agency.

THIS!

 

I was reading this blog regarding sustaining of leaders this morning.  I really enjoyed it.  I especially enjoyed the paragraph which states:

 

"There are those who are so averse to being accused of any form of blind obedience that in their efforts to prevent spiritual blindness they have advocated complete spiritual skepticism. They feel they have no obligation to follow the prophet until the Lord has personally revealed the same thing to them that the prophet received. Until that happens, they don’t feel under obligation to heed the counsel. In other words, the counsel isn’t good enough coming from God’s mouthpiece, God has to confirm it through them personally before they will obey. I fear that those who are not willing to obey the prophet won’t have the faith required to get their own confirmation of what the prophet teaches."

I absolutely do advocate complete skepticism - where skepticism is defined as a doubt that leads to earnest questioning and seeking; not where skepticism is a doubt that enters the realm of intentional disbelief.

 

We absolutely should seek the Lord's personally revealed confirmation on every single thing that prophets and apostles and church leaders teach us.

 

Some seem to assert that seeking this personal confirmation demonstrates a lack of faith. I assert that it is the opposite. It is, in fact, the very essence of a personal testimony. In every case, from General Conference to the scriptures to Sunday School lesson manuals, we are constantly told to ask the Father for a personal witness. It is the crux of our missionary efforts, that investigators not rely on the testimonies or instruction of the missionaries but seek and obtain their own personal revelation. Brigham Young called it our duty to know and understand for ourselves.

 

There also seems to be some confusion about what it means to seek and ask for that personal confirmation. In 99.9% of cases, there is no need to ask simply because the Spirit will already be there testifying of the truth as it is spoken by our leaders. If you're listening to the Spirit, you already have your confirmation the moment the prophets have spoken.

 

In that 0.1% of times when the Spirit doesn't confirm the truth of it unto you, it is absolutely most imperative that you earnestly seek for it. Because one of two things is happening: either you are going astray (and hence didn't hear the Spirit's voice) or the person instructing you is going astray, and neither is going to be good for your eternal welfare if you don't seek answers from the Lord.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm curious. What do you think faith is Puf? Because as I understand it, faith is belief, trust, and commitment. So yes, having to ask someone every single time an issue comes up, without a doubt, in my mind, is a lack of belief, trust, and commitment. If I have belief, trust, and commitment, then I'm pretty likely to follow even when I don't quite understand or agree.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I'm curious. What do you think faith is Puf?

My understanding of the principle of faith is a work in progress: http://lds.net/forums/topic/57654-what-is-perfect-faith/

I've learned a lot in discussions with many of my friends on this subject, and I believe I have a rough idea, but that idea is not yet clear enough for me to be able to describe it. More study is needed.