Sustaining leaders

[Sunday21]

45 minutes ago, zil said:

What, your GPS lets you add a photo? (That's kinda cool.)  Or just by fluke it's got your SUV?  With police stuff painted on?

Meanwhile, not that long ago I learned something that never occurred to me before - is it true that those of you who don't wear glasses (contacts either?) don't see lights "star" like in above photo when looking at them at night?  (For me, lights don't do that during the day, but all lights do it at night.  I've worn glasses since 5th or 6th grade, so the "star" effect was always "normal", didn't consider it might not be normal until someone mentioned the difference.)

Yep. I wear glasses and I see the same stars. ⭐️ 

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Now I could well be wrong. It seems like an area authority seventy (not a member of the first or second quorums of seventy) presided at a stake conference instead of the stake president. This would seem unusual if the area authority seventy didn't hold keys of presidency, suggesting that maybe he does. I invite correction from anyone who has better knowledge in any of the areas mentioned above.

Area authorities act under delegated keys and preside at every meeting they have stewardship over.  This is why they can call and set apart stake presidents.

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Area authorities act under delegated keys and preside at every meeting they have stewardship over.  This is why they can call and set apart stake presidents.

Interesting. I have never heard of "delegated keys". As a bishopric counselor, I set people apart and did temple recommend interviews under instruction from the bishop. But there was no delegation of keys involved. If you have a reference for this idea, I'd love to hear it.

[Overwatch]

1 hour ago, zil said:

What, your GPS lets you add a photo? (That's kinda cool.)  Or just by fluke it's got your SUV?  With police stuff painted on?

Meanwhile, not that long ago I learned something that never occurred to me before - is it true that those of you who don't wear glasses (contacts either?) don't see lights "star" like in above photo when looking at them at night?  (For me, lights don't do that during the day, but all lights do it at night.  I've worn glasses since 5th or 6th grade, so the "star" effect was always "normal", didn't consider it might not be normal until someone mentioned the difference.)

I have worn both glass and contacts and had my vision repaired also. They are there no matter what. With clear vision it is less pronounced but still there pushing away the darkness.  

[Anddenex]

50 minutes ago, Vort said:

Interesting. I have never heard of "delegated keys". As a bishopric counselor, I set people apart and did temple recommend interviews under instruction from the bishop. But there was no delegation of keys involved. If you have a reference for this idea, I'd love to hear it.

This is training from area authority during stake conference priesthood leadership. It is why they can set apart a stake president and bestow keys upon him. Delegated keys is the term he used. Here is information from lds.org:

Quote

 

Later, he said, it was determined that the Seventy could reorganize stakes and call stake presidents, which brought “the whole doctrine of keys … into focus,” because stake presidents must have keys to preside.

“The stake president has to have keys, keys of the presidency of the stake. Well, if a member of the Twelve was there, he could easily give them. What would happen if it is a Seventy? Well, Seventies by delegation can do anything the Twelve tell them to do, and they can confer keys, which would be an extension of the keys of the Twelve.”

 

As a bishopric member we did not act with delegation like Seventies can. We had no permission, delegation, to set apart a deacon's quorum or teacher's quorum president. The bishop only, because he had keys.

The statement above, as to my knowledge, is why they preside also.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Anddenex

[pwrfrk]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

My understanding is as follows:

-snip-

In any case, if you had knowledge of a stake president acting in an unworthy manner such as being adulterous, you could contact Church headquarters in Salt Lake and talk to any General Authority. I would think such a condition would be exceedingly rare.

Hmmm.  That was the #1 reason why I parted from the church 20+ years ago.  Had such a problem with stake pres, went to area authority, was told to keep my nose out of it.  So I wrote SLC and told them I was leaving and why.  A few months later I was disfellowshipped for conduct unbecoming a priesthood holder.  Seems the church didn't approve of my marriage, though it was 100% legal.  Never asked to see the marriage license either. 

As I learned, unless the SP is banging your wife, keep your nose out of it, or else.

[pwrfrk]

...

Edited June 27, 2018 by pwrfrk
duplicate posts

[SpiritDragon]

4 hours ago, zil said:

What, your GPS lets you add a photo? (That's kinda cool.)  Or just by fluke it's got your SUV?  With police stuff painted on?

Meanwhile, not that long ago I learned something that never occurred to me before - is it true that those of you who don't wear glasses (contacts either?) don't see lights "star" like in above photo when looking at them at night?  (For me, lights don't do that during the day, but all lights do it at night.  I've worn glasses since 5th or 6th grade, so the "star" effect was always "normal", didn't consider it might not be normal until someone mentioned the difference.)

Every eye exam I've ever had has suggested 20/20 vision for my decades of mortality. Nearly 20 years ago my sister, who has worn glasses since she was six or seven, mentioned this to me and I was baffled because I too see the stars or lines and I had no idea what she was talking aobut. However, I did try on her glasses and looked at a lamp post and there was definitely a more pronounced effect. If I turn and look at my living room lights right now there is no starring effect, but outside with darkness all around the light it is common to see this effect and it is more pronounced when there is fog or it's snowing. I'd be curious to get other people's experience, too. It does seem to depend on the relative humidity of the air, other obstructions and type of light being used. I don't notice it as much with LED lights as I do with incandescent lights, I can't recall if I've ever noticed it with fluorescent lights either.

[SpiritDragon]

3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Indiana wants me! 

Let me guess... you can't go back there 

[Fether]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Interesting. I have never heard of "delegated keys". As a bishopric counselor, I set people apart and did temple recommend interviews under instruction from the bishop. But there was no delegation of keys involved. If you have a reference for this idea, I'd love to hear it.

 

From my understanding, all ordinances done by someone without keys is done via delegation of authority (NOT keys).

When I bless the sacrament out of and in church meetings, it is by delegation of the Bishop’s authority. If I give a blessing, it is by delegation of authority from the Elder’s Quorum President (or Bishop... I can’t remember).

This is also why why you have to ask the bishop before giving someone who missed church the sacrament. You can’t do so just by virtue of having the priesthood. Also partly why you should report to the EQ president and bishop when you give priesthood blessings outside your family.

 

”Although each Apostle holds all the keys of the priesthood, it is the Lord’s plan that only one man at a time exercise these keys on behalf of the Church. For this reason the senior living Apostle (by date of ordination, not by age) is ordained President of the Church by the Quorum of the Twelve and given the right to exercise all the keys of the priesthood. When he dies, the remaining Apostles ordain the next senior living Apostle (the President of the Quorum of the Twelve) to use his apostolic keys in their fulness as President of the Church.

The President of the Church, therefore, is the only man on earth who has the power to exercise all of the keys of the priesthood (see D&C 132:7). However, he delegates certain keys to the leaders who preside in the Church. These men include mission presidents, branch presidents, temple presidents, stake presidents, bishops, and Melchizedek Priesthood quorum presidents. They in turn delegate a portion of their authority (but not their keys) to men and women in their units by setting them apart to different offices and callings.

President Joseph F. Smith explained: “In their fulness, the keys are held by only one person at a time, the prophet and president of the Church. He may delegate any portion of this power to another, in which case that person holds the keys of that particular labor. Thus, the president of a temple, the president of a stake, the bishop of a ward, the president of a mission, the president of a quorum, each holds the keys of the labors performed in that particular body or locality. His Priesthood is not increased by this special appointment” (https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-2-the-keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng)

delegation of Keys is not a thing beyond presidencies or bishops, but we all work under delegation of authority from someone with keys. 

@Anddenex

Seventies are given keys when under special assignment 

“Members of the Quorums of the Seventy do not hold priesthood keys as part of their callings as Seventies. But when they receive an assignment from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the keys they need to accomplish the task are delegated to them”

- Elder Earl C Tingey

(https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/10/area-authority-seventies-to-bear-record-of-my-name-in-all-the-world?lang=eng)

Wow... I learned a lot writing this xD I was up with my 2 month old son feeding him as I looked all this up. I edited this like 4 times as I learned different stuff on this topic.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Fether

[Sunday21]

13 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Agree. 99.9% of LDS leaders are upstanding men who never dream of doing something wrong. No, that doesn't excuse the .01 of course. 

My stake president, bishop and associated leaders are lovely people. I like them and I am sure that you would like them as well.

So why did they do some of the things that they did? 

I suspect that the layer of leadership above them is pushing for growth but that goal that is unrealistic. My personal rule is that, it is great to have goals but the minute that you are tempted to break a commandment, start questioning that goal. 

[Guest MormonGator]

33 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

 My personal rule is that, it is great to have goals but the minute that you are tempted to break a commandment, start questioning that goal. 

Good point! 

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Seventies are given keys when under special assignment 

“Members of the Quorums of the Seventy do not hold priesthood keys as part of their callings as Seventies. But when they receive an assignment from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the keys they need to accomplish the task are delegated to them”

- Elder Earl C Tingey

(https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/10/area-authority-seventies-to-bear-record-of-my-name-in-all-the-world?lang=eng)

Wow... I learned a lot writing this xD I was up with my 2 month old son feeding him as I looked all this up. I edited this like 4 times as I learned different stuff on this topic.

Yep, this is why I provided this quote, "

Quote

 

"Later, he said, it was determined that the Seventy could reorganize stakes and call stake presidents, which brought “the whole doctrine of keys … into focus,” because stake presidents must have keys to preside.

“The stake president has to have keys, keys of the presidency of the stake. Well, if a member of the Twelve was there, he could easily give them. What would happen if it is a Seventy? Well, Seventies by delegation can do anything the Twelve tell them to do, and they can confer keys, which would be an extension of the keys of the Twelve.”

 

 

[Traveler]

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 10:45 PM, Petty3 said:

I read this.   "Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, hearken to their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them."

Do you agree with it?  What if you know things that certain leaders have done that are wrong or unethical?  

 

I have posted this story before – here it is again.  As a youth my best friend worked for a man married to the daughter of Elder Hugh B. Brown.  My friend would do yard work, clean the swimming pool, run errands and other such things.  Often Elder Brown would visit and relax at pool.  When that happened I would often help my friend with his chores – even if I was not paid for the privilege to spend time with Brother Brown.

It was sort of my nature to attempt to ask Elder Brown difficult questions – mostly gospel related questions.  There was one time I look forward to approaching Brother Brown because I was sure I had a question that would stump him.  My question was much like the OP of this thread.  I asked Elder Brown, “If you know for certain and for sure that your bishop is without question wrong – do you still support him?”  I remember well to this day, President Brown looking at me squarely in the eye and addressing me by my name saying, “J-----, you always support your bishop but especially when he is wrong because he will need your support more then; than at any other time.”

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

"Traveler" does not start with "J". Brother Brown must not have gotten your name right.

[Traveler]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 10:59 PM, Vort said:

"Traveler" does not start with "J". Brother Brown must not have gotten your name right.

 

You are correct - way back then I was not called Traveler.  Actually I was called Jonnie - but that was not my real name either - though there was some reference to a particular ancestor.  It is interesting that I became a Traveler when I started working for "The Government" and they called we by another name - which was not my right name either.  Brother Brown is one of the few people in this world that addressed me with my right name.  I have often wondered what my right name will be in the next life.

 

The Traveler

[pwrfrk]

Back to the OP, much like what others have already said.  If you support the member and his or her calling, do it.  But be ready to be there and back them up when they need it. 

To me sustaining someone during sacrament when they are called upon, but then not supporting them later on, is, to me, akin to enlisting in the army, taking the oath, and then staying at home when they call you up for active duty.  To me the calling is as serious as being enlisted.  There is a reason why you were called.

[warnerfranklin]

Of course, if they are guilty of wrong doing we report that to the appropriate authority. 

However, many do not support someone due to reasons like, “we (meaning themselves) don’t do it that way.” Or worse, see someone struggling and are quick to judge and slow to offer to help (if they ever do). 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, warnerfranklin said:

Or worse, see someone struggling and are quick to judge and slow to offer to help (if they ever do). 

Amen to that. Sad life truth there. Too many of us (myself included, for sure) give lip service to helping someone who is struggling but in reality, we don't do it enough. 

[pwrfrk]

I never could understand why people do the lip service thing.  Maybe it's because I've been on the receiving end of that, and man does it suck!  When I say suck, that is such a polite word for it.  I have had to ask for help, but I also do not hesitate to give it when it's needed.  Fella in town couldn't get anyone to help him with his car.  It broke down and he wanted to get it home.  So I went and looked at it with him.  Ok, nothing I can do about it.  Just the way it is.  Some cars are so broken, you might as well send it to the junkyard.  And that car was broke!  But it didn't stop me from offering to help him when he asked.  Ok, I drove 18 miles one way.  So what?  I remember when people have gone out of their way to help me.  When I am in need, people find a way to help me.  When I see others in need, I step up to plate.  I feel sorry for those that give lip service.  IMO they can count on that when they go to Heaven. 

Matthew 25:40-45, KJV

40.  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41.  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43.  I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44.  Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45.  Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

 

[Guest Scott]

On 6/25/2018 at 11:45 PM, Petty3 said:

I read this.   "Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, hearken to their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them."

Do you agree with it?  What if you know things that certain leaders have done that are wrong or unethical?  

It depends on the situation.  There was one time when I didn't say anything, but felt that I should have.

While on vacation around Escalante Utah in the 1990's we went to church there.   The bishop stoop up in sacrament meeting and said something to the effect that we as LDS members needed to do everything we can to run non-members out of town (seriously).   Members were to start a Holy War against non members to make sure they don't ever become a majority in the town.

I was shocked and was thinking "is this guy really serious?",  but being a visitor I never did anything or reported it.    Not that long after, someone recorded the bishop's similar comments and they made national news, which made the Church look bad.

I never thought of reporting the bishop, but I wish that I would have.  It would have saved some Church wide embarrassment when the comments made national news.   I'll try and see if I can dig up some of the old news stories, though that was a long time ago.   I believe the bishop was quickly released as well.

Edit:

I did find some old articles.   The name of the Bishop was Wade Barney.   This particular article just mentioned Bishop Barney's threats against environmental residents only, but when I went to church on the day in question, he said basically the same things against all non-members.   Here is a snip of the article I could find:

Notice how he celebrated the vandalism of another home and how he said that they asked for it and were "lucky" not to have suffered more.  He also said that there should be a religious war against any environmentalist.  These were the same type of things that he was going on and on about in Sacrament meeting; only he extended the war to all non-Mormon residents or potential residents.  It was the weirdest and most uncomfortable Sacrament meeting that I have ever attended. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Scott

[pwrfrk]

15 hours ago, Scott said:

It depends on the situation.  There was one time when I didn't say anything, but felt that I should have.

While on vacation around Escalante Utah in the 1990's....Members were to start a Holy War against non members to make sure they don't ever become a majority in the town.

 

This kind of a problem has come up in discussions over the past few weeks in church.  The church IS the true church, it is a perfect church, but the people within are imperfect.  And just as the people are, so will be the bishopric, stake presidency and area leadership.  Even if you follow it all the way to the very top with President Nelson, even he is imperfect.  And you will find leaders that will hide and protect others, when they are accused of committing a crime on behalf of the church.  It is sad, but it is true.  Even sadder that so many people see church leaders as being nearly perfect in themselves.

[omegaseamaster75]

On 6/26/2018 at 6:30 AM, Vort said:

Yes, I agree with it. If we know of evils done by certain leaders, then we have seen their human weaknesses. If those evils are germane to their leadership position, then our obligation is to let their presiding authorities know; for example, if the evils we know of are evidence of rank hypocrisy. Similarly, if those evils are illegal in nature, it is perhaps our duty to report that to law enforcement.

But if they swore at us once, or we witnessed them kick their dog, or they treated our children unkindly six years ago, then perhaps it's our duty to forgive them and sustain them in this new chapter of their lives, assuming they are trying to put all those petty evils behind them in accepting new responsibilities.

Here is the blunt truth: If only the perfect hold leadership positions, then the Church will go leaderless.

I agree, unless you personally know of immoral or illegal behavior you should sustain them.  If you just don't like them on a personal level or have had bad business dealings with them that does not justify a non sustaining vote.

[john4truth]

On 6/26/2018 at 12:45 AM, Petty3 said:

I read this.   "Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, hearken to their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them."

Do you agree with it?  What if you know things that certain leaders have done that are wrong or unethical?  

If we know, and yes it happens, a leader is hurting the Church we should only talk to him or his superior. No gossip.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 6/26/2018 at 7:44 AM, zil said:

Will you report me if I confess the thoughts I have when I witness a driver staring at their cell phone?  My thoughts might include images like these:

(My GPS - yes, I use a plain old GPS device for long trips - lets you pick the image you want to represent your vehicle.  I picked the tank. )

As long as you are driving the first two it probably does not matter if you text and drive. LOL