Sustaining our Leaders - A Blog

[pam]

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.

 

 

 

http://ldsblogs.com/29620/sustain-leaders

[Palerider]

Good read ..... You can sure see that attitude today.

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree. Good read.

 

For the sake of conversation, there were 2 things he said that I disagree with (mildly).

 

1. We do not have the fullness of the gospel.

 

As much as I understand what he's saying, and he clarifies what he means, I find it slightly problematic to state something contrary to what has been clearly and explicitly stated by prophets and apostles through the years. We do have the fullness of the gospel. What he's talking about is the fullness of all revelation. That is not the gospel. The gospel is the truths, covenants, and ordinances required for salvation. So he basically says we don't have the fullness of the gospel, but then says we do have -- and then describes the fullness of the gospel --  all revelation necessary for salvation.

 

2. the prophets were not given any revelations on the matter, so they taught what they knew and could figure out for themselves.

 

How can he, or anyone, possibly know this? We don't know that they weren't given any revelations on the matter. I don't want to get into another "how dare you perpetuate the disavowed theories" debate. But it strikes me that claiming something like this is just as problematic as the problem trying to be avoided.

 

We. Don't. Know.

 

It should be left at that.

[Timpman]

The author's comment regarding an absence of revelation makes sense to me if he means no revelation was given regarding why the priesthood ban was in place. Consider this:

 

In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:

 

“If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, 'Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,' you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. … I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.”

 

When asked if [he] was even referring to reasons given by General Authorities, [he] replied:

 

“I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon … by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.” 

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-7/lesson-157-official-declaration-2?lang=eng

 

Elder Oaks didn’t say “I don’t know if the theories behind the ban were right or wrong." He said “they turned out to be spectacularly wrong” and verified he was “referring to reasons given by general authorities.” It would be problematic for an apostle to say a revelation was wrong, so I’m not concerned about the author of the blog making that statement. 

 

If the author is not referring only to the theories regarding the priesthood ban, then please ignore the above  :)

Edited August 3, 2015 by Timpman

[The Folk Prophet]

You are a one-trick pony aren't you.

[Timpman]

*deleted*

 

Is there anything in my post with which you disagree? Do you disagree with the statement by Elder Oaks? Would you like to discuss it respectfully? 

Edited August 4, 2015 by pam

[The Folk Prophet]

Would you like to discuss it respectfully? 

 

I don't want to get into another "how dare you perpetuate the disavowed theories" debate. 

[cdowis]

"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."

[Traveler]

Perhaps before we discuss if we should always sustain our leaders - perhaps we should discuss what it means to sustain our leaders.

 

The formal definition is: strengthen or support physically or mentally.  give strength to, buoy up, carry, cheer up, hearten.

 

It does not mean - do not ask questions, never disagree or make suggestions, blindly follow, do not think for yourself or never seek for clarification when you do not understand.  I also do not think it means to do what they say just because they said it.  I believe we sustain leaders by seeking conformation - especially if it does not seem quite right.

 

I believe that it does mean that we do not undercut them, go behind their backs, complain in the ranks or suggest someone else could do a better job or if they worked at it harder it would come out better.

 

I believe that a Stake president can propose something in priesthood and ask for a sustaining vote - And if the the proposal does not make sense so much that we do not feel that we can sustain it that we should so honestly make it known.  I do not think we have to lash out with a laud voice but that we can take up our concerns with our priesthood leaders or if the circumstances provide - with that stake president.

 

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

[cdowis]

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.

Edited August 4, 2015 by cdowis

[Just_A_Guy]

The author's comment regarding an absence of revelation makes sense to me if he means no revelation was given regarding why the priesthood ban was in place. Consider this:

 

 

Elder Oaks didn’t say “I don’t know if the theories behind the ban were right or wrong." He said “they turned out to be spectacularly wrong” and verified he was “referring to reasons given by general authorities.” It would be problematic for an apostle to say a revelation was wrong, so I’m not concerned about the author of the blog making that statement. 

 

If the author is not referring only to the theories regarding the priesthood ban, then please ignore the above  :)

 

I agree with your overall conclusion re a reason not being given; but insofar as you sort of resurrect the other recent discussion about whether all former explanations were wrong in toto: 

 

Well, if we're going to really parse the language; in the absence of the full transcript, I would note that as-uttered it's not really clear whether the clause "they turned out to be spectacularly wrong" appears to refer directly to "some people", or the "reasons" put forward by said group of "some people".  When invited to expand the scope of persons/theories to whom his comments apply, Oaks apparently does so--but he also backpedals on the rhetoric.  Instead of "spectacularly wrong" we get "unnecessary risk taking" and "man-made to a great extent". 

 

And, as we recently discussed--given your conclusion that the entire ban was in error, it's a little problematic to disavow Oaks' descriptions of the priesthood ban as "commandment" and "revelation", but then to use the very same quote to make the rest of your case about how all of the justifications thereto are purportedly wrong.

 

/threadjack 

Edited August 4, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Perhaps before we discuss if we should always sustain our leaders - perhaps we should discuss what it means to sustain our leaders.

 

The formal definition is: strengthen or support physically or mentally.  give strength to, buoy up, carry, cheer up, hearten.

 

It does not mean - do not ask questions, never disagree or make suggestions, blindly follow, do not think for yourself or never seek for clarification when you do not understand.  I also do not think it means to do what they say just because they said it.  I believe we sustain leaders by seeking conformation - especially if it does not seem quite right.

 

I believe that it does mean that we do not undercut them, go behind their backs, complain in the ranks or suggest someone else could do a better job or if they worked at it harder it would come out better.

 

I believe that a Stake president can propose something in priesthood and ask for a sustaining vote - And if the the proposal does not make sense so much that we do not feel that we can sustain it that we should so honestly make it known.  I do not think we have to lash out with a laud voice but that we can take up our concerns with our priesthood leaders or if the circumstances provide - with that stake president.

 

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

 

I'm not sure the sustaining of leaders or not is really the key issue as to whether we follow or not. Sustaining is a different issue that is related -- but we should follow those called of God because they are called of God, the technical meaning of "sustaining" notwithstanding.

 

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

[Timpman]

Just_A_Guy:Well, if we're going to really parse the language; in the absence of the full transcript, I would note that as-uttered it's not really clear whether the clause "they turned out to be spectacularly wrong" appears to refer directly to "some people", or the "reasons" put forward by said group of "some people".  When invited to expand the scope of persons/theories to whom his comments apply, Oaks apparently does so--but he also backpedals on the rhetoric.  Instead of "spectacularly wrong" we get "unnecessary risk taking" and "man-made to a great extent". 

 

I see what you mean. He could mean "Some people turned out to be spectacularly wrong" or "The reasons some people put forth turned out to be spectacularly wrong." Well, if the people were wrong, then they were wrong about the reasons set forth. If the reasons were wrong, then the people were wrong when they promulgated them. It really doesn't make a difference. Anyway, he was very clear when he said, "I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon...by others." Any way it's spun, he said the reasons were wrong. 

 

And, as we recently discussed--given your conclusion that the entire ban was in error, it's a little problematic to disavow Oaks' descriptions of the priesthood ban as "commandment" and "revelation", but then to use the very same quote to make the rest of your case about how all of the justifications thereto are purportedly wrong. 

 

I didn’t disavow the descriptions by Elder Oaks (see post #111 on page 6 of that other thread). Please don’t ascribe things to me when I didn’t really say it. Anyway, my opinion on the ban can't negate what Elder Oaks said about the reasons behind the ban. 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2015 by Timpman

[Traveler]

From my personal life.  I grew up in the Provo 12th ward.  We met in the same building as the Provo 13th ward.  As a teenager the Bishop of the 13th ward was a gentleman named Bishop Edward Fermage that owned a clothing store in town.  His wife was the daughter of Apostle Hugh B. Brown.  My best friend was in the 13th ward and was hired to do yard work for his bishop - including maintenance of the pool.  When Elder Brown was visiting - I was often contacted by my friend to help him - but mostly it was to have privileged contact with Brother Brown.

 

One weekend we had a question for Brother Brown that we thought sure would stump him.  We had tried to stump him with a gospel question many times but this time we thought we had him for sure.  He seemed to love our challenging questions and encouraged us to investigate and ask difficult questions. 

 

The question we had was:  "Do you support your church leaders when you know absolutely with no room for error that they are wrong?"  The point being not if a leader can or cannot make a mistake but rather what do we do when we know that they are making a mistake?  I thought for sure we would stump Apostle Brown.

 

How well I remember the concern in his eyes as he looked me straight in the eye and without hesitation and all the force of his personality he told me to support my leaders - especially when they were wrong.  And then he placed his hand on my shoulder  and said, "They will need your support more when they are wrong than at any other time!"

 

I know for a fact that church leaders are sometimes wrong.  I know this because I have been called to church leadership positions and I have made mistakes and been wrong.  Some of my mistakes still give me sleepless nights.  The burden and responsibility of Church leadership is most difficult to bear - for anyone.  How can I criticize someone so burdened? - but even more, how can I stand idly by and let them make the same mistakes and suffer as I have?  Or some other mistake and suffer such a burden alone and unadvised? 

 

I will do whatever I can to help them - If I think they are wrong - I will support them.  I have found this discussion interesting.  I stated on another thread that I believe it is more important for unity (like in marriage) to work together than to be right.  What is the difference in standing up when you are right and not supporting church leaders when they are wrong?    It is far more important to support our marriage in eternity than it is our church.  It is no different when a spouse is wrong than it is when our church leaders are wrong.  Sometimes we must support those that are wrong - the question is -- how will you support them when they are wrong?

Edited August 4, 2015 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

"Do you support your church leaders when you know absolutely with no room for error that they are wrong?" 

 

My answer would have been to ask how one could possibly know with no room for error that their leaders are wrong.

[Traveler]

My answer would have been to ask how one could possibly know with no room for error that their leaders are wrong.

 

Have you never experienced (come to knowledge) of something with which there was no room for error in your experience of it?

[The Folk Prophet]

Have you never experienced (come to knowledge) of something with which there was no room for error in your experience of it?

 

Concerning something that is someone else's stewardship?

 

No.

[Traveler]

Concerning something that is someone else's stewardship?

 

No.

In essence we are steward when we drive on public highways - You have never witnessed first hand an accident in which someone else was exercising a stewardship to drive and you were not involved?  Yet they reported events on a legal document that you knew not to be truthful?

 

A bishop - similar to a judge may make a decision based on false witnesses rather than whisperings of the spirit which is his stewardship and under such condition his decisions may not be as inspired as if the witnesses that testified of the truth.

 

In the case I referenced on this thread I was a witness to an event to which those involved did not know there was a witness.  The event resulted in the action of a bishop.  I was not made aware that the bishop was involved until after the bishop had become involved because of his stewardship and taken the wrong action.

[The Folk Prophet]

A bishop - similar to a judge may make a decision based on false witnesses rather than whisperings of the spirit which is his stewardship and under such condition his decisions may not be as inspired as if the witnesses that testified of the truth.

 

Clearly, and obviously, one would be stupid not to bring a witness to the bishop's attention.  But "may", is a whole world apart from, "no room for error".

[Traveler]

Clearly, and obviously, one would be stupid not to bring a witness to the bishop's attention.  But "may", is a whole world apart from, "no room for error".

 

Not really clear nor obvious to someone that did not even know the bishop was involved or seeking any witnesses.  Often bishops desire to be discrete and stay out of public awareness.  But I think you are missing the most important point.  It is possible that leaders in the church are capable of mistakes or errors.  As I said - I know this because I have been called as a leader in this church.  The question is not if a leader can make a mistake - the question is -- how do you support a leader that has made a mistake?  If you do not know the answer to that - I do not believe you know -- yet -- that you know how to support your leaders. 

 

My father said that any body can be kind to their friends when their friends and treating them as friends.  But he told me that the title of kind is someone that is kind even to their enemies and when no one expects any act of kindness.  That is when we can say someone is kind.

 

Anybody can say they support a leader that is doing everything they believe should be done.  That really is not support.  Support is what happens when everybody else and left and you have no good reason not to join them.  Until then support means nothing and changes nothing.

 

Here is a question.  Should LDS support their country's President?

[The Folk Prophet]

Not really clear nor obvious to someone that did not even know the bishop was involved or seeking any witnesses.  Often bishops desire to be discrete and stay out of public awareness.  But I think you are missing the most important point.  It is possible that leaders in the church are capable of mistakes or errors.  As I said - I know this because I have been called as a leader in this church.  The question is not if a leader can make a mistake - the question is -- how do you support a leader that has made a mistake?  If you do not know the answer to that - I do not believe you know -- yet -- that you know how to support your leaders. 

 

You know, it would be a lot less frustrating to have these conversations with you if you'd keep the "you don't understand", "you're not capable of", and "you don't know how to support your leaders" sorts of comments out of it.

 

My response. Respectfully...go jump in a lake.

Edited August 4, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[pam]

*Put admin hat on*

 

The personal attack comments and the judgment comments need to stop.  There is no reason why this thread can't have a civil and respectful discussion.

[Palerider]

*Put admin hat on*

 

The personal attack comments and the judgment comments need to stop.  There is no reason why this thread can't have a civil and respectful discussion.

Amen

[Vort]

Here is a question.  Should LDS support their country's President?

 

Great question, one I do not know the answer to. (Or perhaps more correctly, the answer depends on what exactly you mean by "support".) The scriptures contain many examples of those who did not support, and even rebelled against, their wicked leaders -- even legitimately appointed leaders like King Noah of Book of Mormon infamy.

 

Secular leadership is not the same thing as Church leadership. Secular leaders are not called of God. We cannot (must not) trust that secular leaders are always striving to do the moral and unselfish thing. Secular power-sharing is all about checks and balances, and about trying to keep megalomaniacs from upsetting that balance. That is not at all what Church service or leadership is about. The two must be approached in completely different ways.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Vort

[Anddenex]

"Do you support your church leaders when you know absolutely with no room for error that they are wrong?"  

 

Personally, I am not fond of this type of sustaining, and it appears this can't be absolute.  Example after The Folk Prophet's quote.

 

My answer would have been to ask how one could possibly know with no room for error that their leaders are wrong.

 

 

Yes, one can know positively that a leader is wrong.  Let me provide some examples, Handbook specifies only Melchizedek priesthood holders can be in the circle of a baby blessing.  Bishop invites an Aaronic priesthood holder.  Do I sustain?  

 

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.

 

So the level at which they are wrong would determine mine support; personally, I follow these set of guidelines:

1) Does the leader follow the scriptures?

2) Does our leader follow the handbook?

3) Is it good?

 

If I can say yes to all three, I follow without question.  There is no reason for me to question.  If #2 is not followed, and I know it, I don't make it known then and there.  I would follow, and then after point out the area of concern in the handbook (when we are alone), unless in a training type atmosphere where learning is present.

 

A bishop will make choices because "I am bishop," and this isn't right, and these times I don't have any issues with people not following/sustaining.  In the end, we are personally accountable before the Lord, and I can't find myself feeling any guilt before the Lord knowing I followed truth, and not man made laws.