[DarkJedi]

Old-Timer wrote:

I do not believe every calling is inspired, but I do believe some are – and some revelatory in nature. I say that from personal experience in positions to be part of the conversation about callings – and in one particular instance where it was my responsibility to pick the person for a calling.

I wrote the following post in May:

“Church Callings: Inspiration or Desperation? Issuing vs. Extending” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2013/05/church-callings-inspiration-or.html)

I agree, Ray, some callings are inspired and I have received callings which I felt were. Of course, that was before. I still believe there are inspired callings, I just don’t know how to tell.

[DarkJedi]

Origami wrote:

I was a GD teacher for 4 years then a YMP for 2 years. I was a year into my YM calling when my eyes were opened. I struggled through Ward Council and PEC for another year while I was personally in a dark and very angry place inside. I am still hyper-sensitive and easily provoked on some things, 1-1/2 years after the fact. I have scaled back church attendance to SM and I sub as a primary teacher when needed. I just can’t go to SS or PH quorum right now.

I was and still am at the point where there was almost no calling I would have accepted. I went calling-less for about 6 months, when I was asked to be the ward employment specialist. Maybe this one was inspired of God because it just might have been the only thing I would have even considered doing. I accepted after thinking about it and it has been good. I get to interact with folks and help people that really need it and have zero expectation or responsibility to preach or teach anything I don’t believe in anymore. It is a great place for me to be in right now.

Maybe a similar calling could work for you Darkjedi?

Our journeys do have some similarities. I am not as sensitive as I was, but that is partly why I am considering SM only.

Yes, a calling such as employment specialist probably wold be acceptable. There just aren’t many callings like that.

[DarkJedi]

SilentDawning wrote:

MayB wrote:

Our bishop, in an email regarding having read RSR, said “Maybe this is just part of your earthly test.” I immediately thought, “Life is not a test. It’s an experience.” I just can’t see this life as a test anymore. I see it more as a range of experiences that we learn from. It does feel like we’re constantly searching for something that is simply intangible.

People refer to these challenges as tests all the time — as if God is trying to see if we will remain faithful in spite of our reason, our life experiences, etcetera. “Test Theory” implies there is only one way to resolve the situation — be TBM. I don’t see it that way — I see it as evolution like you do.

And it can be positive. This evolution away from the church has been good for me in so many ways, and one is feeling a greater sense of peace and excitement about my service….as Steve Jobs said “if you find yourself doing things you don’t feel passionate about too many days in a row, it’s time to make changes”.

Yeah, I have been down that road – many tried to convince me in the early days of my crisis of faith that it was a test of faith. Really? Doesn’t God already know what kind of faith I have? The TBM answer to that of course is that God does know, maybe I don’t. Maybe I didn’t, but I certainly do now, test over, let’s get on with it.

So, I’m with you guys. We came here, IMO, to experience mortal life. It’s a journey, an adventure, or as May puts it, an experience. Whether it is positive or negative can be affected by others, but in the end it’s up to each of us to make it positive or negative. We’re the ones that have to live with ourselves. I’m not so sure the different kingdoms are actually different places, I theorize they are more states of being, and we will each have to live with our own state of being because we each will have put ourselves where we are.

[DarkJedi]

SilentDawning wrote:

I think its a forgone conclusion that we discuss matters here and let others walk away with their own conclusions. Not necessarily a Middle Way, but Your Own Way.

I personally think the discussion of what it means — whether a personal definition, or one that members at large appear to believe on average — can be highly useful in helping certain people StayLDS — although it may not help you personally Ray…

For example, one reason my wife doesn’t hold a TR because she doesn’t believe she can sustain our local Bishop. She held one continuously until he did some things that made her detest attending the ward and his meetings. He has behaved in ways that has really hurt sacrament meeting attendance, alienated people from attending, etcetera. This has left my wife with this feeling she cannot sustain him — meaning support him on a day to day basis — her own definition.

If my wife read through this thread, and realized that one definition of sustaining is simply “allowing the leadership to call someone to a position”, then her conflict with the TR question “do you sustain your local leaders” — evaporates. Realizing that most members probably adopt this minimal definition, passively (as with home teaching) may also help her see that she can hold a TR worthily provided she agrees to allow the leaders to call people to positions — people who do not have any glaring worthiness issues she is aware of.

I’m not advocating this definition exclusively, but it works for me, and could very much help some people stayLDS if it works for them. In fact, I think I will be able to raise my hand MUCH more enthusiastically than ever before…thanks to the OP who posed this question — as you have helped me construct our own meaning.

We all nuance words, and meanings, and I think the definition that the herd appears to use, in practice, provides a minimalist’s definition that could make someone without a TR feel good about answering the question “Do you sustain your local leaders” in a TR interview.

I agree with you SD. I came to StayLDS to do what its name implies – stay, and have discovered by coming here that I need to find My Own Way, which also happens to match up as a Middle Way. Part of that, as I have stated, is rebuilding my faith and beliefs, and one of those I struggle with is sustaining. Like your wife, SD, I do have some issues with local leaders and I know activity in the church is based in part on sustaining those leaders. My issues are slightly different than Mrs. SD’s but not all that different – I don’t think my bishop is an inspired leader (based on his actions or lack thereof), and I don’t believe he is “called of God” (as in the AofF – I know, they’re not scripture). Can I sustain him anyway? That’s what this thread is really about.

So, Ray, I do value the discussion, it is helping me stay LDS. I know now that I do not fit into your broadest definition of sustaining – but then, as I have stated, I don’t think very many do. I might fit into some other definitions, though. If I had to do nothing other than raise my hand once a year to acknowledge he has been duly appointed leader of the ward, I might without too much difficulty get to that point.

[DarkJedi]

GBSmith wrote:

It would be nice if as members of the one true church we did better at being good Christians but I expect we do about as well as baptists, methodists, episcopalians, etc..

Generalities aren’t based on much more than the observer’s level of aggravation at the time. I do wish I didn’t get defensive about someone from the outside looking in and telling me and mine what I think and feel and do or don’t but there it is. Don’t get me wrong. My level of cognitive dissonace and outrage at what ever I’m supposed to be outraged about is as much as anyone but labelling a group as always being something is just a poor excuse for not having a decent argument or worse than that leaving you open to the charge of being “offended”. What do you think, too much?

At heart I don’t disagree with you GBSmith. Just a point here, Baptists, Methodists, etc., aren’t asked to sustain their leaders in the way we are. Perhaps that makes some of them better followers of Christ in keeping the two great commandments.

Although as a practitioner of the dark arts I know the value of using emotion and especially anger , I’m not sure I do agree that generalities are based on any level of aggravation – I do think people are quite capable of making observations without prejudice. Your statement does make sense from a logical point of view and you are welcome to your view.

Can we return to the topic now?

[DarkJedi]

Hi May. It is so hard to be faced with decisions like these. I relate to much of what you have said. Your question is if staying is a viable option. Only you can decide that. As you know I’m making similar decisions myself, although my spouse is TBM, unlike yours. Still, there are family dynamics to consider either way. Over the past 10 years of my inactivity I have often questioned what it might have been like if things were different and I still attended church. I’ll never know the answer to that, I cannot reconstruct what my family would have been like if that were true. What I’m trying to say without rambling is, you need decide what trade offs you’re willing to make. If 10 years from now your wish you’re children had been taught the principles of the church, you won’t be able to reconstruct that.

Good luck in your decision. I support you in whatever you decide.

[DarkJedi]

GBSmith wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

The last one I believe most members drop the ball on, frankly. They (we) raise their hands to sustain someone in sacrament or conference and that’s the last of anything that’s ever done to help that person in the ways you describe in any way.

So by your definitions and commentary, I don’t sustain my local leaders (and I’m fine with that because I actually believe I don’t anyway), but neither do most people in the church IMO.

I’m not real sure how these generalities and judgements about “most people in church” helps the discussion. IMO.

OK, I don’t think anyone will argue that most (active) members of the church accept a calling when extended by the ward/stake, and most (active) members of the church hold home or visiting teaching assignments and as such sustain their bishops, SPs, EQP, RSPs, and so forth. That’s only part of Ray’s definition, though.

When was the last time you (collectively, not specifically you GBSmith) helped an RS teacher with a lesson? How about the early morning seminary teacher? Have you ever called the Scoutmaster and said “I hear you have a campout next weekend, do you need another adult or do you need drivers?” When was the last time you mowed the YMPs yard because you knew he didn’t have time because of his church commitment? Have you ever gone to the clerk and said “Hey, the EQP told me you’re trying to get an address on this guy. I’ll track him down?” How about the people who just had a stillborn – have you offered them any kind of assistance at all other then the meal you were asked to provide by the RSP? I think all of those things fit into Ray’s definition of sustaining, and I don’t think very many can answer positively to any of those questions. Hence, my opinion that most members do not sustain their local leaders under Ray’s broad definition.

[DarkJedi]

Bear wrote:

That’s exactly my point. I do not care about using masonry in the temple. Not at all.

It’s more if JS sees the masonry rituals. Asks The Lord about it and it is revealed to him that it is a corrupted form of temple worship that he needs to restore. That is more problematic in my book.

– I’ll have to find the actual quote one of these days.. And yes. I did listen to the podcast a couple of months back. Really interesting stuff!

OK, Bear, you lost me here. Is your issue with Joseph receiving a revelation like this? Or that he felt he needed to restore something that wasn’t real? I’m really confused.

[DarkJedi]

Great question! I take an “institutional” view. The church is a organization that includes promotion of religious ideals and influences the culture and beliefs of its followers. As such, it would include the definition of beliefs (doctrines) and policies and procedures it expects it members to follow.

That said, I know what you’re asking and I’m not sure I really answered. We so often hear things on forums like this (and to an extent at the physical church) things like “the church teaches” or “the church believes” or even “the church hides its history” and of course the venerable “I know this church is true.” The institutional view doesn’t really cover that because, despite its definition, a figurative organization can’t influence anything – it’s not real. So that leads to the question,then, is the church the sum of its membership? is it the GAs? Is it just specific GAs (the Q15)? Is it the prophet? Is it none of those, but rather the sum of scriptural teachings?

Again, great question!

[DarkJedi]

SilentDawning wrote:

Canucknuckle wrote:

While I agree with you on the principle of this statement, my experiences over the last 21 years as a member and the previous years growing up in and LDS community as a non-member, I find that this ONE person’s personality is all too common among the leadership of the church at the local level. Now, you may have experienced something different, as may have many others, so consider yourself blessed but in my life this is a very common type of person who represents the Church as local leaders. So it is the church doing it. Try as we may to separate the local leaders actions from the Q15, the argument that they are just normal people doing their best begins to sound trite. I can cut Bishops some slack for just trying their best, as there are so many Bishops but the Church has to do a better job selecting and training SPs, in my opinion.

For inner peace reasons, I think Ray’s advice is good — if you can really internalize and accept the argument that its not the church, it’s an isolated act by a single leader — over and over again — some can find peace.

The sad part is that my experience concurs with more with Canucknuckle’s reasoning above than the anomaly theory Ray proposes. Although the handbook doesn’t forbid a dedicated baptism, the talks over the pulpit, manuals and even the temple ceremony all reinforce a culture of strict obedience to the leaders above us. Therefore, it’s less risky for a priesthood leader to simply obey policy than to ive by the spirit of the law — and risk censure from his SP.

The other thing, I was inspired recently by some of the leadership writings of Max Dupree, very prolific and timeless writer on leadership.

He listed what he felt were the “rights” of individuals in organizations that were truly committed to an inspirational culture. One is the “right of appeal”. I find in our church, the Bishopric is always reading letters that members should not take up issues with the GA’s – they should work only with their “local leaders”. You can appeal somewhat to Stake Presidents when Bishop’s do bad things, and certainly, appeals over the heads of local auxiliary and priesthood leaders to Bishop’s are common. But you get to a point in the hierarchy (the SP) level, you’re essentially out of options. And my 30 years in the church tells me that going over the head of priesthood leaders is generally considered disloyal.

We need a “like” button this forum!

[DarkJedi]

SilentDawning wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

To sustain:

Quote:

1. to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure.

This implies helping someone, and the religious organizational example might be the two men who held up Moses’ arms during battle. It implies cooperating with someone in what they do.

Quote:

2.to bear (a burden, charge, etc.).

In the Church, this means helping to run the organization – doing something to take a portion of the load off of others by assignment (“charge”). This is associated generally with callings.

Quote:

3. to undergo, experience, or suffer (injury, loss, etc.); endure without giving way or yielding.

This implies standing by someone through difficulty.

Quote:

4. to keep (a person, the mind, the spirits, etc.) from giving way, as under trial or affliction.

This deals with providing support of some kind, so another person doesn’t fall, fail, etc. This includes constructive criticism and counterpoint, and I have sustained a leader by disagreeing on more than one occasion. In fact, I believe it is impossible to sustain someone fully without understanding and accepting this definition.

Quote:

5. to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.

This deals with on-going commitment – not just “sustaining” now and then, for whatever reason.

There’s a lot more I could say about each aspect, but that’s enough for now.

I think this is interesting. You could read most of these as “being willing to put up with incompetence, indifference, lack of time, and all the frailties of a volunteer leader, without calling for their removal”. Many members interpret the word “sustain” as meaning you do what the priesthood leader says you should do, and get behind all their programs with your effort and work. But I argue that you could also interpret it as a passive stance of tolerance for individual growth, and the fact that many priesthood leaders do not have the time to discharge all of their responsibilities properly in some wards.

This meaning has more relevance to me right now as I feel this is what I’m doing and have done in the past.

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I think most people are of the more passive variety as you describe, Silent Dawning, but of course that is from my point of view, and I shall explain further below.

You gave a lot to digest there Ray. Some of these definitions would indicate that I do not sustain because they are more active than passive and I have tended to gravitate toward the passive definition (probably because I have been pretty passive). For instance, your first definition could be done passively in cooperating, but if cooperating means accepting a calling then I am not in a position to sustain – I am unwilling to accept a calling for multiple reasons not the least of which is I don’t really believe they are inspired (I haven’t been “called of God”).

Your second definition even speaks more directly to that idea. I recognize that there are EQPs, RSPs, HTs, etc., because the bishop cannot possibly do all that on his own (and it gives others an opportunity to serve), nevertheless I have seldom borne anyone else’s load except perhaps when serving as a counselor. I don’t generally make anyone’s job easier by actively helping them, but I don’t generally or purposely make anyone’s job harder, either.

Standing by someone in difficulty I can do, and helping keep a person from giving way I can do. (My thought related to these is that I certainly haven’t been sustained by anyone except my family in the last 10 years).

The last one I believe most members drop the ball on, frankly. They (we) raise their hands to sustain someone in sacrament or conference and that’s the last of anything that’s ever done to help that person in the ways you describe in any way.

So by your definitions and commentary, I don’t sustain my local leaders (and I’m fine with that because I actually believe I don’t anyway), but neither do most people in the church IMO.

[DarkJedi]

I’ve always taken a pretty broad view of worthiness to take the sacrament. The scriptures actually say little about it, but I always go back to the “broken heart and contrite spirit” thing. In truth, since we all sin none of us would be worthy to take the sacrament if we relied upon sin as a measure of worthiness to partake. I think that unless one has committed a sin which could result in church discipline, one is is probably worthy of partaking the sacrament. It is, after all, a time to reflect on the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ and renew the covenants we have made. I think it’s there to help us repent and truly be partakers of the atonement. FWIW when I return I plan to take the sacrament.

[DarkJedi]

Canucknuckle wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

You have ONE person (a local leader) who is making this difficult and many people (including multiple local leaders) who aren’t. It’s not “The Church” this time that is at fault, especially since the handbook does not prohibit what you want to do. It happens all the time. It’s one local leader. Don’t generalize one leader into “why do I stay in a church that . . .” when it isn’t the Church that is doing this.

While I agree with you on the principle of this statement, my experiences over the last 21 years as a member and the previous years growing up in and LDS community as a non-member, I find that this ONE person’s personality is all too common among the leadership of the church at the local level. Now, you may have experienced something different, as may have many others, so consider yourself blessed but in my life this is a very common type of person who represents the Church as local leaders. So it is the church doing it. Try as we may to separate the local leaders actions from the Q15, the argument that they are just normal people doing their best begins to sound trite. I can cut Bishops some slack for just trying their best, as there are so many Bishops but the Church has to do a better job selecting and training SPs, in my opinion.

Old-Timer wrote:

Thank the Bishop who is allowing it to be done in that building.

I will as he is a friend that I have know since I was a newlywed.

Old-Timer wrote:

Generally, the Ward Mission Leader has nothing to do with baptisms involving 6-year-old children who aren’t considered converts. Generally, the Primary President deals with those baptisms.

That was my understanding as well but apparently our ward is an anomaly.

But overall, as always thank you for your advice. The baptism will happen and for that I am thankful.

I agree that one person, especially one person with pretty much absolute authority, can indeed make life difficult for people and this is all too common in the church. I’m not blaming the church, it is the individuals involved. However, it is church policies and procedures that make this possible. Still, it is the choice of the individual to abuse that power.

I have found over the years that it is very difficult for local church leaders to admit they may have been, or actually were, wrong. I’ve contemplated on this in the past and concluded it probably has multiple reasons but the foremost reason is that if they admit they’re wrong about something then they may have to admit they’re wrong about something else – the same old slippery slope that led some of us to our crises of faith and/or cognitive dissonance.

[DarkJedi]

Hmmm, I wonder…. :crazy:

[DarkJedi]

Ruthiechan wrote:

Oh. I just found them. Yeah, some of them I take great issue with. And others are great in theory but in practice? Not so great. . .

I said this in another post, but I’m not even sure I’m a 1 F kind of guy.

[Author]

Posts