[DarkJedi]

Ruthiechan wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

Ruthiechan wrote:

Why are you all just saying fine to this guy? You got permission from lots of people. Go over the SP’s head on this. I mean seriously this is ridiculous.

And who would that be? The Quorum of the Twelve? First Presidency? They’re not going to be sympathetic, from what I know they would not even respond directly to the member but might send a letter to the SP, but not to tell him he’s wrong or to do anything differently. The instruction would be to the member through the SP and basically would have the SP guilt the member.

I dunno. It feels like everyone who gave permission ought to confront him, Bishops and everything. Brother, you making a pleasant event turn into a stressful one. Please soften your heart toward this. The man needs rebuking. Anyone who supports it. This is supposed to be By Common Consent, everyone is cool with it except this guy. He ought not to have that much power. He needs to know that he’s hurting people. Write a letter of grievance, have everyone involved with the baptism sign it, have the Bishops present it to the stake. Find the area leader and lodge a complaint. See if you can get any previous Stake leaders to also agree. Or see about getting the Bishops to flat out tell him it’s not his jurisdiction and DO IT ANYWAY. That last part probably not gonna happen but it’s still an option.

I’m not disagreeing with you, Sister. Sadly, I don’t think any of that will happen with TBMs under the Corporation of the President. Honestly I don’t see why the guy with absolute power can’t see that this is a special circumstance and/or that the brother-in-law bishop can’t appeal to his common sense. But I guess it’s true what they say, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[DarkJedi]

Ruthiechan wrote:

Why are you all just saying fine to this guy? You got permission from lots of people. Go over the SP’s head on this. I mean seriously this is ridiculous.

And who would that be? The Quorum of the Twelve? First Presidency? They’re not going to be sympathetic, from what I know they would not even respond directly to the member but might send a letter to the SP, but not to tell him he’s wrong or to do anything differently. The instruction would be to the member through the SP and basically would have the SP guilt the member.

[DarkJedi]

journeygirl wrote:

Anyway, I tell this story to illustrate that the way calling are given is set up to guilt you into saying yes, in my opinion. It sounds like you, DarkJedi, are not afraid to be open about yourself to your bishop, for me it would be very hard. I just want to be anonymous at church. I also agree that callings don’t seem to be inspired, because why would God want someone questioning him and his church to teach children! 😆

Thanks, Journeygirl. Were I in your situation I would probably be less likely to open up to the bishop – I am more comfortable doing so with my bishop because I’ve known him for so long. If I didn’t know him it would be more difficult for me and I probably would not be completely open with him, but I still have enough dark side energy to refuse a calling – I’ve encountered the spitting & sputtering gasping disbelief at the gall of doing something like that in the past. Actually, I recall a conversation I had with the prior SP when I was beginning to question. He tried to take a parting pot shot by telling me I should take some time to consider my position to which I looked him directly in the eye and told him that I had had nothing but time to consider and that’s why I was where I was. He had no comeback for that.

I agree with you that guilt and peer pressure play a big part in the extension of a calling.

In my mind, this thread is melding with my other open thread about sustaining. I am having trouble figuring out if I sustain or not because I don’t believe most calls are inspired, and I don’t believe most calls are inspired for the very same reason you point out. TBMs would probably just say that the Lord has something for you to learn in that calling and perhaps giving you the opportunity to feel the spirit might help you. Poppycock!

[DarkJedi]

I’m sorry to hear this has been such an ordeal. To me, this comes down to a letter of the law vs. spirit of the law thing. This certainly seems like a special enough occasion as to warrant an exception. My bet is that if it were one of the grandchildren of a member of the stake presidency it would be perfectly OK to do what you want to do. I’m sorry I don’t have more to offer. It wouldn’t happen here because we’re in a rural enough area and the wards are far enough apart that we don’t do the monthly thing, every building has a font and it’s just a matter of scheduling and doing it.

[DarkJedi]

Roy wrote:

Suppose there is a spectrum of sustaining with the most hardcore definitions of sustaining on one extreme end and subversive apostasy on the other end. If I find myself on the sustaining side of the median then I feel justified in answering yes with no further explanation necessary.

I might further ask what it might mean to sustain the POTUS or local sherriff? Is it sustaining to be a law abiding, tax paying citizen who doesn’t make deals with terrorists or obstuct investigations? Must you have voted for them or agree with all their policies?

There likely is a spectrum – few things, I’ve found, are black and white. Thanks for that thought.

I’m not sure I’d relate the political elections to this, but it’s worth thinking about. FWIW, I didn’t vote for the current POTUS, and I don’t agree with his policies. I do, however, respect the office and respect that the majority of my fellow citizens who also voted, voted for him. And likewise, while I did vote for the previous POTUS, I also didn’t agree with all his policies and actions. Either way I paid my taxes, not in support of either but because I believe in honoring the law (even if I don’t agree with it) and don’t want to go to jail.

[DarkJedi]

SilentDawning wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

Thanks, SilentDawning. So when you’re asked the question in a TR interview I presume you answer in the affirmative (or would if you don’t actually go to TR interviews)?

Yes, I would say “yes, I sustain local leaders”…this is because I physically raise my hand, which indicates I am OK with the leadership’s decision to call the person. That’s all it means to me. If I always opposed, or always sat their neutral, and non-participatory in the hand-raising, then I could not answer Yes to the question. I opposed once in 30 years and abstained hardly ever.

I have remained neutral before, and actually think that’s what I will do when I return. I’m not sure in my mind that the raising of the hand relates to the TR question – but as I said, I see the raising of the hand as a meaningless tradition. You are causing me to think about that relationship, though, and I appreciate it. The real crux of the issue in my mind really relates more to the Articles of Faith than the TR question. I’m not sure I believe these guys (or anyone in the ward or stake) are “…called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority…,” and if that really relates to sustaining. Obviously I think it does somehow or I wouldn’t be bringing it up.

As a side note, I have only seen a no vote twice and in both instances the person was called anyway. I am aware of one other instance where a person was going to be called but someone who was aware of something spoke to the bishop ahead of time and the call was rescinded before ever being put to the sustaining vote.

[DarkJedi]

Meh Mormon wrote:

Upon further thought I came up with this. To sustain someone is to accept them in that position. Does it mean that I think the calling was inspired? Nope. Does it mean that I won’t undermine their authority? Absolutely. Does it mean that I will help out (when I can) for them to be successful? Yes.

Let me ask you all this. When you are sustained to a calling, what does that mean to you? What are your feelings? What do you expect (if anything) from those sustaining you?

Thanks, good thoughts.

In answer to your questions, in the days when I did have callings I really didn’t expect anything, but I do tend to be independent.

[DarkJedi]

SilentDawning wrote:

To sustain, in my view, is to be willing to let the person be called to the position. It means I do not oppose the local leadership’s decision to call them. It’s simply a filter that allows members to influence the local leadership in their decision’s to appoint someone as a leader. It can be effective at times when the person has severe deficits the local leadership is not aware of (such as the newly baptized member who called my wife and offered sex years ago — I opposed his call, and the local leadership agreed with me, and didn’t call him to the position).

After the newly called person is in the position, they have to earn my trust in their leadership, and win my permission to lead me. They have to campaign while they are in office, so to speak, to earn my commitment — just like any leader. So, when I raise my hand to sustain them, I am not agreeing to necessarily support any initiative they present, or follow any of their instructions. If they come out with time consuming, ineffective iniatives, I am under no obligation to follow them if I choose not to. If they assign me work without asking me, then I am under no obligation to follow simply because I “sustained” them.

Only when my own personal filter and revelation inspires me to follow, will I do so.

Thanks, SilentDawning. So when you’re asked the question in a TR interview I presume you answer in the affirmative (or would if you don’t actually go to TR interviews)?

[DarkJedi]

Roy wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m looking for clarification – I’m not sure I’m seeing the connection between sustaining my local leaders and loving my neighbor (which seems to be a whole different subject).

If the EQP calls and asks for help then I believe it would be sustaining him in his calling to lend a hand. I also believe that there is at least some level of sustaining in acknowledging their right to lead. I have no problems with the LDS org chart as presently constituted. I feel that all those fine people were legally appointed and I wish them well as they do their thing. I certainly have no illusions about “one mighty and strong” that would step in and shake things up.

OTOH – It wouldn’t be too difficult to say that to truly sustain the leadership is to accept any calling. I remember a talk about the hypocrisy of singing “We thank the O God for a Prophet” and then not following his counsel in all things. (If I remember correctly the specific counsel named was to not go on dates before 16 yrs.)

I agree, Roy, I have no problem with the way the church is organized, either – it seems pretty efficient and it seems to work. There is in my mind some acknowledgement of sustaining in helping an EQP do his job. In our ward it’s usually a home teacher asking for help with moves, but nonetheless it is sustaining him and indirectly the leadership. That’s not really what I’m getting out of GBSmith’s comment, but maybe I’m just misinterpreting it. While it is loving my neighbor to help with a ward move when asked, it’s also loving my neighbor in helping the non-member across the street when a tree limb falls in his yard or helping a non-member friend with a remodeling project, or making sure the member that lives nearby is prepared for the coming winter storm without being asked or assigned to do so.. Love thy neighbor is one of the two great commandments, not necessarily connected to sustaining of anyone or anything (except God, I suppose).

Likewise, I have no ill will toward my stake president, bishop or HPGL. They’re all good people, and I do wish them well in their assignments. I actually like the stake president and I believe he has shown shown glimmers of inspiration at times. I wouldn’t accept a calling or an invitation to speak from him, however. I like the HPGL as well, and to include everybody, I don’t dislike the bishop, I’m just not fond of him. So is just acknowledging that he’s “legally appointed” (in your words) sustaining him?

[DarkJedi]

GBSmith wrote:

Vote yes is you’re ok with what they’re doing or called to do and are willing to support them ( show up and do what needs to be done when they ask for help).

Don’t vote if you don’t care.

Vote no if you’re willing to stand up and say why.

Sustaining has less to do with raising your hand out of reflex and more to do with helping move Sis Jones on a Saturday when you’d rather be watching the game. Nuancing your sustaining based on how you feel about the person and whether God Almighty chose him to be 2nd counselor in the SS or if TSM has ever actually recieved a revelation than being part of the enterprise of taking care of your neighbor. IMHO.

Thank you for your input. Actually, I’m not asking about the raising one’s hand part – I think that is meaningless tradition. So, if helping Sr. Jones move is sustaining, who am I sustaining and how? (FWIW, I do participate in such activities if asked, and since I have a truck I do get asked.) Does helping her move enable me to answer yes when asked in the TR interview if I support the local leaders of the church? I’m not arguing here, I’m looking for clarification – I’m not sure I’m seeing the connection between sustaining my local leaders and loving my neighbor (which seems to be a whole different subject).

[DarkJedi]

cwald wrote:

Does it matter what we think sustain mean? I’m sure we will get some nuanced responses here…but so what?

When it comes down to it we know what the church meaning of sustain is. And what the membership expects and believes it means. I’m fine if we want to fantasize about the ideal church. But IMO, the one that gets described in the next page or two of responses simply didn’t exist today..

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I don’t think we do all know what the church meaning of sustain is nor what the membership expects and believes it means. I think it all depends on each individual’s own perceptual lens. I agree the ideal church doesn’t exist, but that’s partly because what’s ideal to you is not necessarily ideal to me.

Could I say what I said in SS or a TR interview and still get a recommend? It depends on the SS (and this is posted here and not on LDS.net for that reason), but probably not for the recommend – but then again, in those questions a simple yes or no is all that’s required, no explanation is necessary or even proper. I am asking because I don’t know what it means to sustain a local leader, even though I have been one, and I don’t know what the church meaning of sustain is.

[DarkJedi]

I agree it would be nice to have a link to the quote. That said, I’m not sure Masonry actually started in the Middle Ages, rather those are the earliest writings we have about it. That time period is also called the Dark Ages for a reason – few people were able to read and write, and coupled with the natural loss of documents over time there are few written records of anything. Whether most Masons believe that it dates to Biblical times or not (I’m not sure how we know what most Masons believe), there are historians who do believe it does and there is evidence it does. Not to be rude or argumentative, but I think you may be projecting what you believe on others (“as most people know, even most masons”). The fact is “most people” don’t know anything about the Masons, just like most people don’t know much about Mormons (and even less about the temple rites).

So…I still really don’t care. If Joseph Smith was a prophet (and I believe he was), it doesn’t matter how God revealed stuff to him. That’s the same way I feel about evolution – I don’t care how God created man, I simply believe he did, the how doesn’t matter.

[DarkJedi]

SilentDawning wrote:

I also frequented LDS.net regularly with thousands of posts, I believe, at one point. I left over the same black and white issues a year or two ago. I found the mods let the judgmental people reign free but were highly intolerant of unorthodox believers — they were very harsh with me personally, although I never got written up.

It was a valuable experience because it helped me see what I once was — a black and white judgmentalist, “company man” (read, “Church man”). I actually reached out there in a crisis but found they made my crisis even worse.

Here at StayLDS, there was acceptance and an opportunity to grow into a different relationship with church.

Here are a few of my coping strategies with church.

1. Set limits on what you will and will not do. For you, it’ll be Sacrament meeting only when ready. For me, it’s no more moving or chapel cleaning and no calling while I’m committing my time to other selfless causes.

2. Recognize people are in different levels of development — along different paths even. Accept them for those beliefs. Remember, Black and White thinking serves many people very well and helps them feel at peace.

3. I hate to sound paranoid, but to quote the X-files “Trust no one”…with your unorthodox beliefs. Most are highly intolerant of doubters or unorthodoxtarians like myself.

4. Continue with your plan of keeping options open to return, and that means keeping to yourself about the things you don’t believe.

5. Find additional ways of feeding your spirit. Through service to causes you believe in is one.

6. Learn to distinguish between administrative doctrine and the true gospel principles. I find this sorting mechanism really helps me filter what is important. Administrative doctrine is aimed at conditioning our attitudes to be good Mormons or following administrative procedures, and not necessarily aimed at helping us be good people. BKP’s “Unwritten Order of Things” is a very good example of administrative doctrine –and I use the term doctrine tongue in cheek, because I seriously question if it’s doctrine.

7. Recognize there is a big, broad world outside of the church that needs you, and you can be happy without full community or acceptance within the LDS church. You can have a bright family culture without the church too based on timeless values.

8. Be very discerning about how you let church people use your time. I personally will not go to a meeting unless I know the agenda. I have wasted too many litres of gas and too many hours listening to talks that do not meet my needs.

I am about your age, and I have decided I want to enjoy my life, and that means serving in ways that are meaningful to me, not in ways that are simply “expected”. After 30 years of forced missionary service (I forced myself), forced home teaching, forced church attendance, forced tithing, I feel liberated.

Some thoughts…

I wondered if you were going to check in. I like your cautious (read paranoid) attitude (meant very nicely) and probably should make clear that outside these forums which allow some degree of anonymity, I do not share my views unless asked and then only to those I deem “worthy” (basically the need to know, not just being nosey, and/or truly concerned or interested).

That said, I pretty much do all the rest you suggested already – many of them just to remain sane. I am especially sensitive to #6, as this is a sticking point for me. Figuring out what is and isn’t doctrine can be tough, or it can be easy. Frankly, I don’t care what age missionaries serve at, and I think it’s up to people to decide how much tithing to pay – the whole idea is based on a few obscure scriptures to begin with and was instituted in the church to get it out of debt (although now I believe it is the main business of the church).

But thanks for chiming in.

[DarkJedi]

Ruthiechan wrote:

I recommend you consider studying Buddhist mindfulness practice and trying meditation. Find a local Buddhist temple to get started or if you’re with Kaiser some facilities have a meditation class. I have found that meditation and mindfulness practice (meditation is a part of this btw) has really helped me spiritually, physically, and emotionally. The beautiful thing is that it’s a practice not a religious belief system so you don’t have to believe in any particular religious creed to make it a part of your life.

I do live in a rather rural and homogenous area of upstate NY, the closest Buddhist temple appears to be quite some distance from here. I am familiar with basic Buddhist ideals, however, and often make reference to how you can be a Buddhist and a Christian, Muslim, or whatever. Perhaps I can do some online research and discover some techniques…. Thanks for the thought.

[DarkJedi]

Hi Ruthiechan, nice to make your acquaintance. True, it is only an assumption that I still would have been at my previous job and happy, but it’s a fairly informed assumption. In that industry people don’t actually move a lot, and if I hadn’t moved when I did I probably would not have. I was happy at the time and really wasn’t looking to leave, and I do still have (happy) friends there. By the way, I am totally open to the idea that I was wrong and/or deceived about leaving there, but the questions still remain of that was the case. If I was wrong/deceived, how do I know I haven’t been deceived many other times (baptism, marriage, etc.) because the feeling was the same.

Prayer itself was a huge part that led to my crisis, and likewise the total absence of any answers to prayers since – spiritually or physically – is a major factor in it’s continuation. I am wholeheartedly trying to move on, and prayer is a major wall.

[Author]

Posts