Sustaining Church Leaders

[Epistemology]

While I was reading I came across this and what struck me was this paragraph:

D&C 26:2. Responsibilities of Those Who Sustain Others

Elder Loren C. Dunn explained the responsibilities that accompany the sustaining process: “When we sustain officers, we are given the opportunity of sustaining those whom the Lord has already called by revelation. … The Lord, then, gives us the opportunity to sustain the action of a divine calling and in effect express ourselves if for any reason we may feel otherwise. To sustain is to make the action binding on ourselves to support those people whom we have sustained. When a person goes through the sacred act of raising his arm to the square, he should remember, with soberness, that which he has done and commence to act in harmony with his sustaining vote both in public and in private.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1972, p. 19; or Ensign, July 1972, p. 43.)

“When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote” (Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Apr. 1970, p. 103).
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[log]

Well, that's their opinions, and they're welcome to them. The scriptures contain no such verbiage.

[Epistemology]

D&C 26:2. Could a Person Hold an Office in the Church without the Consent of the People?

“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)


D&C 26:2. When Should a Person Cast a Negative Vote?

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only on the grounds that he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:124.)
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Thomas]

Why even have a vote. It actually meant something in Joseph's day.

[Epistemology]

Why even have a vote. It actually meant something in Joseph's day.

Well I guess we all have a chance to have our vote on the records of Heaven, one way or the other...

"And the book which was the book of life is the record which is kept in heaven;" D&C Section 128:7

[oneClimbs]

Here's my take.

http://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/03/sustain ... -the-lord/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, our sustaining of leaders brings upon us covenantal blessings, but it depends upon several things. First of all, if a wicked man is instructing you to do something wrong, you are under no obligation to obey those actions.

The definition of the word sustain is "to keep from falling". The proper course would then be not to do the wrong thing but to help in any way possible to arrive at the correct behavior or decision. This is why presidents have counselors.

Works the same in a marriage. The marriage will only be sealed by the Holy Spirit if covenants are kept. No wicked man can force a woman to be his bride against her will any more than a misguided or ill-intentioned priesthood leader can order people around to do things that are not right.

President Lee's words would be correct if all men were angels, but established principles for not trusting in the arm of the flesh and knowing from the Lord if we are being led according to his will are still valid.

[Epistemology]

Here's my take.

http://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/03/sustain ... -the-lord/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice.

[Epistemology]

Here's my take.

http://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/03/sustain ... -the-lord/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, our sustaining of leaders brings upon us covenantal blessings, but it depends upon several things. First of all, if a wicked man is instructing you to do something wrong, you are under no obligation to obey those actions.

The definition of the word sustain is "to keep from falling". The proper course would then be not to do the wrong thing but to help in any way possible to arrive at the correct behavior or decision. This is why presidents have counselors.

Works the same in a marriage. The marriage will only be sealed by the Holy Spirit if covenants are kept. No wicked man can force a woman to be his bride against her will any more than a misguided or ill-intentioned priesthood leader can order people around to do things that are not right.

President Lee's words would be correct if all men were angels, but established principles for not trusting in the arm of the flesh and knowing from the Lord if we are being led according to his will are still valid.

im curious to read any more thoughts you have on this:

"Yes, our sustaining of leaders brings upon us covenantal blessings,"

[oneClimbs]

im curious to read any more thoughts you have on this:

Well, it's pretty simple. If the servant of God is acting in accordance to his will and you align yourself with those instructions, you are blessed. This is clearly apparent from the scriptures. The whole reason God sends us servants is to bless us so it works out in our favor to heed their warnings but God has also given us the Spirit to discern so that we are ultimately following him.

Nephi knew that his father was led by God because he inquired of God; Laman and Lemuel did not. Even when Lehi murmured and complained when Nephi broke his bow, Nephi did not follow Lehi's example and murmur and complain along with him. He was connected with God and so he did what he needed to and then gave his Father and leader the opportunity to get right with God by "sustaining" him. Lehi has rebuked by God but they were all back on course once again.

The relationship between the mortal shepherd and the sheep is a two-way and not a one-way relationship. The relationship between the divine shepherd and the sheep IS a one-way relationship.

[Epistemology]

im curious to read any more thoughts you have on this:

Well, it's pretty simple. If the servant of God is acting in accordance to his will and you align yourself with those instructions, you are blessed. This is clearly apparent from the scriptures. The whole reason God sends us servants is to bless us so it works out in our favor to heed their warnings but God has also given us the Spirit to discern so that we are ultimately following him.

Nephi knew that his father was led by God because he inquired of God; Laman and Lemuel did not. Even when Lehi murmured and complained when Nephi broke his bow, Nephi did not follow Lehi's example and murmur and complain along with him. He was connected with God and so he did what he needed to and then gave his Father and leader the opportunity to get right with God by "sustaining" him. Lehi has rebuked by God but they were all back on course once again.

The relationship between the mortal shepherd and the sheep is a two-way and not a one-way relationship. The relationship between the divine shepherd and the sheep IS a one-way relationship.

Great thanks for expounding. Just curious what your take was on the matter.

The covenant function sure adds dimension to sustaining

[Bryan LJ]

“When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote” (Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Apr. 1970, p. 103).

I'm struggling with part of this. It says "FULL loyalty". What does that leave for God, your family, etc? Maybe I am being an offender for a word but it seems a bit strong for me as well as the word "equivocation" or "reservation".

e·quiv·o·ca·tion noun
1. the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication.
2. an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque: The speech was marked by elaborate equivocations.
3. Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

I understand this to mean that we absolutely give them everything, without "reserving" anything for anything else if it is not in line with what is said of someone you are sustaining that presides over you.

Thus, I can't fully agree with this. I believe that our FULL loyalty should be towards God and that he would have us love and help those whom we serve with.

Another note. The other week I decided to read every verse in the D&C that had the word key or keys in it. If you take out the several verses where the Lord testifies of Joseph Smith having the keys of this dispensation to give the revealed word to the church you are mainly left with the Lord talking about keys of "knowledge" and "mysteries". To me this makes perfect sense. What do keys do? They unlock. The unlock knowledge and mysteries.

The Doctrine Covenants mention a couple of times the keys for offices. Once it mentions giving "keys" to the 12 to preach the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth and the other time it says that keys are given to offices of the church for "the perfecting of the saints" which in my opinion is knowledge. I believe a presiding officer can receive a key of knowledge for revelation in his stewardship but it is for "perfecting" not "to exercise control or dominion".

I am sorry for not fully quoting all the scriptures. I can get full references if requested but I didn't want to have this post too lengthy.

In do however sustain church leadership within the bounds that the Lord has set in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[marc]

I must admit, that solemn covenant bit rubs me the wrong way. What does that say about the committee who removed the Lectures on Faith from our canon of scriptures, which were properly sustained by common consent in the church? But I digress.

[oneClimbs]

I must admit, that solemn covenant bit rubs me the wrong way. What does that say about the committee who removed the Lectures on Faith from our canon of scriptures, which were properly sustained by common consent in the church? But I digress.

Marc, let me see if I can demystify this a little. We use the word 'canon' in our church but I'm going to propose that we don't mean it the same way creedal Christianity does. They have a closed 'canon' of scriptures that have been forever decided upon. Note that we refer to a certain body of scripture as the "Standard Works". They do not represent all of scripture, just the key standards that are well-established and where our core doctrines and principles are found.

I do find it a bit bothersome that the lectures are no longer included there, however, they have not been banned or denounced by any stretch. They're just not included anymore in the "Standard Words", specifically the D&C. Why do you need someone to define scripture for you?

I keep a set of my own personal "small plates" where I record the truths that God reveals to me. It is just as sacred as any scripture and perhaps even more so because it came to me from God - unfiltered.

Don't let a man-made label discourage you. You have the truth, who cares if it is bound together with other records or not. Soak up the knowledge and wisdom, there is nothing stopping you.

Hope that helps ;)

[idahommie]

D&C 26:2. Could a Person Hold an Office in the Church without the Consent of the People?

“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)


D&C 26:2. When Should a Person Cast a Negative Vote?

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only on the grounds that he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:124.)
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you under obligation to cast a dissenting vote if you do not sustain someone in the position they hold?
I recently turned down a calling as a counselor because I could not sustain the individual that was being named EQ President. We had previously served together as counselors, but I could never seek guidance or council from this person, whom is a recent convert, married into a prominent family in the Ward, but lacks knowledge of basic gospel principles. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend priesthood any longer due to this situation either, since this persons FIL is the HP group leader and is even worse.
I did not sustain the persons calling, but yet felt I could not object based on my personal feelings. So, I get some extra scripture reading in the 3rd hour, I apparently need it anyways.......

[Simon]

The best we can do to support our leaders is to lead ourselves with the manual of the Lords Spirit.

[Frederick]

Marc, let me see if I can demystify this a little. We use the word 'canon' in our church but I'm going to propose that we don't mean it the same way creedal Christianity does. They have a closed 'canon' of scriptures that have been forever decided upon. Note that we refer to a certain body of scripture as the "Standard Works". They do not represent all of scripture, just the key standards that are well-established and where our core doctrines and principles are found.

I do find it a bit bothersome that the lectures are no longer included there, however, they have not been banned or denounced by any stretch. They're just not included anymore in the "Standard Words", specifically the D&C. Why do you need someone to define scripture for you?

Their removal has caused a dramatic shift in how people regard them at church. I saw this summer a bishop ask a teacher to not use them in class because they're not scripture. This bishop is a great man, I think misinformed, but a great man. I think it's far more than just bothersome. The "doctrine" portion of the D&C was removed. In that portion contains the most complete discourse on the nature of God and the godhead. We cannot exercise faith unto salvation unless we have a correct idea of the nature of God. This is why the Lectures are so important. I'd say the effect of their removal has eternal consequences.

The actions taken by the committee who removed the Lectures would certainly fall under the category listed in the OP, of being guilty of wrong doing or transgressing the laws of the church. In this case, one of the laws of the church, spelled out in the D&C, is to do all things by common consent. The Lectures were removed without common consent of the church. In fact, most actions taken today are done without common consent. Take for instance the change in missionary age. We were told it was simply a change. No one was given an opportunity to vote on that change.

I think far too many of us are simply unaware of when our leaders transgress the laws of the church, because mostly we do not know the laws of the church as they are written in our scriptures. So, the question for us is, what do we do about it if we see it? How well would you be received if you brought these concerns up to your local leaders? Would these questions be tolerated? Would you be able to keep your temple recommend? What would God want you to do?

[marc]

I must admit, that solemn covenant bit rubs me the wrong way. What does that say about the committee who removed the Lectures on Faith from our canon of scriptures, which were properly sustained by common consent in the church? But I digress.

Marc, let me see if I can demystify this a little. We use the word 'canon' in our church but I'm going to propose that we don't mean it the same way creedal Christianity does. They have a closed 'canon' of scriptures that have been forever decided upon. Note that we refer to a certain body of scripture as the "Standard Works". They do not represent all of scripture, just the key standards that are well-established and where our core doctrines and principles are found.

I do find it a bit bothersome that the lectures are no longer included there, however, they have not been banned or denounced by any stretch. They're just not included anymore in the "Standard Words", specifically the D&C. Why do you need someone to define scripture for you?

I keep a set of my own personal "small plates" where I record the truths that God reveals to me. It is just as sacred as any scripture and perhaps even more so because it came to me from God - unfiltered.

Don't let a man-made label discourage you. You have the truth, who cares if it is bound together with other records or not. Soak up the knowledge and wisdom, there is nothing stopping you.

Hope that helps ;)

What Frederick said. If it ain't in the Standard Works, it ain't worth looking at. Most, if not many members today probably aren't aware of it's existence. They might have heard of it coincidentally, but give it no further thought. We have been gradually weakened over the last 180+ years (whether or not purposefully) that we, by tradition, have been conditioned to "follow the prophet." Now I love Preident Monson. I sustain him as our prophet, seer, and revelator. But the fact of the matter remains that "following the prophet" in the context that the church in all it's correllated glory has handicapped us. Moses' intent was that the Israelites be brought to the veil to see God. So was Joseph Smith's. The whole point of our probation is to come to veil and be brought back into His presence. This is also what Nephi and Moroni taught. But it comes at great sacrifice, as it should be. Instead, we have become a church of laws and manuals. We have become like Pharisaical culture where the laws are the ends unto themselves rather than the means. Next time you go to the temple, pay attention to the very first sentence spoken in the temple regarding our status in God's kingdom.

[Thomas]

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.
If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

Some want to preach that we are duty bound to follow all leaders, without question. I believe it is a false doctrine. Above, Pres. Smith has said, we have a duty to reject even a prophet's teachings, if we know they are out of harmony with previous revelations. Pres. Smith is not the only one who counseled against following, without question. Bruce R McConkie warned that God would allow false teachers in the highest positions of the church to test the members. Pres. Benson warned of this as well. It is strange that we sometimes see completly opposing views on this subject from the same man, at different times.

81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

The Prophet is subject to the discipline of a common council of the church. Some would like to say, that the prophet's word is above question and that we have no right, to disagree with what he proclaims. Joseph set the church up giving the saints power to dismiss the prophet. He is not a dictator.

Personally, I believe this doctrine has crept into the church because it is human nature to pass the buck. It is also human nature for men to want to dominate over other men. So we have a situation where some men want power and the rest don't want responsibility. Brigham Young said, no man can become a God who would blindly follow a leader. Such men cannot govern themselves let alone be Gods.

Joseph Smith taught the same principal. Each man must stand for themselves and not depend upon a prophet. When they do, they are neglecting the duty that rests on their shoulders.

Section Five 1842-43, p.237

President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel--said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church--that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls--applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall--that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

We must take responsibility for our own salvation. We can't pass that responsibility on to leaders, even though they seem so willing to assume it.

[oneClimbs]

What Frederick said. If it ain't in the Standard Works, it ain't worth looking at. Most, if not many members today probably aren't aware of it's existence. They might have heard of it coincidentally, but give it no further thought. We have been gradually weakened over the last 180+ years (whether or not purposefully) that we, by tradition, have been conditioned to "follow the prophet." Now I love Preident Monson. I sustain him as our prophet, seer, and revelator. But the fact of the matter remains that "following the prophet" in the context that the church in all it's correllated glory has handicapped us. Moses' intent was that the Israelites be brought to the veil to see God. So was Joseph Smith's. The whole point of our probation is to come to veil and be brought back into His presence. This is also what Nephi and Moroni taught. But it comes at great sacrifice, as it should be. Instead, we have become a church of laws and manuals. We have become like Pharisaical culture where the laws are the ends unto themselves rather than the means. Next time you go to the temple, pay attention to the very first sentence spoken in the temple regarding our status in God's kingdom.

If it is not in the Standard Works it's not worth looking at? Says who? Local leaders and their mistaken notions (which we individually are full of as well, leaders are not a special class or race of beings) do not constitute doctrine.

Are you saying that people only read the Standard Works and nothing else? Are we not counseled to seek learning out of the best books? Are we so weak in our discernment that we cannot use the Spirit to find truth for ourselves? We blame correlation, laws and manuals but you want laws and manuals to tell you what is and what is not scripture?

First off, I believe that the "test" Heber C. Kimball prophesied of is now upon us. (http://oneclimbs.com/2012/07/29/the-test-has-begun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) The test's purpose is to cleanse the church in preparation for the next and perhaps final attempt to build a Zion.

Secondly, I believe that the nature of that test is no mystery (http://oneclimbs.com/2013/01/20/the-thr ... must-pass/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). One of the aspects of that test will be not allowing false religious leaders to sway us from our goal. These false leaders may be ill-intentioned or well-intentioned, leading falsely because they do not know any better themselves.

This is where our sustaining comes into play. There are countless examples of the servants of the Lord seeking to serve and sustain really really bad guys. Think of Abinadi who was successful with persuading Alma, think of Ammon who went to work under a murderous scumbag, King Lamoni with the intent to serve him! Think of Joseph in Egypt serving the idolatrous pharaoh.

I propose that none of these men is as bad as an elders quorum president who is "new" or from a prominent family. How do you think the children of Israel felt when Moses, a new leader from a "prominent family" for crying out loud was called to lead them when he was a willing participant in their SLAVERY?!?! Yet the children of Israel, despite their failings were BETTER THAN US.

Laman and Lemuel, despite their failings and murmurings, honored and sustained their father and followed him on what seemed to be a suicidal mission. They stayed those eight years in the desert and endured a fearful epic journey across the ocean. Yes, even Laman and Lemuel are BETTER THAN US. See, we ourselves as members are so quick to judge and condemn, we don't even know what the word "sustain" means and this is just one of the reasons why there is no Zion. Stop blaming it on the leaders.

SUSTA'IN, verb transitive [Latin sustineo; sub and teneo, to hold under.]
1. To bear; to uphold; to support; as, a foundation sustains the superstructure; pillars sustain an edifice; a beast sustains a load.
2. To hold; to keep from falling; as, a rope sustains a weight.
3. To support; to keep from sinking in despondence. The hope of a better life sustains the afflicted amidst all their sorrows.
4. To maintain; to keep alive; to support; to subsist; as provisions to sustain a family or an army.
5. To support in any condition by aid; to assist or relieve.

This applies ESPECIALLY to the new, to the weak and to those that our help. If we fail to "sustain" or uphold, keep from sinking, support, assist, relieve, or bear up our leaders, we do so to our own demise.

We imperfect people, irrationally and impossibly demand PERFECT leaders. We have somehow found the truth through membership in God's Church only to turn and condemn the Church for not doing a better job. We are like sniveling, ungrateful children who want everything handed to them and are unwilling to humble themselves and sustain their leaders like Aaron and Hur did with Moses by holding up his arms so Israel could prevail.

Instead of looking for hanging arms to lift, we are window shopping for stones to throw.

[keep the faith]

What Frederick said. If it ain't in the Standard Works, it ain't worth looking at. Most, if not many members today probably aren't aware of it's existence. They might have heard of it coincidentally, but give it no further thought. We have been gradually weakened over the last 180+ years (whether or not purposefully) that we, by tradition, have been conditioned to "follow the prophet." Now I love Preident Monson. I sustain him as our prophet, seer, and revelator. But the fact of the matter remains that "following the prophet" in the context that the church in all it's correllated glory has handicapped us. Moses' intent was that the Israelites be brought to the veil to see God. So was Joseph Smith's. The whole point of our probation is to come to veil and be brought back into His presence. This is also what Nephi and Moroni taught. But it comes at great sacrifice, as it should be. Instead, we have become a church of laws and manuals. We have become like Pharisaical culture where the laws are the ends unto themselves rather than the means. Next time you go to the temple, pay attention to the very first sentence spoken in the temple regarding our status in God's kingdom.

If it is not in the Standard Works it's not worth looking at? Says who? Local leaders and their mistaken notions (which we individually are full of as well, leaders are not a special class or race of beings) do not constitute doctrine.

Are you saying that people only read the Standard Works and nothing else? Are we not counseled to seek learning out of the best books? Are we so weak in our discernment that we cannot use the Spirit to find truth for ourselves? We blame correlation, laws and manuals but you want laws and manuals to tell you what is and what is not scripture?

First off, I believe that the "test" Heber C. Kimball prophesied of is now upon us. (http://oneclimbs.com/2012/07/29/the-test-has-begun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) The test's purpose is to cleanse the church in preparation for the next and perhaps final attempt to build a Zion.

Secondly, I believe that the nature of that test is no mystery (http://oneclimbs.com/2013/01/20/the-thr ... must-pass/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). One of the aspects of that test will be not allowing false religious leaders to sway us from our goal. These false leaders may be ill-intentioned or well-intentioned, leading falsely because they do not know any better themselves.

This is where our sustaining comes into play. There are countless examples of the servants of the Lord seeking to serve and sustain really really bad guys. Think of Abinadi who was successful with persuading Alma, think of Ammon who went to work under a murderous scumbag, King Lamoni with the intent to serve him! Think of Joseph in Egypt serving the idolatrous pharaoh.

I propose that none of these men is as bad as an elders quorum president who is "new" or from a prominent family. How do you think the children of Israel felt when Moses, a new leader from a "prominent family" for crying out loud was called to lead them when he was a willing participant in their SLAVERY?!?! Yet the children of Israel, despite their failings were BETTER THAN US.

Laman and Lemuel, despite their failings and murmurings, honored and sustained their father and followed him on what seemed to be a suicidal mission. They stayed those eight years in the desert and endured a fearful epic journey across the ocean. Yes, even Laman and Lemuel are BETTER THAN US. See, we ourselves as members are so quick to judge and condemn, we don't even know what the word "sustain" means and this is just one of the reasons why there is no Zion. Stop blaming it on the leaders.

SUSTA'IN, verb transitive [Latin sustineo; sub and teneo, to hold under.]
1. To bear; to uphold; to support; as, a foundation sustains the superstructure; pillars sustain an edifice; a beast sustains a load.
2. To hold; to keep from falling; as, a rope sustains a weight.
3. To support; to keep from sinking in despondence. The hope of a better life sustains the afflicted amidst all their sorrows.
4. To maintain; to keep alive; to support; to subsist; as provisions to sustain a family or an army.
5. To support in any condition by aid; to assist or relieve.

This applies ESPECIALLY to the new, to the weak and to those that our help. If we fail to "sustain" or uphold, keep from sinking, support, assist, relieve, or bear up our leaders, we do so to our own demise.

We imperfect people, irrationally and impossibly demand PERFECT leaders. We have somehow found the truth through membership in God's Church only to turn and condemn the Church for not doing a better job. We are like sniveling, ungrateful children who want everything handed to them and are unwilling to humble themselves and sustain their leaders like Aaron and Hur did with Moses by holding up his arms so Israel could prevail.

Instead of looking for hanging arms to lift, we are window shopping for stones to throw.

Amen good Brother.

[AnthonyR]

Amen good Brother.

"Why callest thou me(him) good? there is none a good but one, that is, God:" Matthew 19:21

[marc]

5tev3, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I believe that I may have come off as cynical, for which I apologize. There is much in your reply, which I wish to address. When I am back at my desk, I will provide a more thoughtful response.

[natasha]

Here's my take.

http://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/03/sustain ... -the-lord/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice.

That was awesome...and a very humbling explanation of how we are to sustain each other. If done properly, two people are strengthened! (The one needing the strengthening and the other helping in that regard).

[oneClimbs]

5tev3, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I believe that I may have come off as cynical, for which I apologize. There is much in your reply, which I wish to address. When I am back at my desk, I will provide a more thoughtful response.

My words may have been strong but it was not my intent to offend at all. That's the curse of the Internet. It is a cesspool of fast, unpondered responses (including mine, guilty as charged!).

I think we all mean well. We're just confused by what we see that seems to contradict common sense and proper order.

Truth finds us all differently, even within the paradigm of the restored gospel. We tend to believe, however, that the way truth found us through our unique life experience should be the template for everyone. This causes us to find fault and err.

It has been said that "It is easier to love humanity as a whole than to love one's neighbor" (Eric Hoffer). Instead of worrying about what the masses as a whole are receiving, look to your neighbors. Have you shared the truth with them? How are you doing with helping those around you? Those are the ones you should truly be concerned with, because one day, the Lord will sift out the wheat from the chaff anyway.

Instead of concerning oneself with the impossible task of influencing EVERYbody, be content with influencing SOMEbody.

[oneClimbs]

That was awesome...and a very humbling explanation of how we are to sustain each other. If done properly, two people are strengthened! (The one needing the strengthening and the other helping in that regard).

Congratulations! You get it ;)