One of the little details of my life that has proved to be a tremendous blessing is the fact that my dad married my mom when he was almost 40 years old. He was number 6 of 8 children, and so I had elderly grandparents and older-ish aunts and uncles, some of whom had a sincere belief in doctrinal teachings that are no longer openly taught in the LDS church. For all intents and purposes, I was brought up on an early 1900s version of LDS doctrine—something I consider a great blessing in light of the many changes that have been made to the gospel as restored by Joseph Smith over the course of the last 200 years.
One of the things that has changed in the LDS church, just in my lifetime, is the definition of “sustain.” I grew up hearing that the members needed to “sustain” their leaders. In almost every sacrament meeting or conference, the names of members who had been asked to fulfill certain callings were presented to the body of members for a “sustaining” vote. It’s a term I heard frequently.
However, the current definition of “sustain” is something that is very different from what I was taught when I was growing up.
In the October 2014 General Conference, Russell M. Nelson said the following:
Our sustaining of prophets is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.
When I heard those words spoken in conference, I remember immediately thinking, “Umm…nope!”
I remember my grandfather explaining what it meant to give a “sustaining vote” to someone. He explained that our sustaining vote was an outward sign of our commitment to help any person in any calling to remain true to the gospel and to the responsibilities of his/her calling. “Upholding their (the prophets’) prophetic priorities” was NOT a given, and we were NOT required to give “an oath-like indication” of their calling being “binding” on us. Actually, by “sustaining,” the average church member was expected to have a correct understanding of the gospel, to live righteously, and to have the gift of the Holy Ghost so that he/she could detect when someone was in transgression—even the President of the church.
Section 107 of the Doctrine & Covenants tells us that the President of the High Priesthood is not incapable of transgression and is, therefore, not outside of correction, or even discipline.
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. (D&C 107)
When we sustain, we should have in mind the success of the person in his/her calling. We support them in righteousness. We help them. We love them. And when we believe them to be doing less than the best they could be doing, we attempt to correct them. We try to present new information to persuade them of their wrongdoing. It’s not love to leave a person doing less than their best when we know they could be better. And it is not “sustaining” when a person is left in a position once it can be shown, demonstrably, that that person is in transgression. To do so is detrimental to the person holding the calling and to the body of the church.