DiscussMormonism.com

I've been meaning to make this a topic in and of itself and since the issue was raised in another thread I decided to finally come out with it. Two questions in the Temple Recommend Interview are as follows:

2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

What is your understanding of what it means to "sustain" them? My understanding is apparently significantly different from most people's interpretation on the matter. Perhaps this is why I am still able to answer those questions affirmatively. I would ESPECIALLY like to hear the answers of those who are active LDS. The sarcastic and negative answers are already obvious as to what you many of you want to say it means. ;) For those of you who can't resist saying it means you have to believe the leaders are infallible and obey their every whim...can you think of any reasonable alternatives, regardless of traditional interpretations?

Tidejwe wrote:...can you think of any reasonable alternatives, regardless of traditional interpretations?

It's a loyalty oath, like:

2. Do you sustain the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise ultimate executive authority?

3. Do you sustain the Congress and the Judiciary of the United States of America?

The Dude wrote:

Tidejwe wrote:...can you think of any reasonable alternatives, regardless of traditional interpretations?

It's a loyalty oath, like:

2. Do you sustain the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise ultimate executive authority?

3. Do you sustain the Congress and the Judiciary of the United States of America?

Indeed. Just as we pledge "allegiance" to the flag/country, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean we all must agree with everything Bush/congress says/does or exiled to Canada does it?

Excuse my editorial license:

The Dude wrote:It's a loyalty oath, like:

2. Do you sustain Richard Dawkins as the Ultimate Authority in Science?; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth who knows the Truth?

3. Do you sustain Michael Shermer as, first of all - sexy - but also the Final Word in Science.

I think the following is key:

only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

While that may not mean you agree with everything the prophet says, I think it does mean that you think God has specifically chosen the prophet to be our leader instead of the prophet or leaders choosing him. I also think it means that other churches aren't just as good so far as salvation is concerned.

Holding all Priesthood keys means that the Prophet and all others with the keys of presidency over you have the right to direct your Priesthood.

To sustain them in their callings is to recognize that they are called of God to do a difficult thing and that you are willing to support them in doing what they're supposed to be doing.

The Nehor wrote:you are willing to support them in doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Please elaborate the meaning of that

Tidejwe wrote:

The Nehor wrote:you are willing to support them in doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Please elaborate the meaning of that

The Bishop asks you to do something to aid him. If possible, you do it. You are asked by the Elder's Quorum President to help at a Service Project, you help if you can. The Prophet asks for your help regarding Missionary Work, you help as you can. You sub if needed for a teacher and basically help others fulfill their obligations to God.

You also listen to their counsel and accept that they have the right to revelation within their sphere. If they are a President you accept that in meetings in which they preside they are in charge and make all final decisions.

Ray A wrote:Excuse my editorial license:

The Dude wrote:It's a loyalty oath, like:

2. Do you sustain Richard Dawkins as the Ultimate Authority in Science?; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth who knows the Truth?

Nope. Dawkins, while a good scientist, is a jerk. In many cases he hurts science by being a stubborn and pigheaded as some of his most vocal opponents like Gish and Johnson. He'd be better to keep more to science and point the huge gaping flaws in the psuedo science done is somebody's personal god's name.

Ray A wrote:

The Dude wrote:3. Do you sustain Michael Shermer as, first of all - sexy - but also the Final Word in Science.

Again no. Science doesn't depend on looks nor personality (which is a really good thing as many scientists make Dilbert look like a swinging stud) but observation.

Dawkins is dogmatic on his beliefs, which in the long run they could really hurt him, when it comes to gods and godhead figures. A little has actually seeped into his science which is a real problem and will only be worse if he continues.

My definition is the same as Nehor's.