However, in my quest to learn more, I am frustrated by my Bishop's understanding of what it means to support the Leaders of the Church. I support the leaders of the Church, I really do, but as far I understand things, my support can go only so far as sustain is defined. However, my bishop is only interested in "sustaining" the Leaders as so far as emulating them as examples of how we aught to live our lives. And this gives me a headache since I do not believe in blind obedience.
- Function: transitive verb
- Middle English sustenen, from Anglo-French sustein-, stem of sustenir, from Latin sustinēre to hold up, sustain, from sub-, sus- up + tenēre to hold — more at sub-, thin
- 13th century
2: to supply with sustenance : nourish
3: keep up, prolong
4: to support the weight of : prop; also : to carry or withstand (a weight or pressure)
5: to buoy up <sustained by hope>
6 a: to bear up under b: suffer, undergo <sustained heavy losses>
7 a: to support as true, legal, or just b: to allow or admit as valid
So, are we supposed to bear up our leaders, to buoy them up, and to support them as legal and just? Or are we suposed to imitate them? Really, I have no idea at what my bishop is trying to get at. If it is the former, I do that wholeheartedly. The latter, I'm not to sure about. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are taught that Jesus' life is our example, and that Jesus is our exemplar. Jesus is the Master of all the masters; His teachings supercede Buddha's, Lao Tzu's, Confucius', Moses', and Joseph Smith's. These other masters all complement their Master in their teachings on how a person can reach his or her fullest potential. So, why is emulating President Hinckley more important than living the Life of Jesus? I have no idea; but I'm beginning to feel that I'm being pulled this way and that way with my relationship to my bishop.