I recently discovered that until 1970, the Relief Society used to collect dues from its members. I have not been able to fin anything in-depth about it, but based on what I read, I presume that operational expenses were funded by these dues.
President Harold B. Lee announced in July 1970 that the collection of dues were to be stopped, and whatever money was in possession of the Relief Society to that point was to be handed over to the Church. I’m not sure I see the logic in this decision.
First of all, this decision meant that the Relief Society would need to cover operational expenses through the tithing fund, which would place more stress on such a system.
Secondly, this decision meant that the Church was eliminating an additional revenue stream.
Why would any organisation want to cut off a viable revenue source just to place extra burden on other revenue sources?
Though I don’t know anything official, I think there was a problem with wards in wealthy areas having lavish activities and wards in poor areas languishing just to get by. The Church seems very sensitive to that.
Perhaps it is because the scripture says “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,” not “Bring ye all the tithes and dues into the storehouse.”
Priesthood quorums could collect dues up until about 1990.
The Relief Society used to be a much more autonomous auxiliary until the ’70s. When the uppity women became too much to handle, everything was taken away–female leadership, money, ideas, lessons–until there is really nothing resembling the dynamic old organization headed by strong women of the Church.
It was part of the correlation movement. That still doesn’t completely answer why, but see for example Derr & Derr (1982), “Outside the Mormon Hierarchy: Alternative Aspects of Institutional Power,” Dialogue 15(4), pp. 21-43, available digitally at the UofU.
Why are you looking for logic in President Lee’s statement? He simply announced what was going to happen. He didn’t say why it was happening or why it was a good idea. How is it logical or illogical to say, “we’re going to start doing it this way”?
So he made an announcement with no forethought?
I see that you’re not really looking for logic in the STATEMENT but in the DECISION. So the question I should have asked is, why a requirement for logic in the decision? When the Prophet says we’re going to do something, he isn’t necessarily saying it’s the logical thing to do. Often he’s just saying that it’s what the Lord has inspired him to do. It wasn’t logical to back the Children of Israel up to the Red Sea, but that’s what Moses did. It wasn’t logical to institute the practice of polygamy but that’s what Joseph Smith did.
I personally think there are lots of reasons for doing this that are readily apparent. But if there were no such reasons, it shouldn’t stop President Lee from saying that it’s what the Church should do.
So ultimately, I don’t think it matters very much whether we think the decision was logical or not.
“[He’s] just saying that it’s what the Lord has inspired him to do”
So you think the Lord is concerned with whether the relief Society covers their operating expenses through dues or tithing?
I would be interested in hearing your apparent reasons.
1. Yes, I do think the Lord is concerned with how the Church and all of its auxiliary organizations are financed.
2. I know you would like to hear my reasons for thinking this is a logical decision. But I think giving them will only lead to a lengthy and contentious debate over small subpoints that turn on the definition of some particular word or phrase. I think such an exchange would be both useless and contentious. My reasons satisfy me, and I have little doubt that no matter what they are, they won’t satisfy you.
1. I don’t. I think the Lord is concerned with what the Relief Society does to provide “relief”, but not how they get the money to do it. If anything temporal should come out of the Gospels, it is that money meant nothing to the Lord.
2. Then why mention it?
Itbugaf
You should know Kim better by now :) He isn’t trying to be contentious, he likes to delve into why people do things, their thought processes behind it and what others’ thoughts are as well. Again, he isn’t complaining either, just trying to think more deeply (and get others to do so). And his “debates” with you should show you that he wants to simply understand reasoning, why people say or do the things they do. He isn’t agreeing or disagreeing necessarily.
Anonymous at 12:48: What was the “uppitiness” on the part of the Relief Society General Presidency that the First Presidency suddenly felt a need to suppress?
How was female leadership taken away? The RS Presidents had always been appointed by Presidents of the Church, and that continued.
How were female ideas taken away? The RS continued to have an all-female presidency and board that answered, as they always had, to Priesthood leaders.
How were female lessons taken away? Women continued to be involved in the creation of RS curriculum.
I don’t even think it’s accurate to say female money was taken away, because the RS continued to be funded and to have its own budget.
Kim: You’re right. I guess if I didn’t want to share my personal reasons for believing that President Lee’s decision had logic in it, then I shouldn’t have mentioned that point. I was just mentioning on the way to pointing out that I don’t think my view of his logic, or yours, is very important, since logic isn’t necessarily what leads to a prophetic pronouncement.
On the point of whether the Lord is concerned with how we fund things in the Church, the Doctrine and Covenants contains numerous examples of the Lord revealing how things should be funded, and what we should do with our money. To me, that indicates that he’s concerned about it. I don’t doubt that he was concerned with the way the Church was funded in 1970, just as he was in the 1830s and 1840s.
Where in the Doctrine and Covenants does it outline how the Relief Society should be funded?
And for the record, I do not think it was a prophetic pronouncement. Well, at least not in the manner that it was governed by prophecy. It was prophetic in the manner that it was proclaimed by the prophet.
The Doctrine and Covenants doesn’t have anything related specifically to the funding of the RS. The Doctrine and Covenants does have numerous sections devoted to the funding of the Church in general, as well as the funding of certain specific entities such as the Nauvoo House, the publication committee, and so forth. If you look up words such as “money” or “offerings” or “tithes” or “riches” in the index, you’ll find plenty of material there about funding.
What indicates that God is uninterested in the funding of the RS?
Kim: What evidence leads you to the conclusion that this announcement by the Prophet was not governed by prophecy?
The absence of any revelation on the matter.
The absence of any indication that it was a result of the Lord’s will being made known to President Lee.
Kim: “The absence of any revelation on the matter.” How do you know there is a complete absence of revelation in this decision by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve? What leads you to the conclusion that it was a completely uninspired decision, utterly lacking in revelation?
Why would the Lord give a revelation and then not have it be made known to us?
last lemming: I was struck by your statement that Priesthood quorums could charge dues up until the 1990s, just because I’ve never seen that practice. Did you see it done?
Kim: “Why would the Lord give a revelation and then not have it be made known to us?”
I think when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve announce something with a united voice, the Lord IS making it known to us.
And do we know that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve announced it?
For what it’s worth, I do not think that everything published by the Fifteen is of God. Some of it is simply administrative and as the head administrators of the Church, it is their responsibility to make church-wide administrative announcements.
If they relied solely on the Lord for all administrators, I doubt there would be an over representation of business professionals in the upper echelons of the church.
Kim: I don’t dispute that not every iota of what is decided by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve is direct, unfiltered, pristine revelation from on high. But you’re saying that there is a COMPLETE ABSENCE of revelation on the subject. That means that this decision had to be utterly and completely lacking in revelation–no inspiration whatsoever behind it. I disagree. I think the leading quorums of the Church took up this subject very seriously in examining the correlation of the entire Church. They prayed very earnestly for guidance. I believe they received it. I’m just asking how you can conclude that, in this particular instance, they didn’t–that there was a complete absence of revelation.
Let me clarify my previous statement:
“The absence of any [declaration of] revelation on the matter.”
Perhaps my assumption that the absence of a revelatory declaration meant there was no actual revelation is incorrect. I am doubtful that is the case given that the Lord has issued many seemingly temporal matters in the past.
If anything, I would think it would be in the best interests of the Brethren to specify that ti was a revelation from God. Such declarations would eliminate questions in the minds of many.
“That means that this decision had to be utterly and completely lacking in revelation–no inspiration whatsoever behind it.”
You say it like that’s a bad thing.
“I think the leading quorums of the Church took up this subject very seriously in examining the correlation of the entire Church. They prayed very earnestly for guidance. I believe they received it.”
Given that there is no indication in their documentation regarding this (at least from what I have read thus far), what leads you to this conclusion?
Kim: “Given that there is no indication in their documentation regarding this (at least from what I have read thus far), what leads you to this conclusion?”
I have been exposed to some documentation but I have no immediate access to it. I have read some material and heard some lectures about the content of meetings that the First Presidency had with the Twelve before instituting the correlation. Unfortunately, I don’t have immediate access to any of that material to share with you. In that material was the testimony of President McKay and others that it was inspired. I may try to find some reference for you, although I really don’t know if I can. Maybe we should both check General Conference reports and see what the Brethren said at the time about these changes in the Relief Society.
“And do we know that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve announced it?”
– We know that it was announced by the First Presidency and we know that they discussed it with the Twelve, and we know that the decisions of these councils are unanimous.
Are you suggesting that someone else announced it? Who? What did the announcers say about it at the time? Did they testify that it was inspired?
I think there is a mixture of personal initiative and divine guidance in the governing of the Church, at all levels. What I find striking is that you seem to be claiming (tell me if I’m wrong) that in this particular instance you can tell just what came from Heaven and what didn’t. I don’t have that gift; if you do you should be congratulated. Maybe you can identify exactly which parts of the Proclamation on the Family are inspired and which aren’t, or which parts of the proclamation on The Living Christ are revelation and which aren’t.
OK, pardon me for getting just a little snide there.
Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but the prophet is the leader here on earth that is in “charge” of us. Him, not the entire Quorum but him. None of us have the distinct privilege of being in his office when he is praying for guidance on anything. None of us are in the offices of the presidency or quorum so we really do not know what goes on behind closed doors. Twice a year, I put my hand up to sustain not only the apostles but the prophet himself.
I may not like what he/they say at times but I support them. If that means I no longer pay dues to RS then so be it. They don’t ask the members for their points of view or even their permission to do anything. I have been watching GC now for 27 years so that is 54 conferences and not once have I ever seen a general authority jump up when a prophet was speaking to say “uhhh excuse me but we never agreed to that!!”
I have to assume that anything the prophet and any of the speakers at any conference has to say has been gone over by the presiding leaders prior to conference. Otherwise people would just be saying whatever they wanted.
Do I like everything that the prophet says for us to do? Nope… I would be here for a month of Sundays stating the things I did NOT like starting with this new format of only having RS once every quarter and don’t get me started on THAT subject again. I remember the first time my hairs stood on my neck when the prophet announced that the meetings would change to a 3 hour block of time. He never said this came from the Lord. I was fit to be tied!! But did I and will I continue to sustain their decisions? Absolutely. He does not have to stand there and tell me the Lord told him to say this is going to happen. I don’t need to see or hear every GA stand and say yes we agreed with this decision like they do in the house of parliment when a new bill has to be passed.
Now if a prophet was to stand and say he was bringing back the law of polygamy well I might just have to rethink my opinions.
Sally: I don’t believe that the Prophet requires the unanimous support of the other General Authorities to make pronouncements or take action. But I do notice that the First Presidency do often act together in making important determinations for the Church. They even have a special council room in the Salt Lake Temple for the combined First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (in addition to separate council rooms for each of those two quorums). Their combined voices do seem to add a certain special emphasis, as when the Proclamation on the Family or the Revelation on the Priesthood (Official Declaration 2) were announced.
Kim is right in saying I don’t know whether the Church correlation program, which included the reorganization of RS funds, was announced. But I am familiar enough with the history of Church correlation to know that the plan was studied and prayed about very earnestly by the combined quorums. They were working together. Again, I wish I could point you to the historical material I’m talking about, but for the moment, I can’t.
Mum: Just so I am clear. I, too, believe the prophet is the head of the church (at least in the temporal sense), and is “in charge”.
ltbugaf: I believe President Lee was the one who gave the announcement.
“What I find striking is that you seem to be claiming (tell me if I’m wrong) that in this particular instance you can tell just what came from Heaven and what didn’t.”
OK. You are wrong.
What I am saying is that without a declaration that this decision was based on a revelation received from God, we cannot unequivocally label it as a prophetic or claim that it itself is a revelation.
I think I find more safety in making the assumption that the Prophet’s pronouncements are inspired, and that I will do best by following them. I don’t demand that the announcement be accompanied by a specific declaration that the Lord has revealed something. I assume that revelation–at many different levels ranging from faint whisperings of inspiration to personal appearances of Christ–is a constant part of what the Prophet, his Counselors, and the Twelve do in leading the Church. I don’t assume they’re acting entirely on their own until they announce otherwise to the world.
I actually find more safety in the opposite. I have seen too many people fall away from the Church because they had the assumption that every word that falls from the prophet’s mouth is inspired and were shocked to learn that some thing spoken were simply opinion.
I am very comfortable with the idea that our leaders are human and imperfect and they lead our church the best they know how and occasionally receive divine direction in such doings. Such a belief offers me comfort in knowing that the persons to whom we look for guidance do not have unattainable lifestyles.
“I don’t assume they’re acting entirely on their own until they announce otherwise to the world.”
I don’t assume the opposite. From my experience, doing so is very dangerous.
So what specific identifiers do you look for when President Hinckley says something before you stop assuming he’s just yammering away at his own opinions and start thinking that he’s speaking with the authority of a prophet? What does he need to say? How often does he do so? Isn’t he wasting an awful lot of our time with all the other talk that you say we must assume is completely uninspired?
He says things that are supported by scripture or by past prophets, or he states that something is from the Lord.
Also–what should we do when we think the Prophet is wrong? For example, when Brigham Young directed that the Salt Lake Temple’s foundations be laid in mortared sandstone, there were people who thought he was making the wrong decision.
In one sense, he WAS making the wrong decision. The foundation cracked and had to be replaced completely. But are we really sure he was wrong? Was there a need for the saints to go through the experience of replacing the foundation later? Was there a reason the foundation should be started and then restarted? Maybe so. Maybe the Lord had his own reasons for directing that. Or, maybe He just wanted to let his son Brigham learn some things from his own experience.
So: What should the members of the Church have done, back when Brigham was directing a sandy foundation for the temple? Should they have disregarded his instructions as uninspired? Or should they have followed him in faith?
When the foundation was redone, should the saints have rejected President Young because he had been so wrong, or bullheaded, or both, about the way he’d done the foundation in the first place? Or should they have continued to follow him in faith?
I suggest that those who rejected President Young reaped sorrow, and those who followed him in faith reaped blessings.
I suggest that we, too, are much safer when we follow in faith.
Kim: “He says things that are supported by scripture or by past prophets, or he states that something is from the Lord.”
So when President Hinckley doesn’t include one of the specific statements on your list, should I just assume he’s speaking without any authority or inspiration, and that I can feel free to take or leave whatever he’s saying? Should I feel free to encourage others to reject what he says?
“what should we do when we think the Prophet is wrong?”
I suppose that depended on the thing he was saying needed to be done. If he told me to kill someone, I am doubtful I would do it. If he said the Church was recognise legal gay marriages, I doubt there would be anything I could do.
Yes, if President Hinckley states something new that is not supported by scripture or the words of past prophets, and does not indicate that the Lord revealed it to him, it is a safe bet that he is stating opinion.
If that wasn’t the case, how would we ever know when he was offering his own opinion and when he wasn’t.
There’s always something you CAN do. You can choose to oppose the Prophet, reject him and encourage others to do so. In other words, you can choose apostasy. I just don’t think that’s a good choice. I don’t think the goodness or badness of that choice depends on my own personal judgment of what he’s been saying lately. I sustain him as a prophet, seer and revelator. In so sustaining him I accept that he sees what I cannot see, and I pledge to follow his leadership in faith that it is inspired.
I realize you chose being told to kill someone as an extreme example of something outrageous that no one should obey. But if Gordon Hinckley did issue such a command, he would certainly not be the first true Prophet of God to issue such a command by revelation.
Kim: “Yes, if President Hinckley states something new that is not supported by scripture or the words of past prophets, and does not indicate that the Lord revealed it to him, it is a safe bet that he is stating opinion.”
And in that case, what? We should ignore his counsel and tell others to do likewise?
The scribes and Pharisees believed that what Jesus said was not supported by the scriptures or the words of past prophets.
How do you know whether the Prophet’s words are not in accordance with the scriptures or the words of past prophets? Is that just going to be obvious? Is it possible to have diverging opinions? Whose opinion is right? Yours? Is your interpretation of past prophets’ words and the scriptures the binding interpretation? Or does that right belong to the prophets, seers and revelators?
OK, here comes the part that I hope you won’t think is mean-spirited:
I think your criteria for accepting or rejecting the prophet’s words are scary. With this system, you could feel justified in saying, “Sorry, President Hinckley, but your conference talk didn’t include any specific phrasing about this being a revelation from God. According to Kim’s rules of gospel interpretation, I must therefore check to see if it jibes with my personal interpretation of the past prophets (whose words inexplicably take precedence over yours) and my personal interpretation of the scriptures (even though my view of the scriptures is that when they say Christ said something I still have “no idea” whether he actually said it). If I find a discrepancy, I’m afraid I’ll have to reject your statement and lead a revolt against you.” In short, it is the reasoning that leads people to feel justified in apostasy.
How many of President Hinckley’s recent conference addresses have included some specific statement such as the ones you are demanding, that identify them as coming from the Lord? I don’t think many of them do. So if we must conclude that he’s only talking for himself, why is he wasting so many resources and so much time to get those personal opinions out to us by satellite, in magazines, and so forth?
How many of President Hinckley’s recent conference addresses have included a teaching not covered in the scriptures or past prophets?
“How do you know whether the Prophet’s words are not in accordance with the scriptures or the words of past prophets?”
This is where it is important to be familiar with Church doctrine. If you’re not familiar with Church doctrine, then it is conceivable that everything President Hinckley says is new. In such cases, you’d find yourself searching the scriptures and past teachings and asking local leaders about everything he says.
If one is familiar with Church teachings, then only new and seemingly strange doctrines would need to be researched. I cannot remember the last time I heard a conference talk when a new or strange doctrine was taught. I don’t think it would be much of a hardship given the frequency of such pronouncements.
“In short, it is the reasoning that leads people to feel justified in apostasy.”
Quite contrary. Or at least based on my experience. All the people I know who have left the Church because of doctrinal issues did so because they thought the prophets are infallible. They thought that every word that fell from a prophet’s mouth was doctrine. When they found out otherwise, they questioned everything they believed.
“How many of President Hinckley’s recent conference addresses have included a teaching not covered in the scriptures or past prophets?”
President Hinckley would, I believe, say none of them have. I believe that even if they seem contradictory to me, I may be wrong while he’s right.
But if you’re setting yourself up as a judge of that issue rather than accepting his judgment, then it depends on your own, personal interpretation of those scriptures and past prophets. If you should decide they’re in conflict, then you say you have a right to reject them.
I believe there will be times when what the Prophet says may indeed seem, to some of us, to be in conflict with our own understanding of the scriptures or our own understanding of past prophets’ words.
I believe we’re better off taking the safe way I described above: Accepting what he says in faith, even if we don’t understand, and seeking for greater understanding through personal testimony.
But the position you take seems to be that this isn’t a safe way–that we’re safer going on the assumption that what the prophet says “doesn’t count” unless WE think it agrees with previous prophets or unless he says the “magic words” that make set it apart as new revelation.
There have been plenty of people who thought that if the President of the Church didn’t say “Thus saith the Lord,” he somehow wasn’t speaking with authority. That’s a false doctrine. It’s not identical, but awfully close to what you’re saying here.
“But if you’re setting yourself up as a judge of that issue rather than accepting his judgment, then it depends on your own, personal interpretation of those scriptures and past prophets.”
I’m not talking about doctrines that depend on one interpretation of a scripture. I am talking about completely new doctrines.
For example, Joseph F. Smith taught that Jesus—when He was in the Spirit World between crucifixion and resurrection—”organized his forces and appointed messengers . . . and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness” (D&C 138:30).
The concept that Jesus organised a missionary force of sorts to preach the gospel in the Spirit World was not covered in the scriptures, and to my knowledge, was not taught by any prophet before President Smith.
President Smith was sure to state throughout the revelation his eyes had been opened, his understanding quickened, it was revealed to him and the Holy Ghost rested upon him.
One only has to read nearly any section of the Doctrine and Covenants to see that Joseph Smith’s revelations contained similar declarations.
w the pattern of his predecessors.
“There have been plenty of people who thought that if the President of the Church didn’t say “Thus saith the Lord,” he somehow wasn’t speaking with authority. That’s a false doctrine”
Harold B. Lee, ironically, did not think this was the case.
“The President of the Church alone may declare the mind and will of God to His people . . . When the President proclaims any such new doctrine, he will declare it to be a revelation from the Lord.” (Stand Ye In Holy Places, p. 110)
I don’t think the funding of the RS was a departure from previous prophets or from the scriptures. No prophet had said that the funding of the RS would never be changed.
Yes, the decision to fund the RS in a certain way was an administrative decision. It’s perfectly changeable by any President of the Church at any time. What’s bothering me is the confidence with which you declare that this administrative decision was NOT informed by any guidance or inspiration from God. You require the Prophet to make a declaration of revelation every time he does anything that is even slightly informed by guidance from the Spirit. Otherwise, according to your criteria, we should feel perfectly free to disregard his adminstrative decisions because he’s just expressing his own, uninspired opinions.
I think the Prophet is guided by the Holy Ghost, every day, in his administrative decisions as well as his doctrinal pronouncements. But you say that unless he declares a revelation, the President isn’t being inspired.
“[The] funding of the RS was [not] a departure from previous prophets or from the scriptures . . . . [The] decision to fund the RS in a certain way was an administrative decision.”
Exactly.
“But you say that unless he declares a revelation, the President isn’t being inspired.”
No, I say that unless the prophet declares a revelation, his decision should not be construed as a revelation.
Wouldn’t the whole issue be solved if the prophet had a special hat he wore when speaking as a prophet?
Then we’d know when it was personal speculation rather than the world of God.
Maybe something purple so it’d stand out during the conference broadcasts.
“Hey honey, wake up – the prophet is putting on the hat; we know this next statement is *really* important.”
Kim: I think we’re crossing wires because we’re using different definitions of “revelation.”
You quote President Lee with regard to the introduction of new doctrine, and you cite examples of new doctrines being introduced, pointing out that they were carefully identified as new revelation.
I’m with you. When a new doctrine is announced, I can’t think of a situtation in which the President of the Church isn’t very explicit about labeling it as a new doctrine and a revelation.
But most of the everyday decisions made in governing the Church aren’t new DOCTRINES. They’re not new truths. They’re just decisions about what we need to do at a given time.
I think you’re equating “revelation” with “doctrine.” But there are plenty of revelations that don’t introduce new doctrines.
Nephi received a revelation that he should build a ship. The revelation didn’t introduce new doctrine; it just said what Nephi should do. Yet it was a revelation, recorded in scripture. When Brigham Young explained the will of the Lord regarding how to organize the pioneer migration to the Valley of the Great Salt Lake, it didn’t introduce any new doctrine, but it was a revelation placed in the Doctrine & Covenants. (Yes, President Young did say it was the will of the Lord–he did identify it as such–but my point is that it’s a nondoctrinal revelation.) Any time a person uses the Gift of the Holy Ghost, he is receiving revelation. Any time a person receives a witness of the Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true, he’s receiving revelation. Any time the President of the Church receives guidance from the Spirit about where to build a temple, or whom to call as a general authority, or how to fund the Relief Society, he’s receiving revelation.
Because I sustain him as a prophet, I believe that his decisions–not just the doctrines he announces but the everyday decisions about what to do next–are guided, to varying degrees, by “revelation.” I believe that he seeks and receives the Lord’s will to the degree the Lord is willing to give it. I don’t pretend to know how much or how little inspiration is involved in any single decision, and neither should you. IF it is true that President Lee didn’t specifically announce, in effect, “The Lord has revealed that the Relief Society is now to be funded in the following manner…”–and by the way, I do not assume that this is true–then it still doesn’t make sense to conclude that the decision was necessarily lacking in any degree of “revelation.” You’re not safe in assuming that no revelation is involved in a decision simply because the Prophet doesn’t specifically mention the inspired source of the decision in every instance.
On a slightly different topic:
The Prophet also holds authority independent of revelation. In other words, when the Lord requires the Prophet to do the best he can do without any specific revelation, the Lord still expects us to sustain the Prophet in those decisions. We’ve covenanted to do so.
As I mentioned above, there were those who turned against Brigham Young when he made what appear to have been mistakes, and there were those who stood by him and respected his place as the Prophet. They didn’t criticize him for it; they SUSTAINED him, whether in his strength or his weakness.
I intend to sustain President Lee rather than criticize his decisions regarding the Relief Society. I don’t even want to concern myself with deciding whether he made a mistake or not. I can’t divine–and neither can you–whether, in the Lord’s eyes, there was a mistake at all. There is more than either of us can see–that’s one of the reasons we have seers to guide us. I can’t divine–and neither can you–how much or how little the decision reflected the directly revealed will of God. But I CAN tell–and so can you–what my duty is in regard to that decision made by a Prophet exercising the keys of his authority. My duty, and yours, is to SUSTAIN him.
With that, I think I’m about worn out on this topic.