We have two metaphors for assisting in the Church.
One is for those who barge in — they are referred to in terms of “steadying the ark.” To quote David O. McKay, generally remembered for standing up for liberals and divergent thinkers in the Church:
Let us look around us and see how quickly men who attempt unauthoritatively to steady the ark die spiritually. Their souls become embittered, their minds distorted, their judgment faulty, and their spirit depressed. Such is the pitiable condition of men who, neglecting their own responsibilities, spend their time in finding fault with others.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1936, p. 60.)
The second metaphor is from the quote above, where Aaron and Hur supported Moses. The difference is whether we are supporting or supplanting.
We have examples from the presidency of Spencer W. Kimball. From time to time his health would become very bad. I worked with a stake president who was friends with a brother of one of President Kimball’s doctors. The brother was fond of sharing inside, confidential, health information to let everyone know when President Kimball was about to die. Several times after one of those leaks, President Kimball would rouse and engage in prophetic behavior. (One friend joked that he was staying alive by doing that).
During one period of incapacity, someone sent a letter out from Salt Lake giving specific counsel on sexual practices. Interestingly enough, President Kimball did not die, roused, and the first thing he did was have the letter recalled with instructions that all copies were to be destroyed. I remember talking about the incident with a friend who helped edit some internal documents (proposals from the first presidency to the other general authorities) who was more amused at the presumption than anything else.
On the other hand, President Kimball specifically asked for input from the janitor (not the head guy, but the actual janitor) at the Church Office Building in regards to the design for smaller temples they were working on. He valued the input and support.
===========================================================
Now, for the question that can be asked in this framework. (Other than “look at yourself, and ask if you are steadying the ark or supporting the prophet) …
When President Monson is incapacitated, and letters are sent out under his name, or when an apostle is in the process of dying and a letter is sent out under his name, is someone steadying the ark or are they just being supportive? Does the context matter? Does whether or not we agree with what is said matter? Is asking the question a form of steadying the ark and finding fault? Or is that just normal posting in the bloggernacle?
What do you think? How do you approach such situations and how do they help you look into your views, actions and approaches to questions and the Church?
Wheat & Tares 
In case you are wondering, I quoted David O McKay because he was so tolerant of divergence, often standing up for those who were out of the mainstream.
That gave me thought.
Greg Prince’s biography of David O. McKay provides a fascinating look into what was happening behind the scenes of his presidency. I would argue that, to varying degrees, Ezra Taft Benson, Hugh B. Brown, and Bruce R. McConkie all sought to supplant McKay’s leadership to varying degrees one time or another. Now those types of high-level disagreements, to whatever degree they happen, are almost entirely hidden from public view. I could speculate about some things, but there are very few data points to work with.
For the non-leadership crowd, I think support is welcome when it is solicited by the leadership (your janitor example) but is considered supplanting when it is unsolicited.
Is the letter on sexual practices the infamous 1981 or 1982 letter on oral sex? Because if it is, I have never heard that it was “recalled.” In fact, local leaders in my area were sure to talk about this letter and other sexual practices with couples getting ready to get married in that 1982 – 1984 era (I got “the talk” in 1983). It wasn’t till around 1985 or so, when leaders issuing temple recommends were delving into couples’ personal sex lives, that the church said “stop it” and the recommend question instructions were re-vamped to encourage a lack of questioning into the lives of members. As for how to handle letters, I think counselors and president tend to work very well together, so I think for the most part, if a letter is sent out while the president is incapacitated, it probably does track what they would agree on, especially on a major issue. I do tend to put more stock in letters that come under the signature of both the FP and the Q12.
This is a tough one because leaders are obviously not infallible. I guess I have a couple thoughts about this dichotomy.
First, whether someone is supporting or supplanting depends entirely on the leader’s view of it and what the eventual outcome is. For a quick example, I’ll point to a famous Mormon historical story, Emma complaining about the School of the Prophets and chewing tobacco spit coming through the floor. This story could have been about her not supporting her husband and how wives should submit and stay out of the way when men are doing their spiritual stuff. But because he agreed with her, it was a story about supporting. She was right. The problem is that for the person who raises an issue, any issue, it’s entirely up to the discretion of the leader whether that input is welcome or not, whether it’s considered supporting or supplanting.
Another way to look at this is that drama and activism function as a distraction. Rather than seeking the will of God through revelation, it causes a leader to try to appease the masses. With lay clergy, there is limited time and energy leaders can spend on pastoral care (to say nothing of skills which vary greatly). Based on the 80/20 principle, the 20% are seen to cause 80% of the worries. The problem with this human lens is that the civil rights movement would never have happened if we dismissed the 20%. The 80% are quiet because the status quo benefits them. The 20% are noisy because they don’t benefit. God is supposedly not a respecter of persons, but people sure are. Especially the ones leaders see creating more work for them. There’s some question to be had here about how a leader advocates for all the people without hearing all the people, including those who don’t fit the mold. How is revelation sought? Usually in response to a problem. So if we ignore “problem” people or dismiss them as “supplanters” then we won’t seek revelation to solve problems they identify. We’ll keep getting status quo revelations.
Just a few thoughts.
“Such is the pitiable condition of men who, neglecting their own responsibilities, spend their time in finding fault with others.” I think the “finding fault with others” is the difference between supplanting and supporting. One might see a leader struggle with a concept or decision, and offer some insight or assistance or idea. Is doing so with good intent a bad thing? I don’t think so. Contrast that with finding fault, murmuring behind the leader’s back, etc. That’s not the proper approach. I serve as a stake executive secretary. I sometimes joke that it’s the best calling to have, as I am often asked for input, yet don’t have the responsibility for the outcome. I sometimes send out an email on behalf of the stake presidency, but I always run the draft language by the presidency first. Surely the FP/Q12 have secretaries and assistants, too. I tend to think it would be fairly difficult these days to send out a policy letter without it being vetted by a whole lot of people.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments.
I had a non-member friend who told me they liked this because it did not give answers. Which was my goal, in order to draw out thought and comments.
As for “the letter” it is interesting how many kept it as if it was some higher truth and did not return or dispose of all copies.
One might ask if they were supporting or steadying.
At the time it went out I have it on good authority that the entire first presidency was indisposed. Someone just wanted to be helpful.
“whether someone is supporting or supplanting depends entirely on the leader’s view of it and what the eventual outcome is”
This. And it also seems to be the metric by which we judge whether something said by an apostle is inspired or simply his opinion. Well, they say that hindsight is 20/20, but I’m really not sure if i believe it. When it comes to something like revelation, I’m not sure the metric we use to judge success is the same as God’s. So, even with the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure we know.
If a church leader says or does something that I don’t agree with, I don’t worry about the leader business because the Lord put him there. That’s His business, but I will still believe what I have come to believe in from my study of the scriptures. I never trust in the arm of flesh which, to me, is what is taught in the scriptures. I believe all mortals are the arm of flesh.
God told which people were not to touch the ark. One person must have thought He was joking. He wasn’t. If we know the word of God and what it means, there shouldn’t be a problem. By the way, If we know the Church is from God, that will help a lot.
I think results show the answer. When the result is good, the act was supportive. When the result is bad, like touching the ark and dying, the act was supplanting.
When results are good, stories are created to inspire others. But situations do not repeat the same scenarios and situations, so that lesson learned only has certain value, because God wants us to learn and grow, not find right/wrong formulas to choosing correctly.
In each situation we are faced with, we can choose. Based on the outcome, we get to choose a story and meaning to place upon it.