If you didn’t happen to read the February issue of Ensign Magazine in 1987, you missed some valuable instruction about how to provide critical feedback to Church leaders. Luckily for you, this post provides a second chance to get up to speed on what all would-be “improvers” in the Church should know about how to seek improving the Church without crossing any line that will forfeit your eternal exaltation and doom you to an eternity of teeth-gnashing with a TK smoothie.
Over the past couple weeks here at Mormon Matters, we’ve had two posts discussing the need to be “improvers” in the Church rather than uncritical optimists or unloving pessimists, and suggesting some practical rules that would-be improvers should follow. Fortunately, our Church leaders have not left us to re-invent the wheel when it comes to figuring out what our options are when we disagree with their statements, policies, or practices.
Below are excerpts from Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ article entitled “Criticism,” which appeared in Ensign magazine in February of 1987. (You can read the full article here.) In this article, Elder Oaks straightforwardly informs Church members that there are two very different sets of rules when it comes to publicly disclosing the truth and criticizing leaders or their decisions: (1) the rules that apply to the political and business worlds; and (2) the rules that apply to the Church. According to Elder Oaks, it is essential for Church members to be aware of, and abide by, these two different sets of rules. As you read these excerpts, I invite to you pay particular attention to the following ideas that Elder Oaks shares:
(1) “’[T]he fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it. . . . The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.’ . . . The critical consideration is how we use the truth. . . . A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it. Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .”
(2) “The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. . . However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. . . . When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season.”
(3) “Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. . . . A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause.”
(4) You’ll want to pay particular attention to the latter part of Elder Oaks’ article where he presents five suggestions for how to appropriately deal with situations where we find ourselves disagreeing with Church leaders.
And now, without further ado, excerpts of Elder Oaks’ Ensign article on Criticism:
I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.
I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) . . . Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.
My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.
Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. . . . The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize. . . .
Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that “the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.” A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as “contempt for the truth.” (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is “a time to speak,” and there is also “a time to keep silence.” (Eccl. 3:7.)
The counsel to mute our criticism is like the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Saints to abstain from eating meat offered as sacrifices to idols. In truth, he taught, the idol was nothing. But since some of the members were weak and might misunderstand, those who knew the truth needed to “take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” (1 Cor. 8:9.) A Protestant theologian, Krister Stendahl, concludes: “The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.” (See Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, p. 61.)
The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.
Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .
The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. . . . In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)
However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command. When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” (Eccl. 3:7.)
The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.
Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.) . . .
“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. . . .
Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. . . .
A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. . . .
So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?
There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.
Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.
The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.
Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.
There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.
The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:
“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.) . . .
A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.
The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)
This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.
A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:
“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)
Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister. . . .
There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error. . . .
All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek. . . .
Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them? . . .
Just as our Church leaders’ source of authority is different from that of government and corporate leaders, so are the procedures for correcting Church leaders different from those used to correct leaders chosen by popular election. But the differences are appropriate to the way in which our Church leaders are called and released. By following approved procedures, we can keep from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord.
This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)
Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.
. . . It is easy to preach freedom or truth. Praise for those subjects is usually safe and always popular. It is infinitely more difficult to preach how men and women should use freedom or truth. The preacher of that message may command respect, but he or she will not win popularity.
I conclude with a message of hope. When Isaiah condemned the critics of his day, he concluded with a prophecy. He said that in time the children of God would sanctify his name and “fear the God of Israel.” Continuing, he declared, “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.” (Isa. 29:23–24.) In that spirit I pray for the day when all of us will know God and keep his commandments. In that day, as Isaiah foretold, the “king shall reign in righteousness,” and “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.” (Isa. 32:1, 17.)
Loading ...
Elder Oaks has such a keen intellect and command of spiritual insight on how to use intellect. Thanks for finding and sharing with all.
For some reason this gives me the same taste in my mouth that I had when I read “The Rules” for men, some of which are:
1. The female always makes the rules.
2. No male can possibly know all of the rules.
3. If the female suspects that the male knows all the rules, she must immediately change some or all of the rules.
4. The female may change her mind, at any time, for any reason.
5. The male may never change his mind without prior written consent of the female.
6. The female has every right to be angry or upset at any time, for no apparent reason, and must not give any explanation to the male.
7. The male must remain calm at all times, unless the female wants him to be angry or upset.
8. The female must, under no circumstances, let the male know whether she wants him to be angry or upset.
9. The male is expected to read a woman’s mind at all times.
10. Never answer unanswerable questions, such as “Honey, do you think I’m getting fat?”
11. If you choose to ignore Rule 11, never use the word “Fine” to answer a question such as “Honey, how do I look?”
12. What’s yours is hers, and what’s hers is hers.
13. When she asks for your advice, she really doesn’t intend for you to give it.
14. Never tell your wife how to drive, or attempt to show her how to golf.
15. Always end an argument with the following four magical words: “Honey, you were right.”
16. If she’s watching her favorite TV show, she shall not be disturbed. If you are watching yours, she may disturb you at any time, even during the Super Bowl.
17. It is O.K. for you to meet your wife’s old boyfriends, but under no circumstances is it O.K. for her to meet your old girlfriends.
18. If she starts the argument, you lose. If you start the argument, you lose.
19. No matter how late you are, never tell a woman to hurry up. When the woman is ready to go, however, have the car started.
20. Not only is the female always right, the female’s mother is always right. Therefore, never, under any circumstances, criticize the female’s mother.
These rules are funny because they point up the frustrations we often encounter in our interactions with each other, but they play on stereotypes and discourage open and honest communication between the sexes. Elder Oaks’ suggestions do the same. Although I don’t believe in being unkind or overly critical, I think his “rules” have the effect of silencing vital voices in the Church, especially those of the already-marginalized. They cut off a member’s options if there is a disagreement with someone above them in the hierarchical order. They discourage accountability by those who are in charge.
I think it is sad to see such an emphasis on unity when it marginalizes the beauty of diversity and forces those with differing opinions than their Church leaders to “march to the sound of the guns.” (as he suggested in his recent address.)
Funnily enough I had read this before, but it was a good refresh. I find that I often do not give criticism when others might like me to. Interestingly enough I had a conversation with a Church leader the other day where I expressed some concerns and he actually send he would discuss them with a higher authority. I was once told that phrasing concerns as a question rather than a statement is a good way of dealing with this. I am reminded of Eugene England in an essay entitled ‘The Mormon Cross’ describing a meeting he had with Joseph Fielding Smith over the Priesthood ban and he asked do I need to believe this doctrine to be a member in good standing, they had an interesting discussion (see ‘dialogues with myself’ to read about it).
Reminds me a lot of the Rotary sayings.
THE 4-WAY TEST
Of the things we think, say or do:
1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER
FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
I don’t recall anyone being hostile to Rotary over their four-way test.
Given the volume and the nature of the general criticisms that often percolate about, I would have to say that what he is saying makes a lot of sense.
Years ago I was the YW president in a small mid-western ward. The Bishop was a man known to have a history of sexist comments regarding the roles of women. I found myself very frustrated with him because I would e-mail ( his preferred choice of communication) with the day-to day concerns of my position and he would ignore me or make flippant, unhelpful comments. For instance, I wrote him asking for more help in YW because we were way understaffed. His response was, “Unfortunately, there is a dirth of normal, non-medicated people able to serve in the ward at this time.” While I appreciated his perspective on the challenges of finding quality people, his response did nothing to help me in my problem of being understaffed.
After a few months of being chronically frustrated, I decided to follow the #3 suggestion above and met with him at his home, in his living room. He had no idea why I requested a meeting and was as unconcerned as usual. As I explained how his leadership was effecting me he sat silently. When I was finished, his comment was, “Well, now that I know how you operate, I will try to do things differently.” I was confused and asked what he meant. He said, “How you just say straight out what you think without putting it in nice terms. Now I know with you to not mess around.”
I didn’t know if I should be offended or not, if he thought that was a good or bad thing. I didn’t ask for more clarification. I thought I was being polite and very nice. Within 6 weeks I was released. What I learned from the experience was that I can stand up for what I think I need. What happens after that is out of my control.
I never discussed my feelings about him with my councilors or anyone else ( O.K. I did pillow talk with my husband, who thought it would do no good to talk to the bishop and I should just suffer in silence.)
I just did what I could, and released the rest to God. It was His ward, His gospel. He could handle it how He wanted.
P.S. Within a year, the Bishop experienced serious rebellion from his wife and teenage daughter who finally got tired of being unheard. The poor guy was days away from ending up divorced before he saw the light and began changing his heart. In the end, it all worked out.
I certainly understand Elder Oaks’ comments and the Church’s need to emphasize unity over truth (in the few instances where they may conflict). Also, I see a pattern where God generally answers prayers when a specific question is posed. If JS didn’t pray in the Sacred Grove, would God have appeared to him? In more modern times, would the Church leaders have petitioned God on blacks and the priesthood if there wasn’t so much outside “criticism” from both within and without the Church? And without petitioning God, might we have all continued on our merry way for more years?
I don’t know much of a way around it, but it seems that there are a great many things in the gospel that are up for personal interpretation (ie. much of Mormon Doctrine, etc.). It is therefore a given that each individual leader and member of the Church is going to have their own personal opinion on things. Given this policy, a necessary implication is that the “official” interpretation is that of the currently highest ranking leader. This is going to change over time as leadership dies out.
And a final comment – if we are essentially counseled to not say anything but just accept things from higher in the priesthood hierarchy as the way things are to be, doesn’t this in effect marginalize the input of over 50% of the membership of the church (ie. women)?
BIV,
…I think his “rules” have the effect of silencing vital voices in the Church, especially those of the already-marginalized. They cut off a member’s options if there is a disagreement with someone above them in the hierarchical order. They discourage accountability by those who are in charge.
I suspect that’s kind of the point.
Part of the reason for the values of democratic discourse in the world outside of the church is that it can help to level the playing field of power relationships. In a world where discourse may flow freely and the power to persuade is greater than the power of position, those who lack the power of position have the opportunity (in theory) to stand on equal footing with those who have such power. In this way, those who are abused by the power of position or those whose perspectives are not held by those who have the power of position may exert their own kind of power.
For Oaks, it seems that he excludes democratic, persuasive power from those who are in the church. There is some irony to this given his recent speech emphasizing religious freedom and the importance of expressing religious beliefs in the public square, but making a strong case against religious freedom within the church.
In a way, this article may be read as good advice about how to handle interpersonal problems, in which case I fully agree. At the same time, this article also seems to blunt other kinds of criticisms of church leaders that extend beyond personal differences, and instead deal with questions of justice, fairness, politics, or doctrinal interpretation. Inasmuch as Oaks vicerates the possibility for public criticism of public stances other than disagreeing with them in a letter or private meeting (while most letters sent to GA’s are just sent back to Stake Presidents, as I understand it), he preserves the imbalance of power between men and women, and excludes all but 15 voices for engaging what Mormonism is. I think that for dealing with the kinds of top-level, public stances of the church, there needs to be a different mode of engagement than the one offered here which is only valid for personal disagreements with local leadership.
I have an opinion, but its always best to just use their own words :
————————————————————-
“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators’ of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostacy. One cannot speak evil of the lord’s annointed… and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking.”
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”
Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)
“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”
LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78
“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862.
“When the Prophet speaks the debate is over”.
N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”
President Wilford Woodruff (considered scripture as it is canonized at the end of the D&C)
I would agree with Kuri, it is very much the point. By virtue of a “calling”, I am to entreat my neighbor as a father. I am a big believer in choosing battles wisely, and would agree that sometimes not being truthful about everything (honey, how do I look?) is reasonable. However, I think most people understand that. What this talk did was demonstrate the wall of defense that must be penetrated if a member wants to tackle a leader. Key word is “submit”.
For those who have commented that the effect of these rules is to silence disagreement with Church leaders, am I correct in assuming you feel that expressing disagreements in private, E. Oaks’ third suggestion, is insufficient freedom of speech within the Church? It seems to me he’s saying we are free to speak our minds, but that we should just do so in private. I interpret this as meaning we are fully within our rights to send letters to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, or meet privately with our Stake Presidents and Bishops, if we have a concern or disagreement.
One of the previous commenters told a story about privately meeting with her Bishop. I’m curious to hear whether there are other readers who have had experiences expressing their disagreements privately to Church leaders, whether it be the Prophet or a YM President, and whether the matter was resolved to their satisfaction.
Just thinking out loud here, I wonder if the perception that there’s insufficient freedom of speech within the Church is due to the fact that we haven’t yet taken E. Oaks’ suggestion seriously enough that if we disagree, we can speak up about it to Church leaders, with the one request that it be done privately. I see that almost as an invitation for tens of thousands of members to write him and other Church leaders private letters expressing disagreement. I’ve known many people who have disagreed with this or that decision by Church leaders, but I can count on one hand and not use all five fingers the number of people I know who have written private letters to inform Church leaders about their disagreement.
Maybe its time to take E. Oaks’ suggestion to speak privately to Church leaders (through letters or other means) seriously and witness the result?
In secular terms, anyone who rises to levels of celebrity and/or power in society are there because of their own ambition. I can see where the criticism of these individuals, at its foundation, should be far different from the way we criticize whose who rise to levels of leadership due to divinely-inspired callings.
I suspect that the reason some people believe that Elder Oaks’ “rules” don’t work is that they’ve never really tried them nor even attempted to accept these rules anyway.
I agree that this post doesn’t address “How to Provide Critical Feedback to The Top Church Leaders Without Getting Excommunicated.” But if someone feels the need to publicly criticize the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve then, to me, the need to avoid excommunication seems, well, pointless.
“Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause.” This statement reminded me of the situation when BRM published “Mormon Doctrine” without authorization and with over 1000 doctrinal errors included, several of which caused (and still cause) serious ill-will toward Roman Catholics, blacks, etc. The church leaders did follow this counsel. They did not chastise BRM publicly. They requested he not republish. They admonished him. Their public silence fueled support for this book, which caused many to consider it an accurate reflection of our doctrines. Is that really the Lord’s cause? I struggle to see that it is.
Unless you are addressing a major/verifiable transgression, any communications sent to General Authorities are almost always (according to their instructions) sent back to the local leaders. The general idea is that it usually will hit you back in the face. I would imagine if you were laying a worthiness charge, they would send the issue to the local authority responsible for addressing the matter. I’m not sure that this was an invitation from Elder Oaks to send him mail. This leaves little room for disagreement. If you disagree with the Bishop for example, you can make an appointment, go to his office and sit accross from his desk while you explain your disagreement. If he is reasonable he will generally take most concerns fairly serious, and see if he actually does need to correct something. Sometimes the concerns will be ridiculous, I understand this, in which case he can lay a heavy hand or try and get other support – one of the easiest ways to test whether an complaint is reasonable, is to get a third party opinion. An unreasonable Bishop, will interpret the occasion not as a private discussion between reasonable Ward members, but rather as an “oppurtunity” to counsel the member. Under that approach the member has no other form of recourse other than seeking out a higher authority, but again unless you have a serious worthiness issue, that is almost always frowned upon.
“In our system of Church government, *evil speaking and criticism* of leaders by members is always negative.” (Emphasis added.)
Interesting that Elder Oaks differentiated “evil speaking and criticism.” Some Latter-day Saints consider all criticism of Church leaders to be “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed,” a violation of covenants. Elder Oaks distinguishes between the two. Although he also condemns criticism (even if true), it does not appear that he raises it to the level of a covenant violation.
Andrew:
“E. Oaks’ third suggestion, is insufficient freedom of speech within the Church? It seems to me he’s saying we are free to speak our minds, but that we should just do so in private. I interpret this as meaning we are fully within our rights to send letters to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, or meet privately with our Stake Presidents and Bishops, if we have a concern or disagreement.”
The question that remains is what does it mean to speak in private and what does it mean to speak in public? We must also ask about which church leader we are talking about. Oaks seems to offer space for criticism on a one-on-one level with local church leaders. This path, however, is simply not open for disagreement with, say, Elder Oaks since a) I can’t get a meeting with him and b) he likely won’t read or respond to my letter to allow for an open dialogue. The result is that there is simply no opportunity to allow one’s voice to be heard by the upper-levels of church leadership unless one considers writing a letter that no one will read to be a sufficient level of open speaking. For this reason, I suggest that there should be some other standard for engaging with the official spokesmen of the church other than “private” speech.
So, according to Elder Oaks’ speech, if we agree with and support what he said, we can post supportive comments on here. If we disagree, we shouldn’t really be posting anything. The net result is that it will appear that everyone on this blog supports these comments.
TT, I agree it would be difficult to get a meeting with Elder Oaks, however, I’m not sure about the assumption that he likely won’t read or respond to a thoughtful, respectful letter that voices honest concerns. John Dehlin sent Elder Oaks a letter regarding concerns he had about missionary practices in his mission, and Elder Oaks personally responded. I read elsewhere on the Internet about a disaffected Church member writing a letter to Elder Holland, and he responded.
I’ve never written a letter seeking a response from a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. I have, however, written a letter to my Stake President expressing my serious concerns when a Seventy instructed our Stake to discontinue a certain program, requesting that he forward that letter to the Seventy member. I expressed my honest disagreement in very frank but respectful terms. I was later informed by my Stake President that the Seventy member wanted to thank me for expressing my concerns, and that he was forwarding the matter to the Q12 for their consideration. A week later, the Seventy member asked us to resume the program and again asked the Stake President to thank me for sharing my concerns.
Granted, this sort of issue may be different from, say, a letter urging the Brethren to accept same-sex marriage. However, I must admit I was surprised and thankful about how responsive the “higher ups” were to concerns being expressed by an average member holding no position of real power in the Church.
In the law, there’s a doctrine that you must exhaust all your administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, the idea being that you shouldn’t create a conflict in court before you’ve sought to resolve it through other available, less dramatic means. Similarly, I wonder whether those who feel public criticism is necessary because the Brethren are unreachable and uninterested in members’ concerns have first exhausted their available remedies (e.g., writing a thoughtful letter or seeking a meeting) before reaching those conclusions.
In saying that, I’m by no means pretending I’ve never failed to follow this counsel myself. I’m just saying that I’m feeling that perhaps I ought to take up Elder Oaks’ suggestion:
“The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. . . . This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication.”
I do see that as an invitation to write him and other Church leaders a letter if we feel compelled to voice our concerns. Many desire change in the Church but it seems very, very, very few people avail themselves of this Apostolically-approved avenue to seek that change. And I have a hard time believing that the Brethren would fail to take responsive action on an issue if, say, tens of thousands of thoughtful letters from faithful Church members were to begin pouring into Church headquarters.
What’s that strange taste in my mouth? Probably a bit of bile that sprang up as I read through Oaks’ discourse on criticism. For me, the biggest irony is this: if we are to believe that God _willed_ the United States into being with _inspired_ documents based on _christian_ principles (as Oaks argues so vehemently for in his most recent address to BYU-I), was God doing this all so He could organize His One True Church in the United States (which guarantees religious freedom) even as the religious organization God organizes seeks to supress the expression of speech within its own organization if that speech doesn’t immediately edify? Why would God foster one power system based on personal liberty, only to officially sponsor another power structure that places extreme limitations on that same natural right, perhaps even more limiting than the religious or political structures that existed previous to it?
Oaks really frustrates me lately, particularly because I’m beginning to get the feeling that he knows full well what he’s arguing, and that while he speaks of personal freedoms of religious conviction, his positions inevitably seek to destroy those freedoms in individuals who don’t see eye-to-eye with him or the Church. I suppose one could respond: well, the Church has always been a voluntary-membership organization; if you don’t like it, just leave. To all who would be inclined to think that way, I say that we both know its not that simple. But one thing is for certain in the Chuch: if you have anything to criticize or suggest, just keep it to yourself because God doesn’t care–you aren’t in charge.
Re: 13 Hawkgrrrl
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Here’s what I think. I think it was a great talk, great advice for helping move the church forward in the Lord’s way. Especially great for those of us who want a voice.
Having said this, I think I fall into this crowd:
I’m afraid I must be too prideful, not charitable enough, and value truth, and freedom too much. I guess I’m not an improver because I just don’t have any interest in following these suggestions. I am content to let the church be as it is. Either I get benefit, or I don’t. Currently, I do, so I use it as my flashlight.
I think what really strikes me here is the departure from collective human wisdom. I’m not bothered by E Oaks talk, or suggestions for improving in the type of church environment he has described. I’m bothered by the environment and the claim that it is the Lord’s way. Throughout history, mankind has learned that a process of transparency, openness, and democracy is a useful mechanism for maintaining common decency, exposing fraud, preventing abuse, etc. etc. Authoritarian mechanisms, OTOH, provide a rich environment for deception, abuse, and basically limiting God given rights. History demonstrates this over and over again. Basically, I feel like the “Lord’s way” thumbs its nose at collective human wisdom. This I simply cannot believe.
Nevertheless, AA, thank you pointing this out for us. In my own sphere of church involvement I will take this advice to heart.
Andrew,
I suppose that there are instances like church programs or episodes of problematic actions where church leaders do in fact take interest in the letters and respond. I have not suggested that this particular course of action is the best one for certain kinds of disagreements. I too have written letters on a very few occasions to local leaders and have had a positive experience with it.
I am suggesting, however, that there are issues where letters are insufficient or inadequate to influence leadership. I am not sure what other means might be appropriate, and I think that we should have a discussion about that.
Is scholarship, for instance, an appropriate mode of engagement? For instance, Lester Bush’s article on Blacks and the priesthood is widely considered to have been very influential in bringing this issue to a head. There are other examples, such as scholarship on women and the priesthood, which did not go over as well. Perhaps some battles are bound to be lost. In any case, I am not convinced that the only recourse that members of the church should have to redress their concerns is letter-writing. I still think that there needs to be some space for publicly addressing public statements of policy, practice, doctrine, or other teachings.
**edit: I have suggested that this particular course of action…
I read a talk from Elder Oaks several years ago where he was defending the actions of Joseph Smith & co, who took to shutting down the Nauvoo expositor. Apparently during the period of his life spent in Chicago, he did substantial research into the events, again the Nauvoo Expositor, which led to the martyrdom, from a legal/historical perspective. His argument seemed to be that Joseph was not acting without precedent, though he concedes that some of those of militia got carried away in their efforts to shut down the paper, by destroying the printing press. He suggests that was beyond the scope of the orders either stated or implied from Joseph Smith. He suggests that apparently, there were other cases contemporary to this event, where a form of print media was temporarily shut down in order to supress a mob based public uprising. He went on through his talk to just say that Joseph was doing the same thing by requesting a temporary halt be placed on a “libelous” news paper. I read this talk in the school library several weeks after I returned home from my mission, and recalled other accounts where I had heard the Nauvoo Expositor referred to as “libel”. Having about ninety minutes before my next class I did an internet search on The Nauvoo Expositor to find out what exactly the false charges were (and in my mind at the time they were just that, absurd charges inspired by our old friend Satan). At the time I had one those “shelves” that are sometimes mentioned here on MM, where people place their questions and insecurities to store until God can make sense out of things that don’t make sense. I shelved the Nauvoo Expositor that day because what I found just didn’t make sense. I downloaded a copy of the Nauvoo Expositor, and read the whole thing. Most of it read like a standard Christian periodical that one could expect from the time period, short stories with Christian themes, etc. When it did talk about the Church and Joseph Smith, it accused him of practicing polygamy, including what Brother Law felt was the tragedy of the unsuspecting convert who was brought from afar, only to be alienated into a secret practice. When I read this I kind of had a “no duh” type of attitude, because what I really didn’t know at the time was that polygamy in this period was not a public practice, with even most members of the Church. In other words, this was a secret kept from even most of the Church. What I couldn’t see was “libel”. Unfortunately, I got a few tips online from a biased anti-mormon article on this subject which made another connection that my ignorant mind would have been much harder pressed to find, but not only did the Nauvoo Expositor “expose” the founder of a religions unique practices, but also a Mayor, and a U.S. Presidential candidate. I had a hard time getting my mind wrapped around the idea that this was ethical, given that 1) Joseph, as we now know, was in fact practicing Polygamy, 2) The order to shut down the press, violated the very premise of Free Speach, ie, the freedom to speak out against ones Government including leaders or would-be leaders in that government.
Long story short, I have had a hard time taking anything that Oaks says very seriously since that time. I would not question the mans intelligence, but I’m not so sure about his motives. It is very curious to me understand how a trained Lawyer and legal educator can charge the paper with “libel” when Joseph Smith was clearly practicing polygamy. I have got to assume that he either out and out lying, or he is arguing from a strictly hyper-technical point of view. In either case I see it as very disingenuous.
Re: Cowboy
I have read that talk too. Only rather than take the step you did, I just accepted E Oaks word for it. Good for you for finding out for yourself. I will need to look into the matter more carefully.
In the spirit of this post, Cowboy, you ought to write a letter to E Oaks about this and ask for clarification. I have a lot of respect for E Oaks so maybe there is some reasonable explanation for this discrepancy! It would be interested to find out. Test the method he is advocating here.
Cowboy, can you provide a link to that Nauvoo Expositor issue? I’d like to examine it for libel as well. One of the “per se” forms of libel is lying about someone’s sexual practices. So I’ll be very interested to see exactly how the Expositor approached that subject. It does present an interesting situation: if the Expositor said he was practicing polygamy, then in order for that to be libelous, it would have to be untrue, but as far as I know, the Church does not claim it is untrue that Joseph was practicing polygamy at that time. Of course, there are ways to be libelous in your characterization of certain details about the practice of polygamy (e.g., the allegation that a woman was lured from overseas, etc.) It could be one of those situations where half-truths are present: the truth is that polygamy is being practiced; the untruth is that rumors are being spread about the manner in which it is being practiced. In that situation, the reporting about polygamy would not be libelous, but any untrue stories about the manner in which it was being practiced would be libelous.
Anyway, I’d love to get an opportunity to read the Expositor for myself to evaluate the libel argument. Thanks.
I guess I wonder what is so difficult about heeding the counsel to air your differences in private. I wonder whose Church service or personal actions could stand the scrutiny of having it revealed in public?
Elder Oaks does not limit our ability to question practices of the local leadership or even the General leadership, just a polite manner in which to do it, first looking at ourselves.
As far as councils of the church, I have found that the floor is open to discuss likes and dislikes, opinions of programs and ways to improve certain aspects of church procedure and life. It’s all in the way it is presented, most of the time. sometimes suggestions are taken, sometimes not.
It seems as some need to get over themselves and their important opinions on everything.
Here is a photocopy of the issue of the Expositor for those who wish to see it – http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm
Oops, I spoke too soon, its a transcription of a photocopy.
Andrew Ainsworth:
I just reskimmed through the article from Don’s weblink. As the article goes, the author attempts to poetically lament the sorry condition of (some) single convert women who forsake family and privilege for the Mormon cause, by taking pilgrimage to the saints. Then are then coerced to some clandestine location under the guise of a forthcoming “blessing”, only to be introduced to polygamy in a shotgun wedding fashion, where they are given little time for consideration, but are rather placed under duress in order to concede. I had considered that this may be the “hypertechnical” case of libel, but ultimately I discount it.
My reasoning is that Though I can’t think of a single sister who would have fallen into this criteria among the generally accepted thirty three wives of JS, I am persuaded by the secrecy of polygamy. To digress, it should be noted that according to History of The Church (I don’t know the reference off the top of my head, but I can find it if necessary) Joseph Smith publicly tried to disgrace William Law by denying polygamy, through ridicule, at a time when Law’s claims were gaining traction. To paraphrase, “what a thing it is for Brother Law to accuse me of having multiple wives, when I can find only one”. That is as near a direct quote I can come up with from memory, but it is nearly correct in text, and entirely correct on point. Joseph Smith directly lying to the saints. While I can at least give Elder Oaks some benefit of the doubt, Joseph Smith was lying to the saints about a very serious matter, that frankly smacks of the Monica Lewinski scandal, or vice versa. This is relevant because it should be remembered that polygamy was a clandestine practice, one of which I think we can safely say the full scope of which has not been uncovered. It is possible to speculate that based on what we know, there is not a specific sister known to have been married to JS who satisfies that criteria. At the same time, we do know that JS was practicing polygamy, and concealing that fact through deceit from the larger body of the saints and public at large. We also know that William Law exposed that fact by virtue of his close association with JS as a leader in the Church, and that so far his testimony on polygamy is more credible than Joseph Smiths. The best that can be said is, we don’t know who William Law was referencing or that it even happened, but not that it is libel.
Elder Oaks’ background as a judge may be useful in evaluating his advice. Most judges I have seen and dealt with do not broker much dissent within their courts. In fact, they have the power to jail people who do cause a stir.
I have honestly yet to see any leader — political, spiritual, business or otherwise — express a desire to have public criticism directed their way. Public criticism is hard to take. It can be harsh, embarrassing and cruel. I don’t blame any leader for not wanting to be a target of it. That said, most seem to realize that it’s a very necessary tool in leadership, or at the very least, they lack the stones to say otherwise out loud.
I don’t fault Elder Oaks for his views here. I just wonder if he truly believes that prayer and private letters are sufficient tools in every case. Again, his experience as a judge should tell him otherwise. Did he tell supplicants in his court cases to go back, pray and speak to each other privately to resolve their issues? Doubtful. The Church itself does not follow this advice. When seeking redress for the Missouri expulsion, Joseph Smith did not keep his disagreements with his state and national leaders private.
I realize that Elder Oaks’ gives himself an out here, specifying a difference between churches and governments. I don’t agree with it. Public criticism is sometimes the ONLY way to get the attention of a large organization and force a necessary change. And the LDS Church is a large organization. It is not a bad or evil one — quite the opposite. But even large organizations with the best of intentions can fail their people if there is no mechanism for resolving differences. Leaving out a “public option” — to steal a phrase — leaves a valuable tool out of this process.
Thanks for the well-done post, Andrew.
Re: 30
I think we are on the same page, so I’m not saying this critically, just wanted to point something out.
This is exactly the point. The worry and fear of public exposure is what provides an incentive to be honest, and upright. E Oaks certainly can do nothing to stop public exposure in a larger sense because of where we live. But you’re right that not having such an option removes this incentive.
In this vein, and to those who claim we should just get over ourselves, we might ask ourselves some questions. What is the incentive for someone to NOT be abusive? What guards against a corrupt heirarchy? What prevents the stake presidency from manipulating people unrighteously? What prevents the misuse of fast offering funds? Are there mechanisms in place for this beyond a small group of people? Is that small group of people sufficient to prevent corruption? Do we just rely on God’s retribution? It seems like we might answer some of these questions by looking to the Catholic church and their history.
I certainly am in the camp of trying to resolve things privately as I feel this is a decent, courteous thing to do. On this point I am agreed with E Oaks and have no problem heeding his counsel. But as I said in #20, the whole environment lacks many of the great mechanisms that mankind has come up to prevent problems in large organizations. I have a hard time simply believing that this way (God’s way) is better when it is fraught with so many of these common problems.
“Truth surely exists as an absolute, but…disciplined by other values” “There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders” Elder Oaks
I remember reading his talk back in 87 and thinking what a refreshingly new intellect Elder Oaks was. Now reading this again 20 years I’d say that he still rocks!
It always amuses me that we are admonished against sending communications about personal matters to the members of the First Presidency, but members of the First Presidency then use letters they receive about personal matters to provide illustrations of points (usually effectively) in general conference.
It’s kind of like the letter asking that members not use visual aids during sacrament meeting talks, then you have President Eyring holding up various containers of consecrated oil during his Priesthood address. Well, I guess General Conference and General Priesthood meetings are not sacrament meetings.
It was interesting to read of AA’s positive experience with sending a letter of concern by way of the SP to the 70. I heard of a situation where a Bishop was angered and spoke critically of a certain type of missionary program that was being promoted by the Stake Presidency. Those who were close to him shrugged if off as another manifestation of his “Irish temper”. Months later, word came from the stake that the particular program was being “de-emphasized.” I think the bone of contention that he had with the program was recognized, but it took long enough that I doubt it was in response to that Bishop.
I think it can be difficult for “Joe Member” to help “Priesthood Leader X” to see that their criticism is constructive and sincere rather than condemning and born of unfaithful conviction. Priesthood Leader X has studied it out with the information available and prayed to know that it is right. If Joe Member presents new/unconsidered information after a positive conviction has been received, then Priesthood Leader X has to step back and consider that the positive conviction they received is possibly not relevant. Of course, pride doesn’t factor in here…choke/clear throat.
Perhaps, AA, you can outline the way you did this that helped the 70 perceive your letter as loving concern rather than a personal attack.
I frankly don’t think there was anything wrong with Paul’s approach to criticizing Peter in Galatians ch. 2. Hoo-boy. He didn’t pull any punches there. He “withstood [Peter] to the face, for he was to be blamed,” and then went on to air the dirty laundry in Scripture: Peter was “dissembling,” and “walked not uprightly,” out of unworthy “fear of the circumcision.”
Can you imagine Elder Uchtdorf giving President Monson a similar public dressing down?
Why not? Why was it acceptable for Paul to rip Peter up and down in public, but not even courteously-expressed criticism of a Church leader is now acceptable? What has changed?
# 32: “There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders”
1. Silence (overlook the difference)
2. Silence (reserve judgment/postpone action)
3. Private meeting or indirect communication
4. Privately communicate with the next person up in the hierarchy
5. Silence (pray about it)
There is great potential for abuse in this system. Regarding number three: If an individual disagrees with a priesthood leader and they both feel strongly that they are right, if this is done privately between the two of them I see little or no incentive for the PH leader to change his mind. Regarding number four: I have seen by observation and experience that when the matter is carried up the chain it is referred right back down. The rationale for this is that the PH leader has stewardship and that the leader over him is loath to override that stewardship. (Surprising how this doesn’t often work for Primary presidents’ stewardship, though!)
35, BiV, “The rationale for this is that the PH leader has stewardship and that the leader over him is loath to override that stewardship.”
Funny, it works the same way in the corporate world.
at least in the military you can talk to the inspector general or get ahold of your congressman.
#34
“Why not? Why was it acceptable for Paul to rip Peter up and down in public, but not even courteously-expressed criticism of a Church leader is now acceptable? What has changed?”
I expect it was the case back then that Peter was wrong and Paul was right and whoever was writing it all down was taking Paul’s side. As for nowadays I remember hearing a story from my mission president about his contradicting a member of the 12 on something or another. Later he apologized for speaking out and was told by the apostle that a man that wouldn’t stand up for his opinion wasn’t worth a damn. Decisions are made now by consensus, I’m told, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some give and take in the matter. Elder Perry alluded to that in his Brigham City stake conference talk a few years ago. Criticism is always weighed by the spirit of the person giving and if he can convince the person hearing that it’s out of love and concern. If it can’t be given in that way, it’s not really criticism and the end result shouldn’t be a surprise.
I have a few thoughts. First is that I imagine our local and general authorities see many many examples of petty criticisms, complaints, and disagreements as well as general nuttiness that disappoint their best hopes for how we as church members will treat one another; and that these are truly best handled in personal way. Its not hard to imagine that this makes up the bulk of the criticism that is leveled at church leaders. Nonetheless, there are some troubling aspects to Oaks’ remarks and BIV has pointed out just one of them. I think the main thing is that since Oaks speaks in such broad generalities he gives the impression that he sees opposing views as inherently threatening to the institutional power structure; and that he actually believes that there is no situation in which public discussion is necessary. For example, if one has evidence that a local church leader or member is abusing children, it’s a legal and ethical necessity to immediately contact law enforcement and notify parents of children who are in contact with the individual in question. This is not the same as making an accusation in a news paper or on a blog etc. but notifying the community of such a threat is necessary and public.
Further, there are situations such as Prop. 8 where a public stance was made on a specific issue. I admit that I thought a lot about Oaks’ statements regarding criticism over the past year and they did inform how I framed my public discourse on the issue, I have to say the results were indeed positive. That being said I think if the Church takes a public stance on a political or legal or social issues than such positions should be subject to public critical analysis by church members. After all our leaders are speaking for us, they speak in our names when they make such public pronouncements. So I guess I may have some tension with Oaks on that level, I think if any institution speaks for and in the name of its members, those who do not agree must be allowed to express their views to the contrary in very public ways, and this may need to include some thoughtful criticism.
I need to be clear that I am not for mud slinging, name calling, back biting or anything of the sort. When I think of criticism I’m thinking of something that is rigorous, that is spiritually and intellectually grounded and has honest intent to thoughtfully communicate a different view, or point out the problems with the public pronouncements of the church.
I think that Andrew’s point is that some of us never consider option #3, viewing that it will never work. I must say that I am one of these people who believe that private communications don’t matter. However, I have tried hard to improve my communications (though I’m not always successful.) I decided to give option #3 a test to see if it would do any good a few months ago. I was quite surprised at the positive result. I think we can influence our leaders more than we think.
I do think that public pressure can influence certain, intractable positions the church holds (such as TT mentions in 22), but I also think that sometimes private communication can influence positive change. I wouldn’t have believed it until it worked for me.
I also view that what happened to Living in Zion (comment 5), while irritating, can be viewed as a positive change too. She no longer had to deal with the frustration of a sarcastic bishop. I had a similar experience with a Stake Mission President who cared more about my lack of attendance to a 7 AM meeting than that I was spending more time than any other WML in the stake. I felt like I was doing more good than all the others in the meeting, and it was not recognized. I asked for a release and it was granted. While it was an irritating experience to me, I do feel like my stress level was released, and it was better for me to be released than continue to serve with a bad attitude.
I’m curious to hear whether there are other readers who have had experiences expressing their disagreements privately to Church leaders, whether it be the Prophet or a YM President, and whether the matter was resolved to their satisfaction.
I have approached leaders on several occasions, and have found this to be a legitimate and useful method.
he likely won’t read or respond to my letter to allow for an open dialogue. The result is that there is simply no opportunity to allow one’s voice to be heard by the upper-levels of church leadership
I think examples have been given, and I have been aware of similar situations, where people can send letters up the levels via local leaders.
As to BiV’s thoughts on abuse, I think it’s important not to dismiss what Elder Oaks is saying because it may not always work. Just because people abuse a system doesn’t mean the system is the problem.
IMO, there is another layer here to what is happening, and that is that leaders are accountable to God and will be held accountable for what they do. The justice system in God’s realms is much slower than what might be handled with a letter or other more immediate response (or release of tension, such as a blog rant), but it’s still not insignificant to remember, imo. God DOES hear the cries of those who are hurt by the abuses of others; the scriptures show multiple examples of this. I think some of what makes the Lord’s system different is that sometimes, it requires us to lean hard on and trust in God. IMO, that’s not just passive silence, but active faith.
One last thought is that I think some of what we experience with not being able to just have audience with the brethren at will is part and parcel of living when we do. We also aren’t in need of the same level of revelation that the Church needed early on, either. We aren’t in a time when multiple sections of scripture are being recorded, or when fundamental elements of the gospel are still being revealed. I think sometimes there is a false notion that things are up for grabs and feedback and influence more than perhaps they are, at least at the doctrinal level. As a policy/practical level, I think we’d be much better off focusing on making our local units the best they can be. I think good changes can come from simply magnifying our callings and putting our hearts into our spheres of influence locally. I honestly think that too much concern over general-level issues over which we don’t have a stewardship is more a distraction and energy drain than anything else.
I do think that public pressure can influence certain, intractable positions the church holds
I think we’d be hard-pressed to prove a causal connection, really (e.g, with blacks and the priesthood, there are always people who will say, “Well, it only happened because of the pressure” but I have yet to see tangible proof of that theory), and I would argue that attempts at ‘public pressure’ generally, if not always, do more harm than good.
I agree with Elder Oaks that criticism of leaders is always a negative.
@ Douglas Hunter (#39),
I think if the Church takes a public stance on a political or legal or social issues than such positions should be subject to public critical analysis by church members. After all our leaders are speaking for us, they speak in our names when they make such public pronouncements. So I guess I may have some tension with Oaks on that level, I think if any institution speaks for and in the name of its members, those who do not agree must be allowed to express their views to the contrary in very public ways, and this may need to include some thoughtful criticism.
Amen to that!
My thought is that the principle of “common consent” implies, at the very least, that each member is entitled to a voice on matters of concern to the Church. I think this is especially true when the Church decides to enter the public sphere.
Douglas, well said #39.
MH, I feel just the opposite. For me the frustration comes when the private route has been taken, legitimate concerns have been dismissed or ignored, and the member is left with no other option than silence.
M&M, while I believe that leaders will be held accountable for what they do, I think we are held accountable for what we do also. We can NEVER retreat into our shell thinking, “oh, well, I will just follow the leader and if he was wrong, he will be the one that will be judged for it.” I am thinking here especially about withholding of civil liberties. I realize some members’ consciences will place them where the leaders are on this right now, and some will not.
As one who has found benefit in constructive criticism, I disagree that it is always negative.
I did write something on the issue of Paul and Peter as related to the question of dissent. Given that Oaks asserts that his way is the “scriptural” way, I wonder how he would interpret this episode.
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/10/righteous-dissent/
TT,
I think the response to the Peter and Paul episode would be to say: (1) an example of two Apostles disagreeing with each other is very different from a regular Church member disagreeing with an Apostle; and (2) it’s not clear the disagreement between Paul and Peter took place in public rather than in private.
Andrew,
I highlight in that post that the church organization of apostleship is very different then from what it is now, and that Paul was essentially a very powerful missionary while Peter had a different kind of authority. Paul calls him a “pillar” of the church, though this is said somewhat ironically.
As for being public, Paul explicitly says that it is public dispute, and then he writes about the episode to another community. He is clearly attempting to use open criticism of Peter to change the minds of the Galatian audience about their appropriation of the Law.
BiV,
“MH, I feel just the opposite. For me the frustration comes when the private route has been taken, legitimate concerns have been dismissed or ignored, and the member is left with no other option than silence.”
Let’s face it, legitimacy is always in the eye of the beholder. You may think it is a legitimate concern and the other person simply does not. On the other hand, there are unreasonable people who think they are always right and will not allow any concerns legitimate or otherwise. And, there are still others who think they are always right and cannot understand why no one agrees with them.
You have to recognize those differences and in some cases, just go with the flow or withdraw.
TT, in that case, perhaps the answer would be that we don’t emphasize those scriptures anymore.
35. Bored in Vernal
Yes, there are those problems in, I guess, just about every stake. I don’t think though that your No5 ‘Silence (pray about it)’ is true. In my own experience I’ve seen how the Lord has discilined his servants at times for their f’ups.
There are other cases though where people are wronged but the leader doesn’t realize it at all. Those cases are different.
Note that matters taken up the chain need to be done properly to get anywhere. So then one needs to tell the Stake President that one doesn’t agree and wishes to ask his leader, a Seventy first, and then write the letter with copy to stake president etc. (Any letters done directly to first presidency or in secret are simply returned to the stake pres for that first step of that chain). I’ve seen this happen several times, for example briefly, a bishop disagreed about a disciplinary council result for a member -who was only put on probation for a child abuse case which is wrong via handbook- so he went up the chain to the area presidency with the SP knowledge, result was “No the answer comes to the SP so what he says goes”! Another case was a temple worker who had divorced so they had to release him as per the current rules, so he went up the chain from the temple president, which is directly to first presidency. But then a secretary to the first presidency wrote back telling him he had many chances to ‘faithfully serve as a patron’. So yes, not much happens usually and there is room for abuse at all levels -but the Lord knows that too. What He does though is his business since it is his church and not the leaders.
I think we are held accountable for what we do also. We can NEVER retreat into our shell thinking, “oh, well, I will just follow the leader and if he was wrong, he will be the one that will be judged for it.”
That’s not really what I was suggesting, though, BiV.
Here are my thoughts…. We have the opportunity to choose whether or not to follow a leader. To choose to not publicly criticize them when we disagree, imo, should not be equated with the negative concept of retreating into a shell, imo. Our accountability, in my view, does not include publicly challenging and criticizing our leaders. (A lot of what I’m concerned about, btw, is the PUBLIC criticism. I think it’s inappropriate. I’m not necessarily against having feedback, ever. To me it’s *how* it is given, and why, and where.)
In short, to me, true Christlike and constructive feedback, in my view, comes in the ways Elder Oaks has talked about. Honestly, I think too often, the concern in criticizing leaders or giving feedback is about ‘being right’ not about approaching the process in a right way. That to me is what Elder Oaks’ whole message is about. In the Lord’s kingdom, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to give feedback.
I also think it’s important to realize that just as it’s common to say, “Well, leaders are human and can make mistakes” that notion applies to anyone wanting to give them feedback or criticize them. If done in anger or frustration or without pure motives and the Spirit’s true confirmation (which, imo, is often the case), the chance for error increases significantly. The difference is that leaders have authority to act in their sphere; we don’t have authority to criticize them. Any *true* and serious violation of their authority is not, in my view, really in our stewardship to deal with anyway. Any exception to that, if there is ever one, should, imo, follow the patterns Elder Oaks talks about.
I really think that what he describes leaves plenty of room for a member to act if there is something so egregious that needs action. I think so often, though, perceived problems are really not as big of a deal as we often make of them.
I should note that I don’t say this all lightly or as though I naturally want to just sit back and say little. My personality is one that loves to give feedback. I’m verbal, opinionated, and sometimes way too quick to say things I shouldn’t. I’m an idea person, a brainstormer. I am educated and trained in organizational improvement. It was my career path before becoming a mom. I tend to think pretty critically by nature, all the more so after becoming involved in the ‘nacle. (hehe). I often actually try to see things through the lens of many people who have experienced pain because of a leader who has made a dumb or even really bad choice, or because of questions or concerns about doctrine, etc.
Add to that the fact that I want the Church to be the best it can be.
But, I STILL believe that what Elder Oaks says is wise, solid counsel. I have found great wisdom and spiritual strength, perspective, and progress in following it, in countering my *natural* tendencies and erring on the side of what he has counseled us to do.
I find that most of the time when I’m wringing my hands over something, it’s really not that big of a deal and the best course of action is to just let it go. I can’t think of anything truly that is so egregious that I have seen that has really warranted any kind of serious feedback. I know such situations sometimes creep up, but they are rare.
That said, I have been known to go to local leaders with concerns, ideas, thoughts, and questions. I have found that leaders are almost always just willing to listen, and concerned about being good leaders. True egregious situations are, in my opinion, rare enough that I think most of us really shouldn’t worry so much about it and just sort of hunker down and magnify our own callings and stewardships rather than worrying so much about how others are doing their jobs. Part of the plan is for us to make mistakes along the way, and I think sometimes we need to let more mistakes just go than hold the leaders’ feet to a superhuman fire.
And I am just downright disappointed (to put it mildly) in the level of public criticism I see of our general leaders, especially online. I think such criticism often is about frustrated people acting out of that frustration rather than inspiration, placing blame for pain fully on leaders rather than considering that perhaps they play a part in their own pain (we all usually do, so that to me is a statement about human nature, not a unique criticism of such people). Blame is usually a defense mechanism, not a freeing, truth-bound technique for dealing with pain.
I also think such criticism often puts a disproportionate focus on singled-out phrases that are often taken out of context and misrepresented. Talks are never given in a vacuum, but are often analyzed in one.
I fear it also can make it harder for people who need pure doctrine and truth — and still don’t know (or fully trust) where they can find it — to be able to to find it. We should be helping people find their own answers by going to the authorized sources of truth — scriptures, prophets and God — not opining and interpreting their teachings through the lens of criticism as though *that* is truth.
Please understand: I sympathize with pain, with the need to not feel alone, and with the need to sort through things, but I think there are better, more constructive ways to seek answers and support than to criticize, blame, or take on the leaders publicly.
Sorry for the long comment..something I have been thinking about a lot as of late, and obviously something about which I have strong feelings. Please don’t confuse those strong feelings as a lack of compassion for what pain might bring on the desire to criticize or give feedback.
BiV, I sympathize when you said, “For me the frustration comes when the private route has been taken, legitimate concerns have been dismissed or ignored, and the member is left with no other option than silence.”
I know you speak the truth. I started blogging to do some venting, and also try to effect to positive changes by speaking publicly about issues that bother me that I think should be changed. I do not believe that silence is the best course of action in all cases, and I think there are cases where public disagreement is acceptable. However, I don’t think that private conversations should be abandoned completely either. While there are people like you who have tried the private route and it has failed, I think there are also people who haven’t tried the private route for fear of failure. Sometimes the private route is helpful.
In my case with the Stake Mission President, we did have a private conversation. I honestly felt dismissed, and my significant contributions ignored. I think that Living in Zion had a similar experience with her bishop. Perhaps she wasn’t looking to get released (I wasn’t either), but if our goals weren’t properly aligned, then I don’t think I should be serving in a capacity that wasn’t appreciated. It does neither one of us any good, nor the church. Now, some may accuse me of not sustaining my leader here–perhaps I am guilty of that. But I also think he was guilty of unrighteous dominion. Certainly he did not follow “patience, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, or love unfeigned.” We’re probably both to blame, but I didn’t view my release as a bad thing–perhaps Living in Zion did. I guess we have a different perspective on things, but my release was a release from a bad situation. Following my release, I enjoyed church more in a capacity where I felt my contributions were valued, rather than dismissed.
and I think there are cases where public disagreement is acceptable.
So, I’d be curious about what you think is acceptable.
Also, re: working w/ someone who is not practicing all the principles of D&C 121 — in your view, is there never any value in being long-suffering with such a situation?
I had a situation as a leader where that was happening, actually, and my file leaders took time to make changes. There may have been things to learn from working together in spite of the fact that there was a great amount of tension and really inappropriate behavior (with the youth, no less). The fact that my file leaders took time, though, showed that they wanted to be thorough about it all. I look back and appreciate that, because the she said/she said could have ended up against me. (Not that I was a perfect leader, but the disrespect and criticism without ever talking to me personally was so damaging to the work, and a bad example to the youth.)
I have also had leaders (female is the one in mind) who pretty much dismissed what I had to say in my calling, and was clearly threatened by my ideas. The bishop upheld her, and he probably should have. I look back and I was probably out of line…even though she still pretty much just didn’t know what to do with me in general. I finally figured out that it was just best to work with her rather than take her on. Sometimes the Lord calls people in spite of weakness, and I believe it’s sometimes our test and opportunities to lean on God to help us be patient and merciful with that.
And BiV, I know that may feel like passive and useless silence to you, but I don’t see it that way. It is sometimes in those times that I have grown a great deal through the process of letting go, forgiving, looking for the good, and moving on. I think it’s important to not dismiss that option of praying as always a negative. I see turning to God for a change of heart as a positive. The end goal, imo, doesn’t always have to be about being heard, does it? My opinion is obvious; I’m interested in your thoughts.
And now I’m worried that I am being obnoxious; I don’t mean to be.
I know there is personal value in being heard, BiV. I know it’s so hard when you feel dismissed, and I imagine from the intensity of how you talk about this, you have experienced pain that perhaps I don’t even understand. I hope my discussion of this issue hasn’t made it sound like I don’t care. I struggle with all of this because even as I care about personal pain, I also care deeply about the negative impact that public disapproval and criticism has.
But perhaps I need to just back away from the conversation so as not to become a pain….
As an observation, I see two issue underlying this debate:
1) Members expectations of power, ie, democratic vs. theocratic. The Church is very much a theocracy, and the power is not evenly diffused from the top down. That is very inconsistent with what many of us have come to expect from both professional and civic life in America. While the corporate culture has not always been as “open” and flexible, it is really starting to become so. This theme carries the general American virtues of individuality and indenpence, so it can be offsetting to then participate in Church where the power structure feels quaint.
2) Relative to the first issue, the amount of control God is thought to have on day to events. If God is in control and is pushing for a smooth operation, then it seems reasonable to bite your tongue when middle management “f’up’s”, because God will set things right. If your belief is that God put us here to act then it can be frustruating to participate in a Church that really doesn’t have a reasonable channel to communicate up stream.
My own experience suggests that the Church would feel like it is undermining it’s position on the divinity of revelation and authority, if it were to suddenly create a mechanism where the rank and file suddenly have voice. This is true at even a Ward level, where often times the leadership does do stupid things. In those cases the only “appropriate” way for those things to be addressed is through a higher authority. In other words, while I agree with Elder Oaks to some small degree that it is appropriate to keep matters in context by not making mountains out of mole hills, the Church would prefer in the cases where issues could diminish the social value on inspired leadership, to have a mechanism that makes mole hills out of even mountains. Authority is very important to the Church, more so than the issues.
Why is there even the specter of excommunication among people who believe that the Holy Spirit reveals Himself to each of us?
What did Christ ever say about excommunication? When did He, who associated with sinners and defended the prostitute, expel anyone? Other than the money changers but that wasn’t over sincere theology but profaning the divine.
Doesn’t a restored gospel have to begin with the gospel?
The Lord warned that the Gentiles would pollute the Holy Church of God. Has the LDS church been polluted? Has its leaders been placed above possible controversy, and then for fear of men have they made serious mistakes? As long as the Church President is kept from above the law described in D&C 107:81-84 how can such problems be considered and overcome?
Richard
http://www.2bc.info/pdf/Nsustain.pdf
alice: “When did He, who associated with sinners and defended the prostitute, expel anyone? ”
Home teachers and especially bishops regularly associate with sinners and maybe sometimes a reformed hooker or two or a lady about to become one!
But the expelling of some people is done with mostly two main goals in mind. One is to protect the church in case of harm, danger or false teaching and the other, more important, is to help the sinner repent by showing him what it is like to live without the gift of the Holy Ghost. Some people will change after seeing the difference but some others never will since they prefer the sinners’ lifestyle.
Alice/Carlos:
A good starting point is Matthew 25. Jesus makes no bones about his willingness to expel the slothful and unwise servant, or seperating sheep from goats, or from shutting the door on the five unprepared virgins. You will also remember an occassion in Matthew 21, where Jesus entered the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers and DROVE OUT, them that sold doves. So, while it certainly appears that the tenor of the New Testament writers is such that Jesus is emphasized for his compassion, we should still bear in mind that there are clear textual examples which nullify the presumption that formal Church discipline would somehow be against the Character of Jesus in all cases.
It’s interesting that in Romans, Paul tells the members to avoid doing something that would trip up the faith of weaker members, with his idea that eating meat that was sacrificed to idols means nothing, but the saints should avoid doing it if it would offend a fellow saint.
Nowadays, we know better, and just tell the weaker saints that they shouldn’t be offended, and that being offended over innocent actions is sinful.
#58
With respect to the money changers in the temple, we don’t know anything about them except that they profaned the worship by turning the temple into a place of business. We don’t know if they professed to be followers of Jesus – which would more or less need to be the case if you wish this to be an illustration of Jesus establishing a precedent for excommunication. We don’t know how sincere in their hearts the money changers’ veneration of HF might have been when their business was concluded. We don’t know if these were actually the ones who had established the practice of operating business within the temple grounds, however, we can suppose that the priests and officials who operated the temple were equally being chastised by Jesus by extension. We only know that this is the only aggressive action recorded and that it was in response to conducting commerce under the guise of religion. In any case, I don’t see how this establishes that anyone is vulnerable in the community of the other faithful for being sinful or critical or voicing the differences that come prayerfully and sincerely.
If you read further down in that chapter Jesus seems to say that the Pharisees who abuse their authority will be ground to dust. A different message altogether and one to consider soberly.
With respect to the parable of the foolish virgins, I, again, don’t see that the intent of the story is to expel those who come up short. The virgins who had made the mistake of not planning to be ready were told to correct their mistake. When they did, they were not readmitted to the wedding. The wedding. An event. Not their futures on earth and their eternal progression. How does this tell us about having all of our eternities and the eternities of those who love us severed or grossly altered because of sin or criticism? If it does, then we might all have great insecurity because I’m sure we’re all wanting in some regards.
Alice:
I must have read past your mention of the money changers in your initial comment #255. Even so, I am not sure that there is any relevance in the arguement about whether they, the money changers, believed in Jesus. The commerce was based around providing oblations for hebrew offerings. Though I don’t know for certain, I would assume that they were probably Jewish, which interestingly enough, so was Jesus. It was not his intention to do away with the things of old, mosaic law, until after his ascension. In other words, if you are trying to make a case that when Jesus ran out the money changers, it was not the same as excommunication because they did not share religious beliefs, then I would urge you to think again. They were all at the same temple worshiping the same God, more or less. Needless to say, it is an example where Jesus did cast someone away, and we can only speculate on the permancy.
Regarding the five virgins, you are either taking a fairly innovative interpretation of that story, or you are not aware of it’s context and tradition interpretations. The wedding in this case is on occassion of the marriage of the Bridegroom, Jesus, and his Bride, the Church. This analogy is characterised throughout scripture in the context of The Second Coming of Jesus, including the Final Judgement. So those not found in attendance are those not “known” of Jesus, and therefore not reconciled unto salvation (Celestial Kingdom in a Mormon context), because he would not vouch for them at the gate or veil, whichever you prefer. Depending on whether one holds the somewhat unorthodox view of progression in the hereafter, again either through Kingdoms of Glory in Mormon theology, or from purgatory to grace in other Christian faiths, the general idea and broad ecumenical interpretation of that parable is that this expulsion is about as permanent as it gets.
Yes. The message is to be ready for the Resurrection when Heavenly Father will pass judgment. That’s far from an indication that the church is intended to excommunicate anyone before that time or on the authority of simple human beings who are as sinful as anyone else.
There is no indication that Jesus was throwing the money changers out of a religious community. He objected to and disrupted their commerce. He hated the “sin and not the sinner” if you will. But there is NO indication that he severed their ties with the temple.
I was not entirely clear above.
Jesus may have disrupted the commerce of the money changers. He may even have thrown them out of the temple grounds but that’s a physical place. I don’t see that He excommunicated them from their personal covenants with HF.
IF Jesus wanted men to have the power to excommunicate other men doesn’t it seem that He would have made that clear? In the OT we have the Ten Commandments — specific, direct, tangible. In the NT we have the Two Great Commandments — equally unambivalent if broader in their scope. You are extrapolating and straining parables to get the result you’re looking for. I’m not buying it. Excommunication is a spiritually violent act — no less, I’m sure on the local authorities than the excommunicant. I’m sure if it were HF’s or His Son’s intent He would have had words to make that abundantly clear.
Cowboy #58,
Yeap, that’s a good way to explain it.
#63 alice,
Jesus makes it clear in the D&C, but then one needs to accept the D&C as Jesus’ words too.
But yes, excommunication will usually be a “spiritually violent act” for the person excommunicated, many people will see it that way. But then after some time has passed some do see the difference between living without the gift of the HG and ask to return to church -but currently its only about 1 in 10 or so worldwide (there are stats on this in area offices and GA’s review these regularly)
So, Jesus just didn’t think about the need to establish the precedent for 2000 years?
And, mind pointing me to it in the D&C? No relevant scripture is occurring to me.
Alice:
I’ll give you the point on the money changers, perhaps that is a bit of a stretch to make a solid case for excommunication. Though, symbollically I find that argument debatable, given the spiritual implication that a temple – even in Jewish belief – was a place where man came to be reconciled before God. Some of the rites performed in the temple included the High Priest carrying into the Holy of Holies stones symbollic of the twelve tribes of Israel, worn on a breastplate, all symbolic of communion with God. So for Jesus to drive the money changers out, does seem to bear a symbolic expression of that notion, though, albeit I agree that it was not an administrative procedure by any means.
The above notwithstanding, it is a bit audacious of you to accuse me of straining parables when the basis of your argument is an implication based on the absence of a bible verse giving Church leaders the authority to excommunicate. While a rule on who, how, and when to excommunicate is not presented in the bible, we can see that he who sat with sinners, and prostitutes, will eventually excommunicate those found on his left. As for “what did Jesus say about excommunication”, well there you have it, Matthew 25. If excommunication is a spiritually violent act, then how do you interpret the notion of Jesus casting the slothful and unwise steward into outer darkness where there is weeping, wailing, and nashing of teeth? We could split hairs about how Churchs approach the matter today, but we could do that with a good deal of the religious positions taken from ambiguous scripture. Suffice it to say, scripture tends to give more credence to the notion that there are occassions when excommunication is appropriate, so I find your rationalization on empty scripture, quite empty in and of itself.
::shrug:: Now you’re just citing the same parable that isn’t clear that Jesus means to hand over the keys to exclude anyone from the eternities to ordinary men. It’s easy enough to see how it refers to the Resurrection but not remotely clear that it transfers from HF to men.
I grabbed a few references (just a few of the most obvious ones) from the Bible only, alice. There are MANY more, but I didn’t want to write a comment that is longer than the post:
Ex. 12: 15 – “whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.”
Lev. 7: 21 – “the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.”
Mal. 2: 11-12 – “Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.”
Gal. 5: 10-15 – “he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be . . . I would they were even cut off which trouble you . . . But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.”
2 Thes. 3: 6 – “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
It seems like our current excommunication rules are quite lenient compared to thoe of the Bible.
Thank you, Ray. You always know the right thing to say or the right place to go to.
I respect that these are all biblical but I also note that they’re also all OT. I thought the concept of dividing the Bible into OT and NT was that there was a new covenant. So I’d still like to hear what Jesus has to say about it. I mean before people are wrenched from their whole culture and their eternal families and their families from them.
Of course the BOM is also a new covenant so some reference from the BOM or the D&C that Cowboy suggested he’d find would be satisfying. But, really, I’d like most to know what Jesus had to say about it.
First, I never said that I would reference either The Book of Mormon or the Doctrine & Covenants. Second, you might recognize Galations and 2 Thesolonians from the New Testament. Last, if you want a quote from Jesus in the New Testament, Matthew 25 will have to do. Given that it is not as explicit as you would like, this is probably another place where personal or institutional interpretation will have to suffice. Your original argument was a rhetorical proposition that the Jesus who sat with sinners, never advocated excommunication. I have succinctly demonstrated that inspite of his compassion, Jesus himself has declared he will excommunicate some during the Judgements. This clearly refutes your insinuation that he who sat with sinners would be opposed to such a notion. As to where do Church’s get their authority, that is really a matter of your faith, isn’t it. After all, where in the New Testament does Jesus give anybody other than his apostles the authority to do anything they do in his name?
Thank you, Cowboy. I missed Galations and Thesolonians. I will check them out. Then I will withdraw from a conversation that’s gone on for over 24 hours.
I guess if you’re comfortable with excommunications and being intimidated enough by the spectre of them, then that’s as it should be for you. I am sickened by it — both the fact of them and the stifling atmosphere, pain and family alienations they engender.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating. In the Jewish religion, NOBODY gets excommunicated for any reason–even murder. I have a Jewish friend who told me this. He said that Jews let God be the judge–it’s not up to man. So, Cowboy, yes, Christ can excommunicate anyone he wants. But from a Jewish perspective, man should not be the judge–God should be. I know that we Mormons claim that our prophets speak for God, but I think man wields the excommunication punishment far too often.
Excommunication is a Christian invention. Following the death of Jesus (what Mormons call the apostasy), there were many forms of competing Christians, including Gnostics, Marcionites, and Orthodox Christians to name a few. Paul even mentions this in Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
From a Mormon perspective, the apostasy was well underway with all the competing versions of Christianity, so there was a need for “Orthodoxy”, which literally means “straight thinking.” Orthodox priests, such as St Ireneaus, excommunicated Gnostics as a means to keep Christianity pure, and to clearly define and prevent Gnostic heresy from creeping into the Orthodox church (note–there was no Catholic Church yet–the pope wouldn’t exist for a few more centuries.) When Constantine came to power, he didn’t just excommunicate the Gnostic Christians, he worked for their extermination, though I believe they lasted until about the 7th century or so.
While there are different forms of Judiasm (Orthodox, Liberal, Hassidic), they’ve never felt the need to excommunicate each other. I’m not sure why Christians seem to have this need of excommunication. I really like the Jewish position to let God be the judge. If seems to flow with Jesus admonition to “judge not” (or as the JST says, “judge not unrighteously.”)
Alice “I am sickened by it — both the fact of them and the stifling atmosphere, pain and family alienations they engender”
I generally agree with your statement -it is painful to more people than just the excommunicated or the ‘cast out’ person. It is the harshest and most serious action the church can take today and maybe sometimes they do get it wrong.
But then again the majority of those excommunicated bring it on themselves -I’m convinced of this after seeing many, many members ex’d.
In D&C it was know as being cast out as in 42:24 ,74-75, 80, 84:54 and many more. Seciton 102 explains in general terms how a church disciplinary council works including casting lots by numbers. But maybe Elder Ballards talk from 1990 is more appropriate here: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=edc72150a447b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
72, MH
“I’ve mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating. In the Jewish religion, NOBODY gets excommunicated for any reason–even murder. I have a Jewish friend who told me this.”
As the resident Jew, this is not exactly correct. First of all, the three major sects within Judaism are Reformed (liberal), Conservative (middle to right leaning) and Orthodox (conservative to ultra-conservative).
Orthodox Judaism does not even recognize that Reformed Judaism exists and does not consider those people affiliated with it to be real Jews. This is not exactly excommunication because they never considered them a part of Judaism to begin with. Conservative Jews are more inclusive.
However, within families, the practice of shunning was, at one time very wide spread. If a family member married outside on the faith, they were considered dead to the families FOREVER! In fact, in the real extreme cases, the family held a funeral for that person. This also applied in the most extreme cases to persons not only marrying non-Jews, but Orthodox marrying outside of Orthodox or Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern European, mostly light-skinned) marrying into Sephardic (Southern Europe, North Africa, Middle-East, mostly darker skinned) families. Because there is no real Central Jewish hierarchy, things were mostly handled at the family level, or at most the local congregation level.
So, is there excommunication in Judaism? The answer is yes. it is called “herem,” separated from the community. According to the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Excommunication.html), it generally applies to the same conditions as in Christianity.
Is it practiced today? Probably only among the Most ultra-orthodox sects within Judaism. Since inter-marriage is common, non-practicing Jews in the majority, the population diminishing and the general “live and let live” attitude among most Jews, it is probably not that big a deal anymore.
Alice:
I should make myself clear. I am not in disagreement with you over then notion that excommunication can be abusive, and I certainly not sold on the idea that it is a positive step towards repentance. My position, and what I am comfortable with, is really simple. If you don’t agree with the Church, don’t submit to it’s supposed courts. On the other hand, if you want to be part of an organization, you will have to follow by it rules. This is true whether we are talking about Mormons, Catholics, Elks, Freemasons, NRA, Sams Club, or Costco. Each of these organizations reserves the right to suspend your membership at their discretion. Regarding religion, it is a bit strange that you would want to be part of a religion that more absolutes about it’s authority than any other main stream religion that I am aware of, yet dismiss that authority when it comes to punishment. Is there room for reformation within the Church? All of this notwithstanding, my only real point was to demonstrate that it is far too narrow sighted to argue against the practice of excommunication by appealing to Jesus’s willingness to forgive the wicked. While no doubt he clearly demonstrated the need to extend love, compassion, and forgiveness, he also prophesied that even that has limits, which in the bare minimum is the final judgement.
Alice, this is a late addition to an old thread by now, but you can’t attack the idea of excommunication as being anti-Christ-like, then dismiss it out-of-hand when it is shown to be much more harshly and broadly applied in the New Testament. If you don’t approve, you don’t approve. I’m fine with that – really. Just admit that it has NOTHING to do with excommunication being anti-Christ-like.
Honestly, that was the whole intent of my list – to show that your argument in this thread is not with the LDS Church but rather with Christianity (and any other religion/denomination/organization that expels members for violation of core communal standards, if you are are consistent). That’s all I meant to show – NOT that you should embrace excommunication. If you don’t, you don’t – but you can’t use Jesus or the subsequent apostles/disciples as your justification.