The Infallible Church

[_Buffalo]

Dallin Oaks thinks church leaders should be.

It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.

Oaks spoke much on this issue. He hates criticism.

Feb. 1987 Ensign.

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.)...

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. ...

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....

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.

Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985

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. It does not matter that the criticism is true.

Man, he sure raped those Bible passages, didn't he? They were talking about not speaking ill of politicians and being nice to the elderly.

[_bcspace]

I'll have to stick with the Church being perfect as human fallibility and the Church organization itself is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Typical bcspacian doublespeak.

Nope. Typical scripture though.

[_Buffalo]

Typical bcspacian doublespeak.

Nope. Typical scripture though.

Imperfection is perfection. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Yadda yadda.

[_Juggler Vain]

Also, shifting moral blame for sin to leaders allows followers to feel divinely justified in doing things they shouldn't, like murdering a wagon train of 100+ Arkansans in a meadow in Deseret (and the whole spectrum of less-severe harm).

The whole idea of infallibility, at any point in the chain, whether at the level of individual factual correctness (the Prophet is perfect), institutional correctness (the Church is perfect), or moral correctness (you are perfect (i.e., without sin), no matter what you do, if you are following the right rules) compromises each believer's conscience in some way, and thus enables a whole bunch of "sins" and bad character/cultural traits.

Must we really always end up going to these types of extreme examples in our discussions here?

This is the kind of thing that just promotes "emotional button pushing" simply to win an argument.

Not trying to "emotional button-push." I used the clear example, and also pointed to "the whole spectrum of less-severe harm," which obviously contain the examples that most people encounter in the Church. Since you don't like contemplating the MMM example, the less-severe harm would include the following, off the top of my head:

1) LDS parents being "unable to support the sin" of their lesbian daughter, by not attending her wedding.

2) LDS congregants deferring to abusive leaders (e.g., taking sides against victims of molestation when their leader was the perp).

3) LDS congregants giving cash to, and going door-to-door on behalf of, proponents of Proposition 8, at the behest of GAs.

4) LDS missionaries baptizing hordes of children in swimming pools in South America to please their mission president.

I am certainly not supportive of MMM. And, do I think that even if BY did initiate the order (although I think there is a good chance he did, there is no conclusive proof, to my knowledge), those who acted on the order should have thought for themselves and saved those people rather than slaughtered them? Of course I do!

I didn't intend to imply that you support the MMM. In fact, it didn't even occur to me that you might. I intended to point out that the rule you suggested -- which you didn't invent, of course -- would permit (and has permitted) extremely bad behavior. The people who perpetrated the MMM (and others who committed atrocities in other places and times, including our time) were real people, like you and me, embracing very flawed rules -- one of which is the rule you suggested.

I was speaking in general context of what has been a part of modern LDS culture, and idea on how outlooks could be improved. Is it possible to stick to that gameplan?

I can get on board with that gameplan, but I don't agree that the rule you identified would be an improvement on the authoritarian problems of the LDS Church, for the reasons I've stated above.

-JV

[_Zelder]

The quotes from Elder Oaks were great. This idea that we can't criticize even when we know they are wrong is insane and it is something a cult leader would say. This kind of talk does not look good for the church.

MM massacre is an excellent example of how bad it can get. The Martin and Willie handcart company disaster is great example of a stupid leader who could not tolerate a differing opinion so the people marched to their deaths following their bishop. Rather than acknowledge that it was a mistake, the modern church glorifies those who suffered under poor leadership against good advise from someone not in authority.

What about blood atonement? What would have happened to a critic in 1880 who pointed out that there is no solid scripture or revelation supporting blood atonement? What about the priesthood ban? What would have happened to a saint in 1940 who pointed out that there is no solid scripture or revelation supporting the priesthood ban? The same for neurotic teachings on human sexuality that we are still working out of our system culturally?