Are the teachings of the LDS church harmful?

[_Stormy Waters]

For the purposes of this thread I'd like to focus on whether or not the overall teachings of the church does harm to its members. Feel free to add positive or negative examples of teachings that exist within the LDS church. I thought I'd start with examples of teachings that I consider to be harmful.

Any criticism of leaders is wrong (even if the criticism is true)

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

"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."
Dallin H. Oaks. Feb. 1987 Ensign.

"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."
Dallin H. Oaks. Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985

Information is withheld from the lay membership.

"There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
Packer, Boyd K. (1981), "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"

"He [Stanley Kimball] spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti- Mormon version of the same story. ...On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.
He noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level. Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, he said, he would probably make the same decision.
Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C—which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only cure for bad historiography is better historiography. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments....
Not everybody needs Level C. But some do, whether because they are troubled by Level B or because they find Level A insufficiently nourishing in some way. Many good saints will live their entire lives on Level A, and they will be saved."
Daniel C. Peterson

*I do believe the church is improving in this area, but much like with polygamy and the priesthood ban, I believe the change is only coming because of external influences. In short the internet is forcing their hand.

Emphasis on obedience to the leadership.

"Tell the children that we have a special leader to follow, our prophet. Explain that a prophet is a man who speaks with God—God tells the prophet what we should do. Tell the children that if we follow the prophet, we will be happy and Heavenly Father will bless us. Explain that to follow the prophet means to do the things he tells us to do."
Nursery Manual: I will follow the Prophet

"Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; he knows the way."
Children's songbook

"She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and said to her parents, “If President Hinckley says we should wear only one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.”

Wearing two pairs of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake."
Russel M. Ballard. Liahona Dec. 2002

“My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."
Heber J. Grant

Negatively portraying everyone who leaves.

"In later years, I saw a few leave the Church who could then never leave it alone. They used often their intellectual reservations to cover their behavioral lapses"
Neal A. Maxwell April 2004 General conference

"If the people would live their religion, there would be no apostasy"
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, (1997), 78–84

"Why do men apostatize? Why do they lose the faith? Why do their minds become darkened? Because they wander from the right path; they neglect their duties and forget to pray, and to acknowledge the Lord and He withdraws His Spirit from them and they are left in the dark."
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, (1998)

“The moment you permit yourselves to lay aside any duty that God calls you to perform, to gratify your own desires; the moment you permit yourselves to become careless, you lay a foundation for apostasy. Be careful; understand you are called to a work, and when God requires you to do that work do it.” Another thing he said: “In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, be careful you don’t betray the priesthood, be careful you don’t apostatize; because if you do, you will be sorry for it.”
Joseph Smith Ensign Sept 1971

"It seems that history continues to teach us: You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it."
Glenn L. Pace General Conference April 1989

"Those who leave the Church are like a feather blown to and fro in the air. They know not whither they are going; they do not understand anything about their own existence; their faith, judgment and the operation of their minds are as unstable as the movements of the feather floating in the air. We have not anything to cling to, only faith in the Gospel" (DBY, 84).
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, (1997), 78–84

"What is that which turns people away from this Church? Very trifling affairs are generally the commencement of their divergence from the right path."
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, (1997), 78–84

Teachings on Sexuality

Corianton had been guilty of sexual sin, and his father spoke to him in love but plainly: “Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5).
General Conference. April 2010. Elder D. Todd Christofferson

I know some will protest that these next quotes aren't "doctrine", but I include them because of their extreme nature and because they have resulted in real suffering. To my knowledge the church has not repudiated them.

“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation when there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”
Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, LDS Prophet, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 196

“Loss of virtue is too great a price to pay even for the preservation of one's life — better dead clean, than alive unclean. Many is the faithful Latter-day Saint parent who has sent a son or a daughter on a mission or otherwise out into the world with the direction: "I would rather have you come back in a pine box with your virtue than return alive without it."" – Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
Mormon Doctrine, pg. 124;

I'll likely add more examples later, but it's getting late.

[_Uncle Dale]

For the purposes of this thread I'd like to focus on whether or not the overall teachings of the church does harm to its members. Feel free to add positive or negative examples of teachings that exist within the LDS church. I thought I'd start with examples of teachings that I consider to be harmful.

Any criticism of leaders is wrong (even if the criticism is true)

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

...

This one is particularly bothersome. Let's look back to 1842-44, and think
of LDS leaders William Smith, G. J. Adams, John E. Page, Sam Brannan,
etc. visiting the eastern branches of the Mormon Church -- places like
Philadelphia, Boston and New Egypt (in New Jersey).

While performing their apostolic visits, such apostles, seventies and high priests
routinely seduce the young unmarried LDS girls -- and occasionally extend their
predatory actions to some of the married female members (with or without the
husbands' knowledge).

Suppose an innocent sister wishes to report such an advance upon her virtue;
or even tell of a molestation or attempted rape -- what recourse did she have?
Possibly she could summon up enough courage to whisper her complaint to the
wife of the branch president. But, if she even tried to do that much, what was
the typical response?

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

Same goes for discovering one of "The Brethren" engaged in counterfeiting.

Same goes for learning about illegal activities of top-level Danites.

Same goes for finding out that an apostle refuses to pay a debt he owes you.

The list goes on and on.

Perhaps folks will say it's different today, and that the common member can
bring even a member of the First Presidency into a church court trial.....

There's this bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn -- very reasonable price...

UD

[_Philo Sofee]

It appears that the elevated status they have immunes them from criticism, and hence they are answerable to no one. Obviously the church is not a democracy. But is that a surprise? No religion is a democracy. Churches don't want people who think for themselves, they want obedience. Religious talk involves faith, god, Bible, spirit, obey. They have to tell you to obey, otherwise where is their power? No religion encourages people to think for themselves, thinking and learning destroy faith, which is simply a cop out for "we don't know, but you need to believe anyway." It's the way of power. Them telling the people "have faith" is best translated as "don't think or reason, obey." They even have two great reasons and ways of keeping people in line (1) They get rewarded form God for doing so. (2) They get punished for not doing so. See how it works? Blessed if you do, damned if you don't. No one ever bothers to investigate things to their logical end, which is precisely why they do have the power to enforce their views on the congregations, and intimidate. All religions do this. Mormonism is nothing new to it, just a further extension of the religion principle of "We know what God wants for you better than you do, so just do it."

[_Stormy Waters]

The teachings on sexuality can have a pretty chilling effect.

“I know what my mother expects. I know what she’s saying in her prayers. She’d rather have me come home dead than unclean.”
Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Report, April 1969, pp. 52-53

I think it's interesting that sexual sin is considered the third worst sin. That means that it's worse than kidnapping, stealing cars, assault, child abuse, arson, vandalism, and countless other offenses.

[_Tobin]

I'll attempt to address the OP here with my own views:

So long as there are teachings of the LDS church reflect God's gospel, I do not agree that those teachings of the LDS church are harmful. However, I also do agree that there are (and have been) teachings of the LDS Church that DO NOT reflect God's gospel and instead reflect the teachings (and incorrect views) of men. Those can be extremely harmful if followed.

[_Jason Bourne]

The teachings on sexuality can have a pretty chilling effect.

“I know what my mother expects. I know what she’s saying in her prayers. She’d rather have me come home dead than unclean.”
Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Report, April 1969, pp. 52-53

I think it's interesting that sexual sin is considered the third worst sin. That means that it's worse than kidnapping, stealing cars, assault, child abuse, arson, vandalism, and countless other offenses.

I rank this idea as one of the very worst promulgated by LDS leaders.



That and the idea that leaders are above criticism. Reminds me of when I did Amway and they said you should only edify your upline because they needed the credibitly to help you build your business. In fact there are amazing similarities between how Amway groups operated and authortarain religions.

[_Tobin]

The teachings on sexuality can have a pretty chilling effect.

“I know what my mother expects. I know what she’s saying in her prayers. She’d rather have me come home dead than unclean.”
Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Report, April 1969, pp. 52-53

I think it's interesting that sexual sin is considered the third worst sin. That means that it's worse than kidnapping, stealing cars, assault, child abuse, arson, vandalism, and countless other offenses.

I rank this idea as one of the very worst promulgated by LDS leaders.



That and the idea that leaders are above criticism. Reminds me of when I did Amway and they said you should only edify your upline because they needed the credibitly to help you build your business. In fact there are amazing similarities between how Amway groups operated and authortarain religions.

I disagree. I think the view that men can become God is the WORST idea they've come up with. The breath-taking arrogance of it is unbelievable and I believe IT has led to many of these other worthless and harmful teachings.

[_bcspace]

Dallin H. Oaks
...

This one is particularly bothersome.

Judging by the url, it also appears to be non doctrinal. The link is broken in any case.

[_Philo Sofee]

[quote="bcspace"Dallin H. Oaks
...
[quote]This one is particularly bothersome.

Judging by the url, it also appears to be non doctrinal. The link is broken in any case.[quote]

The convenience of having something uncomfortably said for members to turn around and claim it is non doctrinal is too pat. On the one hand, they speak for God, but if through time it becomes ridiculous, then, but of course, it was merely the man's opinion instead of actual doctrine. The loophole is perfect... for the leaders anyway. The congregations don't even bother to figure out the logical problems this creates. Why should they? All is from God, unless the world comes down hard on it later. Then it can be discarded for the garbage heap of opinion which is supposed to save the day. The one thing, the most vital thing is, above all, don't criticize the brethren, even when they are *wrong*. Any other discipline, why yes, of course, poke holes in that, demonstrate it cannot possibly be accurate, but the brethren? Oh no. Sacred truthfulness and worthwhile teaching is always above the rif-raf, even when it is flawed it is still correct. That just doesn't wash anymore. Science would simply be shattered by that crazy kind of thinking. They say they do not contradict any known teaching of science. they're wrong. The science of logical absolutely proves they haven't got a chance. They certainly don't have it on *their* side.

[_sleepyhead]

Hello,

I don't have an actual quote but their and Christianity's belief that life is a test (Mormons use the term probationary period), as opposed to life is a learning experience as taught by reincarnation belief systems has problems connected to it. When life is taught as a test, the leadership will always come up with a list of things that are required to pass that test. In viewing life as a learning experience, we can look for lessons in all that happens in life.