The Infallible Church

[_Juggler Vain]

I think that a more precise statement would be that if we follow Church leaders, if the leaders are wrong, the sin will not be upon our heads, it will be upon the heads of the leaders.

Not much better. That is a line right out of the religious con-man instruction guide and I can't believe people fall for it.

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.

-JV

[_harmony]

We the Mormon people need to accept the reality of imperfect leaders who make mistakes. This has to happen otherwise we are stuck in a self-righteous, bigoted mental state of spiritual retardation.

Out here in the real world, we refer to this phenomena as the BYU Attitude.

[_zeezrom]

However, they are immune from criticism and they will never lead you astray.

I don't think this is quite right. Nobody really thinks any person is immune from criticism. The prophets are known to be susceptible to criticism. I think it is more accurate to say followers are not comfortable criticizing the leaders. There is fear.

If they were believed to be infallible, there would be little difference in how we reverence them.

They *are* believed to be infallible.

The point is, the church makes mistakes but you can't point that out. You can't say in church that the leaders make mistakes.

I agree with this but I would change your word "can't" to "don't dare".

[_Stormy Waters]

Nobody really thinks any person is immune from criticism. The prophets are known to be susceptible to criticism.

Dallin Oaks thinks church leaders should be.

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

[_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.

[_Buffalo]

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.

[_Yoda]

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.

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 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?

[_DarkHelmet]

Nobody really thinks any person is immune from criticism. The prophets are known to be susceptible to criticism.

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.

[_Stormy Waters]

Thanks for the citations, I hadn't seen those before. So I wonder what Oaks expects members to do. Are they really supposed to sit silently if mistakes are made?

[_DarkHelmet]

Thanks for the citations, I hadn't seen those before. So I wonder what Oaks expects members to do. Are they really supposed to sit silently if mistakes are made?

Probably. I also love his Orwellian quote from a 1999 talk on obedience. "Obedience leads to true freedom. The more we obey revealed truth, the more we become liberated."

EDIT: My mistake. That was Faust in the April 1999 Ensign. The title of his talk is equally Orwellian - "Obedience: The Path to Freedom."