Over at Religion News Service, Jana Reiss recently reported that historical issues do not rank high on lists of why people leave the church. Rather, it’s a loss of confidence in church leadership that affects people heavily. As Reiss put it, “It’s a trust gap.” She concludes it’s a matter of churchmembers not hearing about difficult historical issues from the church first (“What else aren’t they telling me?!”), but I think there’s more to it.
Lately I’ve been listening to some accounts by disaffected church members who had the opportunity to speak with general authorities and church historians about their concerns. The stories are similar. A believing member discovers a host of disturbing church history facts (two avenues cited were The CES Letter and FairMormon, funny enough). The member feels devastated and embarrassed that they never knew (or always understood the details to be anti-Mormon lies). They feel betrayed. They feel a heavy responsibility for all the false information they taught people on their missions. The member confides in a trusted spiritual leader, and that church leader admits ignorance on the difficult issues. As a last-ditch effort (usually after testimonies are shattered), church historians are called in to save the day.
In that pattern, I see TWO reasons why a member may lose trust in church leadership. First is the why-didn’t-you-tell-me feelings of betrayal that Jana Reiss identified, inevitably leading to the question, “What else aren’t they telling me?” The second opportunity for loss of trust is when a member finally goes to a church leader for help, and the leader admits ignorance of the difficult issues. This can lead a member to a different question, “If church leaders don’t even know the testimony-challenging history of the institution they represent, what else don’t they know?”
In a recent meeting of a disaffected member, a general authority, and a church historian, the general authority said to the disaffected member:
The reason why I brought you here is because I’m not as smart as [this church historian] is, okay? I don’t have to be as smart as he is. I don’t have time to be as smart as he is, unless I want to make it a full-time job, okay? I can’t do that. I have a million other things to worry about. What I hope that we can at least start today,… is to understand that there are smart people… [He] has tried to put perspective to some of the stuff today. Is there stuff that maybe will be unanswered? The answer is yes. But it’s not as bad as people have led you to believe.[1]
It’s the same impulse that drove the creation of the gospel topics essays: try to get a faith-promoting perspective out there to combat some very uncomfortable history. But the gospel topics essays weren’t written by general authorities. As Shannon reported yesterday, “All of the individual essays were written by outside scholars who were contracted and paid…” The essays serve the same purpose as church historians (and all other well-meaning Mormon scholars) in encounters with questioning and disaffected members. One scholar described it as providing “intellectual and devotional frameworks in which others can reconcile faith and knowledge.” Put simply, presenting historical facts and apologetic theories. But apologetic theories can only work for those who haven’t lost faith, who haven’t lost trust.
So, what can church leaders themselves do to bolster trust?
They’ve already taken a few steps. Authorizing the gospel topics essays and allowing changes in church curriculum will prevent a significant chunk of the why-didn’t-you-tell-me feelings of betrayal in future generations. But, as many authors have pointed out (most recently Kevin Barney, Jana Reiss, and Peggy Fletcher Stack), there is still much room for improvement on the transparency front.
What about the ignorance factor? Should we expect church leaders to know about shelf-breaking aspects of church history? Glenn Ostlund, podcaster at Infants on Thrones, argued it’s unfair to do so:
I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect that a general authority is going to take the time (that people in a faith crisis have taken) to study out all the issues and really try to understand them front and backwards just because there’s people out there that are doing this and need their support with it. You know, it would be nice if they did that, and it would be nice if in the course of doing that they were able to find some kind of an answer that was actually satisfactory to people going through a faith crisis, but they’re not going through a faith crisis. They accept this stuff. They believe this stuff, why would they go in? For them it’s simple, and they don’t understand why it’s not simple for us. They don’t understand. “Why are you filling your head with all this stuff? It’s just making things harder for you.” I mean, you’ve heard those kinds of arguments, right? That’s sincere. We need to accept that…[2]
To be honest, I struggle with giving up an expectation that church leaders should know about difficult aspects of church history. I recognize that for many members, it really is simple. Either the church is true or it’s not, and if it’s true then details don’t matter. However,… I know what it’s like to approach a bishop with a serious concern and have him say, “I have no idea what you’re talking about.” It’s incredibly disheartening and makes you think twice about going to him again.
Elder Oaks once said that people can leave the church when “feelings are sufficiently negative” about either (1) Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon or (2) current leadership.[3] Loss of trust and negative feelings go hand in hand.
Question: What factors do you see contributing to the “trust gap”, and are there any good solutions?
[1] Infants on Thrones podcast “Why Can’t We Be Friends – Part 3” [53:58]
[2] Infants on Thrones podcast “Why Can’t We Be Friends – Part 1” [34:57]
[3] Mormon Stories audio of “The Boise Rescue” [7:48]
Wheat & Tares 
Mary Ann – what an insightful post. I think you are correct in your assessment. Just yesterday I listened to yet another Mormon stories podcast that someone was able to meet with a former church historian. But as you said – his testimony was gone and it didn’t sway him at all. His believing brother attended and thought it was really good and should have answered his questions.
Great post Mary Ann!
This gets to the heart of the issue, awakening members come to feel deceived and betrayed. This quickly gives rise to the question; How can this be if the church is true and led by Prophets of God? Sudddenly the church is unmasked and church transparency finally becomes a reality for that member. It’s like waking up from a bad dream and it’s a one way trip because childish naiveté simply cannot be recaptured.
As someone who has/is going through the process mentioned above, much of your post rang true.
There is a lot that I could say here, but I will keep it central to the issue of history. There is no getting away from the whitewash and sanitising of the past. This is at the heart of the issue, however i think we forget that in a short time the present will be history too.
A few events come to mind that, if revealed in full in the future, may be a real issue.
– the November 2015 policy
– the church’s anti gay agenda
– the emeshment of the church and politics
– the financial affairs of the church.
These are present. And yet soon they will be the past. How might our 10-15 year older selves (and members in general) view the potential continuation of the whitewashing.
And this is where the trust comes in – these current issues will bite the church, I am confident of that. Unfortunately it will continue the way in which the church has been run in the past. By people and a culture that values appearance over substance.
Happy Hubby, the Miles family interview, right? He was the one who encountered all the problems on FairMormon (his crisis was in Feb 2013 before the CES Letter ever came out).
Howard, I agree that childish naiveté is not recoverable, but your comment seems to imply that it will *always* lead someone out of the church. I don’t agree with that. I still think someone can lose a measure of trust in leadership, but still remain an active member of the church. It’s just more difficult, and the testimony will inevitably look different. In the long run it will be easier to retain members by *preventing* those obvious situations where trust can easily be lost.
More difficult isn’t the right description. I think Lindsay Hansen Park’s explanation works best – at that point people need to evaluate if the church works for them in their lives, and act accordingly. Some people find that the church still works for them in spite of the issues.
The OP asked: “What factors do you see contributing to the “trust gap”, and are there any good solutions?”
The church, for at least the last 100 years, has frequently changed its teachings, policies, positions, and doctrines (and don’t get me started on how the “church” purposely obfuscates what is actually “doctrine” so they can deny it later) as they related to social justice and other issues of “social policy” (for lack of a better term) progress. While their position on the science of evolution is another, it doesn’t fit well into the “social” category. But, issues such as, but not limited to, civil rights (blacks, women, gays). And these can be broken down into a too long list of changes (polygamy, priesthood, artificial birth control…) wherein we Mormons caught up (to some extent) with, especially, American culture.
In light of that “evidence,” how are we to take the increasing emphasis (in my lifetime, and more so over the past 20 years) the church is putting on how our leaders are called by God, led by God, inspired by God, the Lord’s anointed?
Logically, if God is the origin of these previous policies and the changed policies, He has changed his mind (the same today, and yesterday, and forever?) continually. Is it that HE no longer wanted us to remain racists, sexists and homophobes?–well maybe we are still supposed to be homophobes. Or was He, finally (20-40 years after society) and repeatedly, acting to correct the flawed attitudes and policies of His church’s (really old and conservative) leaders?
No, that “thought makes reason stare.” So I conclude that, regardless of their hard work, dedication, love, and kindness, church leaders are continuously long behind the truth and God chooses to ignore the problem. If we are the true church of Christ, and led by Him, why didn’t we lead out in the early years of the restoration regarding civil rights, birth control, etc? Aren’t those true principles?
So, THAT contributes to the “trust gap” for me…along with the “if you hid the truth about church history from me, what else are you hiding” thing.
I’m not saying the essays aren’t a good step, but here’s what happened in my daughter’s YSA ward: Member of the bishopric has a combined third hour meeting to discuss the polygamy essay. Lays it all out, says we don’t have to like it, but God commanded it all. (That essay gives space for only one conclusion.)Daughter not feeling it. Losing trust. Losing interest. I get it, and can’t say that I wouldn’t do the same in my early twenties with fewer ties that bind.
The essay might be raw material that is mishandled as much as it is ignored.
Great article and comments thus far.
I wish we, as a church, could exhibit some humility in all of this. If, as Glenn Ostlund states, it isn’t fair for us to expect leaders to understand (and I think Glenn is correct in this), I’d at least ask for room for spiritual differences to exist. We think we are so sure about so many things, yet if the past is any indication, we need to dial back our surety (Lamanites as Indians, priesthood and temple prohibition for black people, etc.). We have no idea if gender is eternal, what God’s view of homosexuality is, if women can be ordained to priesthood, or any number of things we think we are sure of. Instead, we have one, approved narrative in the church – the one presented as authoritative on Sunday. Do you have doubts regarding priesthood? Doubts about the Word of Wisdom? Doubts about homosexuality? Doubts about how the church spends money? Doubts about whether Noah lived or Adam and Eve are real? Too friggin’ bad. There is no room for the expression or discussion of such ideas. We have a narrative approved by God’s anointed servants so that’s the only view worth considering.
At some point, if someone doesn’t subscribe to the official narrative, the utility of it all comes into question. If one concludes that the utility is also no longer there, why stay? Can you imagine raising your children in the church and one of them turning out to be gay, having listened to the damaging teachings for years? Or if one of your grandchildren was gay and there were years of family entanglement in the church? Is the risk worth it for a dubious narrative and leaders one cannot trust, especially when that religion is so highly authoritarian? Some weigh the risk and feel it is worth it. Others do not, but that gap is real and only exacerbated by the class system within our church. Our leaders are of paramount importance to the church while members exist to follow and support them. The lack of egalitarianism only magnifies the gap.
LDS_Aussie, I don’t know that there are many historical details about the November 2015 policy that have yet to be revealed. Regardless what happens down the road, though, it forces the same questions as the priesthood ban – if inspired, what does that say of God’s attitude towards His kids, if not inspired, why would God allow church leaders to do it. I doubt there are shady things in the finances that will shock people – I think it seems like there must be just because of the lack of transparency (which is the current problem). I agree that the other two points may be unpleasant historical surprises for people down the road, though a lot of people who lived it (actively participated in the political process or paid attention to the court cases from the early 1990s) will say everyone should’ve known.
I was looking up the definition of spinning a narrative the other day (in a company context), and I think the definition applies well to the church. Church leaders don’t see themselves as purposefully deceptive. The problem is the details they see as irrelevant (and so usually leave out) are very relevant to others. For them it’s not a matter of appearance versus substance – they are presenting what they see as the core substance, the important stuff. Others view it as whitewashing.
This is something that bugs me. Richard Bushman pointed out last month on Gina Colvin’s podcast that our theology is derived from how we interpret God’s actions in history (just like with scriptures). Which means history is important. The priesthood ban and November 5th policy, if inspired, have theological implications for how God views and treats His children. Plural marriage (both polyandry and polygyny) have theological implications for the relationships between men and women in this life and the hereafter (and the pre-existence, based on Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner’s accout). This is why I have such a hard time with people who say the details don’t matter.
Fbisti, thanks for your thoughtful response.
Ruth, I agree. The essays help with the betrayal aspect, but it doesn’t fix the facts themselves. There are only so many apologetic arguments out there, and many are not convincing. The official answer right now is that polygamy was inspired, that’s hard enough for a lot of people to swallow. But the *way* it was implemented presents a host of other issues that can make people wonder if prophets and apostles could really act like that and still be men of God. And until the church flat out says some of those actions were mistakes and we do not condone them, members are forced to defend *everything.*
Mary Ann,
We agree my “one way trip” was meant to be from asleep to awake.
However the awakening demonstrates that the church is clearly not what it purports to be and this sets up a *huge logic problem*. If it isn’t what it claims to be how can you know that it’s worth staying? Isn’t the only way to know through discernment? But if you have discernment why do you need the church? If you answer this honestly I think you will find that you are staying for family, social or cultural reasons rather than the pursuit of religious truth.
If the awakening is very rapid it is far more likely to drive one out of the church than if the awakening occurs more slowly. The speed of discovery drives the intensity of the betrayal feeling. This is what inoculation is about, slowing the speed of discovery so that it is less disruptive to people’s lives.
One more thing those who do stay may not stay forever if their awakening continues. Btw the mortal LDS church is (must be) a temporary experience for literally everyone because mortal cannot equal spiritual therefore the church of the afterlife cannot be the church of mortal life.
Howard, I agree that “those who do stay may not stay forever.” I disagree with you on another point – I think people *can* stay who are pursuing religious truth, not just for family, social and/or cultural reasons.
Of course you *can* stay for any reason you choose but I’m arguing that it is illogical even if it feels better than leaving.
How does one find religious truth in a church that lies about what it is? I don’t think that can be done without discernment do you? If you have discernment why spend your time prospecting for gold in a fools gold mine?
Lds aussie
The church will thrive precisely because it does not bow to the LGBT agenda.
Mary Ann – I feel you are correct on your assumption regarding how people view something like the Nov 5 policy. Either God is a hateful, narrow minded, Utah middle class conservative republican voter, or his Apostles are. Frankly, I’m not a fan of either option. Both MH and Hawk have previously mentioned aspects of this policy that they cannot reconcile and I stand with them on that. I applied my 46 years of faithful membership, doctrinal understanding, scriptural knowledge and my own heartfelt feelings in grappling with this. I have not been successful in understanding this policy to mean anything other than it being a reflection of the myopic geographical, political and social leanings of a component of the 12 apostles (not all of them).
If there is a God, I believe him to be more expansive and able to see outside the Wasatch front. Coming from outside the US and Utah, and looking in, I see too much US and too much Utah in the decision that God makes in his church. The cultural imperialism and march of the US church culture abroad has led me to question a great many decisions made by the leaders.
To claim to speak for God, and yet produce doctrines, practices and morays that reflect such a small sub culture of white middle class Americans seems to reduce God to almost nothing…
Howard, faith is illogical. As Steve Peck put it (quoted in Hawkgrrrl’s post): “This is not to say I have no core of beliefs. I do, but I must admit that they are not rationally derived. They come from experiences that have come to me subjectively placed in my heart, and it is these that I hold onto dearly.”
Indeed faith is illogical Mary Ann! But weren’t we were talking about truth and where to find it?
Is truth illogical?
I have no difficulty understanding how some aspects of church history and doctrine can be sources of concern for some church members. I’ve been studying these kinds of issues since the early 1970’s. I know how it feels to be deeply troubled by them.
Can the Book of Mormon help bring understanding to things like the Book of Abraham quandary? How about the priesthood ban or a dozen other topics that have become internet sensations in our day and caused many to lose faith and leave the church. Yes, the Book of Mormon teaches those in our day what needs to be done.
We learn from the prophet Lehi that “there is an opposition in all things”. The word “all” looms large in this sentence. Why does there need to be opposition in all things? Students of the scriptures know opposition is part of the make up of a fallen world. God sent us to a fallen world to be tried and proven (Abraham 3:24-25). Opposition is necessary to accomplish the Lord’s purpose.
Consider the challenge to the faith Lehi, Nephi, Sam, and Jacob must have experienced because of the opposition they faced. Why didn’t the Lord make it easy for them to travel to the “promised land”? Why weren’t all of Lehi’s family faithful? Certainly, the Lord could have arranged it. The answer to this question is the same in 600 BC as it today. There must needs to opposition in all things in order for the Lord’s purpose to be accomplished. What is the Lord’s purpose? His purpose is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his children. Opposition is the primary means to accomplish His work.
Another example of former day saints dealing with opposition is Alma the older. He believed the words of Abinadi. Alma repented and taught others how to come to Christ. They fled king Noah. They established a new city and began to prosper by the hand of their industry.
Then the Book of Mormon narrative about Alma, his people, and the city of Helman is interrupted by Mormon. He stops the story and interjects a remark to help his readers understand how God deals with his sons and daughters while they are in mortality. He reveals:
“The Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith.” Mosiah 23:21
In other words, God allowed or brought about opposition to the prophet Alma and his people. It is important to remember that they were keeping the commandments and doing good.
What kind of opposition did they experience?
1. The Lamanites took possession of the Land of Helaman
2. The Lamanites placed Amulon, one of the priest of king Noah, over the people of Alma
3. Amulon exercised authority over the people of Alma and began to persecute them
4. Amulon’s children persecuted the children of Alma and his people. A parents nightmare.
5. Amulon put the people of Alma into bondage and put task masters over them
6. In slavery the people of Alma prayed out loud, but were told to stop or they would be put to death.
7. The Lord didn’t initially deliver them from bondage, but strengthened them so that their burdens were made light because of their unspoken prayers
8. The Lord did this “that ye may stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions”
9. Lastly, the Lord delivered them because of their great faith and patience and they fled to Zarahemla.
The people of Alma could have been critical of the prophet Alma, saying he wasn’t a prophet or they wouldn’t have been brought into bondage and suffered so many difficulties.
I’ve used two accounts from the Book of Mormon to illustrate that opposition is part of a fallen world. Those who follow Christ can be faithful in the face of opposition as were some of Lehi’s family and the people of Alma. It is a choice each of us wrestle with. The opposition we face today is real. The quandary of the Book of Abraham, the priesthood ban and many other issues create cognitive dissonance, a very real taskmaster for many. We have a choice in our day just as Lehi and Alma’s people did. How do we react? Will we be like those in the Book of Mormon who lost faith or will we be like those who cried to God in their afflictions and were delivered?
The Lord will make us a witnesses, he will visit us in our afflictions as he did the people of Alma. I am a witness. The Lord has strengthened me to withstand the opposition I have faced with issues in church history and doctrine. My burden has been made light and I have been able to bear up my burden with ease.
I have testified for 10 years in the bloggernacle that the Lord will do the same for any who will turn to the Lord with full purpose of heart. It is a choice. One can either shake their fist at the prophets or cry unto the Lord in mighty prayer in their afflictions.
Why do my comments go into moderation?
Mary Ann perhaps you’re saying that your faith will lead you to the truth? Ok but how do you know that what you’re calling faith isn’t just the indoctrination of your youth? And if it is faith is it best applied in a church that is so easily demonstrated to be fallible?
Howard, do I need to remind you that fallibility is a part of LDS doctrine. Church prophets, leaders, and members are necessarily fallible because of the fallen world we live in. If it were otherwise there would be no need for faith.
Howard,
I think for many who stay yet are uncomfortable with these things, one of the reasons they may do so is because this church is the language of their faith. It is their Mother Tongue, so to speak, and is how they feel comfortable actuating their faith. It seems, to me, like a valid and logical decision.
Sure Jared, but during our lifetimes it’s been a (convenient apologetic) doctrine that has been given A LOT MORE play after the internet was invented than before.
Yes orangganjil the” language of their faith” very good! I like that phrase. So that would be a cultural reason to stay wouldn’t it.
I can see how you could define it as cultural, but to them perhaps it is a theological decision.
Tokay but theology isn’t truth either, it’s theory.
The church argues something along the lines of; follow it’s leaders and they will lead you to the kingdom of God. But it’s leaders have been shown to be blind guides! So how are we going to find our way to the kingdom of God if they don’t know how?
I think Mary Ann and LDS_Aussie hit the nail on the head. The problem isn’t so much that the church hasn’t been fully open about it’s history. It’s how the church denies and passes blame, *especially* with regards to when it is or has been abusive towards its members. Any questions only lead to apologetics and denial that it even happens at all (gaslighting). If you’re directly affected by that abuse, once you recognize it for what it is, for me, at least, there’s no way to trust the GA anymore.
Howard, you said, “Of course you *can* stay for any reason you choose but I’m arguing that it is illogical even if it feels better than leaving.” I said faith is illogical, referring to why someone might choose to stay. Truth may be derived from objective logic/reason or by subjective experience (like personal revelation). So while I believe ultimately all truth is logical, there will be times you hold on to a personal truth that you are unable to logically argue.
To your next point, “Ok but how do you know that what you’re calling faith isn’t just the indoctrination of your youth? And if it is faith is it best applied in a church that is so easily demonstrated to be fallible?” So (1) you are suggesting I don’t know the difference between personal revelation and cultural indoctrination, which means if I tell you I believe I received personal revelation on the matter, you will then inform me that I’m just victim to cultural indoctrination. We are at an impasse. (2) You are asking if it is best to apply my faith to a fallible institution. I have told you that I have chosen to apply my faith here. I believe it is indeed the best choice for *me* based on the spiritual experiences I’ve had. I can’t argue rationally *why* it’s the best choice, because my decision is based on irrational subjective experiences. I like orangganjil’s “language of faith” description. Any language you choose to use will likely be influenced by the culture in which you were raised, yes. I have a degree in anthropology – being under the influence of one culture does not render you incapable of examining the beauty and complexities of other cultures. Being forced to examine your own culture with the tools you’ve been given to examine others (which my BYU anthropology professors made sure I did) allows you to better see strengths and weaknesses. I admit my “language of faith” has weaknesses, but it also has many strengths.
re: “Either God is a hateful, narrow minded, Utah middle class conservative republican voter, or his Apostles are.”
While many may view the November 2015 policy as if those were the only options, there are more — at least with respect to whether the Apostles should all be classed together in that way. After all none of the other 14 can be found to have publicly backed up Elder Nelson’s January 2016 claim that some unidentified version of the policy was revelation to each of them. Also, there seem to have been factors at work in the approval of Handbook changes other than agreement with each of those changes.
re: trust
Some have seen current actions, e.g. the November 2015 policy, as a betrayal of trust. Some have seen Elder Nelson’s January 2016 revelation claim as an even more significant betrayal of trust because it goes to the heart of what it means for at least one current Church leader to claim revelation, revelation being the foundational claim of the Church.
Most of the rebuilding-trust ideas I have found are directed toward interpersonal relationships. It is difficult to see how to apply them to a relationship to a institution or to the non-relationship most members have to GAs. Still, I found this worth considering:
“The truth about trusting someone else is that the only certainty is that there is no certainty. There is always an element of faith in the trust we give to someone. After a betrayal, all you can do is assess the situation and make an appraisal about what you think is likely behavior in the future. Does the person seem sincerely apologetic and willing to make amends? Does the person act with integrity in other areas of their life? Were there circumstances that played a role, or does the betrayal seem to reflect their overall character? Has he or she broken your trust in similar ways in the past? In the big picture, is there more good than bad in the relationship?”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-forward/201609/how-rebuild-trust-someone-who-hurt-you
As to the institution, the answer to the first stated question, with respect to the November 2015 policy (as well as other perceived, historical betrayals of trust) is “no.” Even the drastically different policy embedded in the revision billed as a “clarification” letter from the First Presidency, failed to even acknowledge the corrected error(s) in the Nov. 5 policy (let alone the other problems with that policy); it also failed to even acknowledge the damage already done to various families and individuals by the implementation of the Nov. 5 policy as to their children. It occurs to me, however, that there may be nothing the Brethren could say more directly to acknowledge a mistake in the November 2015 policy or in the January 2016 claim that would not be perceived by many other Church members as a betrayal of trust.
The Church could begin, however, by apologizing for at least some of the mistakes of its leaders in the more distant past, and by doing so more explicitly than President Uchtdorf’s acknowledgment that leaders in the Church have made unspecified mistakes.
What any particular person will think is likely behavior of the Church or its GAs in the future, seems to me to depend more on that person’s answers to the questions quoted above, other than the first. But for those who have felt betrayed, lack of trust in the simple model of direct and consistent revelatory guidance of the Church by Christ is not reparable, nor, in my view, should it be. There is no good reason to think the GAs or any latter-day prophet merely acts as God’s stenographer or that Jesus has weekly PPIs with the prophet. It is possible, however, to trust the GAs to be doing their best, even while believing that their best is not always good enough to reflect God’s will. Neither is mine.
[quote]”Jared
April 22, 2017 at 9:49 pm Edit
Why do my comments go into moderation?”
[endquote]
We are still trying to figure that out.
Mary Ann,
I was asking not suggesting. So you do have personal revelation? If so why not go direct? Why not follow God directly instead of following LDS blind guides???
Jared and others, we have noticed that our spam filter is extra active lately. Even some of mine have gone to the spam filter. Sorry about that. We don’t know why it is happening, but we are trying to be more proactive in fishing out valid comments.
Mine got grabbed as well several times.
John 1:17 “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
Was struck reading this in family study today, looking at Howard’s discussion with Mary Ann, and comments made by our stake president in sacrament meeting to the affect that our prophets are prophets like Moses and Noah, that perhaps we could extrapolate the above verse. The church leaders give the law of the church, but grace and truth, those come by Christ.
I lost trust in church leaders long ago, nothing I’ve observed or heard since has changed that. I don’t believe we are required to trust them.
Howard, because that personal revelation is telling me my place is in this church. I *am* following God directly as I see it.
Hegehog, I really like your take on that scripture.
That works for me Mary Ann!
MH–thanks for your explanation about the spam filter.
Glen Ostlund is quoted as follows:
“I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect that a general authority is going to take the time (that people in a faith crisis have taken) to study out all the issues and really try to understand them…..”
This is astonishing to me. Our top leaders are retired and full-time ministers of the gospel. Most with a faith crisis have jobs and families. If we have even a 5% crisis of people (without the “faith” of Mary Ann) running for the door, that would still be 800,000 people. More than all the Utah Pioneers who ever crossed the plains. Apparently the ranks of those who have left might be 70% according to some sources, which would approach 10-11 million people. (Since the church lacks transparency on the question, I shift the burden of proof back where it belongs- on them, to refute my admittedly seat-of-the-pants estimate)..
If our leaders do not have the time to lead the majority of us, just what in the heck are they doing with all of their time? One way to gain trust is to step forward in times of crisis and chaos and lead, even if less than perfect in past performance. Hiding behind excuses like this further erodes already compromised trust. Perhaps Bro. Ostlund is mistaken, but….
I assert it is not only reasonable but the sacred duty of our church leaders to be more fully aware of the material that forms the basis of a faith crisis than most of us and that they take courageous and decisive action. Chasing down 10 million horses (horse’s asses in some cases) and getting them back in the barn, it might be too late for all of that. But what about those who still remain faithful? What about our youth and children? Our next generation of converts?
Oh, but they are mighty busy running all those church operated businesses? Anyone else recall the account in the New Testament when Jesus made a whip and beat a bunch of money changers in the temple? Or how about Captain Moroni’s fiery (and somewhat misguided) letter …”sit upon your thrones in a state of thoughtless stupor…”.Don’t pony up that excuse or anything liken unto it, don’t even go there.
Mary Ann, thanks for your insightful article. However, there are some important pieces of information you give that are miss-leading. For example, in your second paragraph you say, “A believing member discovers a host of disturbing church history facts,” and you cite the CES letter as one of the sources. When I read that I had to ponder what “disturbing church history facts” are in the CES letter. Having read and studied its contents I can’t think of any actual “facts” in the letter, just hearsay, rumors, innuendoes, suppositions and personal opinions. A fact is a powerful piece of information which helps to prove or disprove a point. People who become offended by material like the CES letter are being deceived by the half-truths it contains. Half-truths are dangerous because you often don’t know if you are hearing the right half or the wrong half, and in the end you let something you don’t know affect or ruin your beliefs in the things you do know. I find no “facts” in the CES letter. For me, my anchor is the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Having studied its existence for 50 plus years my testimony continues to get stronger and stronger. It goes way beyond personal opinion, rumors and hearsay. The eleven witnesses all kept their testimonies of the Book, even after half of them left the Church. None ever claimed to have written or helped write it, or claim that someone else wrote it. No one ever claimed to write it except for the prophets and scribes within its pages. If one or two witnesses had changed their stories, or someone had come forth and claimed to have written it, then the critics would have something solid, a “fact” to go by. But no one ever did. Since 1830 hundreds of little pieces of circumstantial evidences have been found that support its authenticity, while not a single piece of solid evidence has been found showing it is a man-made fraud. When one studies the evidences supporting the Book of Mormon, and asks with faith of its truthfulness, they can gain a certain trust that it is authentic. This then becomes one’s anchor. Then, when someone reads the half-truths and hearsay put out in tabloids like the CES letter, they are less likely to disturbed by the inaccuracies they are bombarded with. There are great answers to all those tabloid “facts” being thrown around in letters, books and the internet. We just need to get those answers to the members before the critics get their “disturbing news” out.
I think I would differentiate between a trust gap and a credibility gap. They are similar, and one is easily conflated with the other in a church that has so much emphasis on the idea that our leaders are a nearly-infallible divine guide. Trust to me refers to the feeling that one has been lied to, a promise broken, or abuse of doubters.
Credibility gaps are more about discovering that leaders don’t know something, particularly if they claim to know what they are talking about and they don’t.
For example, it’s (for me) a trust gap when E. Nelson claims that the Nov. 5 policy is revelation. It’s a credibility gap when apostles have historically claimed that being gay is a choice. It’s a credibility gap when former church leaders took uneducated swipes at evolution. It’s a trust gap when the promises given to women in the temple are less than those given to men.
Docboyle11, thanks for your thoughts. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the CES Letter. In the audio linked to in Footnote 1 at about 12:45, a church historian describes the CES Letter as containing stuff that is (1) factual, (2) factual with considerable negative spin, and (3) error. So I agree that the letter is biased and has misinformation, but I believe it is inaccurate to state there are no facts in it.
@Mike – I am with you on the part about “it is the responsibility of the top leaders to LEAD the church through the problems.” It seems to me we have a huge problem with hemorrhaging members due to issues, but somewhat obscured by very limited information being shared (and leaked).
I heard a talk that was given by Elder Ballard where he tells a story about someone with doubts coming to visit him. He tells the young man that he will answer all his questions, but first he wants him to go and faithfully read the BOM and pray and come back in a few weeks. The story goes on to say that the young man comes back in and Elder Ballard asks, “so what are your questions?” and the young man’s reply is, “I don’t have any.”
I am not sure I trust that this story really happened, but that is besides the point I want to bring out. The point is that Elder Ballard claims (or insinuates) that he has the answers to the tough questions. If that is the case then it seems to be he is being extremely negligent in sharing those with the thousands that are leaving. Why is he not sharing?
The best that I can tell is that once people go down the rabbit hole and don’t have deep spiritual experiences tying themselves to the church (they can have deep spiritual experiences that they don’t tie to the church) then they don’t stay and I hear several reports of some of the highest leaders of the church essentially writing them off – or at least they have no way to counter/combat this once someone gets to that point.
Mike–I fear that what you’ve written leans towards whitewashing and embellishment. Painting a word picture of church leaders that portrays them as uncaring, out of touch, clueless, and profit hungry.
Is this what you really believe?
docboyle11 – “I cannot think of any facts in the CES Letter”
I just went through the CES letter again myself and was going to list a number of the “facts” you talk about. However, in the first 3-4 pages of the letter there are too many to mention.
Are you happy to stand by your assertion that there is not a single fact in the letter..?? I urge you to reconsider if you are, you may very well make a fool out of yourself…
“I still think someone can lose a measure of trust in leadership, but still remain an active member of the church. It’s just more difficult, and the testimony will inevitably look different.” To add to this line of thinking, when it’s revealed that the church isn’t what it said it was or what we thought it was or what we thought it said it was, why do people stay? The reasons vary, but one thing to consider is that if the church isn’t what we thought it was, then what is it? And is what it is of value to us in a newly-understood capacity? Those are the types of questions I think we have to ask.
It’s the same kind of question we ask when we discover our loved one is different than we thought. Do we divorce? That ultimately depends on what our spouse is (not that we thought they were something different). And in that regard, that’s why I was saying that credibility and trust are different for me. I care more about trust gaps than credibility gaps.
hawkgrrl: “Trust to me refers to the feeling that one has been lied to… For example, it’s (for me) a trust gap when E. Nelson claims that the Nov. 5 policy is revelation. It’s a credibility gap when apostles have historically claimed that being gay is a choice. It’s a credibility gap when former church leaders took uneducated swipes at evolution.” “Do we divorce? That ultimately depends on what our spouse is (not that we thought they were something different). ”
The trust gap/credibility gap distinction is potentially very useful, but I’m still struggling somewhat with its application. The spouse/divorce example helps greatly. But for me, e.g., although there is a trust gap when E. Nelson claimed that the November 2015 policy is a revelation, I am not sure the claim was a lie in the sense of an intentional falsehood designed to mislead. Perhaps he believed, however mistakenly, that it was a revelation. Maybe there are times when there is an overlap between the two gap categories, at least for a particular person. What am I missing?
@hawkgrrrl, The marriage analogy is interesting. There are plenty of people that stay after they find that their spouse has lied to the, even about being faithful. Some are able to make a great marriage and some don’t and maybe should have divorced at that point. And there are many people that leave once that trust is broken. Some of them might have been able to work through the issue and have a great marriage and others it was the best move.
When you give examples showing a “credibility gap” it sounds like you are talking about giving people a pass for ignorance. I am not saying that in a super-insulting way, but I can understand someone in maybe the 1940’s saying gay is a choice, but not giving someone today that same pass. Your examples of trust are more about talking past their knowledge level (probably not framing that one 100% correct). I see that difference, but have a hard time separating them. Have a leader that keeps getting up in front of the pulpit and bashing gays and I have a hard time trusting other things they say.
Maybe to take it back to the marriage example. It is one thing if you spouse cheats on you. But after they cheat on you and they still keep doing stupid things that put them at risk of cheating again, it can be hard both to trust them (that they do want to be married to you) and have confidence that they are trying.
The trust/credibility distinction is too muddled for me. Who you trust depends on who you find credible, and credibility is based on what you personally value. For example, say a former member comes up to an orthodox member and says, “Hey, I have good evidence that your bishop is running a Ponzi scheme on the ward members.” Now, who is more credible to that orthodox member? The orthodox member might know the former member well and finds them credible because of their business expertise, but the orthodox member also believes the bishop is a good person and that the Spirit would never allow a con-man into that position – religious/moral credibility. So the orthodox member will need to decide who to trust, and they will need to weigh which type of credibility matters *more* in this situation. What if the former member just has an axe to grind and is bitter towards that bishop? What if the bishop really *is* a con-man and fooled even other church leaders?
Where the betrayal aspect comes in is when you’ve traditionally valued one type of cred over another, and then you find out it was not as dependable as you thought. If the member decides to trust the religious credibility of the bishop and tell their friend (the former member) they must be mistaken (or lying), then the orthodox member will feel a much stronger sense of betrayal if the bishop *does* turn out to be a con-man. The member will start to re-evaluate when religious credibility is an appropriate variable, or if that type of credibility should exist at all (how could the Spirit allow someone like *that* to be bishop), and the orthodox member will feel immense guilt over doubting their friend. Btw, this one is based on a real financial situation, but the basic principles work for church history. Because of high religious credibility (both moral leadership as well as representing the church), members trust the whitewashed story and disregard info from former members or intellectuals. The strength of the religious credibility then comes into question when members discover former members and intellectuals had correct facts.
When I was a teenager, I battled once with an adult Sunday School teacher over evolution. After church, he came over to my house and handed me a significant pile of papers photocopied from a book by Joseph Fielding Smith. It’s not that he hated science, he just trusted the credibility of that religious leader *more* in this case because he felt creation was a religious issue. I think Elder Nelson’s “big bang” jab would’ve been credible to a lot of people because (1) he was an apostle speaking in general conference, and (2) he is a medical doctor (worldly education). Someone who values the opinions of geologists, though, would just roll their eyes – he’s not credible to them on this issue.
orangganjil, saya suka namamu tetapi saya kurang setuju dengan Anda.
I don’t see the “class system” in our church so much. I view the church of us independently finding our own testimony whether that is done on our knees, walking through the woods, meditation or whatever. But our spiritual health is up to each of us, and I find our system so much more empowering than say, the ancient Israelites where the ability to serve in the temple was determined by birth and only open to a very few. Our temples are open to all worthy members, families get to plan their own baptismal services, etc.
I see leaders as following principles of “servant leadership,” enabling others to pursue their own path. It’s not like a leader gets any benefit personally out of their position.
I absolutely have questioned the church on various occasions. It’s just that in my case, the church turned out to be right every time, which strengthens both my faith and (more importantly to this discussion) my willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the church when I have a new question. The opposite of the cycle described in the OP.
I appreciate that we all have different experiences and outlooks and appreciate those who are willing to share.
>But for me, e.g., although there is a trust gap when E. Nelson claimed that the November 2015 policy is a revelation, I am not sure the claim was a lie in the sense of an intentional falsehood designed to mislead. Perhaps he believed, however mistakenly, that it was a revelation. Maybe there are times when there is an overlap between the two gap categories, at least for a particular person. What am I missing?
For me, this is both a trust and credibility gap. The problem isn’t the PoX itself, but what it represents: all the doctrine the church teaches about LGBT+ people. It and the church’s responses when it was “leaked” have made it very clear that the GA do not care about the incredible amount of harm this doctrine does, as they skirt around and completely avoid actually addressing any of the issues. The claims of revelation mean that things have absolutely no chance of changing, and they are doubling down on its enforcement. Whether or not they believe this is all of God, there is plenty of empirical evidence that it bears rotten fruit, and yet they claim that following it is necessary for true happiness. Gaslighting and other abuse undermines trust. Merely teaching false things is a credibility issue.
Perhaps the distinction is made even more tricky because of the nature of the relationship with the church vs. a spouse. For those who rely heavily on the church as a source or conduit for truth rather than a community for flawed disciples of Christ to work together, the church’s lack of credibility on some issues creates an even bigger problem. I suppose it really depends on how you see the church.
It reminds me a bit of the Elizabeth Drescher interview Blair Hodges did about her “rise of the nones” book. She had interviewed an evangelical man who left his faith, and he had felt betrayed because he discovered that science was a better explanation than the religious stuff his church had told him, and that he wasn’t able to be taken seriously anywhere outside of his religion because of his assertion of creationism in academic settings. So yes, for those who outsource their thinking to church authority, credibility can certainly be a broken promise / trust issue. But if you didn’t really see the church that way, finding that some teachings are flawed is easier to get past, even though those leaders who were most determined to set themselves up as authoritative in areas where they didn’t know what they were talking about have generally been the most wrong. (I’m thinking of JFS/BRM/ETB). As they say, “Whoa unto those who mistake authority for truth.” Particularly when it’s their own authority.
Yes the marriage analogy is interesting and I think very helpful to this discussion. But when we discover our loved one is significantly different than we thought (or than they portrayed themselves to be? or they lied? or they betrayed us?) I doubt we stay because we truly believe they are the “only true” mate for us, we probably stay more because of sunk costs plus the high costs (including emotional and loss of family) of changing mates. And I suspect it is similar between LDS members and the church.
Like Mary Ann I received revelation that kept me in the church for what turned out to be an additional 3 years after awakening because I still had some things to learn but later I received revelation directing me to move outside of it . It would be a mistake to conflate the *stay* revelation with some meaning like “So it must the only true church or the closest thing to it.”
“Whoa unto those who mistake authority for truth.”
I love this! Since I don’t know who “they” are who say it (Gerald Massey doesn’t quite with “They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.” ) I’m going to be quoting hawkgrrrl, and insisting that she really meant “whoa” and not “wo” or “woe”. I think hawkgrrrl has put her finger right on the reason trust and credibility are muddled together for many. Of course, it is the Church and its teaching manuals that are largely responsible for training people to rely on it as a source or conduit for truth. Some have a great deal easier time than others getting away from that without being shocked and betrayed.
p.s. It seems neither JFS nor ETB repeated their earlier controversial/wrong/whatever stuff after they became president of the Church. It seems the tone of BRM’s final conference speech was drastically different from his earlier speeches and much of his earlier writing. Maybe they heard the “whoa.”
Yes, Howard. There are also reports of those who have personal revelation to leave the Church and later personal revelation to come back to it. If we’re going to accept personal revelation as divine direction as to what is best for the person receiving it, then it would also be a mistake to conflate revelation to leave the Church with “the Church is not a true and living church” or “the Church is not divinely authorized in essentials (despite its human mistakes — which may sometimes even include mistakes as to what those essentials are)” .
Response to Jared’s response:
Very funny. You are attacking the wrong messenger (a double logical flaw).
1. I quote Glenn Ostlund. I didn’t say it- he did.
2. The church white washes or embellishes the answer to simple questions we all would like to know. How many people actually attend a meeting church wide each week/once a month/once a year? Wouldn’t you like to know these answers in order to bolster your position against mine? This faith crisis affects certainly more than 5%. My 70% estimate, based on my limited experience, is probably pretty close. Do you seriously think the problem is not that big? How twisted is this? Keep me totally in the dark, I make a reasonable estimate, then accuse me of embellishment? If you have better data, pony it up. If you could point to me a reliable source saying it was only 6 million I could go with that. It wouldn’t change any conclusions. Otherwise put that saddle back on the right horse.
3. The issue is not what I believe. I could be completely spiritually wasted after half a century wandering in this wilderness. That would be the topic of another blog. The issue I discuss is what Glenn Ostlund believes. I highlight (Embellish? How is it any worse?) what he portrays. I find it astonishing? Don’t you?
4. My last paragraph about alternative motives including greed is speculative. But is one side of a coin that keeps being tossed my way all the time. Either the church leaders know but won’t tell (see Happy Hubby immediately above your message to me) or they don’t have time to know doing all this other church work. Their only other work that is visible is their businesses which are amazingly successful and lucrative. Seems like a logical sequence to me.
Two can play this game. Do you really think there isn’t a huge problem with retention? The bloggernacle is entirely full of hot air on this topic? Do you really think millions of members of this church leave, that isn’t a problem? That the church leaders have better things to do than deal with it? That they should stop doing it, the few times they make a visible effort to deal with it? That if weak-faith pip sqeaks like me would just shut the flip up, it would all go away?
Is this what you really believe?
(And Jared, don’t take small fry like me too serious. If I was actually standing next to you in person, you would understand I am only just horsing around. Take what the church leaders are or are not doing serious.)
Indeed JR! It’s best not to conflate or contaminate any revelations with propaganda or anything else for that matter.
So where does this lead? It leads to the fact that direct revelation trumps all. If direct revelation trumps all then it certainly trumps following blind guides. dogma and so-called “doctrine” offered by blind guides.
Btw what is your guess? Do you actually think more LDS members directed by personal revelation to return after awakening than are directed by personal revelation to leave?
Howard, there is a great deal of difference between between “blind guides” and human guides whose perspective and cultural background influence their guidance. There is a great deal of difference between “blind guides” and guides who are simply sometimes mistaken, sometimes overlook something, or may sometimes even be asleep. I decline to accept your apparent characterizations of certain guides as “blind” or of the experience of those leaving the Church as an “awakening.” Some leave in part because they feel they have “awakened;” most of those I know who have left would not characterize their experience as an awakening or claim that it was based upon personal revelation. As to the guess you ask for, I can only speak of those I know or of whom I can recall anecdotal evidence – a sample so small it does not justify any generalization. From that sample I know of many more who claim personal revelation to join, stay, or return than who would characterize their decision to leave as based upon personal revelation. I know of a few who would characterize their decision to leave or not to join as based upon personal revelation, but my sample is far too small to justify a guess in response to your question.
Okay JR I call then blind based on their abominable race record and their recent abominable POX policy, you call them human but in either case what exactly is the value of following guides if one has discernment or personal revelation? Wouldn’t one be better eliminating the middleman and following direct revelation as a disciple of God?
With regard to awakening, do you know anyone who has unawakened, so someone who has gone back to sleep in the unawareness they previously resided in? Isn’t it a one way experience? Can naiveté be recaptured? Do you think we more likely to enter the kingdom of God asleep or awake?
JR: “Whoa” indeed! Let’s call that a Freudian slip.
I just heard this saying and it seems like it could some application here: “When an honestly mistaken person stumbles upon the truth either they are no longer mistakes or they are no longer honest.”
Howard, I just got back to this. After some thought, it seems to me that your questions are most likely rhetorical questions and that they are so laden with generalization I find inappropriate and with terms that often seem vague or abused (“discernment” “following” “personal revelation”) and implicit name calling (“blind” “asleep” “naive” – each of which I’ve heard used by extreme conservatives about liberals or progressives and vice versa), that I think you are not looking for any thoughts from me that might be helpful. I am not willing to discuss my experiences with personal revelation in that context beyond noting that they do not require me to follow blind guides and do support or even require my decision to remain a member of the LDS church. Your questions seem to me to embody an insistence on all-or-nothing thinking and an inability or unwillingness to find value in the church’s community building efforts. In my view those community building efforts don’t go far enough, and in the case of the POX go the wrong direction entirely, but for me that does not make the efforts in the right direction valueless.
It may be useful to some to note the following in which JS agrees with what I think you are saying and concludes with a generalization that may be as ill-founded as I perceive yours. As to “following” priesthood leaders, JS’ thoughts here have been echoed, though more gently, by a number of more recent GAs — a good enough reason for me to resist lumping them all, historical and current, together as “blind guides” just because I do not accept the racist attitudes, teachings and policies of some of them and do not accept any claim of revelation of the POX or any rationale I have yet heard for its existence.
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.”
– Joseph Smith, Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num. 38, pp.593-595
Good luck finding answers — if you are looking for any you don’t already have.
JR,
Hmm, you find words like“ discernment” “following” and “personal revelation” inappropriate, vague or abused in an LDS blog discussion??? Really? I’m truly amazed.
Here’s where I think it goes. Those without adequate personal revelation (a very commonly used LDS term often by members of Q15 even in GC) *may* benefit by taking to heart the advice and council of their fallible human LDS leaders (this is commonly referred to as following) but there is this one might want to consider in the D&C: Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. And it seems that fallible human LDS leaders have added a great deal to what the Lord defined as his church and the limits of it. In the Bible we find Moses saying: Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! Hmm, would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets! So God wants us all to become prophets? When have you heard this from your fallible human LDS leaders? Finally in Matthew we find this: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. This is the gateway to discipleship. Do your fallible human LDS leaders recommend that their congregations sell what they have, give to to poor and follow Jesus? No, of course not, if they did that how would they build buildings? And malls (in a declining retail market, oops fallible humans again I guess?) The problem is the LDS model doesn’t seem to fit God’s immaterial model but it does build a lot of very well built buildings instead.
Yes mostly rhetorical, good night.
Funny how we have this tendency to want to convince other people to be like us, forgetting that it’s that same behavior (taken to an extreme) that we most complain about in TBMs. It’s ok for the church to have value to JR while being a toxic place for howard. We all have different needs and must seek *our own* paths up Mt Fuji.
Sure so I guess there’s JR’s path, Howard’s path and ydeve’s choice of paths?
From: orangganjil
“Our leaders are of paramount importance to the church while members exist to follow and support them.”
——————
After a lifelong study and struggle, I have recently found an answer that suits me. You might say that it is a takeoff on the “trust but verify” thoughts of Ronald Reagan concerning the USSR. (The reality in that case was that there was very little trusting and a lot of verifying.) When the servants have finally become the masters, you can be sure that something is wrong.
The main problem, as I see it, is that over the last 120 years (specifically starting in 1896), the church leaders have taken too much power to themselves, and we have let them do it, which has been a mistake. In certain very specific areas, that has partially corrupted them and partially corrupted us. That is what the governments of men ALWAYS do, and religious governments are no exception. The only way to fix this problem is to take back about 90% of the power we have granted the central leaders. That probably sounds difficult, but every other solution will fail as badly as things are failing now.
(Many people interpret the Donald Trump phenomenon to be a visceral reaction of the middle class to a federal government which is completely out of control and needs to be reined in. I believe the current level of turmoil in the church is just another aspect of the exact same situation.)
As a lawyer, I see the U.S. Constitution is a powerful guide and brake on government excess. Similarly, we have the Scriptures which are a guide and a brake on the teachings and behavior and policies of church leaders (and the members too, of course). It is easy to demonstrate that in many important cases the church leaders (and their staff) have rewritten and reinterpreted the Scriptures to suit their own convenience, whether completely consciously or not, and unless we enforce that “constitution” of the Scriptures, the church leaders will always eventually go astray. It appears that in the last two times that Christ restored the gospel to the Earth, his apostles eventually went off the rails and the whole project disintegrated at about the 200 year mark, where we find ourselves again now. There’s no reason whatsoever that we shouldn’t expect that exact same thing to have happened in our own time. As someone seemed to imply here in one of the comments, the members actually have to be smarter historians and better theologians then the church leaders (and their staff historians) if those church leaders are to be kept on the correct path. If that seems backwards, it really shouldn’t seem backwards, because otherwise, incremental degeneration is inevitable.
Personal interests and incentives are very powerful things, and if people are not disciplined by outside forces, as in our constitutional republic, but are given monopolies in important areas, as in church administration, it will always only be a matter of time until something goes seriously wrong. More details are available at mormonaudit dot blogspot dot com.