President Oaks gave a talk in the recent General Conference entitled “Two Great Commandments.” In it, he discusses the balance between love of God and love of our fellow humans. Jana Riess shortly after penned her concerns about some of the points made by President Oaks. This sparked a letter in the Salt Lake Tribune from former State Senator Stuart C Reid, calling her piece a “biased broadside” against President Oaks. Now I’m not actually going to talk about Pres. Oaks’s talk, Dr. Riess’s article, or State Senator Reid’s response. What I DO want to talk about is the concept of the marketplace of ideas.
The marketplace of ideas is generally attributed to two Johns: John Milton felt that in a free and open interaction, truth would prevail. [1] John Stuart Mill felt that truth left untested would slip into dogma. [2] Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, felt that it is safe to tolerate “error of opinion […] where reason is left free to combat it.” [3]
President Oaks has made many statements throughout his life that relate to LGBTQ behavior and identity within the context of the church. He has also made public statements for the church as an organization in relation to public policy, legal concerns, and legal rights and allowances for LGBTQ individuals outside of the church. A majority of his statements on LGBTQ issues have engendered criticism in both contexts. He has also explicitly stated that “it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord.”
Here’s what I want you to consider: (It’d be interesting to ask your friends, family members, or other people within the church around you, because I’d love to find out how individuals feel.)
- Are the statements of President Oaks fair game for criticism within the marketplace of ideas?
- Do you agree with President Oaks on criticism of church leaders? In the citation (transcript of an interview), he seems to state that his quote against criticism directly related to the writing of history. When individuals have used this quote to oppose criticism of the statements of church leaders, have they used the quote in this context?
- Does it make a difference when President Oaks is talking in context within the church vs public policy and legal issues outside of it?
[1] Milton, John. Areopagitica, in Areopagitica and Of Education 1, 50 (Harlan Davidson, Inc. 1951) [1644].
[2] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999.
[3] Jefferson, Thomas. First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1801), in Writings 492, 493 (Merrill D. Peterson ed. 1984).
Wheat & Tares 
1.Yes, and in the edited version of the 1986 talk (to a student association, not a group of historians) found on the church website, he effectively said so: “I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom.”
2.a. Depends on the context and what you think he meant. The writing-history connection is better expressed in the edited version of the talk than in the interview.
2.b. Depends on what statements. E.g., Elder Ballard’s claim that “we [GAs] have experienced it all,” if taken literally is a statement contrary to fact that could best be criticized historically. Also depends on what criticisms.
3.As to writing history, Elder Oaks seemed to say in the edited version of the talk that it does not make a difference. But, again, depends on what statements — statements of current church policy? allegedly factual statements? opinions? statements on what should or should not be legally permitted in a pluralistic society?
Generally, No, it makes no difference, as to criticism of the merits of ideas. (But there may be appropriate and inappropriate times and places to air such criticisms.) Without such criticism, there would seem to be no way President J. Reuben Clark’s 1954 proposal as to knowing when church leaders are moved upon by the Holy Ghost would work:
“…even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’
How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”
Are the statements of President Oaks fair game for criticism within the marketplace of ideas? YES
Do you agree with President Oaks on criticism of church leaders? NO. If we follow in the example of Christ, we will criticize church leaders.
Does it make a difference when President Oaks is talking in context within the church vs public policy and legal issues outside of it? NO
Is it reasonable and responsible to criticize Oaks? Yes, absolutely! He makes statements that are so sweeping, so outrageous and so damaging to whole groups of people that it’s important to correct, offset and defuse them. The soaring number of suicides make that clear, I believe.
You didn’t ask but, if he’s to become First President in however many years, he’d better get comfortable with being challenged and criticized. I may be projecting on how he’ll wield that power and authority. I hope I am!
Is it possible to agree with his position that leaders are or should be immune to challenges? I suppose so but I think the consequence is the church going further down the road to marginalizing itself in society and alienating large numbers of its own followers.
Does it make a difference if a leader is speaking within the context of church or public matters? Not to me and one would have to suppose, given the principles laid down by Benson on the sweeping nature of the Prophet’s domain, not in principle either.
A couple of notes. 1) On the marketplace of ideas, I would argue that people in the US have for decades enjoyed a marketplace of ideas and while it has worked wonders in terms of many truths coming to light and gaining widespread acceptance, people in general seem to shape their views of truth within echo chambers. Sure there are a few whose powers of critical thought can transcend the echo chamber, but mostly people seek out information that confirms what they already are prone to think. The problem today is an overabundance of information. People want information and to have opinions on a range of ideas, but often don’t have time or patience to shift through the volumes of information on any given topic, so they rely on individuals, who are often agenda-pushers, to boil down that information for them. If they hear a coumternarrative, their response is not to listen directly to it, but only a distillation of it through the filter of the preferred echo chamber. Consequently we struggle to combat denial of well established truths such as climate change and the effectiveness of vaccines. Other conspiracy theories abound in the age of Trump. Popular media outlets spend a considerable amount of time confronting denialism and nonsense ideas.
2) Oaks is perpetuating a doublethink upon which the church has long thrived, which is that the leaders are both fallible and infallible at the same time. They are mere humans with foibles but it wrong to point these foibles out. Follow and defend the leaders no matter what. When it is convenient to your argument to point out fallibility, do that. And when it is convenient to your argument to point out infallibility, do that. When a critic points out obvious places where Joseph Smith was wrong, cry, “you’re expecting him to be perfect.” When a believing member on the fence expresses mild doubt in the policies of current leaders on LGBTs, tell them to sustain the leaders, choose to believe, not steady the arc, and a host of other veiled terms that suggest treating the leaders as infallibles.
The statements of President Oaks are fair game for criticism, I suppose, but I always thought of the “marketplace of ideas” as a place where actual, legitimate ideas and viewpoints were discussed. So bigotry couched in religious rhetoric really isn’t an idea that is worthy of being taken seriously; it’s bigotry. As such, it’s not really worth the time and effort that goes into evaluating actual, worthwhile ideas. That kind of bigotry should be publicly challenged, of course, but it should be challenged with the intent of condemning it, not treating it respectfully as just one of many viewpoints to be discussed and evaluated.
And John W really hits the nail on the head with his second point. As someone who makes his living studying and writing about language, I’ve found the kind of doublethink (and doublespeak) that John W points out all over the place when it comes to LDS leaders trying to walk the line between “imperfectly human” and “divinely inspired.” I think if we were all willing to say “I don’t know” a little more often, the church would be the stronger and better for it.
We’re free to participate in the marketplace of ideas until our stake president decides it’s apostasy, after which time we can still participate – as ex Mormons.
I think someone is running for Quorum of the Seventy.
John W’s comment was one of the best I have read on Wheat and Tares: both his points devastate the Target.
As to his point about trying to balance the fact that our leaders are fallible and can (and do) make mistakes, and how to sustain them as they try to do their jobs:
It is my belief that Church members, as a group, generally crave certainty; our Church teaches that Prophets receive modern revelation (that was one of the things that attracted me to the Church, in the first place, many years ago), and it can be hard to square divinely-inspired prophets with fallible humans. It makes Mormons raised on Amos 3:7 very nervous. I don’t think that we do a very good job of this, as a people.
Part of the reason is that there often IS over-the-top criticism of Church leaders (what I think Dallin Oaks was getting at). So, when legitimate points are made that question the wisdom of a Church policy, it is more convenient to dump all questioning voices into the same briar patch. This is getting worse, I think, because, as John W. Pointed out, we suffer from information overdose in our modern day, and it is just too hard for most people to sort it all out, and they opt for the cheap way out of certainty and reaffirming echo chambers. That is a big reason why dissent in the Church can be so hard. On a personal, non-Church level, I always regarded myself as a staunch conservative (fan of Goldwater and Reagan), but lo and behold, in the age of Trump, I am no longer a conservative. I have had many Trump supporters tell me that I am not a TRUE conservative. I realize that definitions change, but facts do not.
From the poet A. E. Housman:
To think that two and two are four,
And neither five nor three,
The heart of man has long been sore,
And like ‘‘tis long to be.
People dislike inconvenient facts. So they dispute climate change and vaccines, as John W said. They seldom re-evaluate their own opinions.
There is a joke (not original to me) that Catholics say the Pope is infallible (which is Catholic Church teaching) but don’t believe it, and the Mormons say the Church President is NOT infallible (which is Church teaching) but don’t believe it.
Nevertheless, we will manage, somehow. That is my belief as a Latter-day Saint Christian.
Not being aware of any scripture, or revelation about gay marriage, then Oaks is presenting his political views as gospel. He said in one conference talk that his knowledge of the afterlife is very limited, but that did not seem to make him question his opposition to gay marriage. He has spent his whole career opposing it and dismally failed.
I noticed RN a couple of times suggest prophets can be victims of attack by….. So he is starting a Trump like strategy of blaming the questioner. So he and Oaks don’t believe their statements should be questioned.
Another loss of credibility.
Ok, I’ll bite. I’ll take a shot at defending at Oaks’ statement. Mostly just as exercise; I’m not sure I entirely believe this, and the full context of his statement doesn’t appear to be available. He supposedly made the statement at a fireside in 1986 called “Reading Church History.”
Years later, on PBS, he claimed his full statement at the fireside was actually: “It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever.”
He went on to tell PBS, “I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history”—which is weird, because it was a fireside for BYU students. BYU students write church history??
Still addressing PBS: ” I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.” At this point, he’s just making it worse. Two words for you, Mr. Oaks: Sally Hemings. Of COURSE we need to know what our most significant leaders did in their youth! Sheesh, dude, quit while you’re ahead…
But, ok…ok…I’m supposed to be taking the pro-Oaks position, so here goes…
Given that little bit of context, it sounds like he’s addressing something specific that happened at BYU, like a dust-up over embarrassing church history or the youthful behavior—possibly the youthful sexual misbehavior—of church leaders. (Today, a statement like that would cause a #MeToo howl, but this was 1986. It’s very unlikely he was addressing gay rights. In 1986, Elton John hadn’t even come out of the closet yet.)
It’s still hard to defend the content of Oaks’ statement, with or without context. It just SOUNDS despotic, and, worse, he doesn’t seem to REALIZE it sounds despotic. But I think a limited case can be made for it, considering he’s addressing church members, and he seems to be addressing the way members present the church to the outside world.
[Content warning: The next paragraph repeats some really vile anti-Mormon slurs, some involving the temple. If you might find that hurtful, just skip the following paragraph.]
The misconceptions that non-Mormons still have about Mormons are staggering to me. At best, people think it’s a cult, and that’s it’s certainly not Christian, because you worship Joseph Smith as the Messiah—that’s at best. When Mitt Romney was running for president, I couldn’t believe the things I was hearing, based on some weird mishmash of Warren Jeffs and “Big Love”: That you still practice polygamy (natch). That garments have some kind of sexual purpose. That the temple involves ritual sex with underage girls. That you steal other people’s underage girls to marry them…let’s just leave it at that….you get the idea…. Some of this was certainly just political crap with regards to Mitt Romney, but in most cases, I find that the people who say this stuff actually believe it.
[Ok, grossness over.]
So, then, let’s say you have church members criticizing church leaders publicly, which then gets repeated by the press. Even if what they’re saying is true, or at least fair opinion, it’s still going to feed the beast. Romney himself is descended from polygamists who were sent to Mexico specifically to get around the ban on polygamy AFTER the church claimed that it had been revealed they were no longer supposed to be practicing polygamy at all.
Is it useful for members to go around pointing out that Mitt Romney was descended from illicit polygamy? Does it really MATTER as far as who he is or for what kind of president he might have been? Now, granted, that’s not Romney himself; that’s his ancestors, but, again, most people in my experience believe Mormons are STILL polygamists—and they’re not referring to some quirk in the sealing policy that only applies in heaven; they think you’re still secret polygamists here on earth. That is always the first myth I have to dispel if I’m talking to somebody and Mormonism comes up.
(Another example might be Jon Krakauer’s book “Under the Banner of Heaven.” It’s a really good book—if, and only if, it’s not the ONLY thing somebody ever reads about Mormons, which it often is. When I tell people in the Midwest that I spent 10 years in Utah, a common response is, “Oh, have you read “Under the Banner of Heaven”? *sigh* “Yeah, but they mostly don’t slaughter their whole families because they think God told them to.” I used to live in Milwaukee, but nobody’s ever asked me if I knew Jeffrey Dahmer—because that’s not the only thing they know about Milwaukee. Fortunately, the Book of Mormon musical is starting to eclipse all of this. In my opinion, the Book of Mormon musical is one of the best things that ever happened to the church in terms of public image.)
I think Oaks’ statement can be defensible if the context is how members speak or write publicly about church leaders, and I think it’s possible to infer that that was the context. One final example to illustrate my point:
I went to church on Mother’s Day and was positively stunned that it was wall-to-wall Heavenly Mother for two hours. Every talk given and the Relief Society lesson were all about Her. After church, I pulled the missionaries aside and asked them about it. I’d always heard you weren’t supposed to ever talk about Heavenly Mother.
They explained that it was fine to talk about Heavenly Mother amongst members, especially in church meetings where there’s a “good spirit,” but not really ever with outsiders, or in the context of debating about Her, or in any kind of context where She might be badmouthed or demeaned. She can be talked about. She can be talked about at length—but only when you keep in mind that She’s the Big Guy’s wife and He is VERY protective.
In light of that, let’s just skip what the general public would say about Her if that doctrine were widely known, but suffice it to say, I believe their concerns about what the public would say are more than justified.
I’m not sure I entirely believe that Oaks’ statement can be interpreted this charitably, but that’s my best shot at it. Where I really have a hard time defending it is when he said, “One can work to correct [church leaders] by some other means”—like what?? When has the average member had “some other means” end in anything but discipline? Is there some mechanism for voicing your opinion to church leaders that I’m not aware of? I can really only take my own exercise seriously if there really is a means of disagreeing with church leadership—albeit keeping it within the tribe, so to speak, for the tribe’s own protection, which I think would be understandable and even wise.
PS I grew up Catholic, and the comment above about the pope being infallible is a common misconception that’s not actually true. Catholics only believe the pope is infallible when he invokes infallibility. It’s extremely rare for a pope to invoke infallibility. No pope has done so since the ’50s. He’s not considered infallible at any other time or in anything else that he says—although the joke still made me laugh! 🙂
I think a lot of mainstream Mormons think it’s okay to engage in public discussion of LDS doctrines, policies, and political positions. Some of those think that discussion is only okay if the comments are praising LDS positions; other mainstream Mormons are open to public discussion that departs from fawning praise, although the term “criticism” seems to be a trigger.
LDS leadership thinks all public discussion by members should be unmitigated praise, followed by a personal testimony.
Middle Way Mormons think public discussion of LDS doctrines, policies, and political positions is necessary to preserve one’s sanity. The only caveat I would add would be to not criticize leaders personally, by name. One should criticize the speak, not the speaker, in the same way that LDS leaders often claim to hate the sin, not the sinner. If they can make that distinction, so can I.
@JR 9:40AM
Thank you for citing that. I confess nobody has ever used that quote with me in that expanded context before – neither the individuals supporting no criticism, or those criticizing his statement. I’m surprised that FairMormon, the citation I provided for the original quote, didn’t use that talk as a source to provide context.
Do you suppose, as others have intimated, that Pres. Oaks specifically and the leadership at large, may hesitate to use/promote the edited version of the talk, but instead by default, tacitly encourage the out of context portion? I wonder often at the use of similar quotes which encourage a strict obedience mindset.
My wondering stems from the “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over” interactions. Pres. Elaine Cannon relates an interaction with Pres. Spencer W Kimball in 1978. After internal debate on the ERA, she had just repeated this phrase at a women’s fireside in 1978. “Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over.” Pres. Kimball spoke with her about this talk:
‘”President Kimball, what I said is that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” His next comment took me by surprise. “I don’t think the people like to hear that.” I replied, “But it’s true, isn’t it?” He paused for a moment and answered, “Yes, It’s true, but I don’t think they like to hear it quite that way.”‘
-“Spencer W. Kimball: A Tribute,” This People, Dec 1985/Jan 1986, vol. 6, no.
8, p. 24, contained in the Elaine A. Cannon Collection, Box 4, Folder 20. This People
magazine is not currently accessible in digital form. Selected hard-copy issues are
available in the Harold B. Lee Library of BYU-Provo; this particular issue is also
available in the library’s unrestricted Americana Collection.
My general concern is that many of the general authorities have a similar approach to this concept. While publicly they may encourage an independent confirmation of teachings and statements, privately they may share Pres. Kimball’s opinion that it is in fact true.
@John W 11:23am
I fully agree with you on echo chambers. Sadly, tribalism is a human quality, and I think that it is often increased in our church meetings. It feels good when others around us agree and comments in Sunday school can serve to weekly confirm our ideas about the world.
JD, Even assuming Sister Cannon’s somewhat self-serving report is quite accurate, it may be important to note that, in that report, it is she and not President Kimball that connected “when the prophet speaks” to eternal principles.” if SWK’s comment was accurately and fully reported, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything more than that “in our church government, when the prophet makes a decision on matters of church government/policy/what-is-to-be-taught, that is the end of the debate [there is no court of appeal] — until he changes his mind or a succeeding prophet does.” There are examples of change being made by the same prophet (as well as by a succeeding prophet), including at least one of significance by SWK himself. Getting to such changes is partly a function of criticism of the idea or the effects of an adopted policy or teaching. But some kinds of criticism in some context may be more likely than others to facilitate change. Another function of criticism is to assist (oneself or others) in dealing with the criticized idea/policy/whatever, pending any hoped-for change. I’m pretty sure there are other functions as well
I think JohnW has accurately described the double-speak that happens with respect to fallibility/infallibility, criticism, etc., but I’m not convinced that such double-speak is intentional rather than thoughtless.
@Brother Sky 5:30pm
I fully support encouraging leadership saying “I don’t know” more than we currently do. Even with General Authority condemnation of folk doctrine, we still create doctrine based on supposition. Line upon line of supposition.
@Taiwan Missionary 8:08pm
I second your comment: Squaring divinely-inspired prophets with fallible humans makes Mormons raised on Amos 3:7 very nervous. I think a majority of membership wants a feeling of safety, bolstered by the regular general authority comments about staying in the boat/ship. On a ship, the captain makes course corrections, passengers do not. General authorities have encouraged this mentality that they (the prophet particularly) are the captain/captains.
I find their role to be closer to engineers – tasked with making sure the ship runs smoothly and doesn’t deviate from course.
The ONLY captain who sets a course is Jesus, working through mortal and frustratingly fallible human engineers.
@Investi-Jesse 6:12am
Good effort.
@JR 1:17pm
I can fully support the context of that quote within “in our church government when the prophet makes a decision on matters there is no court of appeal, etc.” That’s a very narrow context that I don’t know gets communicated.
While I can fully agree with the majority of double-speak being thoughtless (Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/thoughtlessness) I still wonder if there are opportunities sometimes to correct talks that may encourage this hard line approach, and they intentionally choose to refrain. They want to encourage obedience and not minimize the reputation the other who gave the talk. Similarly to the approach on bad historical church teachings.
I have a doubt that “truth” prevails very often at least in the human world. Strength prevails. A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth puts on its {boots, britches} https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
“Are the statements of President Oaks fair game for criticism within the marketplace of ideas?”
Certainly; as are my statements and your statements.
“Do you agree with President Oaks on criticism of church leaders? “
It depends on where one stands. Once the ship has sailed, it can have only one captain. You shouldn’t be on the same ship as the captain you are criticizing but it is perfectly reasonable to criticize other captains. Same with a football or soccer team; you don’t publicly criticize teammates or the team captain. That’s for the locker room. But criticism of the other team; that’s part of the game, although still not really good sportsmanship.
“he seems to state that his quote against criticism directly related to the writing of history.”
Historians ought to keep themselves out of history although I doubt such a thing is possible.
Consider the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Can there be a dispassionate review of just the facts? No, because your choice to review the Mountain Meadows Massacre stems from a personal interest. Even where facts exist, you and I process those facts to arrive at judgments, particularly if you have a dog in this fight; you are descended from one of the survivors, or from one of the perpetrators (choice of words matters; “perpetrators” is a value loaded word).
“Does it make a difference when President Oaks is talking in context within the church vs public policy and legal issues outside of it?”
It does and speaks to “situational ethics”. It’s a bit like the “no skateboarding” signs at the parking garage where I work. It isn’t really enforced, but presumably it insulates the company from lawsuits when inevitably a teenager is injured doing something it is clearly posted not to do.
Rights ignored eventually disappear; you have allowed an easement to come into existence. That is why, in my opinion, the church must take a hard line on moral issues when corresponding legal issues are involved. The foundation rules or principles must be established from the beginning. The religious protections of the First Amendment pertain only to bona-fide religious beliefs that cannot suddenly come into existence the day of a legislation. They can later be relaxed a bit, given some situational nuance, but the rule needs to be clearly established from the very moment it is seen as necessary.
So it is in the military. Boot camp is extremely rules-based and rigid; everything right down to how you lace your shoes is specified and must be strictly obeyed. Once the foundation is established then you can relax and accept situational realities. I wore Danner boots, not the authorized Navy boots, in Alaska to keep my feet warm and I had only one comment on it in four years. But I laced them up properly; right over left.
“If we follow in the example of Christ, we will criticize church leaders.”
I cannot think of an example where Christ criticized his own leaders. He criticized other leaders, but not by naming and shaming. He criticized hypocrisy. He laid the foundation of a new religion rather than trying to reform the old one through criticism (has that ever worked?)
@Michael 2
Fortunately we are neither in the military nor on a ship. I agree with JR and Pres Oaks himself with the explicit narrow definition of criticism as: “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything. That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom.”
In that specific definition, it is our individual requirement and responsibility to influence our leaders through such criticism.
Three personal experiences, that to me highlight the difficulty of offering constructive and helpful criticism (I.e.,not carping) in the Church. There is a reluctance on the part of most members to offer suggestions, and some leaders push back against any suggestions, no matter how innocuous.
I go by “Taiwan Missionary,” but in addition to serving as a missionary there 1977-1979, I lived there with my family 1995-1999. I did a lot of translating for visiting Church leaders, as they conducted general membership and priesthood leadership meetings.
Three issues came up, all concerning the Temple.
The first issue concerned a visiting leader’s suggestion that priesthood leaders needed to get their families to the Temple. He asked why they weren’t doing this. A long and awkward silence followed. A brother from the audience finally raised his hand, and timidly pointed out that it was hard to get family members to the temple, when the older generation of parents could not understand what was being said. The visiting GA did not understand the point, and had the good sense to ask the American Mission President who was sitting next to him, what was going on. The MP replied that the temple ceremonies were only in Mandarin, and many of the older generation did not understand Mandarin, but knew only the Taiwanese dialect, and local Church leaders. most of whom were of Mainlander origin, were strongly opposed to translating the ceremonies into Taiwanese. There was a prejudice against Taiwanese as a second-class language, and the local leaders did not want it in church settings. Never mind the injunction to share the Gospel with everyone! The American MP had pushed for translating the Endowment into Taiwanese, but had met solid opposition from local leaders. This issue has gradually been “solved” by the older generation dying off, and pretty much everyone now knows Mandarin, which became the main language of instruction in schools by the early 1950s.
The second temple issue dealt with babysitting. Americans are generally fine about using babysitters to mind their children, so they can go to the temple. This was totally foreign to Chinese culture on Taiwan at the time. So the families brought their children with them to the temple, and had them stay in the temple housing next door while the parents went inside. The children were often quite young; the oldest would look after the youngest. Thus was brought to a screeching halt by a new temple President, a Chinese man. He refused to let families use the temple housing for their children. So the parents just stopped coming to the temple. The Temple President, during one of these leadership meetings with a visiting GA, made a speech in which he said that as the temple president, he would do whatever he liked, and if patrons didn’t care for it, they could lump it. All of this happened when the visiting GA asked why temple attendance was down, and there was an embarrassing silence, in which no one would tell the GA what was going on. THIS problem was “solved” when the intransigent TP was eventually released, but no one would talk about it.
The third issue: my 80-year old stepfather lived with us., He was profoundly deaf, could not hear the ceremony, and the Taipei temple did not have closed caption. My stepfather asked if he could read the temple ceremony in English, inside the temple. The TP refused. Because I was a culturally insensitive foreigner who was willing to bluntly raise questions, I wrote a letter of complaint to the Asia Area President, pointing out that if my stepfather was worthy to enter the temple and see the endowment, he was worthy to read it. the Area President instructed the TO to let my stepfather read the endowment.
All trivial examples, but to me they characterize our cultural reluctance to raise any issues in the Church, and the instinctive default to NO on the part of many leaders.
@Taiwan Missionary 8:19pm
Thank you for bringing up those situations. I fully agree with you on the difficulty of offering constructive and helpful criticism in an organization. So do nearly all books on leadership. So does D&C 121:39. To quote from an old Church News on that verse, “Notice the phrasing used here. It is not some men or even most men, but almost all men.”
In the book Thinking in Systems, author Dr. Meadows notes:
“Organizations of all kinds lose their resilience simply because the feedback mechanisms by which they sense and respond to their environment have to travel through too many layers of delay and distortion.”
I know that’s another tricky topic, but the only officially allowed method of ground up feedback is through local to regional to general leadership. That sounds like the exact definition of “many layers of delay and distortion.” I’m not implying intentional delay or distortion. Simply play the old children’s game of telephone to find out about distortion.
I don’t have a solution/change in mind to bolster this organizational resilience. I know (then Elder) Packer gave a talk about intentionally doing the opposite of ground up feedback, so I know that the present and past General Authorities have their own strong feelings on the matter. This by default adds to the difficulty of offering constructive criticism.
JD, I think there’s a subtle but important distinction to be made in the quote you provided. It might mean exactly what you mean it to mean (!) but consider:
explicit narrow definition of criticism as: “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything. That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom.”
When I go to Walmart I judge the merits of various flavors and brands of ice cream and decide my response based on my judgement; to buy or not buy. That is the exercise of my agency and freedom. I do not try to influence other shoppers to buy or not buy what I have bought or not bought; but it does seem fairly common for people to do exactly that, tell other people what to buy and not buy.
“In that specific definition, it is our individual requirement and responsibility to influence our leaders through such criticism.”
I have no duty, requirement or responsibility to express criticism of anyone. I occasionally do so but in my experience at both work and church people tend to “dig in” and become intransigent. If you want something NOT done, demand it.
@Michael2 11:54
I’m going to push back and say in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you do. We all do. It’s part of our responsibility to influence our leaders. (For a specific mental exercise with your example, If Walmart were telling everyone something false or damaging, and you knew the truth, would you still feel the need to refrain from saying anything? Imagine a salesperson in Walmart telling a crowd of people to use a specific essential oil that they sell to cure cancer, and think of what you would do if you were an oncologist there in the crowd. Or a larger situation, if they were advertising in nationally televised speeches to use an essential oil to overcome a specific type of cancer, and you, as an oncologist, had data that showed the opposite. )
“I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.”
To repeat, when we don’t actively seek to “know for [ourselves] that [we] are led in the right way.” we “weaken the influence [we] could give to [our] leaders.” I recognize that President Brigham Young is indeed polarizing for many reasons, and individual confirmation is always a double-edged sword. But I don’t view his exhortation, or the larger concept of “By Common Consent” as simply a rubber stamp of approval.
To be explicit, I’m not saying that I grab the wheel of this “ship” (or burn Walmart to the ground) but I AM saying that it is our responsibility to do as Pres. Young and Pres. Oaks says. Most of the things our leaders do and say “have merit.” But some do not.
There was a leadership book that was popular in the 90s about two different kinds of managers, wartime and peacetime managers. When you are in wartime, you want decisive leaders who bark out orders and whose orders are not questioned. “You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.” But in peacetime, these leaders are the worst. They are utterly ineffective and often end up with a bullet in their backs. They stymie growth and creativity. They make it impossible for individuals to follow them because they think they should be unquestioned and that any hesitation is an indictment of followers, not of their commands. They fail to lead. You have to employ the right approach for the right time in history.
Right now, some of the things that many of us see as progress and a huge relief are things that are triggering fear in conservatives who are finding their assumptions and privileged positions challenged. So I see Oaks’ statement about not criticizing leaders as a byproduct of this thinking. He thinks we are in wartime, that orders should be followed quickly and without question. I see us in peacetime, in a progressive time that is freeing to so many people: women, gay people, minorities. These are positives to me, and it’s about time.
There is some wisdom in avoiding criticism of leaders and others, generally, though, which is that it’s impossible for anyone’s statements to bear scrutiny without occasionally sounding ridiculous, and we may lose the benefit of questioning our own assumptions if we disregard others’ ideas. Does that undermine their authority and influence? Not necessarily. We are, after all, human beings. The original twelve look like downright dunderheads if you actually read the New Testament, and apparently that’s not a problem. When our lessons and talks shifted to being a rehash of General Conference talks, I wondered if this was to spread their ideas and interpretations to indoctrinate the membership or if, as also can happen, it’s intended to have us review the topics they talked about to come to an even better set of conclusions through thoughtful discussion. I like to believe in the latter, but I suspect the intention was the former.
@ Angela C
I think we hear the word “criticism” and think “sniping” or “carping.” It’s likely a ton easier to pile on to someone than to make measured statements using Pres. Oaks’s narrow definition of “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” Natural man makes us want to go all Dixie Carter in Designing Women on anyone who is wrong.
On the other hand, perhaps it’s just me…
JD, thank you for your thoughtful reply. It required some careful thought to tease out the sensible part of it while not throwing my own ideas under the bus since those ideas have been developed over a lifetime.
In the case of a Walmart salesman selling something that I, in my expertise know is actually harmful to the clients; to FAIL to warn potential victims is negligence and in some cases legally actionable. This duty stems from a general duty, not a law per se, but certainly part of Christianity, to be my brother’s keeper.
My duty is to those others, the potential victims, the “sheep” as in “feed my sheep”, if one strays, go find it (only to come back and discover that 99 sheep are now missing).
I have no particular duty to criticize the CEO of Walmart. I’d be shown the door PDQ and then what have I accomplished?
What is wanted is acceptance of my information that is superior to your information (or that of a CEO, or president of a church). It isn’t enough that I believe in my knowledge; others must believe in my knowledge.
The principle example is Jesus; his knowledge exceeded that of his enemies, followers and essentially everyone else, within his specialties of course (religion and carpentry). His duty became to warn the innocents.
An example from my life: When my home teacher said it was a sin to study the mysteries of God, I knew he was mistaken; for Alma 9:12 (or is it 12:9?) says that he who does not harden his heart can learn the mysteries of God until he knows them all. But I did not force my home teacher to re-evaluate his error. Milk before meat; for to impose meat on a person before he is ready will damage his belief and it becomes a sin.
If you really do think that the leadership of this church has gone off the rails, strayed from the true path, either you or they are mistaken. Trying to change the belief and behavior of someone else is likely to produce conflict, and that’s a bad thing. Alma did not conflict much with the high priests of King Noah; he went to the wilderness, to the Waters of Mormon, and constituted a church based on the teachings of Abinidi.
JD, I meant to amplify and restate the remarkable idea contained in “and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.”
As I understand it, blind followers do not add to the esteem given by non-followers to the person being followed. An example would be Jim Jones who obviously had many followers but their own lack of careful choosing simply meant Jim Jones had somehow obtained a number of extremely gullible followers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
However, if a group of people each known to be careful in their choices, having studied the topic at hand, after all that then or still chooses to follow a leader, observers of this can approach that leader with considerably greater confidence that he or she is the “real deal” while on the road to getting their own sure knowledge.
Exaltation is knowing right things, doing right things, without having to follow someone else’s example, seek advice; you *become* the advisor, the expert, the authority. God probably does not want to tell everyone what to do every day for eternity and hopefully neither do the upper echelons of church leadership. To be sure, lower echelons of church leadership often crave positions of power and authority as they suppose, and are often given that power, to teach them that power is a burden; to be a bishop having 400 people asking you whether to go see the new Terminator movie because it’s rated “R” by an organization that is not known to be inspired by God and has no authority whatsoever over Mormons anyway. Do, or do not; no bodda me!
Angela:
Your comment gets at something I’ve been wrestling with lately: Obedience. I know if I join the church, I’ll be expected to obey church leaders, whether I agree with them or not, which is a concern for me because there are many church teachings that I don’t agree with. So many that you might rightly ask why I’m even considering baptism, but that’s a story for another time.
Suffice it to say that I’m concerned about obeying rules I may consider to range from ridiculous to unjust. Is there any value to such obedience? And what limits will I place on that obedience?
Obedience, especially obedience for its own sake, goes against the grain of our Western notions about individualism and freedom and autonomy. But I also recognize that those are culturally relative values (and that we Westerners are way less iconoclastic than we like to think we are; most Americans just obey a different and less overt set of rules than Mormons do, but give those rules a poke and you find that we are usually blindly obedient to them).
Anyway, I recently finished a series about the history of the Amish that got me thinking about my obedience conundrum. The Amish obey a staggering number of what they fully admit are petty rules, governing everything from how wide their hat brims can be to the colors they can wear to how shiny their buggies and kitchen floors are allowed to be.
These rules are called the “Ordnung,” and the Amish acknowledge that these things are not sins and are not Biblical. The Ordnung is set by local bishops and exists specifically to address cultural matters. And yet the Amish adhere to the Ordnung so strictly that they can be disciplined for the smallest infraction.
The Ordnung serves a lot of purposes (cultural identity, for example, and the protection of culturally distinctive boundaries), but two stuck in my mind as relevant to my obedience question:
(a) Submission of the individual will. The Amish probably shun individual pride and place the group over the individual more than Mormons do, but there’s also an element of practice to it. This is partly how I view the Word of Wisdom, for example. It falls apart as a health code, but it does require discipline. And discipline in small things is practice for discipline in larger things. If I don’t have the willpower to refrain from a glass of wine, where will I find the willpower for the infinitely harder task of refraining from saying unkind things, or forgiving those who have wronged me, or loving you as I wish to be loved? (I also think the Word of Wisdom is about not doing things that tend to annoy or inconvenience others, but that, too, is a topic for another time.)
(b) Like the Mormons, the Amish get shit done. When the ward offered to help us move, my husband was incredulous that the Elders Quorum would have the capacity to do it. I said, “In five years, they drained a swamp and built a city the size of Chicago, honey. I think they can handle our fridge.”
Both groups are objectively industrious, and obedience is no small part of that. Because everybody is pulling in the same direction. Rather than squabbling or each trying to demonstrate their own special uniqueness, both groups submit their individual will towards the success of a common goal. That simply doesn’t happen—to that degree and for that length of time—in liberal groups that place a high value on broadly shared leadership. (Old joke: Why can’t the Unitarians sing hymns? Because everybody’s always reading ahead to see if they agree with the lyrics.)
I’m deeply uncomfortable with both of these justifications for obedience, and yet I can’t deny the truth of them. I just don’t know where the line is. Because, yes, Michael 2’s point is well taken that, gone to extremes, you get Jonestown. (Although it’s worth pointing out that at least 2/3 of those people were murdered, and…..well…..if I belonged to a religion where the vast majority of members LITERALLY believe it is historical fact that 600 years before Christ, a bunch of Jews built little submarines and sailed to America by the light of rocks touched by the hand of God and then they became Indians and we know all this because they wrote it down in a language that could only be read by a hat and then they buried the record in upstate New York…..I MIGHT want to be careful about who exactly I’m calling “gullible,” y’know?)
Nevertheless, the dangers and the benefits of obedience for its own sake are obvious….and I have no idea what to do with that…