I was recently listening to an interview with Jim Bennett (on Mormonism Live!) in which he described what he considered to be the biggest problem currently facing the Church. I’m paraphrasing here, but the gist of it was that leader worship is our biggest hurdle. Funny thing is, as a currently active, card-carrying Church member, Jim wasn’t really willing to place the blame for that toxicity in our church culture at the feet of the leaders who are its recipients; rather, he implied that the members were worshipping them against their will. The reason that’s “funny” is because it sure sounds a lot like what happens in every autocracy; you can’t criticize the “dear leader” without running afoul of the institution. The fact that he wasn’t willing to blame them for encouraging leader worship is fairly good evidence that they are responsible for it.
Just to clarify, I’m aware that the word “simp” colloquially refers to a man who continues to pursue a woman who has rejected him. Even if she ignores him, he continues to try to garner her favor. There’s a parallel here, even if I am stretching the use of the word. As the simp continues to simp even when the girl is unaware that he exists, so the Church member simp who may or may not have even met the object of their worship will continue to fangirl about that leader unrequited. Nobody benefits from this. It’s embarrassing for everyone, including those watching it.
Completely separately, I saw a Tweet outlining reasons people are leaving religion in general, but specifically applicable to the LDS Church as well:
- Church history / polygamy truths
- Sex abuse cover ups
- Homophobia / racism / misogyny
- Financial hoarding
- Factual fallacies in scritpure
These are all reasons people cite, but I suspect it also has to do with our view of the church as a source of truth (and leaders as its primary conduit) rather than seeing Church as a community of disciples. It’s why so many testimonies sound something like “I know this church is true and I’m so grateful for our living prophet” instead of “I’m grateful for being part of a community committed to following Jesus’ teachings. I’m so glad we get to work together to improve lives and help the poor and marginalized.” I may have occasionally heard a testimony that sounds like the latter, but 95+% of them sound like the former.
In a recent Latter-day Struggles podcast, they were discussing a phenomemon that many of us have observed: that often, people who leave the Church when they determine that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be will immediately replace Church dogma with ex-Mormon dogma. They go from one position of believing they are right and have all the answers to another position of believing they are right and have all the answers. And let’s be honest, the Church does basically claim to be right and to have all the answers, or at least its leaders and manuals do, to the point that we are unwilling to point out the obvious errors of previous leaders. Being in a community because we think it’s the “right” one or the “best” one is not a great spiritual practice. The podcast referred to this as religious supremacy. When you belong to a Church because you believe it’s the best one, the most right, you might be more interested in being right than in doing right. You might be worshiping your own “rightness” rather than Jesus.
The problem of leader worship is a problem some other Churches (and other organizations) have. It’s obviously not unique to the Church, and even if our leaders actively discouraged leader worship, as some have in the past (the current ones evidently do not), there are many Church members who would still go on promoting leader worship. A few examples that come readily to mind:
- When a Relief Society teacher asked the open question “What’s the most valuable thing we get from the Church?” I was coming up with a thought, something around the value of personal revelation, when a different sister chimed in with “Prophets and apostles to tell us what’s right and what God wants us to do.” That would have been about 5 billionth on my list. Maybe lower.
- When we were trying to decide which talks to use for upcoming Relief Society lessons, one sister said that she vehemently disagreed with the other comments because we should “only” be talking about talks given by the apostles, none of the women, and we should focus especially on the first presidency talks. In her view, the higher up the ladder the person was, the more worth listening to they were. When the group disagreed with her she stormed out and tattled to the bishop to try to get her way.
While leader worship is definitely harmful to members in terms of unrealistic expectations, poor moral reasoning, and creating cognitive dissonance due to limited human understanding when blunders happen (as they do and will frequently), the leaders themselves suffer from lack of personal growth due to an unwillingness to challenge their bad ideas or blind spots, and a higher likelihood of making mistakes that can have dire consequences. It’s also not good for anyone’s soul to be treated as a celebrity or demi-god; it’s hard enough for humans to be humble and realistic about ourselves without having people fawn all over our every ridiculous notion. I was quoted once in sacrament meeting by someone who didn’t know I wrote it (a blog post I did on fasting about a decade ago), and it was pretty gratifying for about five minutes. Imagine if you were quoted constantly at Church as if you were the smartest and best person in the whole Church. That’s some heady stuff. It’s also doing nothing for those of us watching it.
Almost worse than the blunders made due to hubris and arrogance, among which I have to include our zig-zagging policies on LGBTQ members, are the simps among us. I recently heard a talk in which the speaker gushed about her “friend, Jeffrey Holland” as if she was his school chum. I mean, maybe she was (I honestly don’t know why she kept saying it), but really who cares? What’s with the name dropping? I have met many Church members who just can’t help themselves with the ridiculous celebrity crushes on the world’s least interesting people. How is this a thing? Even if you were actual friends with some celebrity who was actually interesting, what’s that to me? Why should I care?
Looking back at the above tweeted list of reasons people leave the Church, all of them seem to be exacerbated by leader worship. If we were a community of Christian disciples, discussing and dealing with these issues wouldn’t be a direct threat to any leader’s authority. We could talk about the problems with polygamy if we didn’t have to dance around the fact that many of our leaders’ ancestors practiced it, and two of them do currently, at least in terms of marital sealings. We could even come up with better sealing policies if we operated as a democratic body as many other churches do, rather than receiving policies from on high. The more involvement from lay members, the less pressure on leaders to come up with the best ideas and execute them perfectly. The more we would all have to seek inspiration to make the Church a more effective way to become Christlike. Would it be chaos? Would there be disagreements? There always have been in Christianity. That’s part of discipleship. When you quit allowing for discussion, you know you’ve lost the way. The discussion is what’s kept Christianity in business for two thousand years.
There’s a scene at the beginning of The Last Emperor in which the child who is now the emperor defecates into a silver bowl. The eunuch who is assisting him takes the bowl away, and when he is alone he inhales the fragrance from the bowl with a look of rapture on his face. The emperor is his god. He is the emperor’s close servant, a high honor. This is how I feel when I see people simping Church leaders like this. I would hope the leaders find it repulsive, because the alternative is that they like it. Liking this type of fealty is not a good look.
Personally, though, I think I am slightly less bothered by the leaders allowing for this leader worship than I am by the members who engage in it. These simps among us are the ones preparing the content for church meetings, and an increasing percent of that content seems to be quoting unremarkable things said in General Conference as if these things are life-altering epiphanies rather than threadbare pablum. Even worse are the members who talk more emotionally about church leaders (yet always somehow humble-bragging in the process about some association with the leader) than they do about actual Jesus. I didn’t sign up for this. I’m not sniffing the silver bowl. That’s nasty.
- Do you agree with Jim that leader worship is the biggest problem facing the church or do you think it’s something else?
- Do you think leaders discourage leader worship or encourage it? Explain your answer.
- How do you remedy the tendency of members to become simps?
- How do you avoid simphood?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I think for an orthodox member it’s very difficult to acknowledge any specific mistakes or faults in the leaders of the church. It’s taboo, and uncomfortable, even though there is a general acknowledgment that the leaders aren’t perfect, the prophets are fallible and so forth. Getting them to acknowledge any specifics is almost impossible.
This topic brings to mind a recent conversation with a family member who you could describe as TBM and was recently released as a bishop. I was expressing my belief that although the current direction seems to be more towards doubling down and encouraging orthodoxy in how members live the gospel, that in the coming decades the church will have to naturally evolve, become more open and softer to differing views and ways of doing things. He disagreed, and further stated that President Nelson is the most open and far less hardline than previous prophets, and that he has been prepared for this time because of his insights and perspectives of “the real world”. When I countered with the recent instruction about the acceptable language of prayer and the word “Mormon” becoming verboten, as well as suggesting that RMN is bound to be conditioned by the heady concoction of being a renowned surgeon and having congregations stand when he enters a room for half of his life, so naturally he would be prone to a certain self-importance, he refused to acknowledge this as the case.
Rather he cited things like the LDS church attempting to get cosy with the NAACP and the Church’s support for the Marriage Equality Act as signs of RMN being the “leader for our day”, and my suggestions that these could just as easily be seen as cynical PR moves fell on deaf ears.
So yeah, I think many members are happy to accept the fallibility of man as a principle, but get very uncomfortable when there is any specifics attached and certainly when they relate to the “living prophet”.
I think hawkgrrrl has hit the nail right on the head. This is irrefutable fact. Not sure what came over me there.
When I first picked up on the uptick in leader worship not long after President Nelson took over, I remember in true disciple fashion “doubting my doubts” – was this really an increase or was it the fact that I was just in a place where I was more attuned to it. Well, it turns out that everyone else seemed to be noticing it too. Doubt my doubt no longer!
Do the leadership encourage it? I guess yes is the answer in so far as the Q15 openly fawn over President Nelson and each other, and so are creating a very visible culture which many will follow, especially the 70, in an attempt to “emulate the Brethren”. (On a side note, does anyone else get annoyed by the phrase “The Brethren”? Because it doesn’t in any way sound dystopic. Not at all.) As you say, there will be many who will always leader worship whatever the wider culture, but many in the pews likewise seek to follow the cues of the Q15. But it is very unsettling indeed that President Nelson is apparently entirely comfortable with it. It wouldn’t take much to say “Please stop the fawning, the quoting. I don’t like it”.
But there does seem to be an entire industry now peddling the worship through both official and affiliated channels. The Newsroom’s recent survey of President Nelson’s 5 years in office, wasn’t a factual press release but a clear attempt to feed the narrative of leader worship. LDS Living seems to purely exist now to promote the Q15, with their constant barrage of “20 photos that will make you love [insert Q15 here] even more!” Or as my friend once said: “20 photos that will make you dislike [insert Q15 here] a little less!” I noticed that they seem to have tweaked these titles now to “20 endearing photos we think you’ll love”. A little less presumptive, but still…
I need to go shower now.
This problem goes all the way down to individual wards with this practice that the presiding person should always take the sacrament first. This has always bothered me. What is the rationale for this, if not to instill some kind of reverence towards the bishop? Anyone know when/why this started?
Prophet idolatry is idolatry, pure and simple. As is family idolatry. Both practices make it more difficult for Latter-day Saints to worship the true God.
Yeah, the bishop taking the sacrament first was always a bug bear for me. I was told that if the saviour was presiding in sacrament meeting he would have the sacrament first. So the presiding officer should go first (stake presidency / bishop / etc). In my mind, the saviour gives me the impression he would actually go last, and he would probably be doing the deacons job and passing the trays round.
I especially dislike it when all the deacons wait at the sacrament table until the bishop has taken the bread and then they walk off and give it to the members. Some kudos to BKP, when he visited our ward in the 90s, he specifically put a stop to the practice and said that it shouldn’t be so obvious. Maybe he was more mellow in his 60’s??
For what it is worth, any discussion of leader worship that does not take into account our more general western culture is a tad misleading at best. This post almost seems to presuppose that this is a problem that is solely set up by the leadership of the organization (whether the LDS church or another one, as the post tries to generalize). But isn’t this a more generalized western cultural problem that can get exacerbated by church cultural practices? I never was really into it, but I had friends growing up that had posters of celebrities on their bedroom walls. Part of western culture, in my limited observation, includes hero/celebrity worship. Add to that a believing member of a faith community, and from a certain logic of course they would want to have as their hero/celebrity someone of allegedly better moral character.
Now, that said, I have wondered whether I am just being overly sensitive at times when I have noticed (what appears to me) an increase in the amount of fawning and referencing towards President Nelson in various talks. And it seemed to occur around the same time as the fawning over President Trump – I think especially of that stupid cabinet meeting devoted solely to a round table of extolling President Trump’s awesomeness. But perhaps that just cuts back to my first point in a way? Is this just a cultural drift our society is having more in general, of fawning over our purported hero/celebrity?
Finally, and I guess this is a threadjump, I found the description of the RS experience pretty jarring in this post – from the poster’s description, the woman didn’t just leave the room to ask the Bishop – she “stormed off and tattled to the bishop.” If that isn’t putting words into someone else’s mouth/attributing intent and knowledge into someone else’s head, I don’t know what would qualify. I just find it to be in very poor taste and kills any semblance of a fair take on the question at hand. Rather, it smacks of an axe to grind from the author’s presumed correct perspective. But assuming one is right is the very fallacy that the author is trying to attack with leader worship to begin with, isn’t it?
It may be true that leaders don’t want us to “worship” them. But they do want us to do exactly what they tell us to do. And they do want us to measure our tether to God by our tether to the LDS Church. So they don’t try very hard (at all) if their propensity to talk all the time about how important they are and how we need to do what they tell us to causes leader worship. It makes their jobs easier.
What I’m thinking over right now is whether “leader worship” is the root of the problem or if there’s a deeper root from which leader worship is the rotten fruit.
I think actually the real root of the problem is that we believe in works not grace. We have to earn salvation. And the way we earn salvation is by doing what our leaders tell us to do and jumping through the hoops we need to jump through. And THAT encourages the leader worship (on both ends).
I try to be respectful, I don’t know if non-believer comments are welcome. But this was a great message and one I wish members would take to heart. It’s been the source of the conflict in my mixed faith marriage. It would be a jerk move to try to remove someone’s faith or talk them out of it, I don’t do that. But at times all I want is an acknowledgment that when the brethren say something nasty about disaffected people is to hear, “I don’t agree with that, I think they were wrong in this one instance.” But the leader worship is so deep that those words can never be uttered. It has to be some complex apologetics in which they didn’t *really* mean what it seems like they meant and it *actually* should be *interpreted* to mean *something else*. There’s been progress in that now believing members can acknowledge past prophets got things wrong, and even say the current leaders aren’t perfect, but ask them to name *one* thing the current leaders are getting wrong or did wrong and its crickets.
Oh, I should add. I totally agree with the problem with former mormons as well. I cringe when I see them have to go against anything the church does because it’s the church, claim they have an answer to every last issue, hold up heroes like they used to the prophets, etc. I feel like my zealotry in the church removed my ability to think critically for so long that I’m not going to continue allowing it to distort my thinking by being automatically _against_ anything the church does. That’s just as bad of a lack of critical thinking.
(Apologies if this double posts, ran into logging in problems).
This was a great post. As a non-believer I can say this is often at the heart of our disagreements in my mixed faith marriage. I try to be respectful, it’s a jerk move to try to talk someone out of their faith and I don’t do it. But there are times when all I want is an acknowledgment that the brethren have said something nasty and untrue about me (someone who has left). For example, I wasn’t a lazy learner at all. All I want to hear is, “I disagree with that specific statement, I think they were wrong.” But the leadership and injunction against disagreeing run so deep that that’s never on the table. It’s always some complex excuse or apologetic about how they didn’t *really* mean that or it wasn’t *actually* about me or something. I don’t want an over-arching disavowal, just a smidge less leader worship to the point where I feel like my decency comes before them *always* being right.
I think that celebratory worship is a problem for our entire society. A problem that compounds this is a black and white vision of loyalty. This idea of loyalty where you accept everything a person does as entirely correct without thinking critically is dangerous. When we add to that a culture that discourages openness and discussion of conflicts, we have a really repressive mix going on in the church.
It takes a lot of energy and courage to actually speak truth in this setting.
I am grateful for RMN. He has brought attention to the idea of the continuing restoration of the church. In other words we can change. However us older people (who educated the younger people) are so steeped in things prophets of the past have said, are so resistant to change.
I quoted RMN in testimony meeting from his first press conference where he reminded us we have no infallibility doctrine. The high councilor got up in a hurry right after me to quote Brigham Young about how the prophet will never lead us astray.
To me this is the biggest problem, where we discourage people from thinking for themselves and seeking personal revelation. The pressure is on for every comment to be faith promoting rather than based on an honest examination of experience and knowledge.
I have to analyze thing critically and speak up. I can’t maintain my mental health otherwise.
Correction: celebrity worship.
“If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”
One should assume that our pacifist Buddhist friends don’t mean actually killing the Buddha. But what they do mean could prove useful to Latter-day Saints. Good religion requires nuanced thinking and profound experiences with the Divine that usually defy verbal explanation. An over-reliance on leaders, even well-intended, could prove detrimental. Religion is meant to be experienced personally. Buddhists would tell us that the above saying (some call it a koan) is meant to teach us to heed our own “Buddha nature.” I think that correlates quite nicely with the teachings of Joseph Smith.
As a longtime Wheat and Tares fan, I got a giddy thrill out of seeing my name in the first paragraph of a very insightful post that paradoxically misunderstands me while, at the same time, understands much more about my position than I intended to share.
To the misunderstanding, I don’t maintain that “leader worship” is the biggest problem in the Church, but rather that the false doctrine of prophetic infallibility – or, as RFM more precisely puts it, doctrinal inerrancy – is the biggest problem in the Church. While there is considerable overlap between those concepts, they are not quite the same thing. One can worship a leader and still think them capable of error, and one can despise a leader and still believe they can never make a mistake. The fawning hero worship of leaders is tacky and mawkish, but absent an unshakeable faith in their perfection, it’s relatively harmless. It’s when we see no distinction whatsoever between a fallible man and a flawless God that we enter the danger zone.
Where I have been exposed is in the observation that I “wasn’t willing to blame them for encouraging leader worship.” I can see how that can be interpreted as “simping” on my part, but it’s something else entirely, and a subject that would be worthy of its own Wheat and Tares discussion. Specifically, I have discovered through sad experience that there is a boundary that leaders maintain in public discussions that I am no longer willing to cross.
I learned this when I made a Facebook post taking issue with the idea that there is sometimes a conflict between loving God and loving your neighbor. This is an abhorrent idea to me, and it flies in the face of everything Jesus taught. Unfortunately, it is an idea that seems to be gaining traction at the highest levels of the Church.
I got into a bit of hot water for that post, but not for anything I actually said. The problem was that I posted a link to a talk on this subject which included a picture of the General Authority who was speaking on this topic. When I was called on the carpet, it was because I had “criticized” Elder So-and-So, when, in fact, I hadn’t even mentioned the man’s name. But just having his picture in close proximity to what I said was enough to raise the ire of a leader who sees anything negative even indirectly associated with one of the Lord’s anointed as a violation of temple covenants. Now I personally don’t believe that to be the case and think that’s a rather silly approach, but it’s made me gun shy about even mentioning leader’s names, for good or ill. I find that if I focus solely on ideas instead of people, I stay out of trouble.
I think it’s a good point that Americans – and maybe humans in general – have a tendency to look for heroes. We want someone to look up to, to admire, to laud. I remember how upset people were when Harper Lee’s second book, “Go Set a Watchman” was published, because Atticus Finch, the hero from “To Kill a Mockingbird,” was no longer a hero. Personally, I was fine with him being a fallen hero. If we expect fallible humans to be perfect, we will always end up disappointed. “Go Set a Watchman” was a good reminder that we all need to do the hard work that needs to be done, rather than expecting someone heroic to come in and save the day.
I fear that this is what has happened with Mormon simping as well. We want the general authorities to be heroes who tell us how to live and what to think. But if we outsource the hard work of our relationship with God to 15 men, we lose out on a lot of our own growth and personal development.
“I guess this is a threadjump, I found the description of the RS experience pretty jarring in this post – from the poster’s description, the woman didn’t just leave the room to ask the Bishop – she “stormed off and tattled to the bishop.” If that isn’t putting words into someone else’s mouth/attributing intent and knowledge into someone else’s head, I don’t know what would qualify. I just find it to be in very poor taste and kills any semblance of a fair take on the question at hand. Rather, it smacks of an axe to grind from the author’s presumed correct perspective. But assuming one is right is the very fallacy that the author is trying to attack with leader worship to begin with, isn’t it?”
I found the experience jarring as well from the perspective that the circumstances went down as they did.
“When we were trying to decide which talks to use for upcoming Relief Society lessons..”
– This means the author is in the RS presidency charged with coordinating with the RS teacher to provide a list of talks for the year. The conversation also involved 2 other presidency members who heard the situation and had a different viewpoint then the teacher. Correctly or incorrectly, they can veto or not veto the talks the teacher teaches on. [I have been on the side of the teacher being asked to teach talks I didn’t want to. I wound up giving my presidencies a list of talks I could teach on within a week of General Conference and said “No” to the talks I could not teach on. It is a lousy situation, but one that doesn’t automatically involve the bishop AND respects both my authority as a teacher and the presidency’s authority as my church leaders.]
– It is entirely plausible that the teacher felt a lot of emotions about the situation and “stormed off” is being a description of her action. Whether she was fuming/downright mad/in tears – still works with that verb.
“tattled”…
– While this might be a contemptuous verb as well, it’s entirely plausible it fits the scenario.
-The teacher “jumped rank” as it were and involved the bishop without getting redirected back to the R.S. Presidency who had the original responsibility and authority to set up the processes.
-It could be that the teacher was looking for a friend to process the situation, maybe she is connected to the bishop and wanted validation.
-In either case, the teacher made the call to involve a higher ranking individual to be validated. While it is possible that the bishop redirected the teacher back to the presidency, the fact that it is omitted from the narrative makes it less probable.
In this case, I think that the example was used to show that the “hero worship”/”leaders always have the answers” creates problems for other leaders in the church. Because “the bishop is always right”, the teacher thought that bypassing the R.S. Presidency was the “right” thing to do and did not recognize at all that the presidency had any “administrative authority” on the talk selection.
Whether it qualifies as a “fair take on the question on hand” is a ymmv question.
I appreciate the OP as well the other comments on this subject. Patrick Mason in his book RESTORATION Gods call to 21st -Century and Terryl Givens in his book The Crucible of Doubt both tackle to problem of hero worship. Both authors are critical of that tendency to revere leadership by the membership. Peggy Fletcher Stack, chief religion reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune, once said in a Mormon land Podcast that Gordon B. Hinckley would get uncomfortable when We Thank O God for A Prophet was sung in his presence. Which indicates that not all leaders in the church reveled in such attention. Peggy in her story in last Sunday’s Tribune also did a five year review of RMN’s presidency, pointed some of his accomplishments as well as some of the failures and shortcomings of RMN’s tenure in contrast to the LDS NEWSROOM’s story
I think leadership worship is a problem and something that is actively promoted by church leaders. On my mission in 2012, RMN visited with the local area authority. That 70 spent the entirety of his talk praising Nelson and directly comparing particular personality traits of his to the Savior. This bothered me, even though at the time I still was in a adulatory mood.
The church as an institution actively uses similar tactics of authoritarian regimes in building a “cult of personality” around the leader. The OP’s use of the Last Emperor is poignant, and can be extended to other personalist regimes as well. When you hang the legitimacy of the institution on the personality traits of it’s leaders, this approach is almost inevitable.
In that sense, I would say this is an independent problem as opposed to a symptom. The church’s primary differentiation appeal has often been a version of “we are Christian, but we have the proper authority and revelation.” This has been a bit strange to me, because the church presents a number of unique doctrines and theological perspectives that could differentiate it just as effectively. The choice to emphasize authority over substance, and the authority of particular individuals, means those individuals have to enjoy a version of mass, popular appeal. Leader worship naturally follows.
Five minutes? That’s all it got you was five minutes of gratification? I think I’d be able to live off that for at least a month.
I think the most true thing you said is that when you quit allowing discussion that’s when you know you’ve lost your way…. And yes. I completely agree. We have to get back to discipleship where everyone is allowed at the table. Our revelation has become stagnant because we think we have all the answers but we don’t.
If we believe the prophet at his word when he said that the restoration is continuing, that means we are still in partial apostasy meaning we are missing a lot of the answers. And leaders are great but frankly, a bunch of old white dudes can’t possibly get all the answers because they are blind to things outside of their limited group experience and they’ve excluded over half the population so they don’t even know what questions other marginalized people would ask. If they aren’t bothering to ask for answers they aren’t magically going to get answers for questions they don’t even know they could be asking. Much like that saying that you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. Our leaders haven’t been letting anyone else take any shots for a couple hundred years. Who knows how many shots they could have scored had the leaders not been such ball hogs?
I think some of the leaders are uncomfortable with the idolatry. This was more true in the past, I think, when it first started. Apparently Marion Romney was. When someone was waiting for him to be the first to leave the room, he said “it’s OK, I won’t steal anything if I’m last to leave.” But now, it is harder for them to resist it. It will take a president of the Church to forcefully put a stop to it, or at least the outward manifestation of it, such as rising when they enter the room, etc.
When I was a full-time missionary in South America back in the 80s, the missionaries had a habit of decorating their apartments with pictures of the First Presidency. Back then it was SWK’s presidency and then ETB’s. What’s funny is that when I look at my old mission pictures, I see an alarming resemblance between our apartments and the way N. Koreans are told to decorate their apartments…their “first presidency” is Kim Jong Un, King Jong Il, Kim Il Sung.
I wanted to add that one aspect of this is about permanent hierarchy. I have always felt good about the New Testament idea that we are all important parts of the body of Christ, we need feet as well as eyes, etc. and one part is not more important than another. This idea dignifies every member of the church, even if they aren’t part of the hierarchy of leadership.
I am not saying a hierarchy isn’t necessary for us to act as a church. It may be. However, many scriptural teachings could be emphasized more, that could bring more balance, communication and common consent, to our church.
For instance we could do away with the high council man and bishopric sitting up front. We could stop with the ceremonial administration of the sacrament to the bishop first (what, he needs the repentance ritual more than everyone else when we are all sinners and all the same before God?). We could assign a woman or man outside of the bishopric to conduct the meeting. All of these actions would require no fundamental structural change in the church, but would de emphasize hierarchy.
Excepting the Q15, our lay ministry cannot expect to be in a position for life, which in some ways reduces ongoing expectations of leaders being permanently higher up than others. I muse about extending this practice on up the hierarchy (fantasy). It would cause instability but would it bring us growth?
I enjoy the description of drawing straws for positions regularly that is described in Elaine Pagel’s Gnostic Gospels. Unfortunately our Q15 have become more like the branch of the early church that became the Catholic church, with it’s permanent appointments and a focus directing members what to think from the top rather than focusing on personal spiritual insight.
I think leader-worship is not the worst ongoing error the Church makes, but flows from the second worst. (In my view, the worst is its lack of transparency and, at times, dishonesty, about church history and the contents of its archives. No transparency? No facts, no agency, no informed consent.)
I’d frame the second worst error as the belief in doctrinal inerrancy, which is canonized in the “Excerpts from Three Addresses” by Wilford Woodroof attached to the end of “Official Declaration 1” at the end the Doctrine and Covenants. This is where President Woodroof proclaimed that “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands at President of this Church to lead you astray.” This is patently untrue and leads only to TBMs having to parse and construe the word “astray” usually absurdly. If banning black brothers and sisters from the priesthood and temple was not leading the members astray, then “astray” has no meaning. This inerrancy teaching also has achieved immortality in church publications and resulted in ETBenson’s 14 Points, which also get recycled and retaught.
I believe it is from this canonized and perpetuated belief in doctrinal inerrancy that springs and flows–almost inevitably–LDS-style leader-worship. The negative consequences of this probably are too many to catalogue, although fellow-posters have registered many.
I find guidance in Revelation 22:8-9, where an angel rebuked John for falling down to worship him for displaying a vision to John. “Then he saith unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (In other words, “Get up, dummy. I’m just a disciple like you.”)
Perhaps the truest thing Gordon B. Hinckley ever said was that adulation is poison.
I think leader-worship is not the worst ongoing error the Church makes, but flows from the second worst. (In my view, the worst is its lack of transparency and, at times, dishonesty, about church history and the contents of its archives. No transparency? No facts, no agency, no informed consent.)
I’d rank the second worst error as the belief in doctrinal inerrancy, which is canonized in the “Excerpts from Three Addresses” by Wilford Woodroof attached to the end of “Official Declaration 1” at the end the Doctrine and Covenants. This is where President Woodroof proclaimed that “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands at President of this Church to lead you astray.” This is patently untrue and leads only to TBMs having to parse and construe the word “astray” usually absurdly. If banning black brothers and sisters from the priesthood and temple was not leading the members astray, then “astray” has no meaning. This inerrancy teaching also has achieved immortality in church publications and resulted in ETBenson’s 14 Points, which also get recycled and retaught.
The negative consequences of “inerrancy” probably are too many to catalogue, but surely from it flows–almost inevitably–this pathology of LDS-style leader-worship.
I find guidance in Revelation 22:8-9, where an angel rebuked John for falling down to worship him for displaying a vision to John. “Then he saith unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (In other words, “Get up, dummy. I’m just a disciple like you.”)
Perhaps the truest thing Gordon B. Hinckley ever said was that adulation is poison.
I am a recovering simp. After a lifetime of brainwashing, it is a difficult habit to totally abandon. The terms ‘leader worship’, ‘religious supremacy’, ‘only true church’, et. al. have been part of Mormonism from the beginning. JS, BY and their successors abused their power through scare tactics and outlandish opinions (e.g., racism, polygamy, “no man on the moon”, etc.). RMN and his minions essentially elevated such practices to uncomfortable (as in cultish) levels.
Incidents such as the rogue RS teacher referenced in the OP happen far too often at the ward level. In my ward, there was a group of about five couples who anointed themselves doctrinal watchdogs. They were destructive to the ward psyche and I finally partnered with the SP to at least slow them down. One brother resorted to writing poison pen letters to DHO (a “close personal friend”) about what he considered impure practices and doctrinal heresies. Fortunately, the letters were referred to the SP who consigned them to the shredder.
Leader worship has become so ingrained in Mormon culture that I fear it will only keep growing. One can only hope that the number of dissenters will eventually reach a critical mass capable of influencing change. Otherwise, Mormonism will continue on its inexorable path of jumping the proverbial shark.
I am in agreement with most posters in that leader worship is not the Church’s most egregious institutional sin, but is pretty high on the list and frequently intertwined with the most serious ones. Many religious organizations have cult-of-personality leaders which adherents find appealing, while others find them repulsive. Evangelical megachurch “celebrity” pastors come to mind; I don’t think the uncharismatic leaders of the COJCOLDS are approaching that level, at least not yet.
While the Q15 don’t seem to openly encourage leader worship, they don’t actively discourage it either, and that’s a large part of the problem. When Pope Francis took office, he took deliberate, public steps to eschew some of the fancier trappings of papal life, true to his humble Jesuit roots. As I recall, GBH was always quick to disarm excessive praise directed at him with humorous self-effacing quips, which allowed him to spend a lot of time representing the Church in the public eye without seeming egotistical. But RMN, as we know, is cut from a different cloth. And I think the biggest promoter of leader worship in the Church today is not any of the Q15, but rather Wendy Nelson (read any of her recent talks to see what I mean).
Jim Bennett: Thanks for coming by to add more perspective on your interview! I’m not sure I was considering your interview as an example of simping per se, just that it was a recent example of avoiding mentioning exactly which naked emperors we were (not) talking about.
Adam F: Please read the actual post. I did talk about celebrity worship as a broader phenomenon within all types of organizations; however, I’ve found that once you bring up Trump, the entire discussion devolves into politics.
As to the story about the RS storm out, it was a very unusual situation. I haven’t been in that ward for years, and I barely knew the woman, so this isn’t an axe-grinding issue. This is just what happened. I’m not putting words in her mouth; it’s what happened.
This was when we very briefly (less than a year?) did the RS meetings in a circle where we discussed different topics. Class members (not just teachers) were asked about which GC talks they wanted lessons on. The sister who got angry and stormed out was mad that the rest of the RS sisters disagreed with her. While I (as facilitator) found her outburst shocking, I was actually less upset than the others because, well, some people just don’t like to lose. There were about 30 women there, and these meetings were supposed to be open, respectful discussions. She was married to a member of the bishopric, and so this was kind of a coup attempt on her part. She wasn’t a teacher or in the RS presidency.
Regardless, it was her stance toward the GC talks that I considered an example of simping: the quality and value of the talk was only considered equal to the authority level of the speaker, regardless of content and relevance. Even if she hadn’t stormed out, it would have been a simping mindset. The storm out only shows how strongly she felt about it, and how upsetting she found it that others didn’t agree.
Angela C, I had only commented once I had read the entire post. Sounds like we are talking about the same thing then – perhaps I just don’t see the point in trying to extract a point from a subculture when it is a symptom of the overarching, broader culture.
And, FWIW, I very much am an advocate for sharing any talk from GC, often preferably those NOT from the Q15. Mostly because others in planning meetings go straight to the Q15 talks for the reasons everyone has already mentioned, and leave so much good and meaningful content on the floor that could really help out our discussions.
Do you agree with Jim that leader worship is the biggest problem facing the church or do you think it’s something else?
It’s hard to say because I feel leader worship permeates all aspects of the church experience. If pressed, I’d say “spiritual arrogance” or “certainty” is the biggest problem facing the church (both dam making healthy changes) but it’s impossible to discuss either of those topics without addressing leader worship.
Do you think leaders discourage leader worship or encourage it? Explain your answer.
Encourage or discourage? I think they *model* leader worship. Every time a GA visits our stake during stake conference half of their comments are related to name dropping. How they got to travel to [insert country] with Elder [So-and-so] and how they got to eat lunch with President Nelson at Del [Taco].
There have been numerous criticisms that Nelson is quoted or mentioned far more often than Jesus during general conference. It’s gotten so bad that there are many people in the bloggernacle that watch conference and keep a running tally (Nemo the Mormon comes to mind).
In the local units I’ve seen it play out as you describe, the person with the calling with the most authority is held up as the person with the most spiritual or most correct answer.
How do you remedy the tendency of members to become simps?
The story of Naaman and Elisha’s messenger comes to mind. A PH blessing from the stake president is seen as more special than a blessing from our ministering brother, that’s just how the culture is, but how do I specifically remedy the tendency among members to worship leaders? I don’t think I can, no one listens to me, I’m not a leader. All I can really do is try not to engage in it myself.
How do you avoid simphood?
1) Remove myself from the keeping up with Brother Jones spiritual competition. It feels like there’s a big righteousness competition going on at church at all times and I think a lot of the leader worship is related to that competition. Public displays of fealty to leaders of the church and being the most correct about correlation are seen as the quickest way to earn a calling promotion and like it or not, personal righteousness is often tied to what calling you have.
Maybe that’s a sickness that the men have inflicted on the church. I know for me it really set in on my mission. I need to be more obedient to be a District Leader. They must be so righteous to have been called to be a Zone Leader. In a very real way God’s approval is tied up in these “promotions.” It’s a sickness.
It’s not totally fair to say that the competition is always related to trying to be the most righteous. More often than not I think what drives that competition is related to not wanting to feel unrighteous, where our level of righteousness is still loosely related to fealty to church leaders and adhering as close as possible to correlated thought. Which brings me to the next thing…
2) Spiritual self-confidence. If you’ve got it, why do you need to look to a leader for everything? Unfortunately I think church doctrines are designed to teach people that spiritual self-confidence borders on being a sin. Like you’re being too prideful or trying to operate outside of the Lord’s established stewardship hierarchy. Here’s the thing though, if the whole purpose of Mormonism is to teach people to become their own God, then eventually everyone is going to have to put down their spiritual pacifiers and spiritual security blankets and strike out on their own. Church culture generally frowns on people taking this step in their progression before they die but the people that frown on that sort of thing are probably far too busy trying to please the next leader up the chain. They’ll judge you when you do it but if you’re spiritually self-confident it won’t matter.
A scripture I might suggest for sacrament meeting talks, (or general conference talks) would be:
2 Nephi 4:34 “O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.”
(I also think it would be important to clearly state that the prophet is, in fact, a man of flesh).
Today you are not allowed to affiliate as a member by calling yourself a Mormon or LDS. You have to call yourself a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can’t even shorten that to COJCOLDS, which doesn’t roll off the tongue anyway. Why? Because a leader said so and if you violate his directive in the company of other members you’ll be corrected either immediately or under someone’s breath. To me that’s a perfect indication that it’s about a leader and nothing else.
It is so very important that you do not let praise and adulation go to your head. Adulation is poison.- Gordon B. Hinckley
President Nelson drinks deeply from the spring of adulation. Poison to one and mother’s milk to the other.
We had a lady here who’s father had been a translator for Pres. Hinckley when he would visit one part of Asia. I don’t know how many times, but any time you brought up prophets this lady would mention this fact, like as if we all forgot about it. In the mid 90’s her son went on a mission and the family got to meet Pres. Hinckley (after he was the Prophet) she showed this photo and everyone but President Hinckley was all smiles. I’m sure he was thinking who are these people again?! In 2018 Pres. Nelson came here for a visit and I overheard her telling him that and he brushed her off (not rudely or anything), and several of us were laughing about it. Like, both Presidents Hinckley and Nelson could not care less about this. I think though for some people they think that if they didn’t have this connection they would be living a boring life and without that connection they think that makes them special somehow. It’s hardly just in the church. On the “Big Bang Theory” Howard Wolowitz kept bringing up the fact he went to space much to the annoyance of everyone else and he finally told Bernadette that he felt he needed to remind them of this otherwise he would be just “plain old” Howard Wolowitz, one engineer among many, nothing special about that.
A few comments here have made a good point that people find people-idols to worship in all walks of life in our society: sports, politics, entertainment, etc. It’s something to be careful of. That said, it appears to me that some Mormons who are otherwise less inclined to find people to worship in other areas of life, can’t resist simping for Church leadership. I think part of this is because of the supernatural abilities attributed to Church leaders: prepared by God to lead from birth (or so the story goes), the ability to perform and experience miracles–healing, discerning thoughts, foretelling the future, etc.–that no one else has, direct communication with God whether it’s in the form of appearances, voices, visions, etc. Another part of this is the belief that the Q15 are the 15 most righteous men on the face of the Earth. A high councilor literally answered a question posed how the teacher in my ward’s Sunday School a few years ago, “How are apostles and prophets selected by God?” with “God always selects the most righteous me on the earth as apostles.” My jaw dropped–this guy really believes this! I mean, if you really believe these men have such supernatural abilities and such a high level of righteousness, then it kind of makes sense to hold them in very high regard in a way that for many people would approach, or even exceed, idolatry.
Worshiping Church leaders is still wrong because Church leaders aren’t deity, and I think most Mormons understand they still are men with weaknesses (kind of), but I tend to give the membership a break given how strongly the message is preached that these men are so special and the fact that not many members really get to interact with them enough to truly see that they are flawed men just like everyone else. I really have to place much more of the blame on Church leadership for the level of leadership worship that I see happening today.
I have a child that is a freshman at BYU. When Oaks spoke at a BYU devotional last fall, she was absolutely dumbfounded to see the entire student body stand when Oaks entered the room. This just seems so wrong and cult-like. The Q15 could so, so easily stop this practice by just making an announcement over the PA system a few minutes before the Q15 member enters the room requesting the attendees to remain seated, “The COJCOLDS believes in worshiping God and God alone. We also respect our Church leaders and are happy to have one visiting us today, but in order to avoid idolatry among the members of the Church, Elder Oaks requests that everyone please remain seated as he enters the room.” It’s so simple. Why don’t they do this???
I am, of course, not suggesting that stopping the practice of standing for Q15 members would solve the leadership worship problem. It runs deep, and it will take at least a generation or two to root out if there is ever any desire to do so. It has to start with the leadership, though. There was a time when GC after GC we heard talks about porn and gays and other “topics of the day”. The next “topic of the day” needs to be the sin of leadership worship. We need talks in GC after GC for years about how Q15 are fallible–from how they’ve made terrible mistakes for the Church in the past to how they weren’t always the best coworker/partner in business before they joined the Q15 to how they’ve barked at their kids for leaving their stuff all over the family room floor when they were under a lot of stress. While they are trying their best, and they appreciate the membership’s careful consideration of their messages, each member of the Church is responsible for owning their own morality, values, and choices.
I’ve heard leaders (I think it was Oaks) say that you stand up to show respect for the mantle, not the man. Thing is, like the emperor’s clothes, I can’t see the mantle. Just the man.
On “respect for the office / mantle”. I tend to think we mostly have that backwards. I rather think it is something for the person holding that office / wearing that mantle to think about. Does their behaviour in office, their concern for others etc bring honour to that position. Does it earn the trust and respect of those they’re meant to be serving. To demand that the masses respect the office etc whilst the individual in office gets away with egregious behaviour, is not what should be required. On the contrary, the last office/ mantle are respected when those holding those positions are held to account for behaviour that is not in harmony with their position. Perhaps we need to think about precisely what behaviour ought to be expected…
This has been an interesting discussion.
Jim Bennett’s initial comment to this post seems pretty accurate to me.
I believe the Brethren are more concerned about criticism of them than they are about heresy.
They haven’t liked many of the things Natasha Helfer, or Bill Reel, or Radio Free Mormon, or a host of other people have publicly said or wrote over time.
However, it seems that when they perceive direct public criticism—excommunication for apostasy tends to happen.
I think that is why Natasha was excommunicated, while many of her professional peers have expressed the same things as she has on topics of mental health and sexuality, but without direct criticism of specific Brethren, and they don’t get disciplined.
I think it is why Bill Reel was excommunicated (for what he exposed, with direct criticism about Elder Holland’s direct and intentional lies about Church growth—among other things), while others who have publicly discussed the same kinds of things Bill has while withholding direct criticism of specific living Brethren, have not been disciplined.
I’m sure there are many lines not to cross in the perceptions of the Brethren, but it seems clear that direct public criticism of specific living Brethren is the line not to cross if a person wants to avoid Church discipline.
Jim clearly cares about his membership in the Church. He loves his calling in the Choir. He experiences divinity in his participation. He holds strong and sincere beliefs that God has something to do with many of its teachings and authority claims.
So, while Jim can publicly point out the thing(s) he sees as the biggest problem(s), and he can even recognize himself that the Brethren are directly and intentionally the gasoline on the fire of the problem(s), once Jim crosses over to publicly talking about specific examples of today’s living Brethren with regard to intentional dishonesty, abuse, harming people in the name of Jesus, etc., he knows that crossing that line materially risks the end of his calling and his membership.
A few here have asked why serve the sacrament to the bishop first. Like many things in the church there’s a simple answer that, if you think about it some more, just raises even deeper questions. The facile answer is that the bishop needs to be free to observe everyone who isn’t taking the sacrament so he can chat with them. To modern sensibilities, however, that seems a bit creepy and more interventionist than I think many of us would prefer. We tend to think ratting each other out isn’t cool and it should be up to the individual to go to the bishop if they desire.
I do agree that at the root of the many issues we face in the church is leader worship. The main reason it is such an issue is because it goes directly against what Jesus taught and how he acted. That is the big chasm. When people feel that, they naturally begin to question “If Jesus was against this, why are we for it?” . Our leaders may be personally against this, but General Conference messages 100% support the worship. In many different ways. Some outright, some subtle. The simple fact that we have many more sacrament talks that use GC talks as their basis, than we do talks that use the scriptures as their intended basis. Listen to how many times RMN is quoted in GC. Contrast that with how many times the Savior is quoted. Those numbers should not even be close.
Anthony Miller, you nailed it, my friend. I think it’s worth noting that the official tolerance threshold for unorthodoxy is much higher than most people realize, while at the same time, the tolerance threshold for even mild criticism of the Brethren is much lower than most people realize.
This was highlighted recently by my brother-in-law Nate Oman, who wrote a magnificent essay outlining a theological framework to allow for same-sex temple sealings that got quite a bit of traction. The DezNat types were calling for his head, but not only did he get no pushback from the Brethren, Elder Holland quoted him at length in his recent youth devotional and held him up as a paragon of the faith.
In contrast, I’ve spoken to legions of people who have run into resistance over things that are really trivial and silly when it comes to perceived criticism of church leaders. A know a guy who does a killer Thomas S. Monson impression that was told by his bishop to knock it off if he wanted to keep his temple recommend. The impression was kind and silly and came from a place of genuine affection, but it still set off the alarms.
The lines get clearer the deader the leader is. It seems to be perfectly acceptable, for instance, to openly acknowledge and criticize Brigham Young’s racism, for instance. But criticizing leaders for their conduct in the Mark Hoffman debacle doesn’t quite fly. This kind of institutional fragility seems really unnecessary to me, and the Church would be much healthier if it abandoned it. But as you note, I value my membership and find joy in my calling, and that means I have to color within the lines.
to Anthony’s point, I was interviewed for a BYU faculty position. (Umm, so glad that didn’t work out.). When I was speaking to the Dean we were talking about academic freedom.
His example on where the line would be crossed was this:
If you are an expert in language acquisition and you come to the conclusion that the MTC actually does language instruction totally wrong, it is fine to say that.
But if you take it a step further and say “and therefore the brethren aren’t inspired because the MTC doesn’t teach languages well” that would be a problem.
Hedgehog: That actually reminds me of the conservative SCOTUS complaints that those who are criticizing the court as “illegitimate” because it doesn’t represent the will of the people have “crossed a line,” but not holding themselves accountable for obvious ethics violations like refusing to recuse themselves in cases that involve their spouse (Clarence Thomas) or deliberately misleading Congress when asked about their respect for precedent, then busting every precedent they can get their greasy little hands on. Perhaps Oaks’ comment was a judicial mindset. Perhaps it was just a conservative one. He’s got both of those, after all. But personally, I agree with you. If Clarence Thomas doesn’t respect the mantle enough to recuse himself when his wife is plotting a coup, that’s not ME not respecting the “mantle” for pointing it out.
“The fact that he wasn’t willing to blame them for encouraging leader worship is fairly good evidence that they are responsible for it.“
Trying to parse the logic here is making my head spin.
I just finished the first linked podcast and am convinced that we’d be better off with more Jim Bennetts. I like how he manages to thread the needle between honest, sincere faithfulness and criticism and I think he acquitted himself well with RFM and Dehlin and I admire him for stepping into the ring to discuss tough questions. Few other people seem willing to do this (Patrick Mason is one other example).
I thought RFM’s concept of doctrinal inerrancy was really helpful in framing up the infallibility issue. The church doesn’t claim infallibility but it does claim doctrinal inerrancy.
My only pushback to Jim was when emphasized that the leaders sincerely believe they are speaking the truth. I sort of thought, “so what?” Sincerity may go the level of culpability around promulgating untrue doctrine, but lots of false religious teachers undoubtedly believe what they teach (Warren Jeffs and David Koresh immediately jump to mind–the latter sealing his testimony with his own blood). I don’t think the standard LDS leaders have agreed to is that “we will always teach you what we sincerely believe is right.” That goes without saying. Instead, what I learned in the church is that leaders will never lead the church astray. And the church is doubling down on this. President Nelson apparently believes he is “on call with the Lord 24 hours a day.” https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/sister-nelson-an-eyewitness-to-president-nelsons-four-years-as-prophet . And while Jim may be right that Russell Nelson believes he is the recipient of ongoing revelation, it’s very hard to square his claim with serious doctrinal changes in church history–including in recent history.
In my opinion the church needs admit to changes in doctrine. Changes in doctrine are obvious to any person who thinks, reads and questions. Whereas the fundamental Joseph Smith narrative is about reading, questioning and praying, and the internet is available to us for that reading it is impossible to support the narrative that the doctrine never changes.
Instead they should say, as Joseph did in Article of Faith 9, that the doctrine should change, can change and will change.
This is the only way forward. I believe the church will eventually completely stop growing and fall apart unless they do this.
Telling people to avoid the internet will never work.
I can find a reason for the bishop or presiding official to take the sacrament first. This is my own rationale, and it might be wrong. We didn’t always have microphones and speakers, and members of the congregation might not always have heard the prayers fully (even today, older members might not always hear them). The leader taking the sacrament first, for me, is a message that the ordinance is valid, even if the priest erred somewhere. It simply says, to those seeking peace through the sacrament, that this ordinance is correctly done, and so it is the leader’s “amen.” I’m OK with that. That said, I think that hero worship and personality cult are huge problems, and they are a disease in the church. I wish the leaders would not insist on people standing for them, quoting them all the time, etc. We should be disciples of Christ. The leaders should want us to worship God and not men (thanks for the quote from Revelation, above, with the angel’s correction of John). From someone outside looking in, it honestly does look like we worship men sometimes. Maybe a lot. Certainly too much.
@Jesse, you’re very kind. Thank you.
To your point, “so what?” is a very good question. The reality is that’s the only promise on this subject that Church leaders can actually keep. Yet leaders continue to promise doctrinal inerrancy and continue to fall short. That shouldn’t come as a surprise, because inerrancy and agency are entirely incompatible, but we just can’t seem to help ourselves. Which is why, as I say repeatedly, this is the biggest problem in the Church.
@lws329, amen and amen! Few things bother me more than people who insist that doctrine never changes. Of course doctrine changes! There isn’t a significant doctrine in the Church that hasn’t changed over time. And as you point out re: Ninth Article of Faith, what’s the point of a church built on continuing revelation if the new revelation doesn’t change anything? We should expect and embrace change, yet we contort ourselves to retcon doctrine that changes into “policy” and pretend it was never doctrine to begin with. It’s exhausting.
It is truth, not doctrine, that doesn’t change, and our mortal understanding of eternal truth is woefully limited. When additional light and knowledge inevitably come, our doctrine changes to accommodate our increased understanding of unchanging truth. That’s why there’s such a thing as false doctrine, but there’s no such thing as false truth.
My take on the “leaders will never lead us astray” thing is “not on my watch, they won’t” or in other words, we are each morally responsible for our own actions. Nobody gets a pass for playing follow the leader. It didn’t work in Nazi Germany. It doesn’t work in churches or political parties or school boards or at our jobs. We each own our own choices, and abdicating responsibility to a leader may sound enticing, but it doesn’t absolve us of responsibility for our actions. I realize that is not what they mean when they say that.
“…a phenomemon that many of us have observed: that often, people who leave the Church when they determine that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be will immediately replace Church dogma with ex-Mormon dogma. They go from one position of believing they are right and have all the answers to another position of believing they are right and have all the answers.”
Tell me more about this “ex-Mormon dogma.” What sort of things do they make ex-mos believe, in order to be accepted by the group? I looked for their catechism here
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/
…but just found links on stuff like suicide and sex abuse. Maybe it’s here?
https://cesletter.org/