DiscussMormonism.com

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

This remark by Apostle Dallin Oaks, has undoubtedly caused many people, both LDS and non-LDS, to raise their eyebrows. This would certainly be true for the military, but this type of thinking is seldom seen outside either the military or the corporate board room. It really does not jell to well with the rest of the American experience, so to speak. Even my young daughter likes to point out when I am wrong, and I would not want to ever stifle her right to speak.

It would seem to preclude ever getting honest feedback from the membership if they had to be eternal yes-men.

So what gives? Maybe a response from more orthodox LDS could help put this in perspective, as to why this is a good rather than a bad thing.

Does anyone have a link to the whole talk where this was given? I could mount a defense of what he said by what he said but might be more accurate if I have whole talk.

The Nehor wrote:Does anyone have a link to the whole talk where this was given? I could mount a defense of what he said by what he said but might be more accurate if I have whole talk.

It was from the PBS special called "The Mormons". It was both one of their intro pieces and later on in the program as well. It could well be on the PBS Mormons website in its entirety.

I looked for it there and couldn't find it.

If you watch part 2 you'll see it.

The Nehor wrote:Does anyone have a link to the whole talk where this was given? I could mount a defense of what he said by what he said but might be more accurate if I have whole talk.

One can mount a defense for practically anything. The question is" Should you?

Is this really a defensible position (not meaning whether it can be defended but whether it should be defended)?

Claiming one to be exempted from criticism is really the highest form of arrogance. No one should be exempt, and I mean no one.

I am not saying that this requires free and unfettered criticism, but accountability requires some degree of criticism both down and up the ladder of authority.

So, in other words, Oaks appears to be arguing that Mormon leaders are not accountable to members.

It amazes me that members willinging put up with this authoritarian garbage.

So, in other words, Oaks appears to be arguing that Mormon leaders are not accountable to members.
It amazes me that members willinging put up with this authoritarian garbage.

Why all this amazement? The leaders have never been accountable to the members, not since the beginning and certainly not now. And the members are okay with that because the leaders are supposed to be accountable to God, but since I've never seen any results of that accountability (when they were obviously wrong about something), personally I doubt that. For the most part, the members want it that way. If the leaders are doing their job, then all the members have to do is follow them. No great effort is required, just follow the leader and voila! Exaltation! No effort to forge a personal relationship with God, no effort to gain one's own personal revelation, no need to be responsible for one's own path or (heaven forbid!) one's own sins. Just follow the prophet and reap the benefits of sheepdom: eternal sheephood.

For all practical purposes, members never ever question their leaders. The last time I saw any widespread questioning was the infamous oral-sex letter. When one is raised to never question authority, usually one never questions it. Only rarely does one question, and then one is unceremoniously booted from the fold, which means one becomes an embarrassment to one's friends and family. Social pressure is a huge part of Mormon culture. Hence, the impact of the inaccurately named Honor Code. We all report our neighbors' violations with aclarity, thereby proving our obedience to the unquestionable leadership.

Authority and obedience are absolute and unquestioned. It has always been this way. I see no chink in the armor yet, so I suppose it's going to hold at least until the end of the summer.

They are accountable to God. How he chooses to hold them accountable is his business. I can't be bothered.

Criticism of leaders does not imply that the leaders are always right. It is an understanding that it is not your duty to correct it.

I think some see authoritarianism where there is little or none. How much influence and power does the Bishop have over my life? Not a lot. Stake President and up the chain? Ditto.

There was a book written some time ago where the author wondered whether disagreeing with the GA's of the Church was apostasy. He asked a friend of his (an Apostle) if an honest disagreement with them was apostasy. He took it to the 12 and they discussed and said that no, it was not as long as it was not in the form of a 'loyal opposition' or factioning the Church. I am commanded not to criticize my Church Leaders and God has reiterated that command to me directly. I have no right to make it difficult for them to do their job by demeaning either their office or them.

The Nehor wrote:They are accountable to God. How he chooses to hold them accountable is his business. I can't be bothered.

Criticism of leaders does not imply that the leaders are always right. It is an understanding that it is not your duty to correct it.

I think some see authoritarianism where there is little or none. How much influence and power does the Bishop have over my life? Not a lot. Stake President and up the chain? Ditto.

There was a book written some time ago where the author wondered whether disagreeing with the GA's of the Church was apostasy. He asked a friend of his (an Apostle) if an honest disagreement with them was apostasy. He took it to the 12 and they discussed and said that no, it was not as long as it was not in the form of a 'loyal opposition' or factioning the Church. I am commanded not to criticize my Church Leaders and God has reiterated that command to me directly. I have no right to make it difficult for them to do their job by demeaning either their office or them.

Not a lot? We have a different definition of "a lot", I suspect. Let me give you some examples from my life.

Because my bishop has quite a bit of influence over my husband, he controls a few things in my life. Others, I allow him to control:

1. What my husband does every Wednesday night and Sunday morning.
2. How I budget my income and what I take for my tax deductions.
3. What I'm doing every Friday or Saturday for at least an hour, sometimes two.
4. Who visits my home and wastes my time for an hour or two every month.
5. If I can see my children married.

My stake president has little influence in my life, except:

1. When my husband is expected at certain stake meetings.
2. If I can see my children married.

The GA's/FP control of my life is more covert:

1. I am expected to control my rage and sense of injustice, that as each of my sons reached 12 years of age, they gained more authority in the church than I will ever have.
2. the expectation that I will willingly share my husband's love and attention at some point in the future, yet he will not be held to the same expectations.
3. that I will follow the prophet instead of my own conscious, or be branded a heretic and apostate to my family and friends.
4. that I am expected to bend my knee to our leaders, and accept everything they say without comment or criticism.

That's control, Nehor. You may not always see the same things in your life, but that's what I see in mine.

I don't have a lot of time to take this up right now, but I can at least say that anything grounded in uncritical obedience is a pretty good shorthand definition of authoritarian, Nehor.