Signs Of Apostasy: What Are The Limits Of Dissent In The Church?

[Stone holm]

There seems to be something of a variance in the opinions of various people on this board as to what degree it is legitimate to express views contrary to what Church leadership may be expressing from time to time. It has been said that "the Catholics have a doctrine of infallibility with respect to the Pope, but Catholics don't believe it, and that Mormons have doctrine that the Prophet is fallible, but Mormons don't believe it." We also have catch phrases such as "steadying the Ark" and "speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed", etc. So the question is when and under what circumstances is it ever appropriate to express disagreement with a General Authority? Does it make a difference how that disagreement is expressed? Does it make a difference where that disagreement is expressed? What are the potential consequences of being stern in quelling disagreement and what are the consequences of being tolerant of disagreement?

[pmccombs1]

The topical guide has an entry on individual apostasy which seems to call out two different things:

1) Unbelief that leads one away from God and the Church

2) Persecution of the Church. Persecution is defined to be a persistent harassment, so those who persistently voice opposition in a way that is bothersome to the Church or hinders it.

Apostasy is covered in Handbook 1 under section 6.7.3.

Apostasy is defined as public persecution of the church, or persistence in teaching false doctrine as if it were Church doctrine after having been corrected by a Church authority, or following the teachings of an apostate group after having been corrected by a Church authority, or joining another Church.

In the Church, there are definitions of what constitutes compliance and what does not. I believe there are many laws of the gospel with which one can be in technical compliance and still be under condemnation, in a manner of speaking. One might obey the specific rules of the Word of Wisdom, yet over-indulge in other ways. One might pay a technical tithe according to one's own rather self-serving interpretation of the law. One may technically observe the law of chastity, yet "commit adultery in his heart." Boundless are the ways in which we trade one vice for a "lesser" one, and thus avoid the consequences for a time. It is the same with apostasy: There are those who are disaffected that attend meetings and serve in callings, but in their hearts have parted ways with the Church and the gospel. I am one of these to some degree, though it gives me no pleasure. The technical line of apostasy is blurry when you get right down to it, and it requires a bit of casuistry to sort things out for those of us who tread on that line. That's why there are church courts, to ascertain case-by-case, whether or not a line has been crossed.

Edited April 4, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Rivers]

I think you cross the line of apostasy when you start causing contention. Members of the church can have different opinions on things as long as there is still a spirit of unity. Jesus said that contention is of the Devil.

[teddyaware]

There seems to be something of a variance in the opinions of various people on this board as to what degree it is legitimate to express views contrary to what Church leadership may be expressing from time to time. It has been said that "the Catholics have a doctrine of infallibility with respect to the Pope, but Catholics don't believe it, and that Mormons have doctrine that the Prophet is fallible, but Mormons don't believe it." We also have catch phrases such as "steadying the Ark" and "speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed", etc. So the question is when and under what circumstances is it ever appropriate to express disagreement with a General Authority? Does it make a difference how that disagreement is expressed? Does it make a difference where that disagreement is expressed? What are the potential consequences of being stern in quelling disagreement and what are the consequences of being tolerant of disagreement?

I would say that before anyone even begins to consider whether or not they should express dissent with the Church leaders. either publicly or privately (e.g. in a closed meeting), they should first be sure they are living the gospel faithfully, magnifying their personal responsibilities and Church callings to the point where they could look the Lord in the eye without turning away in self-disappointment, embarrassment or shame.

Making sure one is "right" with the Lord is essential before even considering to begin a process of critical examination of the Church's leadership; and this in order to make just and judicious determinations as to whether or not the Church's ship of state is being led aright. A healthy, ongoing and fruitful revelatory relationship with the Holy Ghost is indispensable to a clear and correct perception of actual reality and truth.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Jesus Christ)

That troublesome old "beam," all too often found in the eye of the typical arc steadier, must be removed -- even if extremely difficult and painful to extract -- in order to see things clearly enough to make proper judgements. Only after the removal of the obscuring and distorting beam, jammed into one's own doors of perception, will that man be able to confidently make consistently righteous judgements. Turning one's critical gaze around and away from others, focusing, rather, like a high-intensity laser beam upon his own imperfections and sins of commission & and omission is the place to start a critical analysis of the Lord's Kingdom.

Ignoring the Lord's wise counsel on this point truly is risky business. First things first. A sound and sturdy foundation of self-assessment and personal righteousness, founded upon a mighty rock (Christ), is the place all wise men and women will start their personal quest of coming to accurately comprehend all reality and truth. What do you say we do some home and visting teaching or get ready for the next family home evening?

Edited April 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[wenglund]

So the question is when and under what circumstances is it ever appropriate to express disagreement with a General Authority?

This is kind of like asking, "How far can a young man and woman go before they become unchaste?"

Both questions look at the issues exactly backwards. The point of the gospel isn't to see how close one can get to the cliff-edge of disobedience without falling, but rather how high one can climb through obedience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

So the question is when and under what circumstances is it ever appropriate to express disagreement with a General Authority?

When you can also express that you want to agree with the Lord and his Church even though you are having some trouble.

Does it make a difference how that disagreement is expressed?

Yes.

To say you don't agree is to tell him where you are in your understanding.

To say you don't know if you agree and you'd like some more clarification is a sign to him that you need some help.

And what he says when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is still true whether or not you agree with what he is saying.

Does it make a difference where that disagreement is expressed?

Yes. It's always better to speak to a General Authority in a private meeting than to let others know you're having some trouble.

What are the potential consequences of being stern in quelling disagreement and what are the consequences of being tolerant of disagreement?

For the former, quick correction, and for the latter, an ongoing lack of unity.

[cinepro]

This is kind of like asking, "How far can a young man and woman go before they become unchaste?"

Both questions look at the issues exactly backwards. The point of the gospel isn't to see how close one can get to the cliff-edge of disobedience without falling, but rather how high one can climb through obedience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You must be a lot of fun on dates.

[Stone holm]

"Yes. It's always better to speak to a General Authority in a private meeting than to let others know you're having some trouble." How realistic is that for the average Mormon?

[Stone holm]

You must be a lot of fun on dates.

Actually knowing the answer to both seems pretty important...lol

[Ahab]

"Yes. It's always better to speak to a General Authority in a private meeting than to let others know you're having some trouble." How realistic is that for the average Mormon?

The point is that it would be better to have a private meeting with the General Authority than to let others know you're having some trouble.

Some people seem to think it's okay to go ahead and let others know they're having some trouble with what a General Authority has said if it's too much trouble for them to meet with a General Authority, but that's actually the worse thing to do. If you can't meet with the General Authority in person, for some reason, then don't let others know you're having some trouble with what he has said. Keep it to yourself or between you and God or set up a private meeting with someone authorized by the General Authority like your bishop or your stake president or another person who can speak for the general authority to get it cleared up.

[wenglund]

You must be a lot of fun on dates.

Yes...I am a thrill-a-minute for the menopausal women my age. They shriek with delight when I take out my false teeth and gum their earlobes. That is enough to send us each to the Bishop's office for prolonged disciplinary action.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

The point is that it would be better to have a private meeting with the General Authority than to let others know you're having some trouble.

Some people seem to think it's okay to go ahead and let others know they're having some trouble with what a General Authority has said if it's too much trouble for them to meet with a General Authority, but that's actually the worse thing to do. If you can't meet with the General Authority in person, for some reason, then don't let others know you're having some trouble with what he has said. Keep it to yourself or between you and God or set up a private meeting with someone authorized by the General Authority like your bishop or your stake president or another person who can speak for the general authority to get it cleared up.

Interesting extension of the idea of taking a person aside to call them to repentance. Then let's put it this way, if someone says something off the rails in a public meeting do you ever feel that you are complicit in what has been said if you do not object? So is there a difference between the situation where a person says something publicly to which you take objection, or if someone says something privately to which you take strong objection? Normally, if something is said publicly then it eligible to be publicly denounced, if something is said privately then the denunciation should be private. If I say something that is disagreeable to a Church authority and I am busy, should I then have them take it up with say my Secretary?

[Ahab]

Interesting extension of the idea of taking a person aside to call them to repentance.

Yes, I see it that way too.

Then let's put it this way, if someone says something off the rails in a public meeting do you ever feel that you are complicit in what has been said if you do not object?

No, I'm not complicit in what others say, but I might choose to speak up to say something else if I feel that moment is a good time to speak up. I'm not one of those who believes silence = agreement.

So is there a difference between the situation where a person says something publicly to which you take objection, or if someone says something privately to which you take strong objection?

Yes, one situation is in public and the other is in private, and I usually feel more comfortable speaking up in a private meeting than I do in a public meeting, although I can sometimes feel comfortable speaking up in public, too.

Normally, if something is said publicly then it eligible to be publicly denounced, if something is said privately then the denunciation should be private.

Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to speak up in the same public meeting as the person who said something you don't agree with, and I usually wouldn't air it in public unless I had already spoken to him in private.

If I say something that is disagreeable to a Church authority and I am busy, should I then have them take it up with say my Secretary?

That would be fine if you did, and then your secretary could either resolve it or set up an appointment for you.

[Stone holm]

Yeah it is a weird topic. I for one have always felt uncomfortable when during a hometeaching visit or just a plain visit and somebody starts criticizing the Bishop, and I refrain from doing that myself and will normally defend the Bishop. But, I also know that that person can always and easily take the matter up personally with the Bishop. I have from time to time when either a Bishop or Stake President is leading a discussion group and I feel that they have just overstepped their bounds, gone off the rails, or are point blank wrong -- pointed that out to them on the spot. I do tend to feel complicit if I sit in silence in such a situation. I always try to do it nicely if at all possible. Once you move up the food chain from there, however, the Church has pretty much taken the position, "don't call us we'll call you." When that happens, then I think you are in a completely different territory. However, I believe there are limits. One, I don't think we should ever countenance shots at a person's character, personal integrity or personal worthiness. That is what I would term "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed". Two, I don't think we should ever strike at core beliefs such as whether the Book of Mormon is true, or whether the Prophet is the only one holding the keys of authority for the Church, or casting doubts on the Divinity of Christ. When, however, anyone fires off a call for political activism or fires off a legal opinion or fires off a scientific opinion, etc. Well then its definitely up for grabs as no one in the Church has the right to make such decisions for us -- period. When the Church invests in businesses, etc. -- that is also fair game. But the difficult question comes where the issue isn't core beliefs, but something somewhat less...and that is the heart of this topic.

When are we morally obligated to hold our peace?

[Lightbearer]

If your criticism will diminish the loyalty of others to that GA, or undermine his judgment, or discredit his authority then yes we are absolutely morally obligated to hold our peace. I do not care what the subject is, political, social, cultural, moral or religious the authorities have a right to speak out on that subject. The reason they are called General Authorities is because they have a right to speak for the Church--Not you or me. We have a right to give our opinions, even publicly, but we do not have a right to put the Church in a bad light or to discredit it's teachings. My quote line from Elder McConkie's talk "The Caravan Moves on" is a good guide in this.

[Ahab]

...

When are we morally obligated to hold our peace?

I'm one of those who is usually very open and direct with people, when I feel the moment is right or that it's okay to share what I think, but when I speak up I think it's important for me to realize that I'm only doing what I think might help someone else. I don't ever intend to hurt someone's feelings. I'm just trying to do what I think will help someone else. And then I figure that most other people are doing that, too. They say what they say because they think it is right, unless they're just trying to be funny, but even then they're still just doing what they think is right while thinking it's alright to try to be funny.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I look for that common ground, realizing other people are trying to do what I'm doing, even if I don't think they are doing it right or that there is a better way for them to do it. We're all just trying to do what we think is a good thing to do, even thogh not everybody is in agreement about what is a good thing to do or say or think.

And sometimes it's best to just let someone else talk without trying to say anything to them.

[bcuzbcuz]

could look the Lord in the eye without turning away in self-disappointment, embarrassment or shame.

Are you kidding me? What kind of self dillusional state of mind must one be in to think that one is fulfilling their duty or post to be able to look the "lord in the eye"?

[Ahab]

Are you kidding me? What kind of self dillusional state of mind must one be in to think that one is fulfilling their duty or post to be able to look the "lord in the eye"?

If I understand what you mean, I agree with you. But then again, I also agree with him.

None of us are doing as much as we could be doing, so all of us should be hoping for mercy instead of feeling confident that we've got everything covered by doing as well as we can possibly do. We can always do better until we reach the point where we're perfect, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking we're perfect when we still have a long way to go. I'm sure even President Monson wants to do better than he is doing and that he would have his head bowed when standing face to face with the Lord. At least until the Lord helped him feel confident enough that he was doing well enough, even though even then he'd still probably want to keep his head bowed and not look the Lord in the eye for too long because he would still feel there's a lot more he can do.

At first a bow, and then eye contact, and then a bow again if not a drop to our knees when we realize how far we still have to go.

[CV75]

There seems to be something of a variance in the opinions of various people on this board as to what degree it is legitimate to express views contrary to what Church leadership may be expressing from time to time. It has been said that "the Catholics have a doctrine of infallibility with respect to the Pope, but Catholics don't believe it, and that Mormons have doctrine that the Prophet is fallible, but Mormons don't believe it." We also have catch phrases such as "steadying the Ark" and "speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed", etc. So the question is when and under what circumstances is it ever appropriate to express disagreement with a General Authority? Does it make a difference how that disagreement is expressed? Does it make a difference where that disagreement is expressed? What are the potential consequences of being stern in quelling disagreement and what are the consequences of being tolerant of disagreement?

Circumstances appropriate for expressing disagreement with a General Authority would be discerned by the Spirit (we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost). Of course it makes a difference how and where that disagreement is expressed—one thing to consider is how Christ would express it in that circumstance? It also makes a difference as to how important the issue is to the Lord, and what He wants the disagreeing party to do about it (this also will be guided by the Spirit). Where sternness and tolerance are guided by the Spirit, the potential consequence is to give people an opportunity to choose the right.

Where thinking through what to do results in a stupor of thought, the best thing to do is to drop the issue. If it is important, the Lord will provide a way for clarity in due time.

[mercyngrace]

Does your dissent prevent you from feeling the Spirit?

If yes, repent.

If no, trust that God will reveal the same truths to all men that He has spoken to your own heart.

[CV75]

But the difficult question comes where the issue isn't core beliefs, but something somewhat less...and that is the heart of this topic.

When are we morally obligated to hold our peace?

If it isn't over a core belief, it probably isn't very important in the big scheme of things and probably not very morally relevant. The stronger one feels about an unimportant and morally irrelevant matter, the more obligated he is to hold his peace and adress the issue in an attitude of peace. "Blessed are the peacemakers..."

[Stone holm]

"If your criticism will diminish the loyalty of others to that GA," how does everyone feel about that. Is it a matter of loyalty to a particular GA? or loyalty to "truth"? For example, lets take Bruce R. McConkie who was cited in that particular comment. Elder McConkie for years taught and published folklore about Africans that he later confessed to President Kimball was unfounded. Now should he have been given a pass on that for all those years with members holding their peace?

[Buzzard]

We can run around all day with our kookie ideas, but when we say that the Brethren are full of it, that's when we cross the line. Exhibit A is Sonia Johnson (remember her?) She was unmolested for months while promoting her Mormons for ERA group, but within a few weeks of calling the leadership of the church a "savage misogyny", she found herself an involuntary ex-Mormon.

[Stone holm]

We can run around all day with our kookie ideas, but when we say that the Brethren are full of it, that's when we cross the line. Exhibit A is Sonia Johnson (remember her?) She was unmolested for months while promoting her Mormons for ERA group, but within a few weeks of calling the leadership of the church a "savage misogyny", she found herself an involuntary ex-Mormon.

Yeah, I think that is a classic example of "Speaking evil of the Lord's Annointed." Plus it did nothing to add to the debate, name calling rarely does. What about the Liahona Mormons vs. Iron-rod Mormons thing that called forth a rebuke by Pres. Lee?

[Ahab]

"If your criticism will diminish the loyalty of others to that GA," how does everyone feel about that. Is it a matter of loyalty to a particular GA? or loyalty to "truth"? For example, lets take Bruce R. McConkie who was cited in that particular comment. Elder McConkie for years taught and published folklore about Africans that he later confessed to President Kimball was unfounded. Now should he have been given a pass on that for all those years with members holding their peace?

Play out the scenarios in your own mind.

Scenario #1. A different issue other than this issue - You start telling others that you think an apostle was wrong on an issue, without trying to correct or contact that apostle first. Many people begin to get the idea that an apostle of the Lord is wrong on an issue, and they think an apostle of the Lord should never be wrong on an issue. You may try to tell them that he is still an apostle of the Lord and that apostles can make mistakes in judgment, that they don't always speak the mind of the Lord, but they don't buy that because they think an apostle should always be right so they start to doubt that the Church is true. In addition to all that there would also be some people telling you that you are wrong and that the apostle is right. Oh dear, who to believe? It may be that on this issue you are right and the apostle is wrong, or it may be that you are wrong and the apostle is right. The way to find out what is true is to receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost on the issue but not everyone can tell when they are receiving his witness. Some mistake that witness for an answer from Satan. Oh dear, what now? Who to believe? Who can we go to for some guidance when we can't even be sure that we're receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost.

Scenario #2. This issue. Same situation. What now? Do you really want to stir up a lot of trouble or would you rather just go talk with him and work it out with him while thinking both of you are in this together and you're both trying to find out what is true. He's either sure he is right or he's open to correction. You are too, either way, but how are you going to know what you should do?

The fact that someone is authorized as an apostle of the Lord doesn't mean they are always right, but they're still authorized as an apostle of our Lord. Unless someone excommunicates him. Are you trying to get an apostle of the Lord excommunicated? What if he decided to excommunicate you because you have him the impression that you were trying to stir up some trouble? Oh, I know, you'd say you were just trying to correct what he taught which you believed was not true, but it's not your role to try to teach everyone in the Church. That's what apostles are authorized to do, and if they're wrong someone with more authority than you have should tell them. They have their superiors, just as you do, and it just works out better when we all work together as we should while trying to get along with each other.