Is There Room For Loyal Opposition In The Church?

[Stone holm]

It seems like we Mormons sometimes have to tread a very fine line. On occasion the leadership of the Church may in their "official capacity", or in their heavily disclaimed "unofficial capacity", do something or say something which does not pertain to the core principles or mission of the Church. To some any criticism of any such action that an individual member may have constitutes ill speaking of the Lord's Annointed, or "steadying the ark", or look like the person is being a Judas. We strongly emphasize "obedience" in the Church.

So is it ever permissible to criticize a General Authority saying or doing something? Is it a zero tolerance of criticism policy, or is there a certain line which if observed allows a member to question an action or policy publicly, or in a forum such as this one?

[omni]

No.

[Duncan]

People are one thing ideas are another. I think it would be dumb and improper to say that President Sting Van Halen is a yo yo where as ideas have lives of their own such as is Elder Bruce C. Hafen criticizing Pres. McKay idea that no ther success can compensate for failure in home when he said,

“While no other success of ours can compensate for our failures within or outside our homes, there is a success that can compensate when we cannot, after we conscientiously do all we can. That success is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which can mend what for us is beyond repair.”

Bruce C. Hafen

you tell me

Edited July 20, 2013 by Duncan

[EllenMaksoud]

It seems like we Mormons sometimes have to tread a very fine line. On occasion the leadership of the Church may in their "official capacity", or in their heavily disclaimed "unofficial capacity", do something or say something which does not pertain to the core principles or mission of the Church. To some any criticism of any such action that an individual member may have constitutes ill speaking of the Lord's Annointed, or "steadying the ark", or look like the person is being a Judas. We strongly emphasize "obedience" in the Church.

So is it ever permissible to criticize a General Authority saying or doing something? Is it a zero tolerance of criticism policy, or is there a certain line which if observed allows a member to question an action or policy publicly, or in a forum such as this one?

Actually I do have a sharp protest with the whole of the GA. I firmly believe my interpretation is correct. Rather than shout me down, they choose to ignore me. What will happen? I don't know. At present I feel strong enough to fight about it. What will I do if Heavenly Father changes my mind?

[Robert F. Smith]

People are one thing ideas are another. I think it would be dumb and improper to say that President Sting Van Halen is a yo yo where as ideas have lives of their own such as is Elder Bruce C. Hafen criticizing Pres. McKay idea that no ther success can compensate for failure in home when he said,

“While no other success of ours can compensate for our failures within or outside our homes, there is a success that can compensate when we cannot, after we conscientiously do all we can. That success is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which can mend what for us is beyond repair.”

Bruce C. Hafen

you tell me

Yes there are certainly nuances in the rule against publicly speaking ill of the Brethren. It is a temple covenant and so must be taken seriously. One can take such matters up with the Brethren themselves privately, and they are frequently very open to such criticism or helpful suggestions. However, boundary maintenance is important for the Church primarily because we are not simply a loose Sunday-go-to-meetin association. We are the body of Christ, the Kingdom of God on Earth, the Covenant People of the Lord, and the Saints of the Last Days who are busy getting ready for the eschaton (awful end-time). This ain't no cake-walk.

.

[Storm Rider]

I agree with RFS; our role as disciples of Christ is to be sources of peace in the world. The gospel is both a personal relationship with our Father in Heaven as it is a communal relationship with God. My opinion is that some of our General Authorities are men of God and others are very good administrators, but not exactly spiritual giants. Underlying their mantle of authority they remain just men that put their pants on every morning just like I do. I personally feel very comfortable disagreeing with the any of the Brethren, past and present, when I sense something not quite right about their actions or their words. However, what I do not find acceptable is to tell everyone about my disagreements or to begin to appeal to the masses about my disagreements or what I find lacking. I may share them with family, close friends, and some leaders if asked in a direct manner, but I may also never share those thoughts and feelings. As a disciple of Christ I feel empowered to follow the Spirit as he guides me while keeping a listening to what the leaders say. In other words, I strive to remain open to correction and stand firm on revealed truth. As an aside, I suspect that many have seen in some of my rather sharp comments that I have little patience for incessant whining by others whether they are members or not.

[teddyaware]

It seems like we Mormons sometimes have to tread a very fine line. On occasion the leadership of the Church may in their "official capacity", or in their heavily disclaimed "unofficial capacity", do something or say something which does not pertain to the core principles or mission of the Church. To some any criticism of any such action that an individual member may have constitutes ill speaking of the Lord's Annointed, or "steadying the ark", or look like the person is being a Judas. We strongly emphasize "obedience" in the Church.

So is it ever permissible to criticize a General Authority saying or doing something? Is it a zero tolerance of criticism policy, or is there a certain line which if observed allows a member to question an action or policy publicly, or in a forum such as this one?

I believe when all is said and done, when in the eternities we will have the benefit of twenty-twenty hindsight, we'll look back on our earthly experience and realize that the most important thing we could have done during our mortal probation is to place most of our focus and efforts on our own stewardships and spheres of influence. When in the eternities that day of added wisdom and insight comes, we will realize the Lord has all the infinite and eternal knowledge, power and foresight necessary to take care of the business of His kingdom without the "help" of busybodies, self-absorbed arksteadiers and overwrought quixotic idealists.

When the day of final judgment arrives, questions like -- did you truly love your wife in word and deed? did you genuinely love, care for and teach your children? did you magnify your church callings, no matter how humble those callings may have been? did you do your home or visiting teaching? did you diligently study scriptures and the words of the living prophets and make a faithful effort to apply the principles you learned thereby in your life? did you love your fellow man and set a good example for them as a member of the Church?

In all fairness, I must say there may be some extraordinary situations or circumstances where the courageous actions of a rank and file church member may be needed to set aright some wrong; but as a rule, minding one's own business and concentrating on making his own small corner of the world a better place is the best and wisest counsel.

Edited July 20, 2013 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

It seems like we Mormons sometimes have to tread a very fine line. On occasion the leadership of the Church may in their "official capacity", or in their heavily disclaimed "unofficial capacity", do something or say something which does not pertain to the core principles or mission of the Church. To some any criticism of any such action that an individual member may have constitutes ill speaking of the Lord's Annointed, or "steadying the ark", or look like the person is being a Judas. We strongly emphasize "obedience" in the Church.

So is it ever permissible to criticize a General Authority saying or doing something? Is it a zero tolerance of criticism policy, or is there a certain line which if observed allows a member to question an action or policy publicly, or in a forum such as this one?

No. Criticize the problem not the individual.

No. We have an effective means of changing policies.

[Questing Beast]

As long as someone does not make his/her criticisms of church policy or doctrines personal, i.e. point to specific GAs or even local leaders as a focus of that criticism, then the Church is very patient with the critic or even burgeoning apostate. This is generally true in my observance. Exceptions do occur I am sure, where personalities involved get the critic/apostate jumped on quickly and hard. But if someone is pointing to "problems" within the church AS a church, and not speaking ill of individuals or specific quorums, there is evidently no immediate fallout over opposing the Church....

[Sky]

I used to believe that there was no room in the church for a loyal opposition.

But with the rise of public figures like Joanna Brooks and Mitch Mayne, I'm not so sure. Not to mention the countless blogs and websites and journals and other such things.

So the line of what is acceptable and what isn't - isn't always so black and white.

There is room in the Church for differences of opinion and political preference. But when it turns into a doctrinal disagreement - perhaps the Church would rather work with and fellowship the individual in the hopes of reaching a better outcome, rather than automatically imposing church discipline.

[Stone holm]

Does the location of the line change when a GA ventures into the political realm? Under those circumstances is legitimate to question the position taken? When a GA consistently and chronically takes a certain social opinion on subjects which are not part of the core doctrine of the Church is it appropriate to associate adversely that GA with that position? Is it appropriate to criticise official Church teaching manuals?

[canard78]

Yes there are certainly nuances in the rule against publicly speaking ill of the Brethren. It is a temple covenant and so must be taken seriously. One can take such matters up with the Brethren themselves privately, and they are frequently very open to such criticism or helpful suggestions. However, boundary maintenance is important for the Church primarily because we are not simply a loose Sunday-go-to-meetin association. We are the body of Christ, the Kingdom of God on Earth, the Covenant People of the Lord, and the Saints of the Last Days who are busy getting ready for the eschaton (awful end-time). This ain't no cake-walk.

.

Aren't all endowed members the lord's anointed? It doesn't specify apostles in the temple.

[canard78]

It seems like we Mormons sometimes have to tread a very fine line. On occasion the leadership of the Church may in their "official capacity", or in their heavily disclaimed "unofficial capacity", do something or say something which does not pertain to the core principles or mission of the Church. To some any criticism of any such action that an individual member may have constitutes ill speaking of the Lord's Annointed, or "steadying the ark", or look like the person is being a Judas. We strongly emphasize "obedience" in the Church.

So is it ever permissible to criticize a General Authority saying or doing something? Is it a zero tolerance of criticism policy, or is there a certain line which if observed allows a member to question an action or policy publicly, or in a forum such as this one?

It depends whom you listen to.

These:

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it, but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”

Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78

“When the Prophet speaks the debate is over.”

Eldon Tanner, Ensign, Aug. 1979, pp. 2-3.

Or these:

“We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.”

Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, v. 16, p. 248

“President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.”

Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star, v. 54, p. 191

“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would spite the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.”

Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star, v. 14, no. 38, pp. 593-595

[thesometimesaint]

A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such.

Joseph Smith Jr.

[CV75]

criticize

The followers of Christ do not do this to anyone. How they make a difference in improving the world around them is much more nuanced than that.

[Damien the Leper]

Isn't Paul Toscano and his "All is Not Well in Zion" speech a case in point? No one is above constructive criticism but Paul's brand was just out of line.

[talltimber]

It seems like we Mormons sometimes have to tread a very fine line. On occasion the leadership of the Church may in their "official capacity", or in their heavily disclaimed "unofficial capacity", do something or say something which does not pertain to the core principles or mission of the Church. To some any criticism of any such action that an individual member may have constitutes ill speaking of the Lord's Annointed, or "steadying the ark", or look like the person is being a Judas. We strongly emphasize "obedience" in the Church.

So is it ever permissible to criticize a General Authority saying or doing something? Is it a zero tolerance of criticism policy, or is there a certain line which if observed allows a member to question an action or policy publicly, or in a forum such as this one?

President Joseph Fielding Smith said this:

"It makes no difference what is written or about what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the LORD has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine." Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, Page 203

Also notice these scriptures:

"Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in My scriptures, for a law, to by My law to govern My church;

"And he that doeth according to these things shall be saved, and he that doeth them not shall be damned if he so continue." D&C 42:59-60

"I, the LORD, am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." --D&C 82:10

"There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church [a First Presidency court].

"And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood [a member of the First Presidency itself] shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church [a bishop's court], who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

"And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

"Thus none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before Him, according to truth and righteousness."

"...a bishop must be chosen from the High Priesthood, unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron; ...But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counselors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel." D&C 107:81-84,69,76

44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another. ..

46 And if thine eye [The revelator for the church] which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out…---JST Mark 9

Since the D&C and other revelations is the LAW the church is to live by, then surely it is valid to talk about possible inconsistencies between what leaders teach and the scriptures. Is it a sin to choose to NOT sustain the President of the church? If it is a sin, why would this option even be given to members? If it is a sin to have a "controversy" (D&C 107) over the President of the church, why does the D&C have instructions for settling controversies over him?

[Erin15]

So is it ever permissible to criticize a General Authority saying or doing something? Is it a zero tolerance of criticism policy, or is there a certain line which if observed allows a member to question an action or policy publicly, or in a forum such as this one?

In my experience, criticizing The Lord's Anointed is a symptom of a larger underlying spiritual problem, not the cause of it.

An individual who has cultivated and maintained a burning testimony of the gospel simply has no desires to do so. They shrug it off and get back to work, for their focus and priority is living the gospel more fully themselves, rather than finding a mote in the eye of another.

I've been in the church a very long time, and I've never come across a situation where a faithful person criticized a GA. Without fail, it always came from those whose faith and obedience had withered to the point of near total collapse. The criticism said little about the GA, but spoke volumes about the person making the criticism.

I suppose it is technically possible for criticism to come from a very faithful and obedient member. But I have never personally come across that situation.

Not once.

[cinepro]

However, in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a “loyal opposition.” One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed.

Elder Ballard, Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers, October 1999

[Stone holm]

And there you have it folks....

[mormonnewb]

I don't think that criticism of a particular GA (e.g., "Elder Washington is a poopy head") is Christlike or likely to be effective. However, more general dissent of contemporary attitudes and practices (e.g., racism, homophobia, materialism, etc. to the extent they are present in the church) seems quite Christlike as it is something that the Savior did ALL the time. In fact, he reserved his harshest criticism for he "saints" of his day -- the Sadducees and Pharisees, those who most closely kept the letter of the law but often missed the spirit. I think that it is appropriate to point out that tendency within our church and that it can be done without specific criticism of any GA or quorum. And to the extent it can be done with humor, this dissent will even be appreciated as evidence for the popularity of my favorite apostle of old, J. Golden Kimball.

[Stone holm]

I must say there may be some extraordinary situations or circumstances where the courageous actions of a rank and file church member may be needed to set aright some wrong; but as a rule, minding one's own business and concentrating on making his own small corner of the world a better place is the best and wisest counsel.

So the general member should except in extraordinary situations, basically shut up and do his/her calling and pay ones tithing? Is that where we are?

[Stone holm]

Not sure what just happened I edited a quote and then it posted it under someone elses name --- sorry Mormonnewb, it won't let me fix it.

[3DOP]

For what it is worth, this is THE question which makes me "persona non grata" to most conservative Catholics. I am a loyal opposition guy. There exists among the majority of practicing Catholics today, a belief in the personal impeccability of the successor of Cephas (St. Peter), the pope, which is not compatible with Scripture or Catholic Tradition.

This passage of Scripture is critical to my view of the highest ecclesiastical authority, and how one who faithfully loves the church must sometimes offer resistance to authority:

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

---Gal. 2:11

I am an outsider to this as an LDS question, but I tend think that if "loyal opposition" is compatible with an ecclesiology that sometimes claims infallibility for the highest authority, it is assuredly the right course when there is no infallibility.

3DOP

[ERayR]

The answer is yes IF you want to start down the road to apostasy.