Mistakes By Church Leaders

[sjdawg]

When is it OK to suggest that Church leaders have made a mistake?  Everyone says that they understand that Church leaders make mistakes and are not perfect but it seems that if it suggested that there has been a mistake that people immediately circle the wagons and start defending the leadership.

 

Do you have to wait until they die?   Is it ok to believe they have made a mistake as long as you never actually say the words out loud? I know the LDS Church membership does not like to criticize leadership and I respect that but how do mistakes get corrected if no one speaks out about them?

 

 

I don't want this thread to again start discussing SSM and the policy but I'd like to know your thoughts on when it is OK (if ever) to suggest that a mistake has been made.   I'm sure this has been discussed before so I apologize in advance.  I didn't find a thread when I did a very quick search.

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

I think it can be done at anytime.

How it is done and what one's reaction to the possibility, especially if one tries to persuade others to one's POV and actions are what make the difference between appropriate and inappropriate.

[The Nehor]

Leaders are not isolated. Many people can point out mistakes. Counsellors, friends, family, and of course God. I would say if you do not fit in any of those categories to just move on.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I feel the priesthood ban and how polygamy was actually practiced compared to how it's written in D&C 132 were mistakes.

[sjdawg]

Leaders are not isolated. Many people can point out mistakes. Counsellors, friends, family, and of course God. I would say if you do not fit in any of those categories to just move on.

Really?   if you are outside of those categories you should just accept the mistake and move on?   Interesting point of view.   Not one I agree with but that's ok.   

[sjdawg]

I feel the priesthood ban and how polygamy was actually practiced compared to how it's written in D&C 132 were mistakes.

I do too and I think that is part of the reason for my question.  If no one speaks up how many decades will go by before anything is changed?

[The Nehor]

Really?   if you are outside of those categories you should just accept the mistake and move on?   Interesting point of view.   Not one I agree with but that's ok.

Pretty much. I suppose if the change influences you directly on a local level you can meet with the bishop or whoever and chat in case the decision had effects they did not forsee But unless the consequences are pretty severe I would just let it go.

[Mystery Meat]

When is it OK to suggest that Church leaders have made a mistake?  Everyone says that they understand that Church leaders make mistakes and are not perfect but it seems that if it suggested that there has been a mistake that people immediately circle the wagons and start defending the leadership.

 

Do you have to wait until they die?   Is it ok to believe they have made a mistake as long as you never actually say the words out loud? I know the LDS Church membership does not like to criticize leadership and I respect that but how do mistakes get corrected if no one speaks out about them?

 

 

I don't want this thread to again start discussing SSM and the policy but I'd like to know your thoughts on when it is OK (if ever) to suggest that a mistake has been made.   I'm sure this has been discussed before so I apologize in advance.  I didn't find a thread when I did a very quick search.

 

It's God's job to correct the mistakes of the Brethren, not yours, mine or ours.

[sjdawg]

Pretty much. I suppose if the change influences you directly on a local level you can meet with the bishop or whoever and chat in case the decision had effects they did not forsee But unless the consequences are pretty severe I would just let it go.

I will agree with that.  for most issues the best option is to let it go.  If my Bishop called a Young Women's president I don't agree with unless it was making things unsafe for the kids I wouldn't say anything.   Actually at the local level I can't think of too many issues that would really get me upset.   I'm thinking more at the policy making level in the church office building.

[The Nehor]

I will agree with that.  for most issues the best option is to let it go.  If my Bishop called a Young Women's president I don't agree with unless it was making things unsafe for the kids I wouldn't say anything.   Actually at the local level I can't think of too many issues that would really get me upset.   I'm thinking more at the policy making level in the church office building.

 

At that level I would leave it alone unless I had a calling where it was my job to be involved or the person making the decision was my dad or something.

[Zakuska]

It's God's job to correct the mistakes of the Brethren, not yours, mine or ours.

If that's true then why are there methods & procedures drawn up in the D&C for dealing with rogue leaders?

D&C 107

[Tony Frank]

When is it OK to suggest that Church leaders have made a mistake?  Everyone says that they understand that Church leaders make mistakes and are not perfect but it seems that if it suggested that there has been a mistake that people immediately circle the wagons and start defending the leadership.

 

Do you have to wait until they die?   Is it ok to believe they have made a mistake as long as you never actually say the words out loud? I know the LDS Church membership does not like to criticize leadership and I respect that but how do mistakes get corrected if no one speaks out about them?

 

 

I don't want this thread to again start discussing SSM and the policy but I'd like to know your thoughts on when it is OK (if ever) to suggest that a mistake has been made.   I'm sure this has been discussed before so I apologize in advance.  I didn't find a thread when I did a very quick search.

 

There have been times, very few, when individual apostles have made mistakes in their writings. The problem comes when people decide to criticize  the direction that Christ has given to the prophet. People will interpret  the scripture for themselves and then dispute Church doctrine. They will also criticize policies because they think Jesus Christ has revealed to them how things should be instead of revealing it to the prophet.

[Zakuska]

There have been times, very few, when individual apostles have made mistakes in their writings. The problem comes when people decide to criticize the direction that Christ has given to the prophet. People will interpret the scripture for themselves and then dispute Church doctrine. They will also criticize policies because they think Jesus Christ has revealed to them how things should be instead of revealing it to the prophet.

Does God always make his will known exclusively through the man he has left at the head of the church?

Numbers 11:27-29

No.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses 4:297-298

 

I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty...

 

...Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.  I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

 

It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose.

That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know.

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by JLHPROF

[guerreiro9]

Many times it's not a matter of "circling the wagons" as much as simply agreeing with the brethren.

I have no problem with polygamy, the priesthood ban, or the same-sex marriage policy.

On the other hand there are many aspects of church I severely dislike, but realize I am free to sever my association at anytime if I find something else more to my liking.

-guerreiro9

[Tony Frank]

Does God always make his will known exclusively through the man he has left at the head of the church?

Numbers 11:27-29

No.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Joseph Smith stated, "Revelations of the mind and will of God to the Church are to come through the Presidency. This is the order of heaven” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 477).

Edited November 16, 2015 by Tony Frank

[Tony Frank]

This bears repeating!

 

Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses 4:297-298

 

I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty...

 

...Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.  I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

 

It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose.

That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know.

 

[smac97]

sjdawg,

> When is it OK to suggest that Church leaders have made a mistake?  

==I have a hard time conceptualizing any situation in which it would be okay for a faithful, observant Latter-day Saint to publicly accuse a Church leader or group of leaders of making a material error or mistake. Publicly speaking out against the Brethren is something I think we are not supposed to do. I think we needn't ever worry about such things, though. I think there will always be a ready supply of apostates, critics and enemies of the LDS Church who will be more than happy to publicly "suggest" such things. As for the Lord's covenant people, I think it is our lot to express concerns/complaints through the priesthood structure of the Church. It is not our place to denounce the Brethren in the public sphere.

> Everyone says that they understand that Church leaders make mistakes and are not perfect but it seems that if it suggested that there has been a mistake that people immediately circle the wagons and start defending the leadership.

==I think that's because most of the time the "mistakes" under discussion aren't really mistakes at all. They are instead prophetic pronouncements which are unpopular in this fallen world.

==There are (relatively rare) exceptions, of course. Some pre-1978 remarks by the Brethren about the priesthood ban were plainly "mistakes", as evidenced by the "Race and the Priesthood" essay. Interestingly enough, that essay was promulgated and approved by . . . the Brethren.

==I think the proscription against speaking against the Brethren is more for our sake than theirs. Consider this statement by President John Taylor:

 

There is a principle associated with the kingdom of God that recognizes God in all things, and that recognizes the priesthood in all things, and those who do not do it had better repent or they will come to a stand very quickly; I tell you that in the name of the Lord. Do not think you are wise and that you can manage and manipulate the priesthood, for you cannot do it. God must manage, regulate, dictate, and stand at the head, and every man in his place. The ark of God does not need steadying [see 2 Samuel 6:3, 6–7], especially by incompetent men without revelation and without knowledge of the kingdom of God and its laws. It is a great work that we are engaged in, and it is for us to prepare ourselves for the labor before us, and to acknowledge God, his authority, his law and his priesthood in all things.

 

And these by Elder Oaks (long, but definitely worth a read because it directly addresses the substance of this thread) (emphases added):

 

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

...

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

 

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. The Bible commands us to avoid “evil speakings.” (See 1 Pet. 2:1.) It tells us to “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you.” (Eph. 4:31.) Modern revelations direct us to avoid “backbiting,” “evil speaking,” and “find[ing] fault one with another.” (See D&C 20:53–54; D&C 42:27; D&C 88:124; and D&C 136:23.)

 

We are given these commandments for a reason. The Apostle Paul advised the Saints to “grieve not the holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30) by evil speaking. Of faultfinders, President Brigham Young said, “The Spirit of God has no place in [such] persons.” (Journal of Discourses, 8:13.) The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize.

...

Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that “the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.” A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as “contempt for the truth.” (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is “a time to speak,” and there is also “a time to keep silence.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

...

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. For example, it is wrong to make statements of fact out of an evil motive, even if the statements are true. It is wrong to threaten to reveal embarrassing facts unless money is paid, even if the facts are true. We call that crime blackmail. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are forbidden to reveal facts they have received in confidence, even though those facts are true.

...

The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.

 

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)

 

Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular. As the Lamanite prophet Samuel taught, when a prophet comes among us and speaks of our iniquities, we are made angry. We call him a false prophet and “cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him.” (See Hel. 13:26.)

...

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

 

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

 

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

...

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

 

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

 

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

 

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

 

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

 

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

 

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

...

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

 

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

...

The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

...

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

 

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

 

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

 

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

 

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.)

...

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

 

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

 

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! 

...

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

 

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

 

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

...

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

...

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek.

...

Throughout our history we have had members who have criticized the Church and its leaders. Church disciplinary action against such members has been rare or nonexistent. Persistent, public critics punish themselves. By deliberately separating themselves from those who have been called as their leaders, critics forfeit the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord. They drift from prayer, from the scriptures, from Church activity, and from keeping the commandments. They inevitably lose spirituality and blessings. As the prophet Nephi observed, those who succumb to pride and “works of darkness” are on the way to spiritual destruction, “for the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man.” (2 Ne. 26:10–11.)

 

Another consequence of the divine warning against criticizing Church leaders is addressed to those leaders themselves. It stresses their special responsibility in the exercise of their authority. In contrast to government and corporate officers, who can often be high-handed and authoritarian in the use of their powers, Church leaders have strict limits on the way they can exercise their authority. The Lord has directed that the powers of heaven can be exercised only “upon the principles of righteousness” (D&C 121:36)—that is, “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned” (D&C 121:41).

 

==I recommend you read the entirety of Elder Oaks' talk.  Although it was given in 1987, it remains a very relevant and important source of sound counsel from the Brethren.

 

> Do you have to wait until they die?   Is it ok to believe they have made a mistake as long as you never actually say the words out loud? I know the LDS Church membership does not like to criticize leadership and I respect that but how do mistakes get corrected if no one speaks out about them?

 

==See above.

 
Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2015 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

This bears repeating!

 

So does this part:  "If He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose."

 

I agree with Brigham, but it doesn't mean the Church can't be led astray in some ways - he is very clear about that.

Given that the Church operates on agency and common consent, it is very easy for a mistake to creep in.

 

Thank goodness a setting in order will occur according to scripture before the return of our Savior, and the restored gospel will not be allowed to be completely lost from the earth again.

I don't believe the Church is in perfect order right now.  I do believe that there are ways that the Church has gone astray from God's plan.  And I believe most of these were member choice, not prophetic error.

 

But I also know that 1. it's not my job to fix them  and 2. they will be corrected eventually.

 

That was Brigham's point - we may go somewhat astray by following our leaders, but it is NOT our place to correct the course.

Edited November 16, 2015 by JLHPROF

[BCSpace]

When is it OK to suggest that Church leaders have made a mistake?  Everyone says that they understand that Church leaders make mistakes and are not perfect but it seems that if it suggested that there has been a mistake that people immediately circle the wagons and start defending the leadership.

 

Do you have to wait until they die?   Is it ok to believe they have made a mistake as long as you never actually say the words out loud? I know the LDS Church membership does not like to criticize leadership and I respect that but how do mistakes get corrected if no one speaks out about them?

 

 

I don't want this thread to again start discussing SSM and the policy but I'd like to know your thoughts on when it is OK (if ever) to suggest that a mistake has been made.   I'm sure this has been discussed before so I apologize in advance.  I didn't find a thread when I did a very quick search.

 

 

I believe they make mistakes. I just don't believe they've made ones that enemies of the Church, within and without, try to con us into believing they have.  D&C 132 is certainly no mistake.  It is abundantly clear from the recent "essay" on the Priesthood ban that the Church doesn't consider that a mistake.  We certainly don't apologize for plural marriage, nor should we.  Our message against homosexuality has been completely consistent over the years.  Etc. Etc.

[The Nehor]

If that's true then why are there methods & procedures drawn up in the D&C for dealing with rogue leaders?

D&C 107

 

There are such procedures and if you are in a calling that mandates that this falls within your purview you can exercise it as needed. Jo-Bob, the assistant hymnbook coordinator, does not have such a role and I doubt you do either. I know I don't.

[Avatar4321]

When I see something I think is a mistake I'd have no problem mentioning it if I'm asked. But I'm not going to speak evil of the Lord's annointed

[CV75]

When is it OK to suggest that Church leaders have made a mistake?  Everyone says that they understand that Church leaders make mistakes and are not perfect but it seems that if it suggested that there has been a mistake that people immediately circle the wagons and start defending the leadership.

I’d say it is after you have looked him or her in the eye with charity and offered the correction with humility and the issue is resolved. It’s not helpful to talk about someone’s mistakes behind his back and let him keep making the same mistake. Criticism from a distance is just cowardly and correction from a distance is just indifferent.

[HappyJackWagon]

It's God's job to correct the mistakes of the Brethren, not yours, mine or ours.

I run into this philosophy all the time and for me it seems to be based on an underlying assumption for how actively God is involved in the management of the Church. I know we'll have a wide range of opinions on that but I would personally view God's participation as more of a silent partner than as a managing partner.

 

While I accept and hold out the possibility that God could direct the affairs of the church in specific way I consider it most likely that he points us in a general direction and leave the management up to the earthly leaders as they strive to follow what they believe He would have them do. Despite their best intentions, there will be MANY mistakes made in managing a global church. It would be unrealistic to expect otherwise.

 

But how are mistakes corrected? If we believe God is active in directing every aspect of church management the idea that God will correct the mistakes makes a lot of sense. If we believe God acts more like a silent partner then it doesn't. I don't see evidence to believe that meets personally with the 12 every thursday in the temple or inspires them in every action, talk, or policy.

 

So I LOVE the question of the OP. It seems like a foundational question for the church because it impacts how we view our responsibility and participation within the church.  I'm of the opinion that because the church is led day to day by men who will inevitably make errors, it is up to every member to try to build up and strengthen the church. Sometimes that will mean providing some faithful dissent to draw the attention of leadership to problems.

 

To trust that either 1- God will not allow his prophets and apostles to make mistakes or 2- that he will correct them if they are wrong, I would need to accept a fatalistic approach to life that I am merely here to be acted upon and have no responsibility to make things better by advocating for needed change.

 

I understand that good people will disagree on this approach but it's my hope that we can accept that there is more than one faithful approach to interacting with church leadership.

[Zakuska]

There are such procedures and if you are in a calling that mandates that this falls within your purview you can exercise it as needed. Jo-Bob, the assistant hymnbook coordinator, does not have such a role and I doubt you do either. I know I don't.

The point is... there being such procedures, then leaders can make mistakes and we have ways of dealing with it. So perhaps dear leaders don't deserve all the reverent adoration, genophlecting and psychophantic loyalty we modern members tend to heap upon them as if we were in a trance. It's every members duty in the kingdom to be his brothers keeper.

Our first loyalty is to God, our second is to our family, and then comes church leaders.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska