On pressuring Church leaders to change doctrine

[Scott Lloyd]

There is a rather common mantra these days among critics of the Church of Jesus Christ that the Church leaders succumbed to public pressure in lifting the priesthood restriction in 1978. They say this despite the fact that the pressure and criticism, though strong in the late '60s and early '70s had largely subsided by 1978.

The reasoning goes that if outside public pressure could effect a change in the Church on this issue, there is hope (so they say) of changing the minds of Church leaders relative to declaring the sin of homosexual behavior to be not a sin and even something to be solemnized in the temples of the Lord.

Now comes a new FairMormon blog post by Gregory Smith quoting Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who eventually received the revelation to lift the priesthood ban, clearly expressing his contempt for pressure tactics  -- such as the militant protests that were going on at the time -- being brought to bear on leaders of the Church. It should be borne in mind that Elder Kimball's remarks were in defense of President David O. McKay who, at the time, was president of the Church.

The quotations are drawn from the biography of Spencer W. Kimball written by his son, Edward, -- the second of the two biographies he wrote, this one covering President Kimball's years as Church president. They are actually in the CD-ROM that was included with the book. I have a copy on my shelf at home, but have never explored the content of the disc. I must do so now.

Here is an excerpt from Greg Smith's blog post:
 

Quote

 

Here’s him to son Ed:[1]

“These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority.”

Epistemologic humility and support for the Prophet

He felt that the opposite of such tactics were the appropriate ones:

“Perhaps what the prophet needs is not pressure, not goading, not demands. He needs in every city and place defenders—a million men and women to encourage patience, understanding and faith . . . saying: “President, we realize we do not know all there is to be known about this problem. We have faith and confidence in you and in the Lord that if relaxation is to come, it will come when the proper time comes. We shall stand and defend as did Peter though the whole world be against us.” . . . The very fact that he [Pres McKay] has not yielded to the public clamor sets him up in my mind as a courageous person, for it would be relatively easy to yield if it were his decision. He has an unalterable responsibility to obey only the Lord. . . . There are many letters from embarrassed people. . . . Logic, faulty logic has replaced basic faith, and definitely reflects humanism. For instance, [Sterling] McMurrin [a non-believer Mormon, who often boasted of never having read the Book of Mormon all the way through] says: “ . . . The situation . . . is unworthy of a church and unworthy of a religion . . .” He says these attitudes are “immoral in our social life.” Imagine a McMurrin postulating thusly. How can he be so sure to set up standards? . . .

The conferring of priesthood, and declining to give the priesthood is not a matter of my choice nor of President McKay’s. It is the Lord’s program. . . . When the Lord is ready to relax the restriction, it will come whether there is pressure or not. This is my faith. Until then, I shall try to fight on. . . . I have always prided myself on being about as unprejudiced as to race as any man. I think my work with the minorities would prove that, but I am so completely convinced that the prophets know what they are doing and the Lord knows what he is doing, that I am willing to rest it there.”

Opposed to pressure tactics

His son wrote:

While he was sensitive to the concerns and needs of minorities and while he showed no personal denigration of blacks, he also gave no encouragement to others who pressed for change. “I decided long ago that I would be loyal to the Brethren,” he said. He reacted especially negatively to militant protests against the Church and coercive methods, particularly when those protesting had themselves no interest in becoming priesthood holders….

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

I don't look at this as pressuring..it is just assuming that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will eventually really do the right thing.  Refusing people/children of blessings is so anti of everything I was brought with as far as loving one another..little children and different races are inclusive I believe in what Jesus taught.

[The Nehor]

The correct course if you feel some revelation is needed is to ask God for it.

I am convinced that those who feel the need to appeal to the world rather then God to pressure apostles and prophets just do not trust God and are turning to alternatives.

[Tacenda]

I can't believe you used this scenario Scott.  This is like shooting yourself in the foot.  Because the policy to keep blacks from holding the PH was overturned.  And when I say policy, it could mean revelation...that is up for argument, or has been the subject of many an argument.

Or maybe the church doesn't like to be coerced into change as shown in your post.  It will come when it comes.  Or if it ever does.  But what is shown is that there is hope, IMO.  I'm not sure many on this board, would even want to open the door to hope.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I can't believe you used this scenario Scott.  This is like shooting yourself in the foot.  Because the policy to keep blacks from holding the PH was overturned.  And when I say policy, it could mean revelation...that is up for argument, or has been the subject of many an argument.  

And pressuring to change it did not help. Prayer may have sped up the process though. Those who are convinced the apostles are wrong have a legal end run appeal around the prophets but they imagine blogs and news articles are more likely to change things then an appeal to the Almighty. Do they doubt his power and willingness to answer prayer or do they doubt he supports their cause?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't look at this as pressuring..it is just assuming that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will eventually really do the right thing.  Refusing people/children of blessings is so anti of everything I was brought with as far as loving one another..little children and different races are inclusive I believe in what Jesus taught.

It has long been the policy of the Church not to baptize children without the consent of their parents. Where is your outrage about this practice if you are so concerned about children being excluded?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can't believe you used this scenario Scott.  This is like shooting yourself in the foot.  Because the policy to keep blacks from holding the PH was overturned.  And when I say policy, it could mean revelation...that is up for argument, or has been the subject of many an argument.

Or maybe the church doesn't like to be coerced into change as shown in your post.  It will come when it comes.  Or if it ever does.  But what is shown is that there is hope, IMO.  I'm not sure many on this board, would even want to open the door to hope.

What you are forgetting or neglecting is that there was always an understanding that at some point in God's plan, the priesthood would be bestowed upon any and all worthy male Church members.

By contrast, there has never been even so much as a hint among the Brethren that homosexual behavior would be declared non-sinful. There have been expressions of the opposite, in fact.

 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has long been the policy of the Church not to baptize children without the consent of their parents. Where is your outrage about this practice if you are so concerned about children being excluded?

 

The ones who want to be baptized should be.  If the parents want to do what the child wants..it should be.  I don't know of any inactive or ex-member or members of part-member families ever saying no..but taking away a choice isn't right.

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't look at this as pressuring..it is just assuming that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will eventually really do the right thing.  Refusing people/children of blessings is so anti of everything I was brought with as far as loving one another..little children and different races are inclusive I believe in what Jesus taught.

If we truly love the Lord we will keep his commandments. If we don't keep his commandments we have no promise.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Jeanne said:

The ones who want to be baptized should be.  If the parents want to do what the child wants..it should be.  I don't know of any inactive or ex-member or members of part-member families ever saying no..but taking away a choice isn't right.

You've not responded to the question. Where is your outrage about the Church honoring the wishes of parents who won't consent to their under-age children being baptized?

[Calm]

I know of a number of nonmember, part member or inactive families that have said no to the baptism of their children, even teens.

Are you suggesting the Church should baptize the children in these cases because taking away a choice is wrong?

-----

I wonder if you believe all choices should be allowed or if not, where the line should be drawn.  For example, if a child wishes to use pot, is forbidding them wrong?  If a child wishes to date, is forbidding them wrong?  If a child wishes to quit school, is forbidding them wrong?  If a child wishes to move in with another family and the family is not only willing to take them in, but is a loving and goodhearted and wise family with sufficient money to provide for better education and other opportunities, is it wrong to not allow it?

 

--------

By requiring the Church to baptize all that desire to baptized, are you not removing leaders' choices to determine what our doctrine and expression of that doctrine through practice?  

Edited January 13, 2016 by Calm

[smac97]

I think this 1987 Ensign article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks should be required reading for anyone who is struggling with the recent changes to the CHI.  It's a long article, but definitely worth the few minutes it would take to read.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I know of a number of nonmember, part member or inactive families that have said no to the baptism of their children, even teens.

Are you suggesting the Church should baptize the children in these cases because taking away a choice is wrong?

I served my mission in Sweden in the 1970s, during the era of Osmondmania. Osmond fans would look up the Church and request lessons from the missionaries. Often, parents of such Osmond frökens, as we called them, would let the lessons progress to the point where the daughter desired baptism, then they would shut the door on any further dealings with the missionaries. This became so common that the mission-wide policy was sent out that these teenage girls could not so much as receive any lessons without the presence of the parents.

[consiglieri]

President Hinckley intimated changes were not likely to come from above unless there was agitation from the membership.

How are the people at the top supposed to know there is an issue at the bottom unless they are told?

 

 

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You've not responded to the question. Where is your outrage about the Church honoring the wishes of parents who won't consent to their under-age children being baptized?

It is their choice...I have no outrage there..nor do I have outrage for SS parents if they say no...But if they say yes to baptism..the church should not turn them away.

[Analytics]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is a rather common mantra these days among critics of the Church of Jesus Christ that the Church leaders succumbed to public pressure in lifting the priesthood restriction in 1978. They say this despite the fact that the pressure and criticism, though strong in the late '60s and early '70s had largely subsided by 1978....

Are you sure this is a "rather common mantra"?  If so, CFR.  Just one example would do. 

Occasionally critics will claim that in 1978 the writing was on the wall that universities that discriminate could loose their tax exempt status (as happened to Bob Jones University in 1983), and that this tax implication for BYU played a factor in this change, but I've never heard a critic claim that general "public pressure" caused the church to change on this issue.  The more common critical position on this issue is that Mormon leaders are generally old, uninspired, and behind the times.

Of course the 1890 change regarding polygamy is a different issue.... 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is their choice...I have no outrage there..nor do I have outrage for SS parents if they say no...But if they say yes to baptism..the church should not turn them away.

Aren't the children being deprived of their choice when they desire to be baptized and their parents forbid it and the Church honors the wishes of the parents? Shouldn't the Church go ahead and baptize them anyway, whether their parents like it or not? If not, why not?

By the way, under the updated policy, the Church does not "turn away" children who want to attend worship services and be a part of Church activities. All that happens is they are asked to delay making the covenants associated with baptism until their circumstances change and they are in a better position to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

President Hinckley intimated changes were not likely to come from above unless there was agitation from the membership.

How are the people at the top supposed to know there is an issue at the bottom unless they are told?

 

 

More twisting of President Hinckley's meaning -- and absence of documentation to boot.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Aren't the children being deprived of their choice when they desire to be baptized and their parents forbid it and the Church honors the wishes of the parents? Shouldn't the Church go ahead and baptize them anyway, whether their parents like it or not? If not, why not?

By the way, under the updated policy, the Church does not "turn away" children who want to attend worship services and be a part of Church activities. All that happens is they are asked to delay making the covenants associated with baptism until their circumstances change and they are in a better position to do so.

You are talking about covenants..but what about devout LDS grandparents just wanting baby blessings for their grandchildren?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has long been the policy of the Church not to baptize children without the consent of their parents. Where is your outrage about this practice if you are so concerned about children being excluded?

To which I would add: If your outrage is, as we suspect, selective (you are concerned about children who are not baptized until they reach adulthood if they are being raised in a SSM home, but you do not have similar objections to children of polygamists who must also wait to be baptized, or children whose parents forbid it, etc.), then is it possible that there are more considerations in play?  

Is it also possible that the current burst of outrage against the Church is driven to some extent by sociopolitical pressures (in additional to personal scruples)?  

Is it also possible that some Latter-day Saints are selective in their indignation?  Belief in Jesus is an important tenet of our faith.  So is getting baptized.  So is getting baptized by authority.  So is acknowledging and sustaining the leaders of the Church.  So is abstaining from speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, and to instead follow "approved procedures" for voicing concerns to the Church, procedures which, we have been told, help to "keep [us] from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord."

Sadly, some Latter-day Saints have recently been doing just that.  In rising up to publicly fault the Brethren for purportedly committing a grievous error, they themselves grievously err.

To put it another way: Those who are publicly castigating the Brethren for purportedly not acting in accordance with the principles of the Restored Gospel appear to be engaging in hypocrisy.  The allegation is that the Brethren's actions are not in accordance with the mind and will of God.  But then, publicly speaking against the Brethren is also not in accordance with the mind and will of God. 

For me, a very good measure of someone's complaint against the Brethren for failure to adhere to the tenets of the Restored Gospel is to ascertain whether that person is himself adhering to the tenets of the Restored Gospel.  Those who are publicly speaking against the Brethren, who are speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, are not going to persuade me of the vitality of their position.  I simply reject the notion that opposing someone else's purported misconduct (the allegation that the Brethren erred in the changes made to the CHI) by resorting to another brand of misconduct (speaking evil of the Lord's anointed) is something God wants His covenant people to do.

Instead, I think we should adhere to the following principles set forth in this 1987 Ensign article by Elder Oaks (emphases added):

Quote

 

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. 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. 
...
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.
...
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 ... 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.

A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

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.

By following these procedures, Church members can work for correction of a leader or for change of a policy. Members who do so in the correct spirit will not grieve the Spirit of the Lord. They will not alienate themselves from their leaders or their brothers and sisters in the Church.

 

I think this is sound counsel.  This is why I am largely rejecting out-of-hand publicly aired grievances against the Brethren by members of the Church.  I cannot grant them a presumption of good faith, but such public airings are not in good faith.  They cannot be where we have been given clear and consistent counsel about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

President Hinckley intimated changes were not likely to come from above unless there was agitation from the membership.

No, he didn't.

Quote

How are the people at the top supposed to know there is an issue at the bottom unless they are told?

The Brethren can be notified of issues and concerns without individual members of the Church publicly speaking evil of the Brethren, or protesting on sacred ground, by stages publicity stunts, and so on.

Moreover, the Brethren have the Gift of Discernment.

I don't think there is any legitimate argument to be made that the Brethren are not aware that people are struggling with issues pertaining to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

President Hinckley intimated changes were not likely to come from above unless there was agitation from the membership.

I don't find that interprtation of his comment consistent with the context and his actual wording of the comment I am thinking of..  CFR please.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is their choice...I have no outrage there..nor do I have outrage for SS parents if they say no...But if they say yes to baptism..the church should not turn them away.

I understand and respect your position.  Do you think, however, that there may be more to the calculus of this issue than "but if they say yes to baptism?"

Also, is it within your ability to concede that reasonable minds can disagree about what the Church "should" do in this situation?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is their choice...I have no outrage there..nor do I have outrage for SS parents if they say no...But if they say yes to baptism..the church should not turn them away.

Why is it only parents are allowed to have choices and not church leaders in your ideal world?  Are they not human and valued members of society as well?

Edited January 13, 2016 by Calm

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The ones who want to be baptized should be.  If the parents want to do what the child wants..it should be.  I don't know of any inactive or ex-member or members of part-member families ever saying no..but taking away a choice isn't right.

I was taught by the missionaries beginning when I was 14 and a year later wanted to be baptized.  I had to get my father's permission.  This was Church policy, and should I have protested to the Church, conducting my own one-man march on Temple Square, demanding to do away with the rule so I could be baptized without his permission?

My companion and I taught a 16-year old young man in Germany, and he wanted to be baptized, but his parents wouldn't permit it.  He had to wait until he was 18 before he could be baptized, and he did.  Should he have lobbied the Church to do away with the rule?