Elder Oaks on Loyal Opposition

[churchistrue]

I wrote up my analysis of what I think Elder Oaks meant here http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/elder-dallin-h-oaks-opposition-in-all-things/

Summary: I think he meant the term "loyal opposition" to mean something much more specific and narrow than people are taking.  I don't think he's talking about questioning or disagreeing.  I think he's talking about an organized effort to oppose the church.

I've gotten some harsh feedback by some critics that think I'm twisting Oaks' words, and that he did mean it to include any disagreement.  What do you guys think?

[smac97]

I generally like the article.  A few thoughts:

1. Elder Ballard referenced "loyal opposition" in 1999.  His usage was a bit more black-and-white than Elder Oaks'.

2. In your article you said that you would "prefer there be no excommunication at all in the church" (also stating that you are not "actively campaigning against it or demanding change").  I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, as excommunication seems to be an unpleasant-but-necessary component of the Restored Gospel (I've previously addressed this sentiment here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

I agree with your idea that Elder Oaks was talking about public and adamant criticism of the church leadership. Although you bolstered your theme with quotes from other apostles past and present, a straightforward reading of Elder Oaks' words should be enough, except for the "loyal opposition."

I don't agree with your belief that excommunication should not be used. There is nothing that can tear apart an organization as internal, dissent made public. I don't have time to flesh that out right now and it is not actually on topic.

The opposition in all things will try the testimonies of many and many will fall away. It is already happening. It is sad to see. And it is going to get worse because too many will not follow do their spiritual homework to obtain the revelations they need to stay and build their testimonies.

Glenn

[churchistrue]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I generally like the article.  A few thoughts:

1. Elder Ballard referenced "loyal opposition" in 1999.  His usage was a bit more black-and-white than Elder Oaks'.

2. In your article you said that you would "prefer there be no excommunication at all in the church" (also stating that you are not "actively campaigning against it or demanding change").  I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, as excommunication seems to be an unpleasant-but-necessary component of the Restored Gospel (I've previously addressed this sentiment here).

Thanks,

-Smac

I'd like to hear some discussion on the point I'm making, ie what exactly Elder Oaks meant by "loyal opposition", so I'll reply to you your question on excommunication, but let me come back and do that later, so not to derail this too fast.

[cinepro]

Elder Faust too:

In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the “loyal opposition.” I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision “must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions” (D&C 107:27). This means that after frank and open discussion decisions are reached in council under the direction of the presiding officer, who has the ultimate authority to decide. That decision is then sustained, because our unity comes from full agreement with righteous principles and general response to the operation of the Spirit of God.

Free discussion and expression are encouraged in the Church. Certainly the open expressions in most fast and testimony meetings, or Sunday School, Relief Society, and priesthood meetings attest to that principle. However, the privilege of free expression should operate within limits.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/keeping-covenants-and-honoring-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[cinepro]

But regarding Elder Oaks' talk, can anyone cite instances of people labeling themselves as the "loyal opposition" to the Church?  I'm not sure who he is referring to specifically.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I'd like to hear some discussion on the point I'm making, ie what exactly Elder Oaks meant by "loyal opposition", so I'll reply to you your question on excommunication, but let me come back and do that later, so not to derail this too fast.

Okay  I think "loyal opposition" is a convenient label.  It masks rebellion and apostasy in the pretext of being loyal to a higher truth.  It makes the person in rebellion feel justified / righteous / validated in defying and rebelling against the Lord's anointed.

I just don't think it's part of the program.  When I read various quotes from the Brethren regarding apostasy, I have a hard time differentiating application of them to folks who may style their position as "the loyal opposition."  Consider these:

• “I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”  -Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 3:385
• “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.” - Heber C. Kimball, Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1856, p. 26; spelling and capitalization modernized.
• “Brother Joseph used to counsel us in this wise: ‘The moment you permit yourselves to lay aside any duty that God calls you to perform, to gratify your own desires; the moment you permit yourselves to become careless, you lay a foundation for apostasy. Be careful; understand you are called to a work, and when God requires you to do that work do it.’ Another thing he said: ‘In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, be careful you don’t betray the priesthood, be careful you don’t apostatize.’” - Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News, Dec. 22, 1880, p. 738.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But regarding Elder Oaks' talk, can anyone cite instances of people labeling themselves as the "loyal opposition" to the Church?  I'm not sure who he is referring to specifically.

When I do a search for "loyal opposition" on this site, there are a number of threads (and posts) prior to the April 2016 Conference that use this specific term. Also "faithful dissent."

Edited April 12, 2016 by CV75

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I'd like to hear some discussion on the point I'm making, ie what exactly Elder Oaks meant by "loyal opposition", so I'll reply to you your question on excommunication, but let me come back and do that later, so not to derail this too fast.

He speaks to the government of God’s kingdom, so I think that would refer to councils on any level, from the individual to the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve. After all, we are taught correct principles and govern ourselves.

So when he says, “Some of this opposition even comes from Church members. Some who use personal reasoning or wisdom to resist prophetic direction…” He is referring to individuals as well as groups.

[rpn]

Quote

But regarding Elder Oaks' talk, can anyone cite instances of people labeling themselves as the "loyal opposition" to the Church?  I'm not sure who he is referring to specifically.

Ordain Women called itself that.

I think I recall John Dehlin using the term to describe himself.

I've heard the self-description for other church critic, but I don't recall names.

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

But regarding Elder Oaks' talk, can anyone cite instances of people labeling themselves as the "loyal opposition" to the Church?  I'm not sure who he is referring to specifically.

Looks like he might have had Ordain Women in mind.  I see a lot of hits on google searching for loyal opposition and Ordain Women, but can't find anything specific where they referred to themselves that way.  It makes sense he might be talking about Jeremy Runnels and the CES Letter posse, since he goes right into talking about historical issues.  My point is that he's not talking about simple questioning or disagreement, which is what everyone on social media has jumped on.  

[bluebell]

Maybe he means those who vocally oppose the sustaining of the prophets and apostles while still seeing themselves as believing members of the church. 

[churchistrue]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I generally like the article.  A few thoughts:

1. Elder Ballard referenced "loyal opposition" in 1999.  His usage was a bit more black-and-white than Elder Oaks'.

2. In your article you said that you would "prefer there be no excommunication at all in the church" (also stating that you are not "actively campaigning against it or demanding change").  I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, as excommunication seems to be an unpleasant-but-necessary component of the Restored Gospel (I've previously addressed this sentiment here).

Thanks,

-Smac

On excommunication, I just don't personally think it's useful.  In cases of sin, I think disciplinary courts introduce shame such that it causes more harm than good.  In cases of apostasy, it seems like it just turns the person more bitter.  John Dehlin, for example, seemed to take an aggressive turn towards being critical to the church and leading his following out of the church, once he was exed.  You could say he was already headed in that direction, but it seemed like the excommunication escalated it and might have contributed to it.  The only purpose it might serve in terms of apostasy would be to communicate to members that this person is not someone you should listen to.  I think that's only necessary maybe like in a Denver Snuffer type of case, where he's leading people out of the church unknowingly.  For people like Delhin, Kate Kelly and now Jeremy Runnels, I think most people understand what they're about.   

[Ahab]

I think Elder Oaks is a man who understands the meaning of words, including the fact that the term "loyal opposition" is a reference to anyone who is on the side of the opposition, meaming those who are opposed to something.  

The word "loyal" before the term "opposition" doesn't detract from the fact that those people are opposed to what they are opposed to, and as a descriptor means they are loyal to being in opposition. 

There are those who are for something and then there are those who are in opposition to that.  Those who are in opposition to the Church need to learn how to sustain without being in opposition. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay  I think "loyal opposition" is a convenient label.  It masks rebellion and apostasy in the pretext of being loyal to a higher truth.  It makes the person in rebellion feel justified / righteous / validated in defying and rebelling against the Lord's anointed.

I just don't think it's part of the program.  When I read various quotes from the Brethren regarding apostasy, I have a hard time differentiating application of them to folks who may style their position as "the loyal opposition."  Consider these:

• “I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”  -Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 3:385
• “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.” - Heber C. Kimball, Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1856, p. 26; spelling and capitalization modernized.
• “Brother Joseph used to counsel us in this wise: ‘The moment you permit yourselves to lay aside any duty that God calls you to perform, to gratify your own desires; the moment you permit yourselves to become careless, you lay a foundation for apostasy. Be careful; understand you are called to a work, and when God requires you to do that work do it.’ Another thing he said: ‘In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, be careful you don’t betray the priesthood, be careful you don’t apostatize.’” - Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News, Dec. 22, 1880, p. 738.

Thanks,

-Smac

You know I agree with you here.  Really.

People should understand the organization they belong to. Open dissent and opposition to the top leadership is not to be tolerated.  Don't be surprised if you are asked to leave when you do so.

Now we can argue whether that is good or bad.  We can discuss whether this is what God really wants or not.  We can discuss whether such an authoritarian organization borders on cult like behavior or not.

But it is what it is.

That's why I vent here but pretty much keep my mouth shut in my home ward.

The day I cannot feel ok with that anymore I will leave.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I generally like the article.  A few thoughts:

1. Elder Ballard referenced "loyal opposition" in 1999.  His usage was a bit more black-and-white than Elder Oaks'.

2. In your article you said that you would "prefer there be no excommunication at all in the church" (also stating that you are not "actively campaigning against it or demanding change").  I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, as excommunication seems to be an unpleasant-but-necessary component of the Restored Gospel (I've previously addressed this sentiment here).

Thanks,

-Smac

President James E. Faust referenced it even before that. I've posted a link to his talk before. I will do so again, if you or anyone else likes.

The only times I"ve seen one of the Brethren address the concept, it is by way of saying it has no place in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

  For people like Delhin, Kate Kelly and now Jeremy Runnels, I think most people understand what they're about.   

My experience is that they don't if they are not already involved in scholarship/apologetics. Assumption with many with people who are members is that anything said will be from a faithful, believing point of view and thus they do not approach reading/hearing their material initially with a critical eye (which I think should be done with everything we read, but not everyone approaches life that way).

Edited April 12, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

My experience is that they don't if they are not already involved in scholarship/apologetics. Assumption with many with people who are members is that anything said will be from a faithful, believing point of view and thus they do not approach reading/hearing their material initially with a critical eye (which I think should be done with everything we read, but not everyone approaches life that way).

So the default assumption among members is that Dehlin, Kelly and Runnels are speaking from a believing, faithful perspective?

That's a scary thought!

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

On excommunication, I just don't personally think it's useful.  In cases of sin, I think disciplinary courts introduce shame such that it causes more harm than good.  

I have had first-hand experience with personal acquaintances who have expressed appreciation for the excommunication process.  As painful and difficult as it was for them, they grew and learned from the experience.  Not all do, of course.

Moreover, the Church has a clear mandate that requires the possibility of excommunication.

• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
•  See D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

I don't think the Church is at liberty to disregarding parts of the Gospel that it finds unpleasant, such as excommunication.  I very much appreciate that the Church recognizes the severity of this form of discipline, and I am glad that it is generally utilized only sparingly and as a last resort.  

Quote

In cases of apostasy, it seems like it just turns the person more bitter.  John Dehlin, for example, seemed to take an aggressive turn towards being critical to the church and leading his following out of the church, once he was exed.  You could say he was already headed in that direction, but it seemed like the excommunication escalated it and might have contributed to it.  The only purpose it might serve in terms of apostasy would be to communicate to members that this person is not someone you should listen to.  I think that's only necessary maybe like in a Denver Snuffer type of case, where he's leading people out of the church unknowingly.  For people like Delhin, Kate Kelly and now Jeremy Runnels, I think most people understand what they're about.   

As I have said before, I don't want members to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.  So if a member of the Church begins to speak out against the Church, and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, then it appears that the Church must proceed according to the divine mandate given to it by God.

Of course, I am saddened when a person like John Dehlin only regresses further into a state of rebellion and apostasy.  But that's on him.  We cannot disregard the mandate of God out of fear that a person in rebellion will be angered by the Church's obedience to that mandate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 12, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the default assumption among members is that Dehlin, Kelly and Runnels are speaking from a believing, faithful perspective?

That's a scary thought!

 

No, not now...at least for Kelly and  since they are no longer members.  I am interpreting based on reactions to information that is new to people, extrapolating based on some who expressed something along the lines of "why would a member write something negative about the Church, it must be true".  It kind of falls in line with the attitude that anything in a church bookstore has been vetted by GAs, this usually nebulous idea that strict correlation is exercised in all church related activities and members' lives so anyone teaching false doctrine is going to be immediately.  I expect that a little exposure to public controversies will eventually push default into more cautious areas, but I know a number of members who can't understand why anyone not a believer would be involved in anything to do with the Church and assume that "believer" falls in a limited range, so it may take sometime.  It is not that difficult to get members to think about the implications of such heavy handed workings and for them to realize that not only have they probably never seen it up close (how many bishops correct speculation in Sacrament Meeting?), but impossible to have that level of control...not enough GAs to have several devote their lives to visiting church bookstores for example, classes are not recorded to be doublechecked, etc. But if there has been no reason to consider the idea before, members give others the benefit of the doubt in pretty much every way in my experience and even those who are cautious in some areas may not have yet applied the same approach to all interactions.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

My experience is that they don't if they are not already involved in scholarship/apologetics. Assumption with many with people who are members is that anything said will be from a faithful, believing point of view and thus they do not approach reading/hearing their material initially with a critical eye (which I think should be done with everything we read, but not everyone approaches life that way).

I had a friend in my ward who was an ardent fan of Denver Snuffer's writing, and he had no idea that Snuffer had been excommunicated.  He was rather shocked when I told him.  A week or so later he came back to me and said that in retrospect he had found some of Snuffer's writing to be "off," but he had not been able to put his finger on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I had a friend in my ward who was an ardent fan of Denver Snuffer's writing, and he had no idea that Snuffer had been excommunicated.  He was rather shocked when I told him.  A week or so later he came back to me and said that in retrospect he had found some of Snuffer's writing to be "off," but he had not been able to put his finger on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think we are more apt to see such goings on among those who lean toward the extremely conservative end of the spectrum -- those who read the "prepper" doctrines and swallow them whole as a bona fide part of the gospel, for example.

I see again and again the absolute necessity of the Correlation Department of the Church for keeping the doctrine pure, much maligned though it is.

Edited to add:

The easy reception John Pontius's Visions of Glory had among some segments of the membership is another example, I suppose.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Edited to add:

The easy reception John Pontius's Visions of Glory had among some segments of the membership is another example, I suppose.

I had a friend who asked my opinion about the book.  She knows me well and knew I was into stuff about the Church.  When I gave her my response, she was so relieved.  She had been feeling bad that she was feeling bad about the book (it created feelings of fear in her among other things that were off to her) because it was written by a member and recommended by a friend (who is into this stuff).  Good woman.  Cares a lot about people.  She knows members can be as screwed up as anyone, but it is nice to get confirmation from others.

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

On excommunication, I just don't personally think it's useful.  In cases of sin, I think disciplinary courts introduce shame such that it causes more harm than good.  In cases of apostasy, it seems like it just turns the person more bitter.  John Dehlin, for example, seemed to take an aggressive turn towards being critical to the church and leading his following out of the church, once he was exed.  You could say he was already headed in that direction, but it seemed like the excommunication escalated it and might have contributed to it.  The only purpose it might serve in terms of apostasy would be to communicate to members that this person is not someone you should listen to.  I think that's only necessary maybe like in a Denver Snuffer type of case, where he's leading people out of the church unknowingly.  For people like Delhin, Kate Kelly and now Jeremy Runnels, I think most people understand what they're about.   

I think the main message communicated in and from disciplinary hearings is that it is all about being disciplined, intended to correct a problem.  Those who are disciplined can still be members as long as they show they will abide by the rules, even if they are excommunicated for their infractions. Those who are excommunicated simply need to go through the process of becoming members again while agreeing to uphold their covenants the next time.  

Sometimes a fresh start is better than trying to fix what has been broken.  And everyone needs to be able to learn from their mistakes. 

[Jeanne]

Given everyone's different interpretations and a lot of "maybe he means" here, why did he just say what he means; especially in conference?  How can the church membership understand his guidance if it is not clear?

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jeanne