Reasons for not criticizing church leaders

[oliver_denom]

The thread about Oak's belief that church leaders should never be criticized even if the criticism is true got me thinking about a few things I've heard David Bednar say on the subject.

Oaks lays out the following reasons for why criticism isn't acceptable (Feb. 1987 Ensign - Criticism):
1) Constructive criticism is reserved for issues, not people, and can only be guided by revelation. The spirit will never guide someone to criticize a church leader, therefore constructive criticism where church leaders are involved is impossible.
2) Criticism, of this bad sort, is fault finding and this leads to contention. Contention is of the devil and therefore imperils our "spiritual well-being".
3) Truth is a tool that is meant to be used for building up the church. To use truth in a way that tears down the church is an inappropriate or wrong use of the tool.
4) The job of a church leader is to criticize those beneath them, or call them to repentance, and criticizing leaders impedes their ability to perform this function.
5) Criticism of church leaders is unnecessary because the church is not a democracy, and the authority of its leaders are constrained by the hierarchy.

I'd like to contrast these reasons with what I've heard from David Bednar. I apologize for not having a source handy because I heard him speak these things from the pulpit at the local level. It's possible he's said similar things elsewhere that are recorded.

Bednar has laid out these reasons for why criticism isn't accetable:
1) The actions and words of the apostles are the actions of God by definition. They have so fully given themselves over to the spirit, that God moves them in ways that not even they understand. To therefore criticize them is to blaspheme against God.
2) The words of an apostle automatically obtain the status and weight of scripture, and cannot be questioned.
4) Any mistakes made by an apostle are only apparent mistakes because they are all apart of a grand plan that God is orchestrating. To criticize a supposed mistake is the same as misleading them and drawing them away from God.

I see a clear difference here. Oaks is approaching this from a very practical and administrative position. Bednar, on the other hand, is taking the approach that the apostleship itself is holy and beyond question or reproach. Of these two, I find Bednar's opinion magnitudes more disturbing that Oaks' and I wonder whether that same belief is held by others in the quorum.

[slavereeno]

Yikes, it scares the schnit out of me, that Bednar may one day be the top dog.

His logic creates some real problems though, with the notion that much of what is said by an apostle is opinion and not doctrine. Because with his hard-line approach its pretty simple to find contradictions, and then does God contradict himself?

[RubinHighlander]

Does this explain why Dieter is out and Oaks is in? Because Dieter called out leaders of the past for making mistakes because they did not have further light and knowledge? Once again, they want to have it both ways: Give leaders a break, because they are just men and sometimes talk like just men, but they should never be questioned or criticized because they are being directed by God in his grand scheme. For me an my house, we threw down the bull$hit card on all of them!

[Jeffret]

1) The actions and words of the apostles are the actions of God by definition. They have so fully given themselves over to the spirit, that God moves them in ways that not even they understand. To therefore criticize them is to blaspheme against God.
2) The words of an apostle automatically obtain the status and weight of scripture, and cannot be questioned.
4) Any mistakes made by an apostle are only apparent mistakes because they are all apart of a grand plan that God is orchestrating. To criticize a supposed mistake is the same as misleading them and drawing them away from God.

Keep in mind that in the FP press conference, Oaks contradicted Bednar. He didn't criticize Bednar directly of course, but he did state that only when the words are affirmed by council, by all of the apostles, are they actually the word and actions of god and obtain the status and weight of scripture.

I'm sure though that this isn't a real contradiction. It's clear that Bednar's approach is generally favored by the apostles, including Oaks. It's only when there is something clearly wrong, or that the Church wants to disavow or hide, that they revert to the claim that the only authority is in councils.

(I also note that someone forgot how to count. Or uses a different numeral system than I'm used to.)

[BriansThoughtMirror]

Whoa, where did the Bednar stuff come from? That is super extreme stuff, and I'd like to read or watch the original. Can you please post a link?

EDIT- I read more carefully this time. You heard this live. I guess they wouldn't want this kind of stuff in print.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

His logic creates some real problems though, with the notion that much of what is said by an apostle is opinion and not doctrine. Because with his hard-line approach its pretty simple to find contradictions, and then does God contradict himself?

Maybe he buys into the apologetic that the Adam-God stuff was in fact true revelation, but we just don't understand it yet. Or, maybe he thinks that God will allow apostles to make non-critical mistakes as part of God's plan to test and try us. Maybe he thinks God sees obedience as more important than truth. Bleh.

[Palerider]

By forbidding "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed", Joseph probably thought he was just protecting himself from those who would expose him but he was also creating the culture for the bubble in which the current leadership now exists.

It's a soft cushy place where adoration abounds and no one dares give any negative feedback (or dares to make afraid). Everyone, whether they like it or not, needs a little critique now and then just to stay balanced.

Leadership would probably counter with the idea that the only entity qualified to critique them is the Lord, which means no one is helping them acknowledge the truth because God isn't speaking to them, obviously.

It seems like a perfect recipe for disaster when men who are edging on the age of dementia don't have anyone to tell them "No", you're out of line". Believe me, I went through that with both of my parents when they were in their 80's and you only increase problems when you give them everything they want. They really aren't in touch with reality. But it's obvious why they would like to keep it that way. It's like living constantly in a big warm fuzzy while eating chocolate bon bons.

[Corsair]

Keep in mind that in the FP press conference, Oaks contradicted Bednar. He didn't criticize Bednar directly of course, but he did state that only when the words are affirmed by council, by all of the apostles, are they actually the word and actions of god and obtain the status and weight of scripture.

I'm sure though that this isn't a real contradiction. It's clear that Bednar's approach is generally favored by the apostles, including Oaks. It's only when there is something clearly wrong, or that the Church wants to disavow or hide, that they revert to the claim that the only authority is in councils.

I think that anyone can find some semblance of the faithful opinion that you most prefer once you go quote mining. Finding concensus among general authorities will get angry looks from the current apostles if you include quotes from before about 1970.

I think the better model of understanding doctrine and policy disagreements among church leaders is best expressed by Noam Chomsky:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

Lot's of topics within the church allow some level of debate. A few do not. Knowing the difference will keep your religious social standing intact.

[MerrieMiss]

I think the better model of understanding doctrine and policy disagreements among church leaders is best expressed by Noam Chomsky:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

Lot's of topics within the church allow some level of debate. A few do not. Knowing the difference will keep your religious social standing intact.

I almost quoted Chomsky to DH last night while having a discussion, but decided to keep it for future use. It's amazing to me how few understand the latter part of your own statement,

Lot's of topics within the church allow some level of debate. A few do not. Knowing the difference will keep your religious social standing intact.

My husband insists people want my opinions, and I know that not only does no one want to hear them, but that there are negative effects from doing so.

[Mormorrisey]

I wish I could find it again (I tried but I couldn't) but somebody posted a great video of Oaks on reddit a couple of days ago. In the video, Oaks tells a story of when he was working with McConkie as a new apostle on missionary assignments. He asked McConkie how he KNEW that the Lord was helping him make the assignments, and McConkie told him that as a servant of the Lord, it would be natural for him to do the Lord's bidding. I'm paraphrasing, there was a little more to it, but that in a nutshell is the problem. Someone like Oaks has believed for a few decades now that as a "special witness" that everything he does is the mind and will of God. With no underlings daring to contradict him, he's believed this for years. And that is the arrogance we see manifest in stupid ideas like we can't criticize anything he does. It's ridiculous in the extreme, and that's why TBM's will gush on what a great press conference the new 1st Presidency had, and everyone else just sees the train wreck.

Bednar ramps up the Big Brother rhetoric, but I don't see Oaks as being that much different. Delusions of grandeur, that's what it is.

[Linked]

I see a clear difference here. Oaks is approaching this from a very practical and administrative position. Bednar, on the other hand, is taking the approach that the apostleship itself is holy and beyond question or reproach. Of these two, I find Bednar's opinion magnitudes more disturbing that Oaks' and I wonder whether that same belief is held by others in the quorum.

I agree that Bednar's opinion as stated is quite disturbing, bordering on megalomania. But I think Oaks' view may be more damaging long term because it less off-putting. Bednar's stance is more likely to ring alarm bells, even for TBMs, where Oaks' goes down easier.

It is impressive how they can talk out both sides of their mouths though. "An apostle's words and actions are scripture" and "Scripture is only that which comes from the top GAs in council". These are not reconcilable.

[wtfluff]

Yikes, it scares the schnit out of me, that Bednar may one day be the top dog.

Bednar WILL be top dog some day.

Unless mormon god decides he doesn't like Bednar, then mormon god will have to kill Bednar before he can ascend to the throne.

[deacon blues]

Does this explain why Dieter is out and Oaks is in? Because Dieter called out leaders of the past for making mistakes because they did not have further light and knowledge? Once again, they want to have it both ways: Give leaders a break, because they are just men and sometimes talk like just men, but they should never be questioned or criticized because they are being directed by God in his grand scheme. For me an my house, we threw down the bull$hit card on all of them!

I think that could be part of the reason for Pres. (or is it Elder now?) Utchdorf's reassignment. He is a little too much like Nathan of old, in whom there was no guile.

[Mad Jax]

The thread about Oak's belief that church leaders should never be criticized even if the criticism is true got me thinking about a few things I've heard David Bednar say on the subject.

Oaks lays out the following reasons for why criticism isn't acceptable (Feb. 1987 Ensign - Criticism):
1) Constructive criticism is reserved for issues, not people, and can only be guided by revelation. The spirit will never guide someone to criticize a church leader, therefore constructive criticism where church leaders are involved is impossible.
2) Criticism, of this bad sort, is fault finding and this leads to contention. Contention is of the devil and therefore imperils our "spiritual well-being".
3) Truth is a tool that is meant to be used for building up the church. To use truth in a way that tears down the church is an inappropriate or wrong use of the tool.
4) The job of a church leader is to criticize those beneath them, or call them to repentance, and criticizing leaders impedes their ability to perform this function.
5) Criticism of church leaders is unnecessary because the church is not a democracy, and the authority of its leaders are constrained by the hierarchy.

I'd like to contrast these reasons with what I've heard from David Bednar. I apologize for not having a source handy because I heard him speak these things from the pulpit at the local level. It's possible he's said similar things elsewhere that are recorded.

Bednar has laid out these reasons for why criticism isn't accetable:
1) The actions and words of the apostles are the actions of God by definition. They have so fully given themselves over to the spirit, that God moves them in ways that not even they understand. To therefore criticize them is to blaspheme against God.
2) The words of an apostle automatically obtain the status and weight of scripture, and cannot be questioned.
4) Any mistakes made by an apostle are only apparent mistakes because they are all apart of a grand plan that God is orchestrating. To criticize a supposed mistake is the same as misleading them and drawing them away from God.

I see a clear difference here. Oaks is approaching this from a very practical and administrative position. Bednar, on the other hand, is taking the approach that the apostleship itself is holy and beyond question or reproach. Of these two, I find Bednar's opinion magnitudes more disturbing that Oaks' and I wonder whether that same belief is held by others in the quorum.

I wish I could give this a like. Can I give this a like?

[GoodBoy]

If you are a leader, and want even more power and control over people, then you should teach them that you speak for God. And you should teach them that therefore it is wrong for them to criticize you for any reason. It is pretty simple and straightforward actually.

[Just This Guy]

Why should you not criticize leadership? Criticism usually causes people to think. It can be the person offering the criticism, the leader who is the target, or any bystanders who happen to hear it. We can't have people thinking on their own. When people think, who knows what can happen...

[felixfabulous]

One of the central messages of Jesus was that he disrupted the status quo, both as a critic of Judaism and challenging the authority of the Roman empire. His message was so outrageous that he was put to death for it. We often portray Jesus as the obedient son who was the one person who got a 100% on the test and did the atonement for extra credit. If you actually read the New Testament he was not a fan of the state of the Church, was critical of the obedience culture and said things that shocked everyone. When people tried to praise him, he said "Why do you call me good?" and directed them toward God. I think our leaders would have more credibility but probably less control if they followed that example and let people evaluate their teachings on their merits, not only appealing to their authority. Can you imagine if the brethren sincerely said things like "don't focus on me, I'm just the messenger, don't praise me, praise God!" Sadly, all we seem to hear is "trust us," "do what we say," and then "we're only human, please disregard any perceived shortcomings."

[deacon blues]

One of the central messages of Jesus was that he disrupted the status quo, both as a critic of Judaism and challenging the authority of the Roman empire. His message was so outrageous that he was put to death for it. We often portray Jesus as the obedient son who was the one person who got a 100% on the test and did the atonement for extra credit. If you actually read the New Testament he was not a fan of the state of the Church, was critical of the obedience culture and said things that shocked everyone. When people tried to praise him, he said "Why do you call me good?" and directed them toward God. I think our leaders would have more credibility but probably less control if they followed that example and let people evaluate their teachings on their merits, not only appealing to their authority. Can you imagine if the brethren sincerely said things like "don't focus on me, I'm just the messenger, don't praise me, praise God!" Sadly, all we seem to hear is "trust us," "do what we say," and then "we're only human, please disregard any perceived shortcomings."

Great thoughts. My Mom, rest her soul, used to say, "It is better to be trusted, than to be loved."
Faith to be worth anything, must be placed on trust, not authority. And trust, it seems to me, must work both ways.

[redjay]

Watched a documentary on Martin Luther, on netflix at the weekend. The parallels were uncanny. He was really wound up by the sale of indulgences which the pope needed to fund spending in Rome - think tithing going to build malls. He spoke out against his leaders and was considered a heretic, an enemy of the church. Fortunately for him the printing press had just arrived, and popular opinion was with Luther. We have the internet. And I'm not sure we need a singular figure to spearhead a critical examination of the leadership: although some people and forums come to mind, e.g. J Dehlin, exmo reddit and even invisibles cubit (the guy heading up the campaign against bishop sexual interview questioning of minors).

That said I am not comfortable speaking out in church or on social media on issues such as the sexual questioning of kids, or openly discussing J Smiths shenanigans. As it's all so ingrained in the culture that we never criticise.

[1smartdodog]

Any person claiming they should not be criticized because they speak for god deserves all the criticism they get.