Criticism of the Church

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

I would like to post an article that a friend of mine sent me which I think is so appropriate and timely for some here on the forum. I sincerely hope that everyone, regardless of their mindset, will take the time to read it, or perhaps print it out and read it when you can do so with the spirit.

http://unblogmysoul.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -deceived/

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Great post by John, and one that I hope will be heeded.

[jnjnelsoncaptain of 100]

I cannot equate your title of this thread with this wonderful article by Bro John. can you elaborate why you titled this thread as such?

I thought it was pretty obvious. Those who provide criticism of the Church are among those referred to in the article "whose deceptions take them away from the restored gospel." I think all of us fall into one of the two types referred to in the article to a small degree at least. The struggle comes in constantly recognizing the deception and working to correct it.

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

Thanks, Joel. I suppose I could have entitled the thread something differently....but when I read the article, and I read it twice to digest it, I couldn't help but think of some who spend a great deal of time finding fault with the brethren or something the brethren have done. There are several paragraphs within the article that I felt were timely....at least to me. Some of you may read it and find something completely different....after all, our own perception tends to be our own reality. Brother Pontius hits it right on the head with his two paragraphs describing what he believes are the "two types of people whose deceptions take them away from the restored gospel." If those of you who have read the article or will read it, at the end there are some comments. I loved the comment by a Steve H.: "I still love your analogy of the gospel as the medicine that will cure all ills, pains, problems, etc., and the Church as the bottle the medicine is in. Not taking medicine because the label on the bottle is a little crooked makes no sense at all."

At any rate, I personally loved the article. It is one of those that touched my heart (first) immediately and then went to my head for processessing!

[awakecaptain of 100]

While I agree that we usually shouldn't criticize anyone, leader or not, (though there are some justified times when it may be necessary, like when Joseph criticized some early church leaders, in order to warn the other Saints) but we must remember that publicly disagreeing with someone, leader or member, is not criticism, but can actually be a very righteous act, especially if the leader was wrong about something.

I believe that even more dangerous, than even 'criticizing' leaders, and which causes even greater apostasy among the members, is having 'blind obedience' to them and not questioning & proving (as the Apostle Paul commanded) everything they do and say.

The scriptures and the Spirit must always trump anything even leaders may say or do, if we want to protect ourselves from being led astray, even by well meaning leaders & prophets who error at times.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

The title is most appropriate and timely Natasha.

Only Jesus Christ was perfect in this life. Our mortality is a time for us to work toward perfection and to serve God.
All people will one day stand before Jesus Christ to account for the way they conducted themselves.

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

I understand your point of view, Awake....but I believe as Bobhenstra here on the forum believes....the Lord is in charge of His Church....the one He set up in this the last dispensation. If anyone has a grievance, there is an order in the Church that should be followed. To publicly criticize just might contribue to that label on the outside of the bottle being a little crooked causing someone to NOT partake of the medicine inside.

[awakecaptain of 100]

I understand your point of view, Awake....but I believe as Bobhenstra here on the forum believes....the Lord is in charge of His Church....the one He set up in this the last dispensation. If anyone has a grievance, there is an order in the Church that should be followed. To publicly criticize just might contribue to that label on the outside of the bottle being a little crooked causing someone to NOT partake of the medicine inside.

It just might keep someone from being led astray too, as the Prophets warn will happen to even the elect in the Church today, because of falsehoods taught in the Church by leaders & members.

We will have to just agree to disagree for I do not believe we are promised by God in the scriptures that God will take charge of things from here on out and keep the church from being lead astray. Anyone who teaches such is only giving their opinion for it's not backed up by scripture. And even church history proves such an idea to be false.

It is up to us to make sure we or the Church isn't led astray and things stay on their right course.

Brigham Young said that if a prophet leads us astray it will be because we deserved it, (for we didn't have the Spirit to discern truth from error, even by a Prophet).

[gr8ideascaptain of 100]

+100 Awake

[jnjnelsoncaptain of 100]

… I do not believe we are promised by God in the scriptures that God will take charge of things from here on out and keep the church from being lead astray. Anyone who teaches such is only giving their opinion for it's not backed up by scripture.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

Official Declaration 1 is part of the standard works of scripture, last I checked.

[awakecaptain of 100]

… I do not believe we are promised by God in the scriptures that God will take charge of things from here on out and keep the church from being lead astray. Anyone who teaches such is only giving their opinion for it's not backed up by scripture.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

Official Declaration 1 is part of the standard works of scripture, last I checked.

That teaching is contrary to what the scriptures teach, thus the Church tells us to consider it just his opinion, even if he put it in the scriptures at the time, for it is contrary to previous scripture (D&C 107, etc.), not to mention that church history has proved it false.

[ATL Wakecaptain of 1,000]

… I do not believe we are promised by God in the scriptures that God will take charge of things from here on out and keep the church from being lead astray. Anyone who teaches such is only giving their opinion for it's not backed up by scripture.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

Official Declaration 1 is part of the standard works of scripture, last I checked.

It's actually very interesting that you quote that. I was just studying some church history. Back in the 1880s the church was experiencing a lot of persecution. The Feds were trying to indict members for violating cohabitation laws. There were literally spies all over. Pres. Woodruff had established a "mind your own business" type of policy. If you met someone who started asking you questions, you would tell them to mind their own business. And then you would warn people that they may be a spy.

Lots of everyday behavior became suspicious. Sons couldn't tell people who their fathers were because it would establish evidence for breaking the laws of cohabitation. This bothered the brethren that the Saints were developing a very dishonest culture and lifestyle. But they felt that it was justified so they could live higher principles. Just as Nephi dressed up as Laban and deceived Zoram and Abraham lied to Pharaoh.

The whole Official Declaration was a "wink-wink" to the members. The whole "To Whom It May Concern" was fashioned as to appear to the members and communicate that this was a sham. At no point did the Pres. believe they were actually giving up polygamy during the First Manifesto.

Pres. Woodruff, was not asserting "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray" to be a statement of truth, rather he was trying to convince the Feds that we were giving up polygamy.

Obviously, we were not giving up polygamy then as many of the 12 continued to officiate in polygamous sealings. It wasn't until the Second Manifesto in 1908, by Joseph F. Smith that the church REALLY gave up polygamy.

Additionally, Pres. Woodruffs journals indicate that he never thought the church was really giving up polygamy.

So that there is some context for that statement in the Official Declaration. It may not mean what it was asserted to mean.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

on this forum, expounding on the truth has become equated with criticism and apostasy.

Bingo!

The truth about the current status of the Church has caused a war to ensue. it is the issues that will be the test between the wheat and the tares. Satan knows this and is trying very hard to befuddle the truth by having his own minions trumpet the truth as loud as they can. this makes true messengers look very much like satans minions when they come speaking the truth.



From my personal experience here on the forum, most all of those trying to point out the problems facing the church and within the church today are doing so because they are having to deal with them personally

In my case, I feel like I'm simply taking a stand for what's right (e.g. - putting the poor and needy ahead of a mall).

its not critisism, its a call to repentance.

I guess you could say that, yes - I honestly cannot and do not see how anyone can defend the construction of a ritzy luxury mall for the rich with billions in church funds, regardless of where the money came from and what the brethren may say or how they try to defend it. If Christ is up there directing our church to build a multi-billion dollar shopping mall, then he led a hypocritical and fraudulent existence while on the earth and I'm pretty sure that was not the case.

this is the restored gospel, and His church, no amount of criticism from devilish imps will change that, but hard truths from true messengers will allow us to repent, forsake those things that are keeping us away, and to turn again to our Lord, and build Zion.

Great post Brent!

[cayennecaptain of 100]

Yep col. And brent. Awake and atl plus we have authors who I think are sent from god who get Flack....like ryan mayor. Denver snuffer. Abraham gileadi etc

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Yep col. And brent. Awake and atl plus we have authors who I think are sent from god who get Flack....like ryan mayor. Denver snuffer. Abraham gileadi etc

Yup.

[jnjnelsoncaptain of 100]

That teaching is contrary to what the scriptures teach, thus the Church tells us to consider it just his opinion, even if he put it in the scriptures at the time, for it is contrary to previous scripture (D&C 107, etc.), not to mention that church history has proved it false.

I know of no such contradictions, nor any such Church counsel to consider President Woodruff's words opinion. I don't see any contradictions between Official Declaration 1 and section 107, either. Could you please elaborate?

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

Well, Joel...it's been two weeks and no response. I can't remember a time when I have doubted anything I have heard the Brethren say. I remember a talk (but I can't remember WHO right now) at conference where we were told that the Brethren would always speak simply to be understood, and simply to not be misunderstood. They speak plainly....at least to me. I think a better direction would be to pray that we are always on the "same page" with them.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Well, Joel...it's been two weeks and no response. I can't remember a time when I have doubted anything I have heard the Brethren say. I remember a talk (but I can't remember WHO right now) at conference where we were told that the Brethren would always speak simply to be understood, and simply to not be misunderstood. They speak plainly....at least to me. I think a better direction would be to pray that we are always on the "same page" with them.

I would surmise that we pray to receive confirmation whether what they do and say is what the Lord would have them do and say and not only so that we can be on the same page with them, otherwise, why do we even need the spirit of discernment?

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

That teaching is contrary to what the scriptures teach, thus the Church tells us to consider it just his opinion, even if he put it in the scriptures at the time, for it is contrary to previous scripture (D&C 107, etc.), not to mention that church history has proved it false.

I know of no such contradictions, nor any such Church counsel to consider President Woodruff's words opinion. I don't see any contradictions between Official Declaration 1 and section 107, either. Could you please elaborate?

This is not in the scriptures so maybe it doesn't count, but it certainly contradicts President Woodruff's in the D&C.

Joseph Smith said:

"We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything
they were told to do by those who preside over them even if they knew it was wrong;
but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the
man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among
intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the
idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that
such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by
their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will
so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it
is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves." (Millenial
Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595)

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

actually that doesn't contradict - just tells you not to follow leaders in doing wickedly - the Joseph Smith statement cited neither proves nor disproves the Wilford Woodruff scripture (OD-1) that God would never allow His prophet to lead the Church astray.

[awakecaptain of 100]

That teaching is contrary to what the scriptures teach, thus the Church tells us to consider it just his opinion, even if he put it in the scriptures at the time, for it is contrary to previous scripture (D&C 107, etc.), not to mention that church history has proved it false.

I know of no such contradictions, nor any such Church counsel to consider President Woodruff's words opinion. I don't see any contradictions between Official Declaration 1 and section 107, either. Could you please elaborate?

I would ask, "How does one know for sure that what Pres. Woodruff said was true?" If someone says "the Spirit", then I would ask, "How do you know the 'right' Spirit is giving you that revelation, for Joseph Smith said it can come from God, Satan or our own mind?" If they answer "because I feel peace", etc., then I would say I could introduce them to many people who have received revelations to clearly do 'evil' things, yet who say they have never felt more 'peace' in their life about what they were told to do." Clearly Satan has a counterfeit 'peace' that fools most people that their revelation is the real deal.

I believe the only answer is that we know 'the President' or anyone else is speaking 'truth' because it is in 'harmony' with and 'based on' what the scriptures, Christ and past 'true' prophets have said. (like especially Joseph Smith who was such a true prophet that he gave us the Book of Mormon, a tangible book that teaches the same doctrines as Christ).

Only then can we be sure. We can never just go on what a prophet says, just because it feels right, that's the fastest way to be deceived, it must also be in harmony with the scriptures and true prophets.

What would constitute 'leading the Church astray'? I can only believe it would mean that the President would teach something false that would cause many, if not most, of the Saints 'to sin' or 'to even become apostate' and not believe in the scriptures, church or Gospel.

Also, If you believe that God would not allow a President to teach the members false doctrine, how long would God let him live if he did? 1 day, 1 month, 1 year, longer? If it's longer than a month or especially a year, then how do we know it was God who took him out of his position and not natural causes?

Church history has already proven such an idea 'false', that God would not let a Prophet lead people astray. For the Church teaches that Joseph Smith lied to the Church his whole life about polygamy and thus 'led the church astray' to think that polygamy was an evil that should never ever be accepted, and thus many Saints never did accept polygamy or follow Brigham Young, precisely because of Joseph's strong teachings against it.

So did Joseph lead those Saints astray, who refused to follow Brigham Young? Either Joseph or Brigham didn't tell the truth, for they preached opposite doctrine from each other, even each other's scriptures were so opposite that they could not remain in the same book of scripture together (D&C) and thus BY removed Joseph Smith's teachings on the subject when he added his new revelations (132).

Thus we see from history that Presidents of the Church 'can and are allowed' to lead the Church astray, for even years. I doubt most members think God took Joseph home because of his preaching of so-called 'false doctrine', against polygamy. Why don't most members think that was the reason, especially if they think he was leading the members to not believe in what BY taught was a most vital doctrine.

The Church clearly believes that God allowed or told Joseph Smith, a President/Prophet, to teach falsehoods/lies that caused many members, then and today, to lose faith in and leave the Church and reject Brigham Young.

The scriptures and many prophets also teach that it is actually 'our responsibility' to discern, detect, reject or remove Presidents if they ever do fall or teach false doctrine.

D&C 107 clearly shows that the Lord believes it's possible for the President to fall and it puts the burden on the other leaders of the Church to release him from his position should he ever do so. We know from past church history that many apostles can and have fallen themselves, so reason dictates, that if ever the majority of the apostles were to fall and become blinded and not discern that the President was in error also, then they may not remove him from his position. What then?

BY and other early church leaders seemed to believe that if the President ever led the Church astray it would be because the members deserved it, because they lost the Spirit and could not tell truth from error and thus couldn't tell if the Prophet was leading them right or not.

From the following quotes we see that Joseph Smith and other Presidents of the Church and even Christ's disciples taught that if a Prophet or Apostle or even an angel from heaven taught 'contrary' to the Gospel or the scriptures then we should shun them, or at least know that what they teach is false.

Thus they taught that it was surely possible that even a prophet or President could error and the burden of discernment to catch those errors is upon our own shoulders and not something we can rely on God to save us from. The test of life is to see who can be deceived, even by prophets if they fall or are false prophets. God does not take this test away or assure us we never have to worry about being deceived by prophets.

If we don't have to worry about being deceived by prophets, then why all the warnings in the scriptures about be wary of 'false prophets and false doctrines, that will even corrupt the Holy Church of God? It clearly is up to us to be able to discern true prophets from false prophets, even in the Church. God has never said he will do that for us.

The idea that 'the President couldn't lead the Church astray' seemed to evolve into a teaching that it seems Pres. WW believed and also it appears he had a serious motive to want to teach such an idea to the Saints, for he was having a difficult time getting many in the Church to support his decision to stop polygamy.

We have been taught over and over that the only way to not be deceived or lead astray, even by a President/Prophet of the Church, is by the Holy Spirit's discernment and comparing what the Prophet says to the Holy Scriptures, to know if he's correct or not:

"We do not want any one to believe any thing as coming from us, contrary to the old established morals & virtues & scriptural laws, regulating the habits, customs & conduct of society, & all persons pretending to be authorized by us, or having any permit, or sanction from us, are & will be liars & base impostors, & you are authorized on the very first intimation of the kind, to denounce them as such, & shun them as the flying fiery serpent, whether they are prophets, Seers, or revelators; Patriarchs, twelve Apostles, Elders, Priests, Mayors, Generals, City Councilors, Aldermen, Marshalls, Police, Lord Mayors, or the Devil, are alike culpable & shall be damned for such evil practices; & if you yourselves adhere to anything of the kind, you also shall be damned."
Joseph Smith, Epistle prepared for the Sisters, recorded on Sept. 28, 1842 mtg. Read in Relief Society March 30, 1844.

“To the Elders abroad - If any man writes to you , or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine in Covenants, set him down as an imposter."
Times and Seasons 5:490-491, April 1, 1844.

“But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Gal. 1:8

“…if He (God) should suffer him (Joseph Smith) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray…it would be because they deserved it…”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:297-298

“The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly, or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:100

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation…Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 14:205

“Do not brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support is gone; but if we lean on god, he never will fail us. When men & women depend on god alone, & trust in him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the church should step aside. Perhaps it is his own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that his saints my learn to trust in him, & not in any man or men.” George Q. Cannon, Millennial Star, 53:674

“My words, & the teachings of any other member of the church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard words as the mearsuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” Joseph Fielding Smith

“If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; & if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” Harold B. Lee

“Whenever you find any doctrine, any idea, any expression from any source whatsoever that is in conflict with that which the lord as revealed & which is found in the holy scriptures, you may be assured that it is false & you should put it aside & stand firmly grounded in the truth in prayer & in faith, relying upon the spirit of the lord.” Joseph Fielding Smith, CR, Apr. 1917, 59-60, 64.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the lord, then it should be accepted.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-204.

“Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said… that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
Elder Bruce R. McConkie, CES Conference, August 1978

Does Elder McConkie mean to say that even 'Presidents of the Church' can teach errors and be wrong and lead people to believe in falsehoods, because those Presidents have a "limited understanding and knowledge". Things which future Presidents will have to correct?

Brigham Young not only taught contrary to Joseph on polygamy, but also on Blacks and the Priesthood, and Slavery and how to deal with the Indians, and the marriage ceremony and vows, , etc. Which one was right and which one lead the Church astray on those issues? For God does not flip flop on doctrine and change such vital things with each new Prophet. Slavery was either wrong or right, Blacks could either have the Priesthood or not, we should either treat the Indians with respect and kindness or not, men and women make equal vows to each other or they don't, etc.

Joseph and Brigham couldn't have both been right. At least one of them, as Elder McConkie stated, clearly had 'limited understanding' about such things, and thus lead the Church to believe in falsehoods and support evils, like slavery, taking land from the Indians, men and women not equal in marriage, etc. etc.

So based upon these evidences, scriptures and words of Prophets, I believe, at a time of distress, it was just Pres. WW's opinion, that Presidents can't lead the Church astray, for history and scriptures seem to clearly teach otherwise.

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

actually that doesn't contradict - just tells you not to follow leaders in doing wickedly - the Joseph Smith statement cited neither proves nor disproves the Wilford Woodruff scripture (OD-1) that God would never allow His prophet to lead the Church astray.

Maybe. But when Joseph says this:

When Elders of Israel will
so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it
is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves

and then Woodruff says that the Lord will never allow me to lead you astray, in the context of obey what I am asking you to do here...
As for whether or not the Lord will allow a prophet to lead the church astray, the Lord will allow anyone to do what they want. He is not going to force anyone to stay on the straight and narrow. Never has, never will.

[erichardcaptain of 10]

... I know of no such contradictions, nor any such Church counsel to consider President Woodruff's words opinion. I don't see any contradictions between Official Declaration 1 and section 107, either. Could you please elaborate?

Hi,

Here is a writing that discusses scriptures and truths that contradict the teaching that the church President will never be allowed to lead the church astray.

http://www.lds-awakening.info/Publications/Issue3.pdf

Richard

[gruden2.0captain of 100]

I've read quotes where Brigham Young called many of the apostles "fools" and said the Elders of the church (general priesthood) were greedy and worldly.

I guess when you get to a certain point it's OK to criticize the church...

As for me, anyone who follows any man - prophet or not - without thinking and praying to the Lord about what they're being asked to do is setting themselves up to be deceived. As another poster mentioned, blind obedience is cultish behavior.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

I cannot equate your title of this thread with this wonderful article by Bro John. can you elaborate why you titled this thread as such?

It was directed at me.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Thanks, Joel. I suppose I could have entitled the thread something differently....but when I read the article, and I read it twice to digest it, I couldn't help but think of some who spend a great deal of time finding fault with the brethren or something the brethren have done.

I don't go looking for things to question or express concerns about with regard to decisions/inaction by Salt Lake - if/when something is not or does not appear to be in harmony with the teachings of Christ or the restored gospel and it's emanating from church HQ, I'll always be the first to speak up and out. Want some specific examples (although, I think you know what they consist of)?

[awakecaptain of 100]

I couldn't help but think of some who spend a great deal of time finding fault with the brethren or something the brethren have done.

I don't believe in 'fault finding', but I do believe in 'discerning error', which is a commandment that we are to do. There is a big different between the motives of fault finding vs. discerning, identifying and correcting error, even if they may look the same to some people.

I believe leaders who are 'true disciples of Christ' and are thus humble and realize they can error, would greatly appreciate members watching for and catching their errors and that they would hope we would do so, even publicly. For what it preached publicly should be corrected publicly.

I believe humble leaders would encourage members to speak up and correct any false doctrine that they might teach or any evil that they might do, so they, the leaders, don't lead members astray, even though they don't mean to.

Members and leaders are to watch over each other and help one another stay on the straight and narrow. That's the best way we can support and sustain our leaders.

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

I will post, for the second time, a talk given by Elder Dallin Oaks entitled "Criticism". I have not posted the whole talk because the first part talks about criticism in general and in regard to our daily lives. However, the rest of the talk, which is the majority, deals with criticism of our Church leaders. I posted it previously on a thread I started entitled "Criticism - one more try". My hope is that everyone on the forum would read it. I'm also hoping it gets printed AGAIN in the Ensign. (Ensign, Feb. 1987):


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.) But if a man comes among us and speaks flattering words about our behavior and tells us that it is all right to “walk after the pride of [our] own hearts … and do whatsoever [our] heart desire[s],” “we will not find fault with him.” (See Hel. 13:27, 28.) We will call him a prophet and reward him.

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.)

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” (D&C 121:16.)

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.)

The prophet Moses expressed another reason we should refrain from criticizing Church leaders. On one occasion, the whole congregation of the children of Israel became dissatisfied and “murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.” (Ex. 16:2.)

“What are we, that ye murmur against us?” Moses asked them. “The Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.” (Ex. 16:7–8.) Similarly, when the children of Israel ignored the prophet Samuel’s inspired warnings and begged him to appoint a king to rule over them, the Lord directed him to do as they asked, explaining: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:7.)

In these two instances, the Bible teaches that rejection of or murmuring against the counsel of the Lord’s servants amounts to actions against the Lord himself. How could it be otherwise? The Lord acts through his servants. That is the pattern he has established to safeguard our agency in mortality. His servants are not perfect, which is another consequence of mortality. But if we murmur against the Lord’s servants, we are working against the Lord and his cause and will soon find ourselves without the companionship of his Spirit.

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.

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. 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.)

Elder Lorenzo Snow also observed some “imperfections” in Joseph Smith, but he also reached a positive conclusion about the Prophet:

“I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him … for I knew that I myself had weakness, and I thought there was a chance for me.” (Quoted by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 10.)

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! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

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.

President John Taylor described these last two remedies when he taught how we should sustain a leader:

“But supposing he should … be found lying or cheating, or defrauding somebody; or stealing or anything else, or even become impure in his habits, would you still sustain him? It would be my duty then to talk with him as I would with anybody else, and tell him that I had understood that things were thus and so, and that under these circumstances I could not sustain him; and if I found that I had been misinformed I would withdraw the charge; but if not it would then be my duty to see that justice was administered to him, that he was brought before the proper tribunal to answer for the things he had done; and in the absence of that I would have no business to talk about him.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:207–8.)

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.

Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them?

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). And this command is enforced:

“When we undertake to … gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” (D&C 121:37.)

Just as our Church leaders’ source of authority is different from that of government and corporate leaders, so are the procedures for correcting Church leaders different from those used to correct leaders chosen by popular election. But the differences are appropriate to the way in which our Church leaders are called and released. By following approved procedures, we can keep from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord.

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)

Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.

The role of a preacher or a practitioner of righteousness is not to be popular with the world or to be esteemed by any particular group, but to be right with God. Isaiah affirmed that fact when he condemned the rebellious “which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits.” (Isa. 30:10.) It is easy to preach freedom or truth. Praise for those subjects is usually safe and always popular. It is infinitely more difficult to preach how men and women should use freedom or truth. The preacher of that message may command respect, but he or she will not win popularity.

I conclude with a message of hope. When Isaiah condemned the critics of his day, he concluded with a prophecy. He said that in time the children of God would sanctify his name and “fear the God of Israel.” Continuing, he declared, “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.” (Isa. 29:23–24.) In that spirit I pray for the day when all of us will know God and keep his commandments. In that day, as Isaiah foretold, the “king shall reign in righteousness,” and “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.” (Isa. 32:1, 17.)

PreviousNext
Print Share E-mail Twitter Facebook Delicious
Do You Have Feedback on This Page?

[Gadcaptain of 1,000]

It is clear that you really love that article. An Israel people will have different methods to deal with disagreements than Babylon. A Zion people will have still different methods than even from Israel.

Lies and slander are always evil speaking. Truth can never be evil speaking. What is most important is making sure our lives are so full of truth that we will always speak good, even if, as Elder Oaks points out, that truth is unpopular.

I feel prompted to pointed out one item. Anyone in authority that uses their position to commit crimes has lost the sanction of heaven and should be reported to the proper authorities. Truth is not evil speaking. If you have been abused, then speaking truth is not evil speaking. It is good speaking. (That may not have been the point of why you posted it... but these type of words have been twisted by evil men to force their victims to help hide their sins.)

Christ spoke truth about his "priesthood" leaders... Isaiah spoke truth about "priesthood" leaders... the quotes denotes that a man may be called to an office, but yet have his priesthood withdrawn due to unrighteous dominion.

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

Of course that's true, Gad. But I think you know why I posted the talk twice in two different threads. I sincerely believe that Elder Oaks was quite clear about how we should handle criticism of our leaders. There is a correct way to do that. Outwardly criticising on the internet about matters that we do not have the full information on is wrong. That's how I see it and you certainly can disagree with me.