|
The LDS Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, Utah. |
As I have said in an
earlier post, the recent policy change involving LDS Church members in
same-sex marriages, and the status of their children, is a catastrophic
disaster from the point of view of the pain that it is causing to the people
involved. However, this policy change has also created a watershed moment for
Mormonism, the implications of which I am exploring in this series of blog
posts (see the
Introduction).
In this post of the series, I look at how the idea of “General Authority” in
the Church might develop because of this watershed moment. First, we need to
consider the policy change, and its implications for the meaning of “general
authority” in the Church.
The Policy Change Is an Unmitigated Disaster
Many members have wondered about the purpose of this policy
change, which declares members in same-sex marriages as apostates, and bans the
children of same-sex marriages both from being blessed in church as babies, and
from being baptized until they are legal adults and “disavow” same-sex
marriage. The official position, as expressed in a
video interview with Elder D. Todd
Christofferson, is that the policy change is meant to “protect” the children in
same-sex marriages from being put in the position of being Church members while
under the parental authority of apostates.
I have heard alternative explanations for the policy. One speculates
that some leaders of the Church are increasingly uncomfortable with the large
number of American Saints who support the idea of accepting homosexuality and legalizing
same-sex marriage. (In a national survey reported in 2014, the
Pew ResearchCenter found that 36% of
Mormons stated that homosexuality should be supported by society. In a national
survey reported in April of this year, the
Public Religion Research Institute found that 27% of Mormons favored
legalizing same-sex marriage. Of course, this was all in advance of the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in late
June of this year, legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.) According to an
alternative explanation, the policy is a move to reduce the number of people in
the Church who are supportive of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I find
this to be an interesting notion; certainly, the policy change
will have that effect—although at an
immense cost (see below). It is certainly possible that both the official and the
alternative explanations are true: one operating on a conscious level, the
other on an unconscious level.
Whatever the real rationale for the policy—stated or tacit,
conscious or unconscious—one thing is absolutely clear. The policy change is a
monumental failure on multiple fronts:
- Calls to suicide hotlines in Utah have spiked considerably since the policy
change became known a week ago. One person working at such a hotline said that
calls to her hotline doubled on the night that the policy change was discovered. (Unfortunately, I suspect
that those who call such hotlines are only a fraction of people who seriously
consider suicide.)
- Many members of the Church have expressed
anguish and pain over the policy change. While I am personally aware of dozens
of families who have expressed this privately and in confidence, others have
expressed their feelings publicly.
- Thousands of Latter-day Saints have investigated formally
resigning their membership in the Church over the policy change. Some of these people have explained their reasons to the public. As of this writing, a “Mass Resignation from Mormonism
Event” is planned for tomorrow, November 14, with a protest on Temple Square in
Salt Lake City; the Facebook event page for this lists 1,200 people as planning to attend, and 2,200 people as
“interested” (as of 9:15 a.m., Friday, November 13). (The Washington Post and Slate have reported this week on this forthcoming event.)
- It has been observed that the policy change is
confusing, and can have many extremely negative consequences for parents and children
in many types of family, whether these consequences are intended or not.
- Little, if any, of these effects have been
mitigated by the clarification issued by the First Presidency today (November 13).
When a policy change is made to “protect children,”
resulting in those very children having suicidal thoughts—when a policy is made
by a Church that values families so very highly, and yet which forces those
children to “disavow” the marriage that raised them in order to partake of the
saving ordinances of the gospel—when a policy causes such pain and anguish
within families—when a policy, not even a doctrine, brings thousands of people
to the point of resigning their membership in the Church—when a policy with so
many extremely negative potential consequences is issued—one must conclude
the following:
- The policy was very poorly thought out and
framed.
- The policy itself is, in terms of its stated
objectives, a failure.
- The policy could not be the product of people
unerringly guided by the Spirit of God.
And all of this has consequences.
How Church Members Should Treat the General Authorities
What is the upshot of all this? It is simple to state,
although enormous in its implications:
Church members should not
treat the General Authorities as if they infallibly speak for God at all times
and in all places (including formal General Conference addresses, other talks, articles,
or policy statements).
This should be
obvious. But in practice, this represents a sea change in the way that the
Latter-day Saints look at their leadership.
It is nowhere in our scriptures. But the unwritten guideline
that so many of the Saints seem to live by is something like the following:
“The General Authorities speak for the Lord—pretty much all the
time, and most especially when speaking in their official capacity. If a
General Authority says something from the pulpit in General Conference, in a
Church-sponsored press conference, in an article printed in the Church
magazines, or in some policy statement, we can all be assured that this is the
Word of the Lord.”
And yet this is completely against what the first LDS
prophet, Joseph Smith, believed. As he put it, in a journal entry of February
8, 1843:
This morning I … visited with a brother and sister from
Michigan, who thought that “a prophet is always a prophet;” but I told them
that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
p. 278; Documentary History of the Church,
vol. 5, p. 265; see the original page at the Joseph Smith Papers Project.)
If this applies to the Prophet, then certainly it applies to
all General Authorities. The location in which a General Authority stands when
he makes a pronouncement—such as the pulpit in General Conference—makes no
difference in the matter; the pulpit of the Conference Center is not some
magical or enchanted place. One acts as a prophet when moved upon by the Holy
Spirit, and the Spirit’s seal of approval is not guaranteed by time or place of
the utterance involved.
The Saints have put such an emphasis on “following the
Brethren” that, as a group, we sometimes seem to act as if we are obligated to
follow the Brethren without any thought. This is not what President Joseph
Fielding Smith taught when he wrote the following:
It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has
been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.
My words, and 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 works as the measuring
yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. (Doctrines
of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 203)
In this connection, it is noteworthy that even certain First
Presidency statements have been later repudiated by the Church, essentially implying
that such earlier statements were uninspired writing. Perhaps the best example
of this is the August 17, 1949
statement of the First Presidency, stating that not giving the
priesthood to men of African descent was “not a matter of the declaration of a
policy but of direct commandment from the Lord.” (See also this
article on the website of the BYU
Religious Studies Center, which quotes this statement.) This official statement,
in essence, reiterated a private
letter of this First Presidency to a member who had questioned
the Church’s teaching on this matter. Of course, this entire position was
repudiated, without referencing this First Presidency statement, in the recent
Gospel Topics essay on the Church’s website, titled “Race and the Priesthood.”
So, given all of this, how should the Saints treat the General Authorities and what they say?
I suggest that the attitude to take should be something like the following:
“The General Authorities are special servants of the Lord. They
have special priesthood keys regarding certain ordinances, and setting apart Church
officers. Their experience means that their thoughts have special weight as we
consider matters of faith and practice. As the scriptures state, as is the case
with all those ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood and sent out into the
world, when it comes to the General Authorities, whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be
scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall
be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God
unto salvation (D&C 68:4).
“That said, the General Authorities’s official statements are
not necessarily the Word of God. Knowing whether a General Authority is
speaking or writing by the Spirit in a given instance is a matter of
discernment, and prayer: it is not a given that something said in
General Conference, or written in an article or presented as a statement, is
the Word of God. When something that one or more General Authorities say or
write violates one’s conscience, in good faith we should make that clear to the
General Authorities involved.”
Of course, this raises another issue as well.
How the General Authorities Should Treat the Saints
Perhaps it is just me, but it seems that in recent years we
have heard a number of statements made from the pulpit in General Conference
that suggest that General Authorities either do not need feedback from the
general membership of the Church, or even that they are positively obliged to
ignore such feedback.
Certainly, the debacle created by the recent policy change
suggests that the General Authorities could indeed benefit from considering the
specific views and feelings of the general Church membership. Let me put it
this way: When regular rank-and-file faithful-as-all-get-out members of the
Church raise questions to me—I, who
have no special administrative responsibility in the Church—questions, I say,
about basic doctrinal issues that seem to conflict with this policy, this
suggests to me that the Brethren who framed this policy could have benefited by
consulting with some families.
Herewith, some suggestions for how General Authorities should
treat the Saints:
- Realize that, as a group, the Saints are
intimidated about bringing concerns to the Brethren. This is because, in some
eyes, raising concerns smacks of not being sufficiently “supportive” of the Brethren.
This has created a situation where, like it or not, the Brethren actually do live in a kind of “bubble” where they
are somewhat insulated, especially from the concerns of Saints who are somewhat
marginalized.
- Read your own mail. Some have said that all
concerns expressed in writing to a General Authority are simply bounced back to
that individual’s stake or local leadership. This is a huge mistake. The
General Authorities cannot claim to be in touch with what is going on in the
lives of the membership of the Church if they confine themselves to contacts
with people around the time of stake conferences and so forth. If they are
getting so much mail that it seems inconvenient to have to deal with it all—well,
that should tell them something about the urgency of the issues being addressed
in those letters. If the Church has the resources to finance the City Creek
Mall in Salt Lake City, which
will cost $3 billion in total,
then certainly it has the resources to hire more staff to help the General
Authorities with their mail.
- No, the Church is not a democracy, and in that
sense the General Authorities are not the “representatives” of the Church membership.
However, the Church is not a corporation, either: it is a Kingdom, and the GAs are certainly supposed to be the eyes and ears
of the King in serving His people, and it is hard to do that without actually
listening to them. In this case, that means going the extra mile and take the
initiative to pierce the reticence that most Saints have to bring up concerns
to the Church leadership.
What Is To Be Done?
So what can the rank-and-file member do to promote this
approach to the relationship between the General Authorities and the Saints? I
suggest the following steps:
- We can familiarize ourselves with the issue, the
“Brand X” approach that so many Saints take towards the General Authorities, versus
the improved approach that is recommended above.
- We can familiarize ourselves with the sources
quoted in this post, specifically in relation to (1) the limitations of
authority that are indicated in Joseph Smith’s and Joseph Fielding Smith’s
statements above, and (2) the documents related to the former priesthood ban,
quoted above, which indicate that even First Presidency statements are not
utterly sacrosanct.
- We can respectfully request that the General
Authorities make clear the limitations on their own authority, in General
Conference, from the pulpit. This needs to be clear, it needs to be specific,
and not just a vague “hey, we’re just people, too” sort of thing. Perhaps it
would be appropriate to suggest something like the approach that I mention above,
in relation to how the Saints might better relate to the General Authorities.
- While we’re at it, we can respectfully request
that the General Authorities do more from their end to help fix the
relationship that they have with the general Church membership, perhaps along
the lines of what I have suggested above.
Conclusion
The recent policy change is a fiasco. But fiascos can be
useful if they spark people to make changes in how they interact with one
another, including in institutions. We can and should take steps to make clear that
we want a better-defined relationship between the Saints and the General
Authorities, along the lines that I have suggested above.
- - - - - - -
Readers are welcome to comment on this post, below.
I invite you to become a “follower” of this blog through the
box in the upper-right-hand corner of this page, to be informed of future
posts.
I discuss the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ in my
book,
The Rise of the Mormons, and I discuss
another important issue in my book,
Latter-day Saint
Women and the Priesthood of God (both available
here.)
Visit Mark
Koltko-Rivera’s
website.
[The
photo of the LDS Church Office Building
was taken by Ricardo630 on 1 July 2013, and appears here under the Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.]
Copyright 2015 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights
Reserved.