Inside the Salt Lake City Conference Center
Note: This is a talk given in my Sacrament Meeting a few weeks ago by one of our High Councilmen that I found very insightful. At my request, the author has agreed to allow us to post his talk on our blog. – Michael Barker
Preparing for General Conference
In a few weeks we will attend, or watch or at least listen to, General Conference. My talk today is on how we can prepare ourselves for that experience.
I want to talk from the heart about something that will at first seem a little strange in relation to General Conference. The world around us is changing. Information that was never easily accessible before is now instantly available if we know how to search the Internet. Major news networks are losing market share to bloggers and others on the Internet, so that we no longer get news just from the “top-down.” Similarly, the church’s message is no longer always from the top-down. The Internet has now made it possible for anyone to get news of the church from many different sources, some friendly to the church and some not. As people look up church topics on the Internet, they are likely to find information they never knew existed. Some of this information is comforting and faith promoting, and some of it is not. Critics of the church are as savvy as church members to get good Google rankings.
Andy Rooney
I firmly believe that the truth is our friend in all instances. When Sixty Minutes correspondent Andy Rooney retired several years ago, he said in his concluding broadcast that if “everyone knew the truth about everything, the world would be a better place.” I totally agree. The truth can never hurt us individually. Jesus said, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) Truth simply is “knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:24)
If we are always seeking the truth, the Internet can be a great resource; but if we are insecure, the Internet may threaten many of our long held assumptions. As we now move into this new part of the information age – when there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and the truth shall be spoken from the housetops – I believe that we must get real about some things. One of those things is that no one – I repeat no one – is perfect. Not ancient apostles, not early church leaders, not bishops or stake presidents, not even general authorities (who, by the way, I believe would be the first to admit that.) Unfortunately, in the church we have become so adoring of authorities (past and present) that we project upon them a perfection that they have not claimed for themselves, and which as we search the Internet we will certainly find they don’t have.
I will return to this problem of “projected perfection” in a few moments, but I want to note in passing that I love to read biographies. I’ve read many hundreds of full-length biographies, beginning in high school when I read of the first Soviet leader, Vladimir Lenin. Night after night, after completing my high school studies at my small desk in my upstairs bedroom, I would hop into bed and read from that thick biography, and be inspired by what I was learning. Even though I could disagree with everything about Communism, I had to admire the intellectual gifts of the man who transformed an entire nation, and later much of the world, into his world view. In later years I read about sixteen biographies of Abraham Lincoln, half a dozen of Winston Churchill, and dozens of biographies of US presidents, military leaders, and world-changers. I usually have several books that I am reading through at the same time. I cannot imagine a world without books.
Steve Jobs
Recently I finished the biography of Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple Computer – a remarkable genius who revolutionized at least five major world industries: personal computers, music (iTunes), books (e-books), animated films (Pixar), and telephones (the iPhone). In the end, Jobs made Apple the most valuable company in the world. Knowing that he was dying, Jobs asked Walter Isaacson to write his biography. Though at first reluctant, Isaacson met with Jobs and explained that his journalism standards would require him to interview hundreds of people and to read thousands of documents, and from what he had heard of Jobs, not all people and not all documents would describe Jobs in flattering terms. Jobs said that was okay, and encouraged Isaacson to adhere to absolute truth, adding that he (Jobs) would probably never read the book. After Jobs died, his wife Lauren also encouraged – even demanded – that Isaacson tell the whole truth. She loved Jobs, but knew that just because he was a genius in parts of his life, that did not make him a genius in all areas of his life. She felt that the whole truth had to be told.
And so Isaacson told the whole truth. Citing dozens of firsthand sources, he describes Jobs not only as an inspiring technological and marketing genius, but also as someone who could be a tyrant to employees, could relish belittling people, and would often insult waitresses and even friends. When Apple became hugely successful, Jobs distributed multimillion dollar bonuses to dozens of employees who had helped achieve that success, but he conspicuously didn’t give any bonus to one key man who had been his close friend and former roommate in college, and had contributed significantly to Apple’s success. When Steve Wozniak, Apple’s cofounder, realized the oversight, he went to Jobs and proposed, “why don’t we both contribute to his bonus? I’ll give half, and you give half.” To this, Jobs replied, “okay, I’ll give zero and you give zero.” In his early days at Atari computer Jobs was so dysfunctional in personal relationships and was so impossible to work with, that fellow workers pleaded that he be put on the night shift so that fewer people would have to interact with him. In his early days he also believed that an all vegetarian diet would relieve him of the need to shower. Consequently his body order was a near constant complaint of those who met him at that time.
Because of Isaacson’s honest contrast of both the flaws and the genius of Steve Jobs, there emerges from his biography a complex man who “made a dent in the universe.” Isaacson’s telling of the truth – the whole truth – made Jobs real and human and made his accomplishments all the more fantastic.
In sharp contrast with the candid and honest biography of Steve Jobs, written by a highly competent and professional historian, many biographies of church leaders have been written by adoring authors whose sole purpose has been to promote faith. From these idolizing biographies emerge early church leaders who had no faults, seldom doubted, didn’t make mistakes, and never had to back up and do it all over again. Although in one sense such worshipful biographies are inspiring, they are also misleading because they fail to tell the whole truth. Consequently, some early church leaders have been painted so heroically and placed upon pedestals so high that they are now very easy targets for anyone seeking to discredit the church.
As a result, some church members now find themselves trying to defend the indefensible – trying to prove that imperfect men were perfect – and when they fail to do so, as repeatedly they have and will, some good saints begin doubting and even leave the church because their illusions have been shattered.
This need not happen if we will simply take a few steps back, and realize that the Lord has never said that our leaders, past or present, have to be perfect. In fact, in several places in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord specifically warns against expecting perfection in our leaders.
When a young Joseph Smith lost the 116 manuscript pages of the Book of Mormon, and also the power to translate for a time, the Lord said: “… [A]lthough a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.” (Doctrine and Covenants 3:4) Later, after councils of the church were established, the Lord made it clear that no one, not even the President of the High Priesthood, was beyond the temptations of sin and the need for accountability. “And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; and their decision upon his head shall be the end of the controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:82–84)
Anyone who has carefully studied the New Testament will realize that the ancient apostles had some serious doctrinal disagreements and personal disputes. And Peter and the other apostles had to put up with Paul, who was sometimes belligerently ungovernable. Paul even boasted that once he had “withstood [Peter] to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galations 2:11). Many who objectively read Paul’s letters also become annoyed at his constant bragging and occasional belittling of women.
We often hear this passage: “…[T]hey shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall say 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.” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:3–4) Although this Scripture is often cited in connection with General Conference, it is actually a promise given to Orson Hyde and other missionaries as they set forth on their missions in 1831. I believe it is also the Lord’s promise to any missionary – or for that matter, to any Relief Society president, or Bishop, or home teacher or any faithful member. It simply means that truth spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture.
The big “if” is whether what we have spoken has been under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. As we approach General Conference, we need to remember this principle. It is not only our right, but our sacred duty to God, to prayerfully consider all that is said, and to fully support those things that are spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Please consider these words by Elder Todd Christofferson from General Conference one year ago: ” …[N]ot every statement made by a Church leader, past or
Elder Christofferson
present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such. (Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 5:265.)”
Elder Christofferson then quoted President J. Reuben Clark (a member of the First Presidency), who years ago made this careful observation: “…[M]y father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority,…that during the excitement incident to the coming
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. … (J. Reuben Clark Jr., “Church Leaders’ Words,” 10).”
Elder Christofferson then continued: “Of the story his father told him about Brigham Young, President Clark further wrote:
“I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle–that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ “How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest. (J. Reuben Clark Jr., “Church Leaders’ Words,” 10).”
Heber Chase Kimball
Just for a moment, consider this agitated declaration by Heber C Kimball, then serving as First Counselor to President Brigham Young: “I am opposed to your many fashions and everything you wear for the sake of fashion. Did you ever see me with hermaphrodite pantaloons on? Our boys are weakening their backs and their kidneys by girding themselves up as they do; they’re destroying the strength of their loins and taking a course to injure their posterity. You may take all such dresses and new fashions, and inquire into their origin, and you will find, as a general thing, that they are produced by the whores of the great cities of the world. There is a new fashion that our boys have got hold of, of Spanish bits and bridles, and then with their hermaphrodite pantaloons they look ridiculous. I will speak of my own boys, for they are like the rest.”
On this occasion was Kimball inspired by the Holy Ghost? Are Levis with flys evil? Are they produced by whores? Do I dare put a Spanish bit and bridle on my horse?
Or consider some statements that I will relate in a moment by Brigham Young.
To put his statements in context, I need to talk a little about Thomas B. Marsh. Some of you may recall the often told story of brother Marsh. He had been the first president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but reportedly had fallen away after his wife and a sister Harris had quarreled over how to divide the cream
Thomas B. Marsh
from their milk cows. According to the story, sister Marsh unjustly kept part of her cream, while sister Harris fully honored their agreement to equally share. Brother Marsh naturally took the side of his wife in the escalating quarrel, and when councils of the church repeatedly ruled in favor of sister Harris, Marsh reportedly appealed the matter all the way to the First Presidency, and when they ruled against Marsh, he apostasized from the church.1
Out of curiosity, I recently looked up the story, and learned some very interesting things. One was that the Marsh apostasy was far more complex than just the incident with the cream. Another thing I learned is what happened to Marsh after he eventually came back to the church.
Here is a brief summary of the sad tale. As already indicated, Marsh was the first President of the Twelve. Had he remained faithful, he may have been the next President of the Church, instead of Brigham Young. But in 1838 he swore out an affidavit against the church during the trying Missouri period, and that affidavit helped to bring about the Exterminator Order and the imprisonment–and near execution–of Joseph Smith and others.
After the saints moved West, brother Marsh remained in Missouri. He attended various churches, but never could find the peace and love he had enjoyed among the Latter-day Saints. In the years after he left the church he lost his wife, he had a stroke that permanently impaired one arm, and he went broke. Still in his mid-fifties, he looked and sounded like an old man.
And now in 1857, after 19 years away from the church, he made his way from Missouri to Nebraska, to seek out George Harris, husband of the wife who sister Marsh had quarreled with over the cream. He asked forgiveness and made peace with the Harris’s. He then walked on to Florence, Nebraska, near what had been Winter Quarters for the saints a decade before. From there he wrote a poignant letter to Church leaders in Salt Lake City.
This letter, written in utter remorse and humility, pleaded for forgiveness and asked if he could be welcomed back into the church – not as an apostle, but just as a member. From the agony of his heart, he wrote: “I love you better than I do any set of mortals on this earth. You have been diligent in accomplishing the work given you while I, miserable me! have played time away among harlot churches only seeking for nourishment to my soul where there was no bread of life; I Love you and hate myself. I wait here, at Florence anxiously for a letter addressed to your Old and now truly unworthy and truly sincere friend.”
After being permitted to be baptized again, he then walked 1300 miles across the plains to be with the saints in Utah. Shortly after his arrival, in September 1857, Brigham Young allowed Marsh to address the saints. His voice was so weak that some in the vast congregation could not hear all his words as he spoke humbly and feelingly of all that he had lost, and of how much he loved the saints. In that talk he expressed his determination never to forsake the people of God again, and to always do right. It was the pleading testimony of a returning prodigal.
After Marsh sat down, Brigham Young rose to speak. I do not know why President Young was so harsh. Perhaps his memory of thousands of Latter-day Saints being driven from their homes in winter or of the near public execution of Joseph Smith and others because of Marsh’s 1838 affidavit was seared too deeply in his soul for him to find the compassion to forgive his brother, Marsh. Whatever may have been his reasons, his words were not kind, as he mocked and then shamed a former senior apostle: “He [brother Marsh] has told you that he is an old man… When brother Thomas [Marsh] thought of returning to the Church, the plurality of wives troubled him a good deal. Look at him. Do you think it need to? I do not; for I doubt whether he could get one wife. Why it should have troubled an infirm old man like him is not for me to say.”
Noting that he was almost the same age as Marsh, Young boasted to the congregation that he looked much younger than Marsh, and he attributed the difference to the gospel.
Young then concluded: “I considered brother Marsh a great man; but as soon as I became acquainted with him, I saw that the weakness of the flesh was visibly manifest in him. I saw that he was ignorant and shattered in his understanding, if ever he had good understanding. He manifests the same weakness today. Has he the stability of a sound mind? No, and never had. And if he had good sense and judgment, he would not have spoken as he has. He has just said, ‘I will be faithful, and I will be true to you.’ He has not wisdom enough to see that he has betrayed us once, and don’t know but what he will again. He has told me that he would be faithful, and that he would do this and the other; but he don’t know what he will do next week or next year. I do not know what I shall do next year; I always speak for the present. But a man that will be once fooled by the Devil — a man that has not sense to discern between steel grey mixed and iron grey mixed, when one is dyed with logwood and the other with indigo, may be deceived again.”
I simply don’t know enough of the times or the circumstances or of the mind and heart of Brigham Young to understand his treatment of Marsh. But I do ask the question that I believe the Lord always wants us to ask of any speaker: was he moved upon by the Holy Ghost when he boasted of his own virility and mocked Marsh’s infirmities? And I am quite willing to concede that he may not have been. Unlike Joseph Smith, who had freely forgiven William W. Phelps for a similar betrayal (“Come on dear brother, for the war is past; and friends at first are friends again at last”), Young appears to me in this instance to have abused the powers of his office – he did it because he could.
Perhaps he was inspired by the Holy Ghost to make a public example of brother Marsh by humiliating him.
Or perhaps – just perhaps – he was really venting his own impassioned and lingering bitterness towards Marsh and was blinded by his own anger. I do not know.
But if President Young stumbled, even if he stumbled very badly – if, instead of acting as a prophet, he became a Steve Jobs insulting a lowly waitress, or humiliating an overworked employee, does it follow that because Jobs was imperfect we should reject iPads, MacBooks, and iTunes? Of course not. We should keep and abundantly use these powerful tools, even though they were created by a genius who had some world class flaws.
And so it is with President Young. If he was overbearing and belittling to brother Marsh, he was still the God-inspired genius who against all odds led the church across 1300 miles of wilderness and made the desert blossom as the rose. And if as “the Lion of the Lord” he had to stand alone against the government of the entire United States to protect the saints, and also had to immediately develop hosts of industries to make the saints self-sufficient to survive in a wilderness, I am quite willing to allow that such a powerful man so ably gifted in those areas of his life might also have some rough and unfinished edges in other aspects of his life.
And just as we should not throw away an iPad because we discover a fault in the man whose genius inspired it, neither should we throw away the church when we learn that some of its leaders – like all the rest of us – have been imperfect.
In the church we have the most vibrant and wonderful organization, bringing to all of us the love of God and the atonement of Christ, and bringing to all the world enormous humanitarian kindness. I hope that no one will throw all that away upon discovering – wonder of wonders – that some church leaders, past or present, have not been perfect.
From my reading of hundreds of biographies, I can declare that history is full of great souls with awful flaws who nevertheless changed the world.
And so as we approach General Conference I hope that we will be humble and teachable and prayerful. It is possible that from time to time we may hear impassioned opinions about hermaphrodite pantaloons or Spanish bits and bridles, or hear ill chosen words that the speaker himself may later wish he hadn’t said.
But as long as the body of the church has the Holy Ghost, as emphasized by President J. Reuben Clark and recently repeated by Elder Christopherson, we will not be misled. Although the apostle Paul sometimes had opinions that were “not of the Lord” (see Doctrine and Covenants 74:5) and Brigham Young taught some doctrines that were not of God (such as the Adam-God theory), so long as the body of the church has the Spirit of God, such opinions and doctrines will pass away, while the rock foundation of the church remains. So long as we “prove all things, and hold fast that which is true” (as admonished by Paul), and “reason together” (as instructed by Isaiah), we can keep all that is dear in our beloved church.
And we can also keep our iPads.
And even ride with Spanish bits and bridles.
1. Defenders of Thomas B. Marsh argue, almost in unison, that the cream story never happened, and that Marsh has been unjustly and repeatedly defamed. They claim that the incident is not documented in the contemporaneous minutes of church council meetings, and that no one even spoke of it until two decades later when apostle George A. Smith described it in a conference address. But Marsh defenders repeatedly overlook the best evidence of all – the letter written by Marsh himself to church leaders when he asked to be re-baptized. In that letter he explains that he had traveled to Nebraska and had made peace with the Harris’s, and had felt great joy and relief in their forgiveness. That he felt the need to explain the Harris reconciliation to high ranking church leaders reveals that he knew they were aware of the earlier quarrel and that it had played a significant role in his apostasy. That after 19 years he felt the need to personally meet and make peace with the Harris’s reveals that the matter had troubled him to the core. Although he never mentions “cream” or “milk” in his letter, that omission itself suggests that he knew those reading his letter would know exactly what he was talking about without further explanation.
Kelly Anderson
Kelly Andersen is a friend of rationalfaiths' Mike Barker.
All posts by Kelly Anderson
I think one of the many reasons that so many church members have this view of infallibility when it comes to the church leaders is because the church leaders themselves have made many statements that would lend members to believe that. When looking at issues that cause people to not believe or to doubt, this is one of the issues, but certainly not the only issue. I appreciate the statement made a couple of GC ago when it was stated that sometimes the prophet is speaking as a man and other times he is speaking as a prophet. The problem I had with that is that immediately after he said that it was up to us to decided if the prophet was speaking as a man or a prophet. What happens if I pray and get the impression he was speaking his own opinion as a man and not as a prophet…and the church says that he was speaking as a prophet. What happens if I receive the impression he is speaking as a prophet only to find out later that he was wrong. In the past there are many prophets and leaders who have spoken under the mantle of their leadership position who have been wrong…it is very easy then to state that they were speaking with limited light and knowledge, or to simply state that the prophet was speaking his own personal opinion. If he is speaking his own personal opinion then the prophet needs to let people know that. If he is speaking as the prophet and speaking prophetically then he should let that be known as well.
I appreciate a lot of what the author is saying here. I think that we can be too quick to throw things away because of the messenger rather than closely examining the message itself. On the other hand, I think the author has used some very simplistic and perhaps even “straw man” examples to illustrate his position. I also agree with the previous comment that this notion of infallibility inside of Mormonism was not developed in a vacuum.
What about old men/prophets marrying young teenage girls? What about prophets teaching outright false doctrines? What about prophets not telling the truth repeatedly when it benefits them? At what point does behavior begin to overshadow the message? Would we accept the word of a man who has been known to lie repeatedly? Who is not transparent, open and honest? Are we alone responsible for deciding when a prophet is speaking as a man vs. speaking for God? I wish I could remember the last time a “prophet” said thus saith God. But, as we know that itself is not reliable because previous prophets have said thus saith God and been wrong. What is the purpose and what good is a prophet when he/she is unreliable?
Was the message of Christ really about needing a prophet? Or was it about coming to the throne of God without needing any intermediation other than himself?
I don’t know the answers to all of these questions, but I think the author has made it way too simplistic. Just because there is good in the church (i.e. the church is an iPad) does not mean it is God’s (iPad). On the other hand, just because there are imperfections in the church does not mean it is not God’s. The question to me is one of degrees. I guess each of us has to determine that for ourselves. But, I am tired of being belittled or seen as prideful for actually weighing the evidence and coming down on a different side of the fence from others who claim to be more righteous but lack the faith or will to confront and deal with the facts.
One of the things that for me is the most difficult is how the church has chosen to sweep many things under the rug, refuse to acknowledge them, or even completely ignore the issue as if it didnt happen (polyandry, polgamy, blacks and the priesthood, mountain meadow massacre, book of abraham issues, etc). Yes there is much information online that can be skewed or misrepresented, but there is a lot that is very much true. If I want to obtain a temple recommend one of the questions I have to answer is if I have been honest in my dealings with my fellow men. I fell on many levels that the church as an institution would be unable to answer this question honestly and would not qualify for its own temple recommend. I understand that humans make mistakes. It is not ok though to sweep them under the rug and just move on from them as if they didnt happen.
CRL,
I don’t want to speak on behalf of the author, but as he and I have had some private conversations, I feel somewhat comfortable in saying that he would concede to some of your points. Keep the following in mind:
1)Metaphor has its limits
2)This was a Sacrament Meeting talk. He went farther than I have ever heard anyone in a Sacrament Meeting talk in regards to the fallibility of prophets. The most anyone will hear over a Sacrament Meeting pulpit is the trope “they aren’t perfect”. Kelly actually pointed out a specific incident with B. Young and T. Marsh.
3)His talk was not supposed to be a treatise on the fallibility of our leaders and how to reconcile that fact with the understanding that we, as Mormons, believe they do speak at times for God; although he did give some valuable insights.
4)Shortly after I read Rough Stone Rolling 7 years ago and before I moved into the author’s ward, my father-in-law (who is also in the same ward) told me of a High Priest Group lesson that was taught by Kelly (the author). I was shocked by what I heard. My father-in-law stated that Kelly Andersen openly criticized (perhaps that language is too strong) B.H. Roberts’ History of the Church. It being too white-washed and in many instances a hagiography of our past leaders. He was comparing it to what Bushman had written.
Thanks for your thoughts and critique of Kelly’s talk. It is this type of open dialogue that is needed in our faith community.
This is most excellent!! Just loved it! Thank you so much, Kelly. I have an upcoming talk on a similar subject and would love to use some quotes from this if you don’t mind too much. 🙂
O, that I could replace every sacrament meeting talk on obedience with this one. Thank you.
I totally understand that church leaders are not perfect. I grew up in Salt Lake City and was very aware of the pride, arrogance, and harshness that many of the general authorities displayed when not smiling for the camera. I was just a young boy and yet could see the blatent hypocrisy without adults pointing it out to me. I believe, that if our leaders were truly humble servants of the Lord, they would behave differently.
First, they would not require that we “treat” them as if they are infallible. The old phrase “evil speaking of the Lord’s annointed” should be discarded and members should be allowed to voice concerns, reasonably, without fear of retribution.
Why does Lovina Anderson’s stake president require that she “admit” that the general authorities are “infallible” before she can be rebaptised?
When Brent Metcalfe was fired from his job at the LDS Church, Thomas Monson told Brent that Neal A. Maxwell and Mark E. Peterson got into a “shouting match” over the firing. Monson went on to “apologize without apologizing” saying that “we can’t apologize for anything that has happened because it involves an apostle, and we can never embarrass as apostle.” What? Postion over people?
About 5 years ago, a woman in our ward invited her father who was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy to come speak to us at our ward. My oldest son was of priesthood age so I was excited to have him come listen with me in priesthood. In short, this was one of the worst experiences I ever had at church.
He started out the meeting by totally trampling all over one of the sisters who wanted to make an announcement at the start of priesthood about an event coming up that week. I still remember his arrogant tone saying, Now, Mrs…. what’s her name? She can make the announcement later.” I guess his time was too precious to give up three minutes to a low life church member. His tone and arrogance only got worse through the talk. At one point he spent a good ten to fifteen minutes talking about the order in which Church members should exit a room when apostles are present. He closed the meeting, again, by joking that “Mrs. … now what was her name?” could give her announcement if she wanted. I was never so embarrassed for my son to behold such a spectacle.
I understand the concept of respect for our leaders and I think that is appropriate. But, the above behaviors I mentioned give me pause. It does not appear to me that our leaders consider themselves equal to the average Church members. In their eyes, they are better and should receive better treatment.
I understand that they have to maintain order and if anyone anywhere could express any thought they wanted, chaos would ensue. Ummm, not. There are plenty of examples of churches that have exciting constructive debate and maintain order.
Arghhh, hypocrisy is the one thing in this world that makes me so mad, I could go on and on. I really want to love these men, but they make it sooooo hard.
Bakirish (who ever you might be),
A few of your comments just don’t ring quite true. For example, what were women doing at a priesthood meeting? Why was the woman who wanted to make an announcement referred to as “Mrs.” instead of “sister”?
You’ve taken what appears to be one vague urban legend of a alleged member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, but haven’t told us his name, his daughter’s name, the ward where the event occurred, or the time when it occurred. You appear to have adapted it as a personal account, but several details in your post strongly suggest the event never happened–or at least that it didn’t happen to you.
How could you see all the arrogance you claim to have seen off camera? I somehow doubt that you have personally met or have first hand knowledge of any of the incidents you are quoting.
Instead, you base your rant upon unreliable “hearsay” evidence, such as the alleged fact the Lovina Anderson’s stake president requires that she admit general authorities are infallible. Who is the stake president who has said this? Where is you source of this rumor?
The same with the alleged incident involving Brent Metcalf, and the “shouting incident.” Cite your source so that we can check it out.
All you have shown in your post is a raging bitterness that is willing to rely upon the flimsy second or third hand hearsay rumors, and perhaps even “invented” incidents.
The source for the Lovina Anderson issue was Lovina Anderson in her writings about her attempts to be re-baptised.
The source for the Brent Metcalfe issue was Brent Metcalfe in his speech found at MormonStories.com “396: Kristine Haglund and Brent Metcalfe (2012 Seattle Conference).”
The source for the story about the “arrogant Seventy” is me. That is why I used “I”. I was there. I was the one that had to explain to my son why the guy was such a jerk.
The source for my early experiences with general authorities was me watching my parents interact with them. In SLC it is not uncommon to live in wards with GAs. I grant you that I may have, partially, been affected by my parent’s bias, but not fully. And, experiences I have had since with GAs back up what my parents experienced.
The sister that wanted to make an announcement in priesthood OPENING EXCERCISES meeting was simply wanting to tell the young men about an activity that was happening that week. Quite a normal occurrence.
You accuse me of a “rant” which I will grant you. I do not think they are the demi-gods that our culture makes them out to be. That is my right. I can be a good, card carrying, member without worshipping them. I thought that was what this entire article was about anyway.
When my bishop or stake president gives me a calling or invokes some facet of policy, I support them. However, I, personally, stay as far away as I can from all leaders above that level. For me, that is best.
I feel that you did not need to accuse me of being a “liar”… which is what you did. I am not spreading “rumors.” I am not passing along stories that I know did not happen. I was there.
See you in priesthood meeting… brother.
Wow, I just read your post again after posting my reply and you really laid into me with quite a “rant”.
First, it appears that it bothers you slightly that I use a pseudonym on these boards. Well, look around, pretty much everybody does. Why are you not attacking “C” below, “whoever she is,” for not totally identifying herself. Oh, yeah… because she gave a very benign, very Mormon post.
We live in a Mormon world, especially in Utah, that has not yet progressed out of the paranoid environment created by the early history of the Church. In my ultra conservative Utah County ward, any sign of “abnormality” is enough to get you, your wife, and your kids socially shunned. I view myself as a good member of the Church, but I certainly do not share mainstream cultural thoughts. I believe the Church will “grow up” eventually and dialogue will be better accepted. Until then, yes, it is very prudent to remain anonymous.
Do you really want me to name names in a forum like this? I can get my point across without telling you the exact ward, GAs name, time, and sister whose father he was. If I did that I believe you would then accuse me of going on a personal smear campaign. I could provide those details, but I do not think it is appropriate. Usually I am not accused of lies.
You brought up the fact that, in my post, I wrote “Mrs” instead of the more appropriate “Sister.” Yes, that was probably just an oversight on my part in relating the incident. The GA probably said “sister.” I don’t remember.
By the way, I was not the only ward member that was deeply disturbed by that incident. I had other ward members approach me after and express similar concerns.
I wish I had words to mollify you.
I believe that it is the relationships built within the family that are the most important. That is what I focus on. I believe that the relationship between an individual and the Church is secondary. However, I believe that the culture created, and allowed to persist, by the Church implies that an individual’s relationship with the Church is the most important thing.
Now don’t go all whiggy-whiggy on me yet. I know that the Church does not explicitly teach that. But, I believe that the result of their program, en-todo, produces people with that leaning. The worship of our leaders is one aspect of that inappropriate cultural dynamic. Hopefully, some day, we will put the role of the Church and our leaders into a proper perspective.
Thank you, Bishop Kelly Anderson, for sharing this. I am a life-long member of the church and I have experienced times of real distress coming to terms with some of the truths you addressed here.
There is a bridge that many people must cross at some point in their membership within the church. . . from the religion of childhood (innocent, ignorant belief in things like infallible leaders) to the faith of adulthood (understanding that none but Christ is perfect; leaders sometimes make big mistakes.) You approached a difficult subject with sensitivity and respect for both groups. I think with this talk you offer a generous hand to help your brothers and sisters in the crossing from there to here. Well done.
[Incidentally, I’ve never liked Brigham Young.]
Thank you so much for giving this talk and allowing Michael to post it on the blog. I really appreciate you giving actual examples and showing us that admitting someone has flaws does not mean we also can’t admire them for the good they do.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Oh my goodness, thank you. I see so much idol-worship toward the GAs around me. If a “famous” GA is coming to Stake Conference or something similar, my ward buzzes about it for weeks, with people breathlessly telling how they got to shake his hand afterward. It nauseates me, frankly. The idolatry is so deeply embedded that I don’t have any idea how to make people see it without being perceived as an apostate. This is a wonderful talk and I thank you for it.
“Roman Catholic doctrine proclaims the pope to be infallible, but most Catholics don’t really believe it; whereas Mormon doctrine rejects the idea of infallible leaders, but we Mormons refuse to accept that.” Keith Norman
In the interest of accuracy, per Vatical II the Catholics only hold the Pope to be infallible when he “proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals”. Your point still stands, but the Catholic church recognizes that even the Pope is speaking as a fallible man most of the time.
I want to address some concerns expressed above, especially Garrett’s comments about the church “sweeping things under the rug.”
History is a messy thing. It is often intentionally and sometime inadvertently distorted, and never perfect. For example, I grew up with the elementary school story of George Washington (“the father of our country”) having a hatchet and chopping down his father’s cherry tree, and when confronted he replies, “father, I did it; I cannot tell a lie.” Although the story is entirely fictitious and invented (as we now know) it served the purpose of inspiring young boys never to lie because George Washington never lied.
Later in life I learned things about Washington that shocked me. Did you know, for example, that when desertion from his tattered continental army became a serious problem, he had the ringleaders caught, and placed before a firing squad. Not just any firing squad, but a squad composed of the best friends of the young men about to be shot. When the order was given to fire, none of the condemned men were hit, since their friends on the firing squad had fired over their heads. Washington then ordered the young men on the firing squad to reload, and instructed that if they failed to shot to kill, they themselves would be included with the condemned men. This time each of the condemned men fell dead, shot by their best friends. After this sobering example of harsh military discipline, the problem of desertion ended. Why was I never told this as a child? Probably because my elementary school teachers didn’t know about it, and even if they had, they knew that I needed to believe something good about the father of our country.
Or consider this: As a lawyer, Abraham Lincoln, the “great emancipator,” once represented a slave holder seeking to compel the courts to return his “property” – a runaway slave. An acquaintance of Lincoln at the time remarked that Lincoln was a “case lawyer,” meaning he took cases on either side of an issue without regard to any particular “cause.” Why was I never told this as a child? Again, probably because my teachers didn’t know it, and once again they knew that I needed to believe good things about the great Lincoln.
Or, finally, consider Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration of Independence. It is now pretty clear that this “southern gentleman” had sexual relations with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, and probably fathered children by her. For years this has been denied, despite a growing avalanche of evidence, because this was simply “something that a southern gentleman would never do.” Why wasn’t I told about Sallly Hemings by my high school history teacher? Again, probably because he didn’t know it, and even if he had it just wasn’t something that needed to be discussed, considering all the good that Jefferson had done for hundreds of millions of people born to freedom in the United States and later throughout the entire world.
Have the leaders of the United States intentionally “swept these things under the rug?” Probably not. Although a few individuals living a generation after Washington or Jefferson or Lincoln might have known these unsavory and untidy details of history, most people–even in important governing positions–simply didn’t know. Knowledge possessed by a few people within an organization cannot necessarily be imputed to the entire institution. I doubt that John Adams or Alexander Hamilton knew that Jefferson had a slave mistress, or that Ulyss S. Grant knew that Lincoln in his past had used his legal talents to return a runaway slave. I further doubt that anyone beyond Washington’s lifetime knew of his brutal friend-upon-friend firing squad.
We want and even need to believe the best in all people, and so we institutionally adopt the memories we want to have. And soon the unsavory things are forgotten, having been airbrushed away by the passage of time. This is not unique to any one type of organization. Those composing the history of any organization struggling for survival do it, often subconsciously.
Added to the cauldron of untidy history is the fact that nearly all of the history we know occurred before Al Gore “took the initiative to invent the internet.”
Those critical of church history need to remember that it only takes a generation of neglecting to teach something before it fades from the minds of the rising generation. Since no organization wants to teach its negative history – especially when it is young and is still in survival mode – much of what we now known (courtesy of the internet) was not widely known even ten years ago.
And so it is very unfair to impose our internet based knowledge upon people from generations past and thereby assume that they knew all about everything and intentionally “swept it under the rug.” Today we have more knowledge available to us than ever before in the history of the world. We simply cannot impute this knowledge source to our fathers and grandfathers, in or out of the church.
There is now coming a time that issues of the past will have to be confronted, not only in the church but in all institutions. I trust that in time the church will own parts of its past, and that struggles with how to handle historical issues are even now being pondered and debated in the councils of the church.
But regardless of past events or our current knowledge of them, the question still remains: Do we through away all the good that an organization does because we discover mistakes of the past? Should we renounce our U.S. Citizenship because Jefferson committed adultery, or Washington had young men shot by their best friends, or Lincoln was not always an emancipator? No, of course not. We enjoy the blessings of independence and freedom achieved by Washington and Jefferson, and the equality of men achieved by Lincoln, despite their faults, and despite the fact that history is not tidy and much of what we know today was not widely known to those who taught us in our public schools.
The US Government, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson did not profess to be the one and only mouthpiece for God on the earth. They did not hold themselves up as a “shining light” unto the world.
But most of all, they did not require 10% of their follower’s income, they did not make their followers promise to give 100% of their time and resources as soon as the command might be given, they did not require unquestioned obedience, and they never threatened the eternal life nor the immortal soul of individuals if they failed to obey.
I am expected to uphold higher standards as a member of the Church. I expect the same in return.
In regards to historical accuracy, the Church has not been honest as defined by their own definition of honesty that they require I follow in order to see my daughter get married.
We have a beautiful museum in Salt Lake City just west of Temple Square. Why are the Book of Abraham papyri not on display there? Why is Joseph Smith’s peep stone not on display there?
Is it because the papyri need a controlled environment? No. There are many examples of similar documents being successfully displayed. Can being in a display case hurt a rock? Is it because it is too expensive to display them: proper environmental conditions, security? Oh, please don’t even try to play the “expensive” card. Can you say “City Creek?”
If you go to the museum what will you find? Yip, that tried and true marketing theme that the Church has used as a crutch for years: Pioneers. Oh, the world was so mean to us. Look how wonderful and pure these poor people were. They did nothing to merit this horrible treatment. Deflect, deflect, deflect.
The fundamental reason the church does not display these items is because they do not want members asking questions about them. That is the type of suppression that we are talking about.
Once in a blue moon we will get an article in a Church publication that mentions something “controversial.” But these are few and far between. The incessant droning of “follow the prophet,” “the Church is true,” “my Pioneer ancestors” all quickly overshadow the small blurbs.
As I was driving into work this morning I was listening to KSL and heard an advertisement for the new book, “L. Tom Perry, An Uncommon Life”. This brings to mind an equally embarrassing title, “To The Rescue: The Biography of Thomas S. Monson”
Just a little more marketing to remind us red necks how “common” our lives are and how much we need “rescuing” by those whose “minds are immeasurably superior to our own.” (A shout out to Doug Wright for a little gem of a phrase.)
I would venture to say that some of the passionate responses were not quite what this author had imagined. Yes, it was a well thought-out, well researched, finely worded article from someone who is clearly well read, but here are my two (or maybe ten) cents:
1. The title was terribly misleading. I only read it because I naively thought that I really was going to find something of use towards being spiritually prepared for conference today. Mmm…nope.
2. If this had been given in my Sacrament Meeting, I would have been disappointed. Though entertaining and interesting, it lacked in increasing my love for and understanding of the Savior. I did not feel the Spirit in this address. Maybe I just had to have been there…
3. I am going to take a leap and venture to guess that the impassioned responses of some of the readers here may have actually upset the author who wasn’t expecting such dissension. What was meant to be informative and perhaps a smug sharing of historical excavating, instead added only more doubts and concerns to several readers here who already struggle with much of anything related to the LDS Church. Oops.
4. I will admit that I used to love to analyze and question much of everything only to find that obedience, not blind, but purely out of love for Christ IS where it’s at. It has made all of the questions that I’ve had (and still don’t have answers to) fall waaaaaay off of my radar. They don’t matter anymore.
5. If you really want some GC prep, here’s a sure solution: take a tithing of your day. Literally take the very first minutes of each day and start it off with private prayer and scripture study. Get outside and ponder. Don’t even bother checking your phone for msgs. Give God your undivided attention in the morning, take in the wonder of the morning sun, and things in your life will fall in place. I promise.
Happy General Conference wknd. to you all.
Wow, I am quite nearly speechless. What an impressive talk. The entire church would’ve benefited by it being the first address of the first session of conference. Elder Holland played in these same waters in his Sunday afternoon conference address, though he was just wadding compared to this talk that was swimming.
Thank you for posting this, and my compliments to the speaker – it is one thing to prepare such an essay it is quite another to deliver it in a Sacrament meeting as a Stake High Councilor.
I am incredibly curious to know what the reaction was, both generally as well as individual comments. Were there repeated gasps of shock during the delivery? I might have found it impossible to resist applauding at the conclusion had I been there.