Tag: opinion polls

Knowledge and Indifference

Should the study of church history be limited to the superficial, faith-promoting summaries given through the “official” church publications? Doesn’t that risk accurate histories being tools used by the critics against the church? Should the church accept members who choose to believe in the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith? Who believe in the Book of Mormon, and other scriptures that came through Joseph? Who believe in God’s purposes in starting a new dispensation of the Gospel? Who also recognize the course the saints pursued in the past and are pursuing at present with the restoration has been neglectful, even harmful?

One of our great non-Mormon friends is Harold Bloom. He has written about Joseph Smith and his authentic revelations. He has heaped praise on Joseph’s ability to restore lost ancient, First-Temple era teachings. Yet as an astute observer of Mormonism he has recently written about his complete disappointment with Mormonism, and how badly it has changed in a few short years. He is not being unkind. He has honestly assessed the many radical changes underway with the restored church in the last few years. Since he does not feel any emotional need to defend the church, and is therefore free to give his candid views, his assessment represents an honest way to view the radical alterations currently happening with Mormonism.

If Mormonism is limited to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and for the most part it is), then the recent changes and radical innovations are so dramatic that our largest denomination now runs the risk of following in the steps of the second-largest “Mormon” denomination. The Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is now just another quasi-Protestant faith bearing almost no resemblance to the movement begun through Joseph.

How much study should be given to the history of the restoration? How carefully should Joseph’s teachings be preserved, studied and followed? When the Lord commanded us to “give heed to all his [meaning Joseph Smith] words and commandments” to what extent are we justified in forgetting his words and teachings? (See D&C 21: 1-6.) In the commandment, Joseph is identified in these words: “thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ[.]” (Id. v. 1, emphasis added.) We know Joseph was called “through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ” because we have the records before us. For example, Joseph witnessed the Father and Son appearing to him in the Spring of 1820. (JS-H 1: 17.) Again on the 16th of February 1832 Joseph saw the Father and Son. (D&C 76: 20-24.) The description and explanation of why we should “give heed” to Joseph’s words are set out in both scripture and history. Therefore it makes perfect sense we should pay careful attention to them. Subsequent office holders had no similar experiences. (I’ve covered President Brigham Young’s statements about never seeing angels or Christ or the Father in my last book. President Grant thought it was dangerous to encounter such spiritual experiences because they might lead to apostasy. Therefore, he never asked for them, and never experienced them.)

On the other hand, current Mormonism as practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has shied away from its history, abandoned many of Joseph Smith’s key teachings, altered some of the most important ordinances restored through him, and so heavily edited the latest study guide on his teachings that the results sometimes contradict what he originally said. I have a friend who has compiled a list of abandoned teachings of Joseph Smith. The list is now nearly two-hundred separate items long. This friend retains his believe in Joseph, the Book of Mormon, other restored scriptures, and in Jesus Christ. But he is alarmed by and alienated from the church. I think his approach in voluntarily withdrawing from fellowship is wrong. I think he has a duty to remain in fellowship with the saints. But what happens as shifting demographics lead to changes such as open acceptance of homosexual marriages? The leadership model implemented during Gordon B. Hinckley’s long tenure in leadership (which began long before he was president) uses opinion polling to guide decision-making. Using the current format, the church is helpless to resist changing public opinion trends.

The church draws leadership from successful internal leader-pools. Young bishops become high councilors and stake presidents. Those with wealth and business acumen become mission presidents. Before long a resume of church service attracts higher office and such men are called as a general authorities. These men are drawn from business, law, banking, education and government. Oftentimes their business acumen is the overwhelming forte’ and their knowledge of the church’s history and doctrine are lacking. In fact, knowledge of doctrine and history is not required for higher church office. (If you study the history and journals, you will find there are those who didn’t even believe in the Gospel who were called to be members of the Twelve. They were great businessmen, and the church’s many assets and interests required that talent.)

Oftentimes the reality is that leaders know far less about the religion than members who have devoted themselves to studying the Gospel and the church’s history. The results are sometimes interesting, because doctrinal or historic errors are made by those we sustain as our leaders. How big an issue this becomes for some very devoted believers is up to each individual. I choose to cover their shortcomings with charity, and to remember how difficult a challenge it is to manage a 14 million-member all-volunteer organization spanning cultures and languages across most of the world. But that does not mean their mistakes go unnoticed, just that I accept human-limitations as inevitable. There is a difference between not knowing something and being indifferent to it. I try to keep that in mind.

The arm of flesh

When the church commissions an opinion poll and then, as a result of that poll, concludes that some program or position is popular, or would be accepted by the Saints without complaint – and then adopt that position in a public statement – has a “revelation” been received? I do not think so. I think an opinion has been obtained, and a policy or statement has been adopted. Therefore, I do not think there is one thing wrong with disagreeing with the policy or statement.

When the church endorses something or some position, I do not think it is right to simply “fall in line” behind the statement without also thinking the same issue through and reaching my own conclusion. The first question I ask myself is what the statement is, and does it imply a revelation from the Lord.

I can think of two examples. One was a public announcement that was heralded in the press. The other was the subject of a letter from the First Presidency read in sacrament meetings.

The public announcement was regarding the housing and employment of homosexuals in Salt Lake City, using the force of government sanction to prevent an employer or owner of property from refusing to grant equal access or rights to homosexuals. I’ve previously commented here in a critical way about that announcement. This is an example of how I view things.

Since the church’s position on the matter had absolutely nothing to do with revelation, and the church did not make any attempt to claim the position came through revelation, I do not believe it is immune from question or criticism. Indeed, the defense of the policy to the press involved a public relations/opinion poll driven justification. It was expected to “resonate on the basis of fairness” with all those in the middle, and only offend those at the two ends of the spectrum. This is opinion gathering to inform a position, then announcing the position because of the results of opinion gathering. It is what a politician or a marketing firm would do. It is not at all akin to a revelation, and should not command my respect. I am under no obligation to alter my view based on what the church’s opinion gathering has concluded. If that were the case, then the church’s ability to control everyone’s thinking would be based only upon prevailing opinion at the moment. This is the “tossed about by every wind” concern which Paul addressed in one of his letters. (Eph. 4: 14.) Shifting opinion is not revelation. I am free to point it out, disagree with it, and explain my contrary view.

Another example is the letter from the First Presidency asking speakers in sacrament meetings to no longer ask those in attendance to open their scriptures. No explanation was provided in the letter. It was just an instruction to the Saints to no longer let sacrament meeting speakers tell those in the meeting to open their scriptures and read along. Perhaps it was as a result of someone being irritated by the noise of rustling scriptures. Perhaps it was someone with a hearing aid, whose aid frequency was tuned to pick up the rustling so well that it drowned out the rest of the speaker’s voice. Perhaps it was because the meeting got delayed and disrupted by the folks struggling to find their scriptures, and open them up to the relevant page. I can’t say for certain. But I did raise my eyebrows when the letter was read in advance to the High Council.

My candid reaction to that letter was that it diminished the office of those who signed the letter by the petty micro-managing of opening the scriptures during a sacrament gathering. I wondered in amazement that someone in the Church Office Building got the First Presidency to sign such a letter. I wondered at how, with all that threatens us today, opening scriptures in order to read along in sacrament meetings managed to become so important that the First Presidency would write and send a letter worldwide to be read in the stakes and wards. It was perplexity on stilts.

Beyond that my approach has been twofold: First, I have NEVER asked anyone to open their scriptures in a sacrament meeting since then. However, I have said in talks during sacrament that “I cannot ask you to open your scriptures and read along” in order to call attention to the policy. I have also said, when teaching outside of sacrament meetings, that I was free to ask them to read along in their scriptures “because we are not in a sacrament meeting.” I do this to call attention to the policy. I think to call attention to it is to cause people to wonder at the pettiness and inconsequential nature of a letter from the First Presidency addressing the opening of scriptures in sacrament meeting.

These are just two examples. There are many. As I have said before, I pay very close attention to the church, what is said and done, and how relevant or irrelevant some position, letter, emphasis or program is in an absolute sense. I try to take it all in and reach my own conclusions. Looking at it all, I am quite concerned. Faithful, tithe paying and active, nevertheless quite concerned.

I believe if enough people were similarly concerned that eventually the “opinion polling” might obtain reasonable results. That is, the top would hear about reasonable concerns and learn of reasonable opinions, and then promulgate policies and send out statements accordingly. That, however, will require a great effort to call attention to the things that matter most, and clarity in pointing out the things that do not matter at all. We fret over trifles while things are burning down all around us. I wonder how long it will take for the polling to inform the Saints of the fire burning around them.

Disgraced

Both the Republican leaders of the Utah Legislative Senate and House were forced to resign this year. The Senate leader because of a DUI. The Representative leader because of a sexual relationship with a minor many years ago, which he paid $150,000 campaign money to buy her silence. In connection with the latter scandal, the church-owned Deseret News was aware of the sexual misconduct eight years ago, but kept silent until other news of the matter became public.

The problem with any political machine owning a state is the same everywhere. It really does not matter if that machine controls the city of Chicago or the State of Utah, the result is the same. People do “favors” for the insiders, and the public suffers as a result.

Utah’s reputation as “the reddest of red states” is well deserved. The competition to fill these seats for the two involved in the scandals is internal to the Republican Party. The result of doing so will not be unlike what has long been the case here in Utah, where only one side controls everything.

Both of these men were Latter-day Saints. They are victims of the corrupt political domination every bit as much as the public has been. Without a healthy opposition party, there is no real check upon misbehavior and excesses.

I’ve always thought that opposing views and people speaking their mind is healthy. Without some criticism of a person’s plans and ideas you simply get a chorus of “yes men” chanting how inspired or worthy or good all ideas are, no matter how flawed or foolish. Utah’s two fallen leaders are “family men,” one of whom was known as a champion of “family values.” It’s almost as if he had shopped with focus groups to know what words to use to get elected, without any regard to what was within his heart.

Now is the great day of opinion polling and focus group directed marketing, in which the substance of any group of political leaders is always hidden behind the carefully crafted message intended to market image. Indeed, image is everything in this day of deceit.

So, choose your leaders carefully. They will all sound the same. It will not be the vocabulary which will distinguish the evil and corrupt from the true and good. It will only be what lies within them that will differ.