Mormonism and authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details. |
 |
Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
To a higher degree than most Christian denominations, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints invests its leadership hierarchy with a great deal of spiritual, ideological, and factual authority, because the leading councils of the Church are sustained and believed to be "prophets, seers, and revelators" when they are acting unitedly as such.
Critics of the Church charge that it is unreasonably authoritarian. They claim that the Church's leaders:
- engage in censorship and historical revisionism of negative incidents in Church history such as suppressing free speech in the Nauvoo Expositor incident
- Give the priesthood only to men, and practiced Plural Marriage (discontinued 1890).
- Exercise improper or undue influence on politics to resist homosexual marriage, gambling, abortion, etc.
- Are dogmatic and inflexible
- Encourage a culture of unthinking conformity
- Punitively excommunicate scholars who disagree with or criticize Church doctrine or practices
Some mainstream Christians contend that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comprising most of Mormonism, is a “dangerous organization” with an “excessively authoritarian leadership” and is “overly demanding” of its adherents. American evangelical Christians in particular, accustomed to decentralized churches and often subscribing to the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers, are wary of the combination of: 1) the Church’s centrally led hierarchal organization; and 2) the teaching in the Church that “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.” (Lectures on Faith, Lecture Sixth, paragraph 7.)
By the ambiguous use of “dangerous,” it is presumed that critics may intend to foster a fear that the Church of Jesus Christ poses a significant risk of controlling the world or its membership with violence, the threat of violence, or the use of the Church’s significant finances to exert political and social influence and control. Many of these critics point to politically influential Church members (Ezra Taft Benson, who was both President of the Church and a U.S. Cabinet official, is one such example) as being a sign of the Church’s extensive influence; critics often argue that the Church, whose members hold most public offices in the state of Utah, is attempting to codify Church beliefs into civil law. Understandably, nonmembers of the Church in Utah may feel marginalized and dominated by the governmental influence the Church is able to exert through public meetings and personal relationships between Church and governmental leaders.
In regard to violence, critics point to the early Utah period of the Church, when they claim this combination—together with the effects of isolation, provocation, and decades of persecution from other so-called Christians—fostered a climate allowing for the Mountain Meadows Massacre (which was carried out in large part by “Mormons”) and what critics consider to be polygamist excesses. However, Church doctrine specifically denounces any aggressiveness of the Latter-day Saints to take over land, etc., in order to “redeem Zion.” Early Latter-day Saint history does show that Church members were willing to use violence as a means to defend land, family or religion (whether in response to legitimate evidence or as a result of incorrect perceptions), but given modern communication methods and the clear teachings of the Church regarding not controlling conscience (see D. & C. 134:4-5), it is highly unlikely that such a tragedy could happen today. .
To many members of the Church of Jesus Christ, the charge of being "dangerous" is viewed as name-calling based on naive and unfortunate misunderstandings of Latter-day Saint theology and culture. While most Latter-day Saints are not pacifists, they are certainly not violent jihadists, nor was any such belief ever taught by Church leaders; nor do its faithful members or leaders harbor hidden intentions to control the world or its membership with violence, the threat of violence, or any other immoral influence.[1] They consistently teach and apply the teachings of obeying, honoring, and sustaining the laws of the land which are constitutional (D & C 134:5-8, D & C 98:4,5). Joseph Smith, Jr., also taught the Saints to “renounce war and proclaim peace.” (D. & C. 98:16)
With respect to politics and religion, when circumstances warrant it, the First Presidency occasionally directs its local leaders to read aloud its letters to congregants at its regular Sunday meetings to remind members that the Church of Jesus Christ does not endorse any political party or candidate and that no member should suggest that the Church does do so even if, for example, a political candidate is a member of the Church. Occasionally leaders of the Church take positions on moral issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage or gambling, and encourage its members to be politically active; but leaders try to steer the Church away from formally participating in the political process. Improper political activity would also jeopardize the Church’s standing with the IRS as a charitable organization defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
With respect to government and religion, from the beginning of the Latter-day Saint movement to the present, Church members from the United States (about half of the Latter-day Saints reside in the United States) believe their adherents have proven to be fervently patriotic about the “inspired” form of government they feel barely made it possible for the Church of Jesus Christ to arise, survive and thrive. Although the Latter-day Saint tolerance for submission to earthly sovereigns is expressed in the Twelfth Article of Faith, they highly admire democratic forms of government such as the United States for the individual freedoms which they protect. While the Saints anticipate that Jesus Christ will sometime reign over the earth in a theocracy, and while leaders of the Church attempted to establish a theocracy which was compatible with a democratic government in the early Utah period, this does not diminish the respect members of the Church have for a democratic government.
Regardless of any Christian’s level of devotion to democracy, it is arguable whether democracy and decentralization of a religious organization should be vital to the healthy perpetuation of that religion. The ongoing denominationalism may be precisely attributed in part to the democratization and decentralization of Protestant and other religions as these groups splinter further and further. The Latter-day Saint canon states that “God’s house is a house of order.” In one respect this scripture means that although each person is privileged to a personal relationship with deity, in terms of a formal organization which officially represents and acts in the name of deity, that organization is headed by God alone; God reveals religious principles to prophets whom he authorizes to speak in his behalf. Prophets, apostles and revelation, not democratically-run ecumenical councils, are fundamental themes in the Bible. To Latter-day Saints the hierarchal organization of the Church of Jesus Christ is a model which follows the same organizational form of the early Christian Church “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20).
Latter-day Saints do not dispute the difficulty in meeting the Church expectations of those members who accept said expectations: that if called upon, they must do whatever they are required by God to do, just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac. As Jesus said in Luke 14:33, “whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.“ To Church members, the principle that “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” is met by answering to the demands of the formal organization which members feel has been established by God: the Church of Jesus Christ. While in practice, Latter-day Saints may not actually be called upon to consecrate everything they are and have to build up the Church, in theory they must be willing to do so.
The fact that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac has very much to do with his faith in the true doctrine of the resurrection of all men, and in God’s ability to resurrect his son just as Christ would be resurrected. (Hebrews 11:19) The more one studies the consistent teachings of Church leaders regarding the question of obedience, the more one can be assured that Latter-day Saints are urged to study issues out in their own minds and by studying the scriptures thoroughly. Some who are not members of the Church may, however, surmise that there is a sort of blind obedience when Church members they know may seem to choose not to study issues in detail when an official Church position has been expressed.
[edit] Priesthood Authority
No article about the beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ, as relates to use of authority, is complete without reference to the following statement written by Joseph Smith, Jr., while he, his brother Hyrum, and other close friends were incarcerated for months in inhumane conditions under trumped up charges in Liberty, Missouri, in 1839: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—...Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith...” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:41,42,45)
This teaching is emphasized at every level of Church councils, including parenthood and the home, by the leadership and instruction manuals of the Church.
[edit] Notes
- ^ The fear of a fervent religious body using violent means to extinguish opposing viewpoints may arise from a misunderstanding of God’s dealings with the children of Israel in the times of Joshua and Saul. Joseph Fielding Smith explained in Doctrines of Salvation (1956), Vol. 3, Ch. 5 that God wanted to establish a higher law among the children of Israel, but they were not ready for it, and were very susceptible to the religious influences and cultural domination of surrounding groups, as evidenced by many repeated declines in adherence to the teachings of Moses as the tribes of Israel established themselves as a culture but soon adopted practices of other cultures. (Books of Exodus, Joshua and 1 Samuel) A much different example is shown in God’s dealings with the people who followed Enoch and helped build a city of Zion. This group was under God’s higher law because they were ready for it, and in the strength of that higher law they were able to defend themselves both physically when needed and culturally, establishing a place of refuge from the world around them. (Moses 7:1-21) Joseph Fielding Smith taught that the religion’s adherents are asked to live the “higher law,” and that they are encouraged to follow the pattern of the city of Enoch in establishing Zion as a place of refuge from the wicked. “Go ye out from among the wicked.” (D. & C. 38:42) (See Smith, Joseph Fielding, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, Vol. 3, Ch. 5)
