LDS Church Reiterates "No Criticism" Policy

The LDS church, in response to the article published in the Salt Lake Tribune about Peter and Mary Danzig, issued a press release yesterday reiterating the church's strict zero tolerance policy for members who criticize church leaders.  The full text of the press release appears after the jump.  The gist is that the church did no wrong and that Danzig was wrong to send the letter and express his views on the subject.  The doublespeak evident in the press release is interesting: members can question and dig and come to their own conclusions, but cannot express those views publicly if they differ from what church leaders think.  At the same time, the church says members were free to write their senators and express their views on the marriage amendment, but that the church didn't tell them what those views had to be.

The press release also erroneously ascribes an error to the Tribune's reporting by wrongly stating that the article said Danzig suffered official church discipline.  The article does not say that, but does use the generic term "discipline."  Danzig lost his place in the orchestra, was summoned numerous times for interrogations by church leaders, and was told he would be excommunicated.  For the church to say he wasn't "disciplined" is disingenuous. 

It appears that people can leave the church, but the church can't leave people alone.

SALT LAKE CITY 24 February 2008 Church leaders are always saddened when an individual, whether through his or her actions or personal choices, decides to leave the Church.  A welcoming hand of fellowship is always extended to those who wish to return at anytime. 

Every organization, religious or secular, has to determine where its boundaries begin and where they end. The Apostle Paul said that the original Church was organized to help members to be “no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14)

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study, learn and ask questions in their quest for knowledge.  Gordon B. Hinckley, 15^th president of the Church said:  “This Church came about as a result of intellectual curiosity. We believe in education … we expect them (Church members) to think. We expect them to investigate. We expect them to use their minds and dig deeply for knowledge in all fields.” 

However, it is not acceptable when their digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold.  That doesn’t mean that Church leaders don’t listen and consider opposing views.  Quite the contrary.  Local bishops and stake presidents (congregational leaders) love and are concerned about all members of the flock.  This is the purpose of counseling provided by local Church leaders who know and care for each individual in their congregations. 

Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church. When disagreements arise, the principle of the Church is that local leaders discuss these matters with members with love and concern.  This was the case with Peter Danzig. 

On 23 February 2008 The Salt Lake Tribune posted an article about Mr. Danzig who was a member of the Church’s Orchestra at Temple Square.  According to the story, in June of 2006 Mr. Danzig published a letter-to-the-editor in the Tribune (and letters in other local newspapers) encouraging members to oppose Church leaders on the issue of same gender marriage.   

In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he “was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ." In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment. 

Initially Orchestra leaders met with Mr. Danzig to see if his public advocacy of this issue could be reconciled.  Finding no resolution, they contacted the Office of the First Presidency, and were instructed to refer the matter to Mr. Danzig’s local Church leaders, as Church protocol requires.  Mr. Danzig was asked to take a leave of absence from the orchestra until the matter had been resolved. 

For more than a year and a half, Mr. Danzig counseled with his local bishop and stake president regarding same gender marriage and other Church doctrines.  Unfortunately he was not able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate.      

In December 2007, Mr. Danzig voluntarily withdrew his membership in the Church by his own formal written request.  He was not officially disciplined by the Church as the Tribune article indicated. 

The Church normally keeps this type of communication confidential.  However, the Church felt compelled to defend its position when Mr. Danzig made this information public and because of the blatant, inappropriate editorializing by the Salt Lake Tribune in what was purported to be a news story.

Comments

[MoHoHawaii]

I find this story amazing. The church's press release has a very defensive, hostile tone. The organization is clearly not used to dealing with any kind of criticism.

But the most remarkable part of this is that the leadership doesn't seem to understand the difference between the political and the doctrinal.

This may change with the passing of the torch from Hinkley to Monson. Gordon Hinckley was one of the central figures pushing the church into increased political activity.

[Larry P.]

"It appears that people can leave the church, but the church can't leave people alone."

Hilarious. LOL X 10.

[SML]

Interesting the Church feels the Tribune exibited "inappropriate editorializing." That's pretty funny. The Trib is free to editorialize whatever it wishes to, just as the Church does in all of its publications and magazines.

And it's no secret exactly what position the church was advocating when it encouraged its members to write to their senators. There is no doubt they were NOT promoting the freedom of gay people to enjoy same-sex marital rights.

[cowboy]

You might find some interesting comments on www.exgaywatch.com and the comments revolving around the life of the late President G. B. Hinckley.

The basic topic is: How do the gay Mormons exist in the LDS Church.

[Craig]

Wait, so Danzig opposed the church leaders by supporting gay marriage, but the church leaders only asked us to voice our opinions on the gay marriage ban, and didn't actually oppose it? So how, then, exactly, was he opposing the church leaders. Logically, opposing the church leaders on this issue would have been to encourage people to not contact their government representatives.

It was quite clear to just about everyone what viewpoint the church expected its members to communicate to their senators. Pretending otherwise is just childish, and insulting to our intelligence.

The letter itself states, "We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship,"

So come on! How dumb do they think we are? The church was obviously telling us to openly oppose gay marriage - so why now is the church pretending it didn't? So it can look like the innocent victim, yet again.

They want it both ways - Danzig opposed the church, and the church only asked us to express our opinions, and does not tell us what that opinion ought to be. (HA!)

If the church only wanted expressions of opinions, then Danzig was perfectly in line with what the church wanted. If the church was actively opposing gay marriage, then he was opposing the church's stance.

The evidence the church gives as Danzig "encouraging members to oppose Church leaders on the issue of same gender marriage" is part of Danzig's letter where he wrote:

"I was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ."

How is that "encouraging members to oppose church leaders"? He was voicing his own personal opinion, not advocating others adhere to it.

It really surprises me that the church would be so sloppy in this matter. They really haven't a leg to stand on.

[NFlanders]

Wow, I'm glad you copied the text of the press release because if I were in the Church PR department, I'd send it down the memory hole as quickly as possible.

How embarrassing. As Craig points out, it doesn't even make sense.

Check out this sentence of curious workmanship: "However, it is not acceptable when their digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold." What is the doctrine in this case that Church leaders are obliged to uphold? That gay marriage should be illegal? That's a doctrine?Can we get that in writing so as to avoid arguments in fifty years when apologists will claim that the anti-gay positions of the Church were just the Prophets speaking as men?

[Lincoln]

It looks like Monson is already in over his head.

[belaja]

He's in over his head or else he hasn't firmly grasped the reins yet.

[P. K. Andersen]

Your headline refers to the LDS Church's "No Criticism" policy. Why the quotes? Is there actually a Church policy of that name?

[belaja]

That's obviously a shorthand for the mandate, publicly stated from the General Conference pulpit, by at least one apostle (Dallin Oaks), that members must not criticize the church or church authorities, "even if the criticism is true."

As you are no doubt already aware, no church policy per se has an actual official name.

[P. K. Andersen]

Scare quotes do not enhance one's credibility. Nor do references to nonexistent "zero tolerance" policies.

As for Elder Oak's comment about criticism, you should at least quote him in context:

"One who focuses on faults, though they be true, tears down a brother or a sister. The virtues of patience, brotherly kindness, mutual respect, loyalty, and good manners all rest to some degree on the principle that even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it to any and all persons at any and all times." (Ensign, Feb. 1987, p. 68)

That seems reasonable to me.

[Equality]

P.K.,

The quotation marks were not really intended to scare anyone. I am sorry if you were frightened by them. I simply gave a name to the policy, as belaja pointed out. You will often see titles of things set off in quotation marks. I think the Danzig story itself (along with the Nielsen story) stands as evidence for the existence of a "zero tolerance" policy on the part of the LDS church when it comes to dissent or criticism of the Brethren. I have seen other defenders of the church defend what I have called the "zero tolerance" policy, arguing that it is necessary and reasonable. You seem to also want to defend the policy while simultaneously arguing that it does not exist.

[Craig]

P. K. Andersen: What you quoted from Dallin Oaks was talking about how to treat local members, not questioning the authority of the church leadership, which is what the others are referring to.

In many places, including the recent PBS documentary, he has reiterated the church's stance that "it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true". He also says in that interview:

"In relation to history, I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history. In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful."

As if truth were relative and if sharing the truth about something regarding the church or a church leader could possible make it or them look bad then we should ignore it. How insane is that?!

Here is the link to that interview:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f11cb868474e3110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

[Larry P.]

Other authorities have said that Equality is a habitual offender of "quotation marks."

[P. K. Andersen]

Scare quotes do not necessarily frighten anyone. The term applies to quotation marks that are used (or misused) to denote something other than a direct quotation. Often such quotes are used to put words in other peoples' mouths.

That said, I would disagree with your use of "zero tolerance," which describes a strict, even non-discretionary enforcement policy. LDS Church discipline does not operate that way: local leaders have considerable latitude to decide cases. Indeed, I have heard complaints that some leaders are strict where others are lax.

My experience is that most bishops and stake presidents try to do what is best to save the soul of the sinner, to protect the innocent, and to preserve the good name of the Church. No doubt they make mistakes. (They are only human.) However, nothing I have read would lead me to think that the local leaders erred in the Danzig case.

[P. K. Andersen]

Craig,

Perhaps you have in mind a different article. The one I quoted begins, "I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members." (Ensign, Feb. 1987).

You are right that the paragraph I quoted does refer to criticism of the members. But that is entirely appropriate: We should show the same consideration to our fellow church members as to our leaders. After all, in a church having a lay minstry, the leaders are just members who are serving temporarily in leadership positions.

I have found that personal critcism of Church members does little good and much harm. That is true whatever position the member may hold in the Church.

[Equality]

P.K.,

You are right. The title of my post refers to a "no criticism" policy, not a "zero tolerance" policy. The former is an accurate description of the church's position, I think. The latter is not, as the level of tolerance for criticism does, indeed, vary from ward to ward and state to stake. Thanks for pointing out my error.

[tiredmormon]

Uh...maybe locals are lay, but the uppers (above SP) are not. So does that mean you agree with criticizing the uppers?

And PK, you make it sound as though local leaders have the only hand in church discipline. According the article, and countless stories (including DMQ), the first presidency is not shy about telling local leaders to hold a disciplinary council.

[NFlanders]

Quick, someone tell Boyd Packer and Dallin Oaks that they're "serving temporarily in leadership positions."

Won't they be surprised!

[Craig]

P.K., no, I don't have a different article in mind. I didn't go and read the whole article you quoted from, so how am I supposed to know how the article begins? You shouldn't leave out information that shows how your argument pertains to the conversation, it just confuses the issue. I pointed out that your response didn't seem to pertain to the issue at hand - criticising church leaders. In light of that, I then gave an example of an instance (of which there are many) where Dallin Oaks talked about this very issue.

I also fail to see how pointing out problems that are causing harm and damage in the church is negative. It is one thing to point out faults in individuals (especially when those individuals do not have such great power and authority over others). Church leaders have the power to destroy others' lives if they do not act appropriately, and so I think it is quite necessary for the members of the church to be able to point out when abuses of power and authority are taking place - in order to safeguard the church as a whole, as well as the rights of individual members.

You say, "I have found that personal critcism of Church members does little good and much harm. That is true whatever position the member may hold in the Church."

So what are we supposed to do when we see a problem, a serious issue in the church? Sit back and do/say nothing? Allow others to walk all over us and treat us and others shamefully? Is that really what God wants? Whether you agree with him or not, all Peter Danzing was doing was standing up for what he truly believed to be right, and true. He wasn't trying to tear anyone down, but speak out and call attention to something he saw as destructive, damaging, and ungodly, and un-Christlike. I see nothing wrong with those motivations.

I also disagree with you, in that I believe the church leaders, both local and general, did err in the case of the Danzigs. It seems you believe, (and I am making an assumption here), that church leaders are always in the right (even when they're wrong), and that members have no place voicing their concerns. In my opinion, that is a terribly dangerous way to run any organisation, even a church that claims to speak with and for God. If leaders have no accountability to the membership, then that allows all sorts of abuses of power by clearly imperfect and very human men (and a very few women).

That scares me. Even if they are accountable to God, that is no guarantee that they won't (and in my opinion have) do things that are wrong and cause damage and hurt to others.

[P. K. Andersen]

tiredmormon,

Is a general authority less deserving of respect than a bishop or stake president—or, for that matter, a Primary teacher or Scoutmaster?

As you note, the general authorities may direct a bishop or stake president to hold a disciplinary council. It is entirely within their authority to do so.

[Equality]

P.K.,

Are Peter and Mary Danzig less deserving of respect than Dallin Oaks or Boyd Packer?

[P. K. Andersen]

Equality,

Have I said anything disrespectful about the Danzigs? I certainly have not called them names or questioned their motives.

Nor have the Church leaders been publicly disrespectful toward the Danzigs. We would not be having this conversation if the Danzigs themselves had not decided to tell their story to the press.

[P. K. Andersen]

Craig,

An honest disagreement is one thing. I do not hesitate to express my opinion whenever I think it will do some good.

But personal attacks on someone's good name are beyond the pale. For instance, accusing Church leaders of "intellectual tyranny" crosses over the line.

And no, I do not believe that Church leaders are always in the right. Anyone who has spent much time in the Church knows better. Most of the leaders I have known have been decent and conscientious, but even the best make mistakes.

You may be right that Mr. Danzig was only "standing up for what he truly believed to be right, and true." Would you agree that the same could be said of the leaders of the Church?

[Craig]

P.K.

It is quite possible, even probable, that Danzig thought his comment would do some, even perhaps substantial good. I happen to agree with Danzig's accusation of intellectual tyrrany, so there's probably not much common ground to be won there.

This is a murky subject where clear right and wrong aren't readily apparent. However, I think the difference is that the church overreacted to Danzig's comment. It in effect forced him out of the church - and that sort of a reaction was far, far in excess of what he did.

"And no, I do not believe that Church leaders are always in the right. Anyone who has spent much time in the Church knows better."

If only that were truly the case. There are far, far too many Mormons who think their leaders can do no wrong.

[belaja]

PK, I suppose I could have quoted him fully in context, except what you posted isn't the context I was quoting from, nor the context that is being referred to in these, um, contexts. The context I (and probably everyone in these discussions) was talking about was what Craig posted.

Craig, thanks for untwisting things.

[Craig]

Are we having a competition to see who can use the word "context" the most times in one sentence? I want to play! ;)

"Craig, thanks for untwisting things."

No problem.

[wry catcher]

I think some people lack a "sense of humour."

I agree with Ned Flanders -- this defensive and ridiculous press release should be one of those things that gets "disappeared" into the LDS "we-never-said-that" black hole pretty quickly.

[Phouchg]

Wow - the general authorities must be really insecure if they can't take any criticism.

[Mayan Elephant]

michael otterson recently posted this at On Faith. Apparently, the collective forces of media and COB and priesthood are boldly displaying and promoting their policehood powa.
Limits of Religious Law

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world's goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

"We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same..."

-- From a declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835.

[dpc]

My question is this for those who feel that the church acted wrongly in the mater:

With regard to a member's conduct (and when I use the word 'conduct', in the most expansive possible way to include speech), how much disorderly conduct should a religious organization (or any private, non-governmental organization, for that matter) allow before sanctioning said member by revoking privleges (as in the Danzig case) or by taking steps to terminate membership?

[belaja]

Craig said: "Are we having a competition to see who can use the word "context" the most times in one sentence?"

Not any more we're not. Cuz I won.

;-)

[aerin]

Well, dpc, I agree with you that every private, non governmental organization has a right to determine who its members are. The US Supreme Court agrees with you. They also have a right to revoke membership privileges for disorderly conduct.

Part of what I think we're debating here is just what can be considered disorderly conduct. Whether or not writing a letter to the editor of a public newspaper openly disagreeing with the leadership of one's faith is disorderly or harmful.

As we've discussed before (in other forums), you and I disagree that there is no redress for members who disagree with the leadership (I believe there is very little an individual member can do, you disagree that they can stop paying tithing, holding callings, leave, etc.)

I believe the Danzigs (and others) are courageous and are, in fact, showing integrity and standing up for their beliefs. I find it ironic that in standing up for their beliefs, the leadership feels that the Danzigs were in need of discipline. From another perspective, they could be seen as showing integrity (something LDS are encouraged to do at all times and in all places). This issue is discussed more fully on mainstreetplaza: I'm Anti-Mormon? Really? - I can't post the link here.

Most organizations of any type should be able to withstand criticism, even public criticism. Most organizations should be able to accept and evaluate feedback from a host of sources - including their own members/stakeholders/employees. To my mind, criticism is not a threat and should not be seen as one. Public disagreement should be seen as just that, disagreement.

One member openly, publically disagreeing with the leadership on an issue shouldn't undermine the authority of that organization. Why is it not possible for an individual member to say, I believe that 99% of LDS doctrine is divinely inspired, but I disagree with this 1%. With a belief that at some point, with changing revelation - in fifty or a hundred years the position could be reversed.

It's up to the members themselves to decide if they are comfortable being a part of this type of organization. It is also up to them to decide if such actions are truly divinely inspired. Without a mechanism for the LDS organization to separate legitimate criticism from true threats, more and more incidents like this one will surface.

[dpc]

Aerin:

"Part of what I think we're debating here is just what can be considered disorderly conduct."

Exactly. Where would you personally draw the line? What kinds of behavior would you consider to be disorderly? What kinds of behavior would be borderline cases? If you were appointed President for the day, how would you run your church?

"Most organizations of any type should be able to withstand criticism, even public criticism. Most organizations should be able to accept and evaluate feedback from a host of sources - including their own members/stakeholders/employees."

If I were to publish a letter to the editor and stated that as Vice President of XYZ Corp I thought my company was wrong for failing to pay its employees a generous wage in third world countries, I can pretty much guarantee you that by the time that particular letter crosses the desk of the CEO of XYZ Corp, I would be looking for alternative employment.

"One member openly, publically [sic] disagreeing with the leadership on an issue shouldn't undermine the authority of that organization."

This leads to undivided continuum fallacy. By the same logic, two members openly, publicly disagreeing with the leadership shouldn't undermine the authority of that organization. Or three members and so on. At some point it will become an issue and will undermine the authority of the organization.

You talk about criticizing the leadership. Should I be allowed every fast and testimony meeting to stand up and declare that the Bishop is a brain-dead moron, his counselors are fetid vermin and that the Relief Society President has less compassion than a sack of potatoes? Assuming that there is some basis in fact for making these accusations, isn't there some point at which this would become disruptive to the functioning of the organization?

"Without a mechanism for the LDS organization to separate legitimate criticism from true threats, more and more incidents like this one will surface."

What mechanism would you suggest the LDS organization employ to separate legitimate criticism from true threats?

[Mayan Elephant]

the church is lying and lying some more and lying again.

the church's counsel, along with kenneth star of monica lewinsky and oral-anal contact and semen fame, are the driving force behind the prop 22 re-battle in california. the church publicly supports prop 22 and opposes the civil-union roundabout.

the church has a position and they asked members to support their common cause.

how in the hell can the church, with a straight face, say this: "In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment. "

there is no question what the church's position was.

my question is this - what about harry reid? not only did he slam the amendment, he did it on the senate floor, which aint no sltrib editorial page if ya knowhatimean.

reid public advocated positions contrary to those of the Church. this is not disputable.

reid does not appear to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate.

so what now brown cow? is reid a goner? or is he cool enough to stay? this sure begs the question.

[dpc]

ME said:

"reid does not appear to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate."

I think you ought to read up on what representative democracy is. Politicians are elected to represent the wishes of the electorate from which they are chosen. Senator Reid's arguing in favor or against a particular piece of legislation does not necessarily reflect his own personal beliefs concerning it.

"so what now brown cow? is reid a goner? or is he cool enough to stay? this sure begs the question."

When Senator Reid 'slammed' the amendment on the Senate floor did he make mention of his Church membership and claim that the leaders of the Mormon church were intellectual tyrants?

If you choose an analogy, please choose one that fits the situation being discussed, not one that is completely off base. Otherwise you come across as sounding foolish. (Something which I am very familiar with having made the same mistake myself)

[Craig]

dpc:

You seem to be advocating that there is no time or place for any sort of criticism of the church, whatsoever. Do you think that the church never errs? Never makes a mistake that harms a member/members?

If you agree that it does make mistakes, then do you believe we should just ignore those mistakes and the often serious problems they can cause and pretend "all is well in zion"?

I firmly believe that any organisation that suppresses any and all criticism, regardless of its merit or truthfulness, is in big trouble. The church has treated some it's members shamefully, and those people often have to way to redress those wrongs, unless the church has acted illegally (which isn't as uncommon as one might think - or hope).

I don't know that I have any specific solutions either for what needs to be changed, what sort of mechanisms need be employed, but I do think that the church continues to act in such a reactionary manner to any possible perceived threat, its just going to tear itself apart.

Not only that, but the church is extremely hypocritical in these matters. It excommunicates (or threatens to do so) members for sometimes rather insignificant actions, and allows other, more prominent members, members with influence to stay, despite clear and obvious wrongdoings. There is at least one (influential) member of the MOTAB choir who is married, has kids, and openly has a gay lover who is also Mormon with a wife and family. The church turns a blind eye only because they "sin" in the closet - with the doors wide open for all to see - and because they have influence and power.

I am not trying to destroy anyone's testimony here. All I am saying is that the church clearly makes mistakes, sometimes serious ones, and members need to be able to address those mistakes without fear of being cast out of the church in which so many believe in wholeheartedly. The practice of suppressing criticism of any kind, and of controlling what can and cannot be researched at BYU is unjust, and when the members see the church firing, diciplining and excommunicating people for such actions, it dramatically influences the way members look at their options. It effectively stifles their agency and freedoms on a psychological level. They become afraid of the church and what it could do to them. The church is contradicting its (previously) most cherished belief - that of the fundamental importance of free will.

[aerin]

DPC wrote:

"If I were to publish a letter to the editor and stated that as Vice President of XYZ Corp I thought my company was wrong for failing to pay its employees a generous wage in third world countries, I can pretty much guarantee you that by the time that particular letter crosses the desk of the CEO of XYZ Corp, I would be looking for alternative employment."

Is the support (or opposition) to g_ay marriage really such a tenet of the LDS faith?

I understand the strength of families, but it seems to me that what defines a family or marriage is not clear doctrinally (in the four standard works). I might be wrong on this.

DPC wrote:
"This leads to undivided continuum fallacy. By the same logic, two members openly, publicly disagreeing with the leadership shouldn't undermine the authority of that organization. Or three members and so on. At some point it will become an issue and will undermine the authority of the organization."

We disagree on this point. At some watershed moment, an organization would need to examine the facts and rethink its' position. Most companies do this all the time. Feedback is solicited through many different means. Surveys, comment boxes, at company meetings, etc. Sometimes the feedback is incorporated - sometimes not. Many factors can play into the decision making. Often, that's the whole function of the company leadership - to evaluate direction and incorporate change.

DPC wrote:
"You talk about criticizing the leadership. Should I be allowed every fast and testimony meeting to stand up and declare that the Bishop is a brain-dead moron, his counselors are fetid vermin and that the Relief Society President has less compassion than a sack of potatoes? Assuming that there is some basis in fact for making these accusations, isn't there some point at which this would become disruptive to the functioning of the organization?"

I think there's a big difference between personal ad hominem attacks (which you describe) and a disagreement about opinions or ideas.

So - to continue your company analogy, I hear people criticize their managers/department leads/CEO all the time. But typically they do this privately, most people would not (necessarily) write a letter to the editor about how much of a jerk their boss is. If they did, then they should expect to be disciplined/sanctioned for it.

But, let's say I work for company xyz that has an environmental policy I disagree with. If I were to write a letter to the editor stating that I disagree with that environmental policy, should I be sanctioned and or fired? Or is that simply exercising my right to free speech?

The Danzigs' letter (from my understanding) was not a personal attack, but a disagreement about policy.

Btw - some other mainstream religions have figured out how to do this. I have heard of Roman Catholics openly disagreeing (publishing letters to the editor) about disagreements over doctrine, and they are not excommunicated.

[dpc]

Craig said:

"You seem to be advocating that there is no time or place for any sort of criticism of the church, whatsoever."

Sorry. That's not a position that I'm advocating. It appears to me that some here think that where the Mormon church draws the line on member conduct is wrong and I was wondering where they would draw the line instead.

"The practice of suppressing criticism of any kind, and of controlling what can and cannot be researched at BYU is unjust, and when the members see the church firing, diciplining and excommunicating people for such actions, it dramatically influences the way members look at their options."

But I think that you would agree that letting people say whatever the hell they liked, no matter how mean-spirited or controversial, would not necessarily be helpful to the functioning of a non-governmental organization. How do you balance a desire to allow open conversation without it denigrating into a negativity that rips the organization apart?

[Mayan Elephant]

dpc,

you got me there buddy. perhaps slammed was too strong a word. what he said was - "So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day:"

which effectively says, this is a complete waste of time and there are much bigger issues to deal with.

maybe there is no issue bigger for monson and watson and the like. after all, i dont see any press releases for excommunications of those that oppose gas prices, war, crime, etc.

representative government? as if that mattered one bit. if i want to represent the gay and lesbian community do i have to run for office to do it? or can i simply join them in what may be a good cause?

what analogy are you referring to by the way. i cited something specific, in this case, a senator who agreed was politically aligned and publicly aligned with a fired byu prof, not his prophet.

[Craig]

It appears to me that some here think that where the Mormon church draws the line on member conduct is wrong and I was wondering where they would draw the line instead.

See comment below.

But I think that you would agree that letting people say whatever the hell they liked, no matter how mean-spirited or controversial, would not necessarily be helpful to the functioning of a non-governmental organization.

That is a good point, and I agree.

How do you balance a desire to allow open conversation without it denigrating into a negativity that rips the organization apart?

This whole situation reminds me of Luther and the Catholic Church. Luther never wanted to harm the church, or form a new one. He simply wanted to address certain practises and policies that were harmful and destructive to the church and its members. I see this situation as very similar. Peter Danzig was trying to bring attention to something he felt to be damaging to the church, and sincerely was trying to help. He wasn't trying to tear down the church or influence other members to defy the church leadership. So I think intent probably the most important factor. I admit that intent is often hard to discover, and it is outside of my ability to suggest some sort of policy the church should follow with regards to that.

I am not advocating that the church allow any and all criticism, but be willing to listen to the concern of its members. A large problem in the church is that members have no where to go to voice their concerns. They can tell a bishop or stake president, but who knows if those leaders ever pass on the information. Members are not supposed to contact any higher authority, and that seems very odd to me. It is quite likely that Mr. Danzig felt that going to the newspaper was the only way to get his concern noticed. He really had no way to work within the structure of the church to do that.

All we can do is judge the church by its actions on these matters, and to me it seems that the leaders are petrified of criticism and are totally unwilling to act in a reasonable and understanding manner.

I don't see the church as perfect, and I believe that the leaders, because they're only human, make mistakes, sometimes serious ones. They are just as susceptible to pride and ignorance as anyone else. I don't think believing in a church that can receive revelation from God precludes this sort of thing. We can even read in the new testament how the apostles made errors in doctrine and argued amongst themselves as to what the real doctrine was. While the gospel is immutable and perfect, the church isn't, and never was intended to be.

Anyway, my point is that instead of reacting so severely, it is in the church's best interest to listen to those who criticise, have open minds about their grievances and investigate as to whether they have merit or not. I believe that both Jeffrey Nielsen and Peter Danzig were correct in their actions, and I hope that the church (i.e. the leaders) can overcome their inability to see that their methods and policies might just not be the best they could be, that they could be improved upon.

[Lincoln]

I love how P.K., and others like him, always try to obscure the issues.

Here is a multi-million member church singling out one guy and criticizing his right to exercise free speech in an official press release.

What the hell?

How can anyone really take this church seriously. Objective observers must be scratching their heads in disbelief. Why would such a wonderful (by all outward appearances anyway) organization take the time to shame one of its own like this?

This is a horrible way for the Monson era to begin.

Once again, I hang my head in shame at the antics of the leaders in my church. I remember a day when I used to be proud to consider myself Mormon. But that was back when I thought the church stood for free agency, freedom of thought, and free speech.

How sad that the dam of Mormonism has one more gaping hole in it.

[Craig]

This is a horrible way for the Monson era to begin.

This happened in 2006. Peter and Mary Danzing just resigned from the church recently, so that's why we're just hearing about it now.

[Adam]

Hope I'm not too late to the party, but GBH's words still ring in my ears when these discussions come up...(all quotes denote actual words from his mouth and apologies in advance for the long quote, but I didn't want to be accused of opportunistic excision):

"Now may I say a word concerning loyalty to the Church. We see much indifference. There are those who say, 'The Church won’t dictate to me how to think about this, that, or the other, or how to live my life.'

No, I reply, the Church will not dictate to any man how he should think or what he should do. The Church will point out the way and invite every member to live the gospel and enjoy the blessings that come of such living. The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein.

When I was a university student, I said to my father on one occasion that I felt the General Authorities had overstepped their prerogatives when they advocated a certain thing. He was a very wise and good man. He said, 'The President of the Church has instructed us, and I sustain him as prophet, seer, and revelator and intend to follow his counsel.'

. . .

This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, 'They who are not for me are against me' (2 Ne. 10:16).

. . .

President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel.

On this occasion I am not going to talk about the good or bad of Prohibition but rather of uncompromising loyalty to the Church.

How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position. And I am especially grateful to be able to say that among those who are loyal are men and women of achievement, of accomplishment, of education, of influence, of strength—highly intelligent and capable individuals.

Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

Well... here is how it distills to me (please show me where I'm wrong)...

Loyalty includes how to think or act (about this, that or the other) and how to live.
The Church expects uncompromising loyalty from members.
The Church expects uncompromising agreement in thought, action and living.

Wise, Good, Highly Intelligent, Educated, Influential, High Achieving, Accomplished, Strong, Capable men and women are loyal to the Church.

God runs the Prophet and the Church.
The Church is God's work, establishment, revealed doctrine, practices, government and kingdom.
If not for God, you are against God

Ergo, if I don't think, act and live like the Church or the Prophet invites, counsels, persuades or urges, then I am fighting against God OR I am not intelligent, wise, etc.!

Which cannot completely exist with this comment from the article above:

"Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study, learn and ask questions in their quest for knowledge. Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th president of the Church said: 'This Church came about as a result of intellectual curiosity. We believe in education … we expect them (Church members) to think. We expect them to investigate. We expect them to use their minds and dig deeply for knowledge in all fields.'”

Therefore GBH is both telling me not to think for myself and to think like the church at the same time OR he is telling me to fight against God by thinking for myself. I don't understand. How are the statements reconciled? I guess I agree more with Equality that there is some sort of 'no criticism' policy. Just because it is us unevenly enforced doesn't make it go away.

And I'm almost sick of the apologetics that say 'anything that we don't like is not really doctrine b/c doctrine has to be notarized by the first presidency and the 12 or in the scriptures or some other bs'. If that were the truth, then there wouldn't really be that much 'doctrine' in the church. And BYU would serve caffeinated drinks. Why even have a prophet if the majority of what he says is optional, discountable, etc? Why not just run it by a committee of 12 and ditch the phony prophet 'who speaks for the lord and stuff (but only when what the lord tells him is unanimously approved by his 14 pal-prophets, excepting the junior few pal-prophets who aren't allowed to have an opinion yet)?

[Evil_Bert]

Thanks Adam... "When the the Prophet has spoken, the thinking is done."

[NFlanders]

Adam said: "Why even have a prophet if the majority of what he says is optional, discountable, etc? Why not just run it by a committee of 12...?"

This drives me nuts as well. I think all general conference talks should come with a disclaimer, "This prophetic advice will self-destruct in five years..."

[dpc]

Adam said:

I have never seen such a poorly-thought out argument like this in a long time. Read some more of the posts that Equality or Domokun have written and you'll see examples of well-written, well-considered, and well-argued ideas.

"Loyalty includes how to think or act (about this, that or the other) and how to live."

No it doesn't. Loyal means 'faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product'. I can be faithful (i.e. loyal) to the cause of eliminating poverty while disagreeing with others who are faithful to the same cause on the exact method to eliminate it. No where in this dictionary definition does it state that loyalty (as most define it) includes how to think or act or how to live.

"The Church expects uncompromising loyalty from members."

"The Church expects uncompromising agreement in thought, action and living."

Considering that your initial premise is flawed, this conclusion is similarly flawed. You are committing what is known as arbitrary redefinition. You take a word, give it a meaning that is different (or more broad or more narrow) than its ordinary meaning and then use the new definition to support your conclusion.

"Wise, Good, Highly Intelligent, Educated, Influential, High Achieving, Accomplished, Strong, Capable men and women are loyal to the Church.

God runs the Prophet and the Church.
The Church is God's work, establishment, revealed doctrine, practices, government and kingdom.
If not for God, you are against God

Ergo, if I don't think, act and live like the Church or the Prophet invites, counsels, persuades or urges, then I am fighting against God OR I am not intelligent, wise, etc.!"

Wow! This last sentence is probably the best example I have ever seen where the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.

[Adam]

dpc said:

"No it doesn't. Loyal means 'faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product'."

I completely agree! And I won't take offense that you think I came up with those definitions (which is why I said "please show me where I'm wrong")... I would like to understand how I am misreading this prophetic utterance (the 'Loyalty' talk) and then how it reconciles with the other side of the prophetic lips saying the church encourages people to think for themselves. Or maybe explain why I shouldn't think that Hinkley used the terms Church, Prophet and God interchangeably or synonymously as regarding loyalty.

[dpc]

Adam:

Loyalty and thinking for yourself are two completely unrelated concepts. Senator Obama and Senator McCain are both (presumably) loyal to the United States, yet their respective visions for the country differ completely.

"how it reconciles with the other side of the prophetic lips saying the church encourages people to think for themselves"

This is called equivocation my friend. You are using the term "thinking for themselves" to mean that people should just decide on their own what is right and wrong. That's not what the Mormon Church teaches. And so you're trying to reconcile what President Hinckley said to a position not espoused by the Mormon church.

As I understand it, the Church or the Prophet teaches what God wills and then it is up to the members to decide how to implement in their personal lives what is taught. So if the Prophet teaches that we should be more forgiving, then it is up to us to decide how to be more forgiving. If the Prophet teaches us to not be racist, it is up to us to examine our attitudes and actions and decide if we want to be less racist or not.

In addition, you're use of the term "thinking for yourself" is using loaded language. You are implying that those who are loyal to the church are unthinking idiots who fall in line without considering the implications of following any prophetic counsel they receive.

[Randy]

I think thie press release is absolutely hilarious in its self-contradiction, to wit:

"In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.

For more than a year and a half, Mr. Danzig counseled with his local bishop and stake president regarding same gender marriage and other Church doctrines. Unfortunately he was not able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate."

So, they didn't tell members what position to advocate with their Senators, but anybody who openly advocated the wrong position was subject to being counseled by local leadership. What's wrong with this picture? I happen to think gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry--and I did write my Senator, who voted against the amendment--but what about church members like Harry Reid, who just think a Constitutional amendment is a terrible idea? Was Senator Reid referred to be counseled by somebody?