During the weekend, one has reflected on errant Church leaders who advocate and support intrinsic moral evils and/or those who fail to speak up and defend Church teachings on morality and ethics. All too often, our leaders care more about not offending the feelings of church members who support abortion on demand and other moral evils. As one friend summed up the Church’s silence on the recent referendum here in Ireland:
“The Church lacked the conviction to speak up, but on the plus side, the feelings of pro-abortionists in the Church were not hurt, so that is a major win.”
Some will claim that the Church must always remain politically “neutral” and never take a public stand on an issue. That is simply false. When it comes to certain issues, which would include abortion, the Church is to take a public stance and not to give a rip about hurting the feelings of members who do not take seriously its teachings, as well as the wider community.
Speaking of the Church’s Obligations to stand up for morality, even in the political sphere, Lowell Bennion wrote:
[T]he Church has the moral obligation to be a critic of political and social goals and practices. It can fight for social and political justice—for those policies which lead to freedom, peace, and human brotherhood. The Church has a right to condemn corruptness in the body politic and selfishness and unfair play in men’s economic relations. It can and ought to teach men to live above the plane of legal morality—of getting by within or around the requirements of the law. The Church ought to serve as a leaven in human society which would permeate the whole and lift it to a higher plane of social and moral life. It is in a strategic position to do so. (Lowell L. Bennion, The Religion of the Latter-day Saints [rev ed.; Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1940], 149)
In his April 1992 General Conference Talk, Our Moral Environment, Boyd K. Packer said:
When a moral issue does arise, it is the responsibility of the leaders of the Church to speak out. Gambling, for instance, certainly is a moral issue. Life [RB: which would include abortion and the recent Irish referendum] is a moral issue. When morality is involved, we have both the right and the obligation to raise a warning voice. We do not as a church speak on political issues unless morality is involved.
So, when it comes to Church leaders who support moral evils such as abortion (including one Stake President I know), what is the obligation of believing Latter-day Saints? Are we not to sustain our leaders? After all, the fourth Temple Recommend question asks, in part, "Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?"
Firstly, Latter-day Saints can and should not sustain Church leaders if/when one has the moral certitude that they should not be in that position. For example, if one knows a leader is engaged in adultery, which would result in an excommunication, they have the right and duty to (1) not sustain such a person in their calling and (2) to report it to the necessary ecclesiastical authorities so that proper Church discipline will be administered. There is “sustaining” and then there is “blind obedience”; they are not one and the same. There is nothing in the temple recommend questions about sustaining a leader, including local leaders, who are not worthy officer holders and who should face ecclesiastical discipline. That is why one is allowed to oppose people in proposed callings and even those who hold callings (e.g., at a stake/district conference).
Secondly, sometimes God calls people to a position in order for their true motivations and character will be exposed in a way that would not have been had they not been called to such. There are many instances of such in Church history as well as even local Church history (e.g., I know of one branch president whose adultery would not have been exposed had he not been called to such a position—he was subsequently excommunicated; the good news is that he repented and, a few years later, was re-baptised).
Thirdly, perhaps at the time of being called one can be in right-standing in the eyes of God, but due to free-will decisions, they rebel against God. Note, for example, D&C 40:1-3:
Behold, verily I say unto you, that the heart of my servant James Covill was right before me, for he covenanted with me that he would obey my word. And he received the word with gladness, but straightway Satan tempted him; and the fear of persecution and the cares of the world caused him to reject the word. Wherefore he broke my covenant, and it remaineth with me to do with him as seemeth me good. Amen.
I note this as one may experience some cognitive dissonance when faced with the poor character of local church leaders, wondering how a righteous person, called by the Lord, can fall so badly.
While a difficult concept to grasp, especially given the LDS tendency to put leaders on an artificial pedestal and (erroneously) impute to them impeccability and infallibility, God often allows evil to (1) bring about a greater good (as in the case of Joseph of Egypt) and/or (2) to increase the condemnation of someone in the final judgment. As we read in Alma 14:9-11:
And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire. And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.
Fourthly, often religious leaders, perhaps even called by God himself, are called in spite of, not because of, their character. Ezek 34 is a classic example—the shepherds of Israel who should know better, are guilty of abusing their religious leadership and starve the people, spiritually, with their theological and moral errors. As we read in vv. 2-10:
Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
Notwithstanding, God can still work through such errant leaders, but it is in spite of, not because of, their beliefs and actions. A classic example is that of Caiaphas who, by virtue of his being high priest (and not because of his theological and ethical apostasy!) prophesied:
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation. (John 11:49-51)
Additionally, in Matt 23:1-3, Jesus instructed the disciples thusly:
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Therefore, we are to abide by the inspired words of church leaders, but not to accept their personal failings and other errors., such as their (personal) unjust commands. Just as one extreme is a view that Church leaders are, by virtue of their office, impeccable, the other, equally errant extreme, is that Church leaders who are, like Caiaphas, unworthy office holders, cannot be used by God as an instrument of good—there is a danger of an "ecclesiastical Dontanism" of sorts. Orson Pratt's opposition to Brigham Young on the issue of Adam-God is a great example: Brigham, in his (often inconsistent) talks and discussion where he identified God the Father with Adam, was opposed (correctly) by Orson Pratt, and yet, Pratt still recognised Brigham as the president of the Church (for more on Adam-God, see Matthew B. Brown, Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam). As a Church, we should be thankful for Orson and his opposing this erroneous doctrine. Similarly, the apostle Paul, when he discovered the Apostle Peter was perverting the Gospel, did not ignore it or "accept it and move on"; he did the only right thing--oppose Peter and call him to repentance:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal 2:11)
One can respect the office but one should never assume this means that the office holder is beyond reproach. That is not Scriptural and it is not consistent with Latter-day Saint ecclesiology. If occasion requires, one is to recognise but resist—recognise the office and the fact God can “draw a straight line with a crooked stick” but resist by not sustaining people who should not be in that office.
