Stake leaders and bishops,
Below is an excerpt from article printed in the online LDS magazine Meridian. It is a timely example of why, when Prophets speak, it is not inappropriate to disagree respectfully (not try to promote our disagreement publicly), but also willingly wait on the Lord to see His hand in support of those He has called to lead His church.
If you want to read the full article, go to: http://ldsmag.com/sustaining-the-brethren-a-modern-example-of-thoughtful-discipleship/
A Modern Example of Thoughtful Discipleship
An inspiring example of this is found in the life of Elder Dallin H. Oaks. Decades ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled against prayer in the public schools, President David O. McKay publicly criticized the ruling; he considered it to be leading the country “down the road to atheism.” Dallin Oaks, on the other hand, who was a law professor at the time, saw good reason for the Court’s decision in the case before it and worried that criticism might be based on incomplete information about the full rationale and intent of the ruling.
Brother Oaks began organizing his thoughts on paper — reviewing the Court’s reasoning and showing its application to secular influences in the public schools as well as to religious ones. Soon after completing his document, he met President Henry D. Moyle of the First Presidency at a Church function in Chicago. When President Moyle asked him about his work, Brother Oaks gave him a copy of this writing. President Moyle took an interest in it, and, upon returning to Salt Lake City, shared it with President McKay. Interestingly, after reading Brother Oaks’ thoughtful treatment, President McKay directed that it be published in the Improvement Era.
Thus, Brother Oaks did not give up his “right to think.” He felt dissonance between his own judgment and the public expressions of the prophet. He wondered about the issue and prayerfully brought to bear his own best thinking on the relevant questions. Significantly, however, he did not publish a critical article or give a disapproving speech. Instead, he expressed his feelings respectfully and privately (remember that it was President McKay who directed that it be published), with no motivation other than to help and in the spirit of true discipleship.
The outcome of this story is also instructive. Some thirty years later, and now one of the Twelve himself, Elder Oaks wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal on the subject of school prayer. He said: “When the Supreme Court decided the original school prayer case in 1962 … I thought the case was correctly decided. What I did not foresee, but what was sensed by people whose vision was far greater than mine, was that this decision would set in motion a chain of legal and public and educational actions that would bring us to the current circumstances in which we must reaffirm and even contend for religious liberty.”
While the Court’s decision was probably the correct one on the matter before it at the time, the way the majority opinion was written set in motion the chain of events that President McKay had originally feared. In recognition of the prophetic nature of President McKay’s warning, Elder Oaks wrote: “My worldly wisdom in writing approvingly of the school prayer case on the facts of the decision was just a small footnote to history compared with the vision of a prophet who saw and described the pernicious effects of that decision in the years to come.” It was, he says, “a powerful learning experience on the folly of trying to understand prophetic vision in terms of worldly wisdom.”
Son Dallin responded:
Thanks for sharing, Dad, I had never heard this story.
Two follow-ups: one of the challenges of the modern church is that the distinction between "public" and "private" speech is very murky. Before, Elder Oaks would've needed to rely on a media platform to vet and disseminate his opinions to a wide audience. Now, everyone has a platform to speak "publicly" with a very idiosyncratic audience. Is it "public" disagreement if I post my displeasure about a church decision on Facebook, where primarily (but not exclusively) my friends will see it? This was my primary concern with the Kate Kelly ex-communication last year: it wasn't clear where the lines were being drawn over what counted as "public" advocacy.
The other: similarly, this story leaves the vast majority of members without an example to follow. What if we don't have the ear of the First Presidency? If no one had spoken "publicly," would there ever have been a clarification or more context provided? This is important because woman rarely have the type of access or close association with pivotal church leaders as men do, for a host of reasons.
No good answers to this, but just something for leaders to keep in mind.
My response to Dallin:
I agree, it is a different world in which we live where everyone can have a “public voice.” In deference to the leaders being Prophets, though, I would think that a disagreement with them could be handled by an email or letter (interestingly they tell us not to write to them, but they quote personal letters from members in conference talks all the time).
When we had some time with Elder Holland earlier this year, he told us that the Brethren have created a new committee, the Member Concerns Committee. Sadly, most members or leaders don’t know about it, but that’s one avenue…send a letter to your file priesthood leader and ask that he send to the Brethren (Member Concerns Committee…it’s chaired by Elder Holland) or send a letter directly to Elder Holland.
I personally think our role, as members or leaders, is simply to share our feelings, concerns, disagreements with the Brethren and then just leave it in their hands. If we are on track, the Spirit will work with their hearts and they will come to understand the validity of our argument.
I personally don’t think the Brethren’s clarification a week later was in response to the public outcry, though it didn’t hurt. But it came about from stake presidents sending questions and concerns up thru the priesthood channels.
Just some thoughts.
Your thoughts are always insightful and provoking. Thank you for sharing so eloquently and thoughtfully.
No comments:
Post a Comment