Over-the-Top Leadership Acclamations

Stephen C

•

In some sectors of the orthodox world there is a tendency for people to effusively exclaim how great a Church leader or Church leaders are. Of course I’m not opposed in principle to making such statements, but I’ve wondered who the audience or what the purpose is of such acclamations.

If the purpose is to demonstrate solidarity and support for the Church or some particular aspect thereof it would be more effective to direct one’s rhetoric towards the Church itself or the specific characteristic or thing the Church is doing since, as the leaders would agree, the Church is the thing. (I could see some cases where support for the individual is warranted if they are being assailed by the media, but this rarely happens divorced from attacks against the Church more generally.)

While much of the time such acclamations are done tastefully, sometimes it can come off as hagiography for hagiography’s sake, and in some extreme cases has a bit of a “dear leader” vibe. Furthermore, there are several potential negative side effects: 

  • Prophets are people too, and are also subject to the risks inherent in excessive adulation. In a moment of more vulnerability and openness than we ever get from political leaders (see, even I do it sometimes), President Hinckley noted to Peggy Fletcher Stack that “adulation is a disease I fight every day.” I don’t know much about the personal lives of the brethren, but purely speculating I have this sense that they deal with people who (living as they do near Salt Lake City) either absolutely hate them or adore them. They don’t have the non-member neighbor Bill who thinks that Elder so and so is nice enough but that his dog could sure shut the heck up sometimes (again, purely speculating). 

 

  • The more we lionize and deify leaders, the harder they fall when we’re faced with their complexities as human beings. Dear leader-esque acclamations don’t help us easily transition to seeing them as human beings when they inevitably do something that makes us realize that if they are pricked they bleed too.

 

  • When non-members sometimes hear us singing the praises of our leaders it comes off as a little culty. Anecdotally it has led to a lot of cringe moments with investigators in Elder’s Quorum and sacrament meeting.

So again, I’m not against providing some support per se, especially when they are actually under specific and direct attack, but it can easily slide into something that feels a little off.

Comments

18 responses to “Over-the-Top Leadership Acclamations”

  1. Ethan

    The worst offenders are the Q15, GAs and others who speak in general conference. It really seems like since the start of 2018 there is a tacit requirement to quote Nelson when speaking in GC. It’s over the top and sometimes borderline nauseating (looking at you, Ron Rasband).

  2. REC911

    Amen Ethan.

  3. Vic Rattlehead

    I know several people have their testimonies crushed because they discovered leaders now and then who have had significant flaws. Prophets have had flaws since Adam, however, and I think if they had not been raised in a way to semi-deify leaders it would have come as much less of a blow.

    I also think we should move away from a sort of muted fallibility we have, by which I mean admitting prophets are fallible but not really. For example, I expressed my opinion once in a church setting that the 2015 November Policy was well intentioned but I did not think there was any divinity involved in creating it. I also brought up other examples in church history, but the speaker sort of hemmed and hawed and was like “well, they could have been inspired, we don’t know that that was a mistake/opinion.” for each thing I brought up.

    I left the meeting wondering if we did believe in prophetic fallibility after all.

  4. jader3rd

    Part of the reason why we praise leaders, is because they are flawed mortals, yet are doing great things nonetheless. But it does risk deifying said leaders. Every member needs to personally intentionally think about if they believe that God removes the agency of someone once they become a church leader, or if God lets them retain their agency. And if their agency is retained: what are the possibilities that that could look like.
    I think it could be eye opening to some to hear a testimony that includes “I know that the Apostles and Prophets have their agency and make mistakes.” But no testimony will be solid without that principle.

  5. Hoosier

    Whatever idolization of Church leaders I possessed went down when President Oaks came to visit my mission.

    That sure sounds like antagonistic clickbait, lol. It’s the opposite.

    President Oaks did great, it was a very uplifting meeting, he cracked jokes about his memory and sleeping habits, and I saw one of these men up a little closer, in the flesh, and President Oaks was no longer an abstraction but a human being. I’m afraid I can only have total and complete confidence in abstractions. In the eternal war between Plato and Aristotle, I confess Plato has substantial appeal though Aristotle is probably right. I wonder how I’ll do meeting God, when He can no longer be an abstraction to me.

    But over-the-top acclamation may well come from a place of seeing apostles as abstract representations for the apostolic office or the Church itself.

  6. Kent Larsen

    I don’t remember the source of this, but a joke told years ago compared LDS and Catholic views of their leadership.

    The Catholics, said the joke, claim that the Pope is infallible, but most Catholics don’t actually believe that.

    LDS teachings, on the other hand, make it clear that the Prophet is NOT infallible, but it seems like many church members don’t believe that either.

    While I agree with Ethan that a part of the problem comes from recent practices among the Church leadership, I also think that many realize the problem, as Stephen mentions in the original post. Along these lines, I think I recently heard a story of the adulation in the air being pointed out to one newly called Apostle, who was cautioned “don’t inhale.”

  7. Hedgehog

    Kent Larsen, not a recent story by any means. When I heard it, it was James E Faust.

  8. Comet

    Timely post. Did use the Hinckley quote once in a quorum lesson. No big reaction except from one brother after class (more curiosity than anything else from what I remember).

    There’s a term in Amway that is used for downline folks “building up” the upline big wigs–I think it’s called “edification,” which could be added to the “dear leader” and “culty” mentioned in the post. (By the way, I’m opposed to building each other up in principle.)

  9. Ryan

    I think it’s unfair to pin this on orthodox members when it’s a tone directed from top – down as Ethan notes and the amount of hagiography that is published by the church itself.

    As to who the audience is I think it serves to bolster the credibility of church leaders. The risks the OP outlined are real, but so are the benefits of increased belief among members.

  10. Anon

    The reason the members do it so much is because the leaders do it more than anyone, and they expect all the members to do it too. The gushing about the leaders in general conference is out of hand. It’s open schmoozing.

  11. JonD

    My sense is that this happens far more in GC than it used to. And because of that it then happens in ward and stake meetings. Like Ethan said it sure seems more prevalent now.

    The “don’t inhale” story was told by Dieter Uchtdorf and attributed there to James Faust, find it in the April 2017 conference titled “The Greatest Among You”.

    I like to point out that 15 are sustained as prophets seers and revelators. The president may hold all the keys but he is “the prophet” only in a colloquial sense. Last general conference the junior apostle used the title of “senior apostle” to refer to Pres. Nelson which I thought was great.

  12. rogerdhansen

    As long as the Q15 sit in their fancy cushy chairs in GC. And allow members to stand when they enter the chapel. And they and their families cut in lines. And continually quote RMN in newsletters, etc, homage will continue. I think it’s over the top.

  13. Hoosier

    I find the constant refrain of “our dear prophet” and such off-putting, and cutting in line is a bit obnoxious (IF it actually happens in noticeable quantity, big if there.) It’s fairly common practice for celebrities, honestly the fact that apostles are unavoidably celebrity figures on the Wasatch Front is responsible for that phenomenon.

    The chairs aren’t that bad imo, and the standing thing is good. Standing on the entrance of a presiding figure of high dignity is a pretty common sign of respect in American culture. We do it for judges, juries, and presiding elected officers all the time. Though the current trend of pulpit adulation is a bit much and probably counterproductive, we do hold to the belief that the apostles are magistrates given responsibility over the kingdom of God and it’s good to signal respect for that position in appropriate ways.

  14. Stephen C.

    I’m not aware of the line cutting, and I’m fine with the fancy chairs if for nothing else so that 95-year olds don’t have to sit in those uncomfortable folding chairs for four hours. But yes, I think the constant quoting of the presiding authority can feel a bit sycophantic even if that’s not the intent. It’s always nice to see their own personalities and takes come through.

  15. RW

    I’ve noticed for several years now the steady increase of the phrase, “our beloved prophet”, during GC. It’s gotten to the point that it makes me cringe every time I hear it. It has become to obvious and prevalent I’ve wondered if this is just a strange cultural behavior that leadership has embraced naturally, or if they were told that was how they were required to quote and speak about Nelson.

  16. Last Lemming

    On the line-cutting tangent, I am reminded of S. Dilworth Young’s visit to the LTM shortly after it opened in 1976. After eating lunch with the MP, the MP went straight to the head of the line and deposited his tray. Young went to the back of the line and waited his turn, while the MP cooled his heels and undoubtedly fumed at having been shown up. So I’m now an S. Dilworth Young fan.

  17. A Non-E Mous

    RW’s comment intrigued me on the phrase “our beloved prophet.” My null hypothesis was that he was wrong, and that the usage was consistent across periods since the 1960s. So I ran a search across the General Conference archives to see how many times that phrase comes up. I haven’t done any statistical testing, but I think it’s pretty clear I was wrong and RW was right. My interesting notes on “our beloved prophet” through the ages.

    +From 1835 – 1904, the phrase “our beloved prophet” was used 12 times – and each time it was a reference to Joseph Smith, not the current President of the Church. Brigham Young was the first to use it.
    +The first person to use it to refer to the then-current President of the Church was John Herrick (President of the Western States Mission) who used it to describe President Joseph F. Smith in 1913.
    +The first time the phrase was used to describe someone without the first name Joseph and the last name Smith was in 1927 when Rey Pratt (President of the Mexico Mission) used it to describe Heber J. Grant.
    +From the Presidency of David O. McKay to today, there has been a chunky but increasing use of the phrase “our beloved prophet”. You can see the numbers below, but at a high level, Presidents from the 1950s to mid 1980s received about one “our beloved prophet” every other conference. From the mid 1980s to mid 200s, it was about one every conference. President Monson picked up about 1.35 every conference. And President Nelson is receiving about 2.93 per conference.
    +The increase under Pres. Monson and Pres. Nelson can be attributed to a small group of speakers. Those who used the phrase more than 3 times are:
    *Elder Quentin Cook: 11 times (1 for Pres. Monson, 10 for Pres. Nelson)
    *Pres. Dieter Uchtdorf: 7 times (7 for Pres. Monson, 0 for Pres. Nelson)
    *Elder Ronald Rasband: 5 times (1 for Pres. Monson, 4 for Pres. Nelson)
    *Elder Ulisses Soares: 5 times (5 for Pres. Nelson)
    *Elder Neil Anderson: 5 times (1 for Pres. Monson, 4 for Pres. Nelson)
    Those five speakers account for about half of all usage since 2008 (33 / 68). If you eliminate them, or even just reduce their usage to average levels, the rate of use is consistent with the usage under Presidents Benson, Hunter, and Hinckley.

    Usage of “Our Beloved Prophet” by President of the Church since President McKay
    McKay: 0.55/conf
    Fielding Smith/Lee: 0.13/conf (lower time period available, makes data sketchier)
    Kimball: 0.50/conf
    Benson/Hunter: 1.11/conf
    Hinckley: 1.00/conf
    Monson: 1.35/conf
    Nelson: 2.93/conf

  18. A Non-E Mous

    (Oh, and if I have time and sustained interest, I might compare this to the phrase “our beloved president” to see if that changes things up.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.