By “Leadership Theology” I mean the common declaration that we make about our leaders, presidents in particular, as the mouthpiece of God, God not allowing them to lead the church astray, etc. For example, over the last few years, our leaders have made a number of structural changes and pointed to the changes as evidence of God’s continuing revelation. The implication is that God makes that decisions and instructs our leaders through revelation and has done so with all our leaders and policies.
Having a living prophet is a cornerstone of our identity and claims to being the true church, and thus as REC pointed out in my last post, concerns over our leaders can cause faith crises.
But I do think our leadership theology can get us into conundrums: why put in the exclusion policy and then revoke it just a few years after? Such an action can clash with how many of us assume God operates, and perhaps no issue creates more conundrums for our leadership theology than the priesthood ban.
I figured I knew the gist of the history of the ban pretty well, but I still found Matt Harris’s Second Class Saints pretty jarring. Opinions will certainly vary, but for me, Harris’s excellent research suggests major problems for our leadership theology. I think taylorgkirby at By Common Consent gives a pretty good summary of the issues.
Again, I propose a slightly modified way of thinking of our leaders, and for me, I think we tie ourselves in knots in trying making our leadership theology “work” in the context of the priesthood ban. I get the sense in a number of discussion with people on these issues that we need to make our leadership theology work because that theology is so central to our overall conception of the church.
Racist and tribal attitudes are a human problem and have long caused our nation to come up short of its ideals. I’d say the church and its leaders have been affected by this problem as well. The endowment tells us we can be cleansed of generational sins, and I like to think that promise can apply to the ban. Racist attitudes were common for a very long time, and society and the church have made a lot of improvements.
I see such improvement as central to how I view the church. Our leaders, as caretakers of Joseph Smith’s vision, were not immune from these racist attitudes and implemented problematic policies and said problematic things, as was common. Our church and leaders have been able to grow and make adjustments.
I think this caretaker theology works better for our church’s history than trying to argue that God really wanted the priesthood ban from 1852 to 1978. It seems to me instead that God does allow our leaders to make significant mistakes, often in line with the broader culture, that we can all learn and grown from.
I do believe we have a very good church with great validity and divinity apart from our leadership theology.
Comments
15 responses to “The Priesthood Ban and Our Leadership Theology”
I have felt strongly that we have had no new revelations since JS and believed in the caretaker model since I started my deep dive into church history about 20 years ago. After reading Second Class Saints, that solidified my beliefs. To me, it was as if the brethren were scared to even ask God about it. They also knew/felt that it would take a “revelation” to change the priesthood ban and that was unchartered territory for the leaders at that time. Then when you read in the book how it all went down, bingo, caretaker leadership. Again for me, there is nothing wrong with this type of leadership and it makes the messy bits of church history make sense to me. I know members want infallible prophets that only change what God/Jesus want them to change. That is a very comfortable model. Do what the “prophet” says and I am good.
Nelson started saying that what he was doing was continuing restoration….I thought that was pretty bold to say his policy changes were restoration. As an old guy, I have heard all my life that the “church has been restored” not “someday the church will be fully restored.”
I loved when Oaks said something like “Pres Nelson liked to announce new temples at the end of general conference… but I spoke with the quorum and we are not doing that today. Too many in the pipeline to announce more.”
I wish the brethren would look at other items that BY may have gotten wrong and change/update those as well. Looking at you WOW. The BY “doctrine” of not being worthy for salvation/baptism because one drinks coffee or tea or uses tobacco is as insane to me as the one drop of cursed blood deal. Lets throw tithing in there too. :)
This would help those missionary #s we were talking about on another post. IMO.
I agree that Second Class Saints presents a narrative that makes our “leadership theology” look problematic, REC. I agree that the caretaker model looks to fit that information better.
As I’ve said before, I do believe in inspiration/revelation, but do think it’s more complicated than we tend to present it for our leaders’ decisions. My next post will have a few more thoughts on that topic.
Stephen,
Your posts are certainly thought provoking–but I don’t think the caretaker model is strong enough to explain why ten consecutive presidents of the church may have got it wrong. To me it places them at such a distance from the divine as to doubt the authenticity of their call as prophets, seers, and revelators–and that’s a bridge too far for me.
Jack, it is confusing, but I agree with REC that the caretaker model helps make sense of it.
Jack, I think that almost nothing the church leaders following Joseph Smith have said or wrote has been cannonized is evidence enough that they are caretakers and not Joseph Smith’s. Their being caught in the trap of cultural history is just further evidence of the concept
I agree that the priesthood ban was most likely a mistake, and that does go against a simplistic view of Church leadership where the Lord dictates every decision by revelation and no mistakes are ever made. I don’t think that’s our doctrine though, and the sooner we stop sometimes giving the impression that it is the better.
It also puts a lower bound on the size of mistake the Lord will allow to happen, and it’s pretty big! That leads what I think is Jack’s implied question, “Why should we follow the prophets if they can make such mistakes?” I’d respond with Peter’s question: “To whom shall we go?” Do we really think we can do better on our own, with our own wisdom and our own attempts to receive revelation? We’d all like to think we’d have been paragons of anti-racism if we’d been born in the 1800s, but the numbers suggest that’s unlikely.
I still believe President Woodruff’s promise that the Lord will never allow the president of the Church to lead the Church astray. Obviously that doesn’t mean he will never allow them to make mistakes. But consider when and why President Woodruff made that promise: he was telling the Church to stop practicing polygamy at a time when many members believed practicing polygamy was required for exaltation. He was promising that no one will lose their exaltation by following the prophet. We give up that guarantee at our peril.
The fact that Church leaders can make mistakes does make room for disagreeing with them. If you think President Oaks is wrong on particular issues, fine. But still listen to his conference talks and do what he asks you to do–he’s not likely to be wrong about everything, or even most things. And remember you may be wrong too.
Yes, I notice that pattern as well GC and I think it fits the caretaker model also.
RLD, I agree with your point about Peter and that I do NOT think I would do a better job running the church than our leaders do. I’ve said this over and over, but yes, Mormonism is where I want to be even if I view our leaders differently than how our church tends to describe them. Certainly we would have have racist attitudes if we had lived at a different time.
But I still see a different explanatory model for our leadership than how we tend to talk about our leaders in church. “Caretakers” was one proposal, and I noted in pervious posts that I do very much see our leaders as having religious roles. Terms such a “presiding high priest” etc, I think fit very well. Authorized to head the church.
But I do think that our language around the President as “the Prophet” seems problematic to me, and we frequently hear that the President’s word is God’s word. To repeat, authorized leader, yes; all the President’s words and policies = God’s, I don’t think so.
So yes, I am happy to be in the church. This is where I want to be and appreciate the church’s dedicated leaders. But I do think that God and our leadership operate differently than how we generally portray our leaders in church. And I think the priesthood ban makes that clear, in my opinion.
Stephen, I think we mostly agree on the substance of what Church leadership is and does. I’m just not sold on “caretaker” as a good description for it. There’s roughly a zero percent chance the Church will abandon calling our leaders prophets, and I don’t think we need to. Seems to me the important thing is helping more members gain a more nuanced understanding of what that means. Or maybe the real goal is for more members to gain a more nuanced understanding at a younger age, without needing to have a faith crisis in the process.
We really don’t do young people any favors by teaching them things that aren’t true just because they’d be great motivation to follow the prophet if they were.
RLD, I understand the need to fine-tune terminology, but I’d say that just because our leaders use a certain terminology doesn’t absolutely prove that terminology is accurate.
And I do agree that talking about these topics is useful.
Hey, Stephen–just a little more friendly sparing. I think we sometimes’ve got our eye on the wrong ball so to speak. When we look closely at the day to day operations of the church what we’re gonna see for the most part is good folks doing the best they can with some fumbling and bumbling here and there. But if we draw back a bit and try to get a more comprehensive look at things then what we see is–in my estimation at least–something truly miraculous. The Kingdom is as Joseph Smith said–like a tiny mustard seed growing into the greatest of herbs. And I don’t think we can chalk it all up to the Lord making it happen *in spite* of our blindness. I’m convinced that the apostles have been led by the spirit of revelation and prophecy in many instances to make important decisions–including some that we’re unaware of–that have shaped the destiny of the Kingdom.
But I do think that our language around the President as “the Prophet” seems problematic to me, and we frequently hear that the President’s word is God’s word. To repeat, authorized leader, yes; all the President’s words and policies = God’s, I don’t think so.
I agree.
Shortly after President Hinckley became President of the Church (or Prophet, for those who so prefer), I attended a four-hour session with him far away from Salt Lake City. He said words there that he didn’t ever say in general conference, so I understand that others haven’t heard the message — this included his sentiment that we over-emphasize his “Prophet” title and under-emphasize his “President of the Church” title. He said he wished he heard “Prophet” in relation to him less and “President of the Church” more, because the latter is the office he actually used.
I also think the parable in D&C 88:51-61 fits here; indeed, I think this is the express purpose of the parable — there is no other purpose except this one! The Lord Jesus Christ visited this earth and with Joseph Smith for a period, and has since gone on to visit other places and will return here again. The Holy Ghost remains with us all the while, and Joseph’s successors are authorized servants, but today’s servants simply do not receive the ministering and instruction to the same degree that Joseph received.
I think we over-play our hands when we insist that the Lord Jesus Christ personally attends every decision, announcement, and address of the current President of the Church (or Prophet, for those who so prefer), and when we attribute every decision, announcement, and address of the current President of the Church (or Prophet, for those who so prefer) to the Lord himself. Rather, I sustain the leaders of the church as authorized leaders who are sojourners in the land like the rest of us, and who diligently seek the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit like the rest of us. I believe this is the way the Lord wants it and is the way the Lord has set it up. In all of this, I acknowledge that the Lord, at any time He desires, can choose to make his will known to his servants, and that such can happen in miraculous ways but that it most often happens through the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
When I say I agree that the caretaker model is a reasonable way to look at our church’s reality, I do so in full faith and fellowship, and in no way do I diminish the important role of the President of the Church. I sustain the President of the Church as our church’s leader, and as the only person who holds and can exercise all priesthood keys committed to the church. There is no disloyalty or unfaithfulness that is necessarily inherent in a caretaker model.
Amen ji !
Our culture has taken “follow the prophet” to such an extreme that it means we dress like him and smash our water bottles like him. We for sure dont say Mormon anymore like him. Until the next “prophet” comes along and we start following him on all the little things that really dont matter. We feel good about ourselves “following the prophet.”
To me the intent/doctrine to follow the prophet has always meant when they are speaking for God…. not what we have turned it into by wearing a dark suite because he does or no facial hair because the “prophet” doesn’t have it.
Members were hounding BY for more prophecy because they knew the difference between BY speaking and the “prophet” speaking. They learned that from JS who made it about as clear as can be. Now members think it is all prophecy. Every talk, every book written, every document signed, every proclamation proclaimed, every post on social media, every policy change, every temple change, every temple announced.
Pres Hinckley (my fav) clearly understood the issue as ji points out but how do you get the saints to understand without blowing up testimonies…? Starts from the top.
I too sustain our presidents as prophets, seers and revelators. I just believe we haven’t had any new revelation since JS. I believe the messy parts of our history are by good men, also asked to be prophets, doing men mistakes, not prophetic mistakes. They are both men and prophets, not always acting, speaking, as prophets. We should treat them as such. They deserve that IMO.
Jack, as I note in my next post, I see that broader divine guidance more as “providence” than as how we tend to talk about our leaders’ revelation in the church.
ji and REC yeah, my sense is that President Hinckley wanted to downplay the title a bit, but other leaders, not so much.
I’ve long ruminated on what I call a “Book of Mormon Theory” of dispensational continuing revelation, and would like to one day give the idea justice in a careful articulation. But the bare bones are pretty straightforward.
To take the Book of Mormon seriously as scripture (regardless of historicity), one has to acknowledge Lehi as an Abraham/Moses type prophet—a divine irruption into history via an individual. As one reads the 1000 years of history (more if we include the Jaredites, who only reinforce my point), we clearly do not have an endless stream of Lehi’s. But nor do we have only Lehi. We have a very small handful of very significant prophets and major revelations.
While there is indeed some “caretaking” stewards passing down the plates and serving missions and keeping things going, it would be strange to claim that this is all there is, a single kickoff prophet. Instead, and largely in response to various crises, the people as a whole conduct themselves in alternatively more and less “true church” fashion, and either as needed or in response to serious faithfulness, the Nephites obtain ongoing revelation and prophets.
Over the course of the first 600 years, Nephi’s scriptural commentary, Enos’s epiphany, Benjamin’s sermon, and the collective miracles and lessons of Alma & Co. rival Lehi’s Vision. While I can imagine saints during, say, the days of Enos’s great grandkids lamenting that their church leaders were all just bureaucratic adjusters and that Lehi was one of a kind, that’s certainly not Mormon’s or Moroni’s view of things.
The Book of Mormon offers an alternative to either the “Every prophet is a Joseph Smith” or what I interpret the “Caretaker” models to be. Toward this end I find it extremely helpful to analyze ourselves as a people as well as our ongoing productions the way that Mormon might have, selecting “not even a hundredth part” of our history in order to focus on the undeniable, revelatory gems of last 200 years and put them together in our own “scriptorium” and pass them down to our posterity. As a people we either cherish what we have by standing ready to receive more, or we have that which we have already received taken away.
James, that sounds like a great post, or multiple posts.