I often see exMos refer to the line from the Wizard of Oz, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” in reference to a church culture that doesn’t want the membership to focus on seemingly problematic aspects of the church’s claims. Though I’m not in the same place as exMos, I do actually like the metaphor in terms of my proposed caretaker model.

And the metaphor is this. As I understand it, the Wizard really was a very capable administrator but figured out ways for his public persona to be much more grand with displays of great beings to deliver his messages. To me, I think the evidence does point to the caretaker model which is somewhat different than our more standard leadership theology. I think, as previous posts and discussions indicated, that many of our leaders felt that the membership expected them to be receiving a lot more revelation than they actually did. See Davek’s posts about quotes from Joseph F. Smith on this post.

I do think that expectation always persisted and that we find it central to our claims. I do wonder if that leads to problematic expectations of our leaders’ decisions.

I do think our church’s track record, though quite good, has a few problems. The race ban is a big one. Lots have been concerned about the SEC fine. I think it’s problematic to hold to what we often see demanded by our leadership theology that all decisions were the right ones. I don’t think that the ban or the actions that led to the fine were the perfect, divine decision.

I think those decisions fit better within the caretaker model of good people, trying to do their best, influenced by an imperfect society and the leaders’ own imperfection. As church (or other organization) scandals go, I see the SEC fine a fairly minor, but at the same time, I don’t think it makes sense to argue that the leaders didn’t make any mistakes (apparently not possible in our common interpretation of our leadership theology).

Racist attitudes that church leaders had played an important role keeping the ban in place were also quite common in the larger society. We can forgive our leaders, just as we all need forgiveness, but I don’t think we need to insist that the origin of the ban and how long it stayed in place weren’t a product of mistaken cultural attitudes.

Again, I view the caretaker model as more correct, while also believing in inspiration and guiding providence. But rather than viewing all the changes that came in President Nelson’s presidency as THE evidence of continuing revelation (I think revelation works in more diffuse ways), I see them more as capable administrators working to tinker with church policies in the face of challenges. Having been bishop when a lot were implemented, I was of the opinion that many didn’t work very well, (see comments) but I totally got the idea that our leaders wanted to try to make improvements. It’s what good administrators do. And I’ve kept saying Mormon.

In coming back to the-man-behind-the-curtain metaphor, I think we’re in a state where the “curtain” is drifting more and more “open.” Our history and other observations point to our leadership being short of the essential perfection that our leadership theology strongly suggests, and that indicates to people holes in that leadership theology.

Since we’ve gotten to the point where we claim that leadership theology as central to our church’s validity, I think many of us have a larger tendency to really want to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” But to shift the metaphor a little, our “man behind the curtain” is a pretty wonderful system of producing wise and competent leaders with a very good track record.

To me, President Oaks may be the best qualified leader not only we, but just about any religious organization has ever had. Extremely smart, extremely experienced, very dedicated, and very good. I’ve long disagreed with some things he’s said, but I don’t see that as undermining just how well prepared he is. I do think he faces a tremendous amount of unenviable challenges (including taking over a larger and challenging organization at age 93) but no one could be more qualified.

Again, I see that we’re in a position where the “curtain” is getting more “open” and more and more of us are and will continue to see a “man behind the curtain.” But as I do see us as having a wonderful system that will be led by a tremendously qualified leader, I argue that the man behind the curtain is something worth greatly celebrating.