How to Criticize the Church
There are two news stories from this weekend about what happens when you criticize the LDS Church.
The first was that Sam Young, leader of the self-titled “Protect LDS Children” movement, was being brought into a disciplinary council by his religious leaders for protesting against the Church on temple square.
The second is that McKenna Denson, who accused a former MTC president of raping her, went to his congregation during their monthly “fast and testimony meeting” where anyone can speak, set up cameras to record, and began accusing him from the pulpit. Once she began to get repetitive and disruptive, she was asked to stop. When she refused, she was physically touched on the elbow and back and led away from the pulpit.
So evidently, neither of these are ways that the Church approves of criticism.
In 2014, the Church famously excommunicated Kate Kelly and John Dehlin.
Kelly had been organizing protests and demonstrations against the Church. Dehlin had started a blog and podcast criticizing the church and its doctrine.
Is the Church simply a “sit down and shut up” zone, where no dissent is approved?
Hardly.
As Americans we are in a unique situation where our perspectives have been formed by living in a country where the greatest way to improve the country is through protest and public criticism.
But most organizations do not operate this way.
The Church, in fact, regularly and respectfully engages with its critics on all sorts of issues from Jewish organizations concerned about baptisms for the dead to the NAACP concerned about the Church’s approach to race.
What the Church works against is its own members publicly embarrassing it.
All adult members of the church are now called as “ministering” brothers or sisters. Every man is ordained to the Church’s priesthood, and every member could be called to a leadership position in an instant. Membership in the Church bestows legitimacy on someone’s claims.
Kate Kelly for example has virtually disappeared overnight. Her criticisms of the church are no longer reported breathlessly. And while she famously called excommunication a “medieval solution.” It had the distinctly 21st century effect of interrupting the 24-hour news cycle.
Sam Young brought to light the legitimate concern of clergy abuse. The church responded to his concerns quickly, and changed rules to help prevent the problems he brought to light.
But rather than move forward, or rather than continue to speak to church leaders directly, Young doubled down. Wanting not only protections from abuse but all conversations about sex ended in interviews with teenagers. The church was not willing to take his position. So Young engaged in a demonstration designed to get media attention. This was a change from his prior approach where he was working to dialogue directly with church leaders. Why should the Church of Jesus Christ provide legitimacy on those intent to harm him?
I would expect the Church of Jesus Christ to follow his instructions for dealing with someone who has harmed you (Matthew 18:15–17). Speak to them privately, bring witnesses, make it an official church matter, and then if none of those work, do not harm them, simply treat them like they are no longer a part of the Church.
These standards are not unreasonable and they are not arbitrary. It is clear the types of public shaming campaigns that the Church will not stand for from those it calls members.