Dallin H. Oaks teaches that even true criticisms of church leaders should be avoided, framing this restraint as a necessary way to maintain unity and love within the church. By comparing criticism to blackmail or breaches of confidentiality, Oaks implies that revealing truths that could harm leaders’ reputations is inherently harmful and spiritually unfaithful. He extends this principle uniquely to church leaders, arguing that criticizing “the Lord’s anointed” damages their divinely appointed role and ultimately works against God’s will.
Oaks suggests that truth should be “disciplined by the principle of love,” implying that withholding certain facts about church leaders could be a loving act that preserves unity and faith. While it’s possible to convey truth compassionately, intentionally omitting truth in the name of love is problematic. True love includes transparency and respect for others’ autonomy to make informed decisions, especially in matters of faith and trust. By filtering truth to protect an institution, leaders risk compromising members’ right to fully understand and engage with their beliefs, potentially leading to a harmful lack of accountability.
Promoting the idea that members should withhold criticism regardless of the truthfulness of the claims suppresses accountability and enables abuse of power. Truthful criticism, particularly when addressing harm or misconduct, is essential for maintaining transparency and integrity within any organization. By discouraging members from voicing legitimate concerns, this stance fosters a culture where loyalty to leadership is prioritized over individual conscience, integrity, and accountability—a dynamic associated with cults.
In healthy organizations, especially those claiming moral authority, leaders are held accountable and usually open to feedback and constructive criticism. This insistence on “unity” at the expense of transparency serves more to protect the institution than to uphold genuine principles of truth, love, or justice.
Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. For example, it is wrong to make statements of fact out of an evil motive, even if the statements are true. It is wrong to threaten to reveal embarrassing facts unless money is paid, even if the facts are true. We call that crime blackmail. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are forbidden to reveal facts they have received in confidence, even though those facts are true.
Just as the principle of justice must be constrained by the principle of mercy (see Alma 42), so must the use of truth be disciplined by the principle of love…
The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ…
Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Criticism | Ensign, February 1987
This is an edited version of a talk delivered at a Latter-day Saint Student Association fireside in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 4 May 1986.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism
This echoes, George F. Richards, who Oaks quotes from 1947. Richards was called as an Apostle to replace those who resigned in 1905 due to their unwillingness to uphold the Second Manifesto and President Joseph F. Smith’s directive that all plural marriages cease. He knew a thing or two about dissent and speaking against church leaders, this may have shaped his views when he said the following:
Satan is an enemy of God and of man and is constantly working to defeat the purposes of the Lord in his efforts to save the children of men. We should be on the alert lest we be found rendering aid to Satan and hindering the work of the Lord. When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause. When we speak well of our leaders, we tend to increase their influence and usefulness in the service of the Lord. In his absence our brother’s character when assailed, should be defended, thus doing to others as we would be done by. The Lord needs the help of all of us
George F. Richards, LDS Apostle, President of the Quroum of the Twelve, General Conference address April 1947
https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1947a/page/24/mode/2up
Catch-22
We cannot critique spiritual leadership (even if it is true) because this is akin to evil speaking of the lord’s anointed. How could a false prophet be called out and made accountable if the system is set up to protect them? This puts in into a “catch-22” where we are powerless. A catch-22 is a situation in which an individual is trapped by contradictory rules or conditions, making it impossible to achieve a desired outcome.
This is a deeply concerning situation. If criticizing spiritual leadership is forbidden under the premise that it’s “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed,” then there’s effectively no way to call out false teachings or hold leaders accountable, even if they engage in harmful or unethical practices. Without a mechanism for criticism or accountability, any leader—even a potential false prophet—can act without fear of consequences, protected by a structure that elevates authority beyond reproach. This system fosters unchecked power, making it extremely difficult for members to challenge questionable practices or teachings.
A framework like this is akin to authoritarian governance, where dissent is silenced, and leaders are insulated from scrutiny. Healthy organizations typically allow space for questions and constructive criticism, recognizing that such feedback helps refine and uphold ethical standards. But when members are conditioned to equate dissent with disobedience, it entrenches a culture of compliance rather than a pursuit of truth and integrity, undermining the principles of genuine spiritual growth and accountability.
Remedial Avenues
What are the avenues for remedy? Are there any? Dallin H. Oaks suggests “five different procedures a church member can follow in addressing differences with church leaders”.
So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?
There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations… The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized…
There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.
The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference.
A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference.
The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved.
A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression.
There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Criticism | Ensign, February 1987
This is an edited version of a talk delivered at a Latter-day Saint Student Association fireside in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 4 May 1986.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism
When church members have differences with leaders, Dallin Oaks says foremost they should address these issues privately. He emphasizes that criticism of leaders—even if true—is forbidden but outlines five steps for addressing differences with Church leaders:
- Overlook the difference.
- Reserve judgment and postpone action.
- Address the difference privately with the leader involved.
- Communicate with a higher authority who can correct or release the leader.
- Pray for resolution, asking for correction if needed for both the leader and oneself.
His guidelines suggest overlooking the difference, reserving judgment, addressing it privately, or praying for a resolution. Basically, he says can do nothing in five different ways. The first two options are literally doing nothing. The next is talking to the leader we are critical of, or talking to their superior, which the church does not allow. And lastly, he says to simply pray.
Again, if the leader is higher up than a local leader like a bishop or possibly stake president, you have no real recourse. Some may be able to address a difference privately with a local leader, and fewer will be able to communicate with a higher authority, this isn’t for lack of trying, but the church hierarchy is not set up to field complaints from membership. Especially at higher levels, many members have shared they have attempted to get in touch with a Seventy or Apostle or other General Authority, and have not been granted an audience, or their emails are redirected to their local leaders. Plus, who is the higher authority than the church president? There isn’t one, other than God, right? So our options are 1, do nothing, 2 do nothing (yet), 3 speak privately, 4 speak to another authority, 5 pray. Oaks councils us that if we have differences with senior leadership, our options are essentially to do nothing or pray. This stance mirrors authoritarian systems like Communist China or the USSR, where dissent is not tolerated, and swift action is taken against those who oppose or question leadership, creating an environment where public critique is suppressed.
Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them?
Throughout our history we have had members who have criticized the Church and its leaders. Church disciplinary action against such members has been rare or nonexistent. Persistent, public critics punish themselves. By deliberately separating themselves from those who have been called as their leaders, critics forfeit the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord. They drift from prayer, from the scriptures, from Church activity, and from keeping the commandments. They inevitably lose spirituality and blessings…
This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”
Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.
The role of a preacher or a practitioner of righteousness is not to be popular with the world or to be esteemed by any particular group, but to be right with God.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Criticism | Ensign, February 1987
This is an edited version of a talk delivered at a Latter-day Saint Student Association fireside in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 4 May 1986.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism
Dallin H. Oaks’ statement that Church disciplinary action for criticism is “rare or nonexistent” is inconsistent with documented cases where members have faced significant consequences, including excommunication, for publicly questioning or criticizing Church doctrine or leaders. By framing disciplinary action as uncommon, Oaks aims to convey a lenient image that “All is well in Zion”, though it contrasts with the Church’s history of handling dissent. This stance discourages open discussion and creates a climate where members fear repercussions for raising legitimate concerns or seeking accountability. There are lists on lists of members who have been disciplined for speaking up or questioning leadership: The September Six, Byron Marchant, Sam Young, John Dehlin, Gina Colvin, Bill Reel, Nemo, Jeremy Runnells, etc, etc.
In organizations with a rigid top-down corporate hierarchy, like the LDS Church, mechanisms for members to voice concerns up the chain of command are limited. While local leaders, such as bishops or stake presidents, may hear complaints, they hold no direct sway over higher-level decisions or policies. Higher authorities—like area or general authorities—are often inaccessible, and any feedback passed on to them is frequently filtered through local leaders. This structure effectively insulates higher leaders from direct accountability, preventing members from voicing grievances or suggestions meaningfully.
This system parallels government or corporate structures where power is centralized, and channels for genuine feedback are limited or superficial. Leaders can thus sidestep inconvenient questions or criticism by delegating responsibility downward, ensuring complaints are either dismissed or redirected. This lack of transparency blocks accountability and prevents any real change from occurring, ultimately creating a culture where members may feel unheard or discouraged from addressing valid concerns about leadership or practices.
Perhaps instead of saying criticizing leaders makes them less effective in their callings, we should be accept that leaders are less effective because they are doing things poorly hence why people are critical of their leadership. Perhaps calling them out and holding them accountable would be more helpful, clear and even more kind than sitting around doing nothing and hoping God fixes the leader in His own time. Oaks has admitted that his role as an Apostle is primarily only focused on maintaining authority and he’s ready to sacrifice anything (like accountability, transparency, or honesty) to keep up the appearance of the church.
In the Mormon Church, criticism of leadership is strictly forbidden, creating a cult-like environment of information control. This suppression of dissent undermines principles of truth, accountability, and growth. When true and valid critiques are forbidden leadership is shielded from any scrutiny. Elder Oaks’ suggested steps for “addressing” grievances offer no real avenues for accountability, leaving members in a catch-22 with no way to call out wrongdoing. A healthy organization welcomes constructive criticism and holds no one above accountability—an essential principle to prevent abuse and maintain trust. An organization that seeks to control all information by restricting access and forbidding any dissenting conversation is not healthy but shows signs of a dangerous cult according to the BITE Model.
More reading:
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism
- https://www.deseret.com/2008/8/2/20379462/be-cautious-about-lds-history-articles-elder-oaks-says/
- https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1947a/page/24/mode/2up
- Is it Wrong to Criticize Mormon Church Leaders?
- Truth and More – Merciful Companion to Truth is Silence?
- Book of Mormon Invites Criticism