🤕 Imperfect Leaders¶
Estimated time to read: 18 minutes
Here, I'll explore the ideas and implications of church leaders being imperfect, and what implications that has for their reliability and trustworthiness. I'll also acknowledge upfront that I don't recall ever hearing a claim to perfection nor infallibility over a pulpit. That's not my point. Instead, I'm examining what is a reasonable standard of behavior or quality in leaders who represent God.
Church leadership is made up of imperfect, fallible, mortal humans. Receiving a calling does not remediate nor absolve imperfections, fallibility, nor mortal foibles.
So, then... What is a reasonable expectation of a mortal, imperfect human who is called to a position of church leadership, where he is meant to represent the perfect figure that is Jesus Christ? Something that I can agree with the faithful on is that church leaders have made mistakes in the past, and since they are mortal, imperfect humans, they can and will continue to make mistakes in the future. They're not perfect.
What kind of mistakes are we talking about?¶
I really feel the need to make sure that you and I are on the same page when we're talking about mistakes in church leadership.
After President Nelson passed away in late 2025, Dallin H. Oaks became the next presiding figure in the church's uppermost leadership. Elder Gary Stevenson was part of the formal announcement of President Oaks' calling, and introduced Dallas Harris Oaks being appointed by a "relevatory" process.
Mistake? Sure. I'd call this trivial. Folks who are critical of the church (myself included) can point and laugh, jeering "har har, Stevenson said the wrong name." Comedy gold, I tell you. To me, this kind of mistake is inconsequential enough that no one should lose their faith in Jesus over it. I'm not aware of anyone who has. We can and should collectively say "whoops" and move on.
Compare this incident of a misspoken syllable in a first name to, say, deliberately lying on financial documents and tax forms. Compare that to precluding an entire race of humans from salvation, and then removing the restriction under some very suspicious circumstances. Compare that to a very strong correlation between suicides and the church's announcing that children must disavow and abandon their parents (to protect the children,) and then rolling back that change—coincidentally, also to protect the children. Compare this to Joseph Smith putting on his revelation-persona, and threatening that God will destroy Emma if she resists engaging in plural marriage. Compare it to the very notion that polygamous relationships have ever been topically relevant.
Fumbling one syllable in a name, by my estimation, does not hold the same magnitude of "mistake" as destroying a printing press, or starting an "anti-bank" to defraud an entire town of credulous people.
I bring all of this up to say that, sure, maybe your local branch president muttered some profanities while wrangling the engine oil drain plug under his station wagon. We can categorize that as a mistake. For the same (hypothetical) branch president to (hypothetically) take an innocuous, callow 11-year-old girl behind the closed doors of his office, and she leaves that office feeling neither innocuous nor callow, I feel that belongs in another entirely separate category of "mistake."
Banal mistakes will inevitably happen. You'll end up stubbing your toe on furniture irrespective of whether you're a ward clerk or not. For a church leader to misuse their power and authority, or outright fabricate information and attribute it to God is not inevitable, and needs to be addressed. This latter category is what I'm talking about here. I am not talking about physical blemishes, nor losing patience with one's spouse, nor saying something unkind. I'm talking about unrighteous dominion.
Are we on the same page, now? I'm not nitpicking if your bishop's socks are mismatched. I'm talking about the institutional power hierarchy that compels your bishop to protect known sex offendors by granting them unrestricted access to minors.
Should leaders be perfect to lead?¶
Acceptable behavior seems to be closely tied to the church's veracity. The easiest example I can point to for demonstrating this claim is an Ensign article by one Elder Cornish, titled What Do We Mean When We Say the Church Is True? After the author's thesis statement, he asserts that "neither the Church nor its leaders are perfect, nor have they claimed to be!" Yep, that's fair. I have no recollection of such a claim. Still, implicit in this message is that the behavior of church leaders is in some way correlated to the church's truthfulness. Go on and read the article yourself for fuller context if you'd like.
A defense that I encounter when I talk to actively believing LDS practitioners is that "[topically relevant prophet] is mortal and imperfect," and so we can dismiss his wrongdoings. These men in leadership roles are not Jesus... but doctrinally, they represent The Lord (1, 2, 3, 4).
So how, then, should we handle the cognitive dissonance of "Jesus doesnt make mistakes, but His hand-picked representatives do make mistakes?" What is a reasonable standard or expectation of someone called to be such a representative?
Thinking back to the days when I practiced belief in the LDS faith, I don't recall ever demanding nor expecting "perfection" from church leaders. Fast-forward to today, I see flaws, mistakes, misdoings; things that can all be categorized as "imperfections," and I find them upsetting. What gives? What changed? What is a reasonable expectation of someone who, willingly or not, is called to a church leadership position where he is to represent Jesus?
In my (subjective) observations, I see the following:
- Those defending the faith will see criticism of leaders as unreasonable for demanding perfection.
- Those criticizing the faith will see defenders as unreasonable for permitting, minimizing or dismissing problematic behaviors or imperfections.
I do not believe that both sides are talking about the same thing, even when both sides are using the same words. English sure is a cool language, isn't it?
There's a New Testament passage reading that "God is no respecter of persons." Looking to other translations, this verse uses verbiage like "partiality" or "favoritism." I should hope that we can understand this verse to mean (among other applications of this verse) that congregants and leaders will be held to the same standard in God's assessment of behavior.
No, church leaders are simply not "perfect" by whichever definition we use. If that were a requirement, there would be no church for God to lead via an imperfect prophet. Despite [[Perfection|what President Kimball says]], no, I don't think perfection is a reasonable (or achievable) goal for us everyday folk like you or me, As it happens, church leaders are lay ministers, comprised of everyday folks like you or me. By my estimation, it follows then that those leaders should be held to the same expectation and standard as everyday folk like you or me: imperfect. Is that fair?
Standards for Laypersons¶
Having established that the standard for imperfect leaders must not be so different from the standard for laypersons... what do we (non-leadership) people need to do in order to repent and be perfected in Christ? We're prone to make mistakes (or commit sins) just as much as a church leader is, right? What do we do to remediate them?
The short answer is "all you can do."
The longer answer is that we must fully repent, which is to confess sins, make restitution and then forsake those sins.
The exhaustive answer is nine whole bullet points in the church's general handbook. I encountered this bullet list while looking for information pertinent to making restitution for whatever sin one is repenting of. Item #3 in §32.16.1 describes that, depending on context, repentance "may include imprisonment, probation, parole, and fines or restitution." More abstract infractions necessitate that restitution is not possible, so counsel with your church leaders.
In so many words, repentance means that you stop doing the bad thing, and do what you can to make it right. That is what we, you and I, regular everyday church-going folks need to do in order to repent and be made perfect in Christ.
Church leaders are not meaningfully different from regular everyday church-going folks, except that they have more meetings to attend on Sunday... right? They're mortal, they're imperfect just like you and I. Church leaders are not selected from a subset of congregants who are already somehow perfected, and so I assert that they be held to the same expectation and standard as you or me.
The reverse would also be true: the punitive consequences levied against you or me should be the same severity as those levied against any given church leader, right? Assuming that is the case, I can point to a very clear example of one apostle's "friendly advice" to "give Brother Joseph a break!" Should that same advice be applied to that catty Relief Society 2nd Counselor making backhanded remarks? Should that apply to a BYU professor being charged with sexually abusing three students? (1, 2, 3)
I'm not aware of any kind of double-standard for repentance. If your Stake President does something unbecoming of a representative of Jesus Christ, the expectation is that he will fully repent, confess, make restitution, and forsake those sins. That's the expectation I would have against you, dear reader, and it is the same expectation I have against a Young Women's president, gospel doctrine teacher, mission president, church historian, area seventy, senior apostle—everyone up to and including the acting president of the church itself. To me, this feels like a reasonable standard and expectation.
So... when you or I see a church leader do something that gives us pause, how should we react?
Standards for Leaders¶
I don't think its reasonable for someone who believes they were voluntold called by God to be held to a standard of "perfection," by whatever definition we use for that word. On paper, the responsibility is voluntary ("do you accept this calling?") but culturally it is compulsory. Instead, I do think it's fair to call attention to mistakes until they make restitution, or in other words, until their sins have been repented of.
I'm not trying to make the case that an imperfect human should accurately reflect God's perfection. I am, however, trying to make the case that when someone falls short, we don't brush it off as "they're imperfect, deal with it," rather, "they are misrepresenting God." How should I react when church leaders create thirteen LLC shell companies with the explicit intention of hiding how much tithing money they've accumulated? Is that just a "whoops, sorry" kind of mistake?
Who is really leading?¶
The modern LDS church's claim to relevance is that the church is led by Jesus Christ... through a prophet. If the church really is led by Jesus, then it necessarily follows that the church's uppermost leadership (first presidency + quorum of twelve) are inspired of God. So, then, to what extent should we equate their behavior with divinity?
If Jesus Christ Himself really is directing the church, as is the church's ethos and appeal to authority, then the fact that its leaders are fallible, imperfect, mortal men is irrelevant. Jesus gives all directions, so there is no need, no room to explain anything away due to being fallible, imperfect, mortal men.
The leaders can be imperfect people—that's well and fine. They cannot rationalize misdeeds if they hold to the claim that they are led by divine revelation. They aren't the ones calling the shots, so their foibles and shortcomings have no bearing on what Jesus Christ is revealing to them.
If prophets or apostles have said or done things in the past that can be rationalized due to them being "just mortal men," then how can we trust or believe anything that they do or say today? Did something change such that today's prophets are not "just mortal men"? I'm not aware of such a change. If the past prophets can have their actions dismissed, why would current prophets not be given that kind of leeway? How are we as lay members meant to differentiate between what is "inspired" and what is "just mortal men"?
I don't know of anyone who expects, requires, or demands prophets of the LDS church to be perfect or infallible.
Speaking to my own experience, I do expect them to be honest. I expect them to not be deceptive. I expect them to not hide the uncomfortable bits of history, but to own up to them. I expect that when they speak for God and proclaim something as doctrine that they get it right, and it isn't necessary to retract it a few years later. Or any number of years later.
Misrepresenting God¶
Jesus leads the modern LDS church by directing and guiding these men, right? We as lay congregants are then expected to trust that the leaders will relay to us what Jesus says. Performing that responsibility is not a matter of infallibility nor imperfection. Instead, it is a matter of honesty and trust.
If Jesus tells Joseph Smith to marry multiple women, tells John Taylor that polygamy is immutable and eternal, and then Jesus tells Wilford Woodruff that it's not a commandment anymore... We have a problem. Someone is being disingenuous. Either each of the first four prophets of the church is lying and using Jesus as a scapegoat for their extramarital affairs... or else Jesus is fucking with us. Which is it? How will you know? Can you trust Jesus' chosen mouthpiece and representative to give you that answer if he's part of the problem? Can you trust the warm-fuzzy feelings in your tummy to tell you which trustworthy party is lying to you?
Considering if someone is lying to you is not a matter of fallibility nor imperfection. It is not a matter of "they were men of their time." Decade nor century is a relevant consideration if someone is misrepresenting God or not. Can we actually trust them to do that one job properly?
If prophets in 2015 give us a divine directive from God Himself concerning family structures if anyone deviates from heterosexuality, but then quickly reverts back with a "j/k lol," I should expect someone to be held accountable for lying about what God said. If I misrepresent things in my career, I run the risk of being terminated and removed from employment. If a prophet misrepresents God's will, that prophet is just an imperfect mortal.
False Prophecy¶
The Old Testament contains this passage about those purporting to be prophets:
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
"If a prophet prophesies and the event doesn't happen, that means it wasn't from God, and this prophet is being a jackwagon."
Church leadership is not an enviable position to be in. Assuming it's all true, you'd have pressure from the supreme authority of all comprehensible matter, time and space to accurately represent His will; and on the other hand, you'd have people on the internet saying "nu-uh! You don't actually speak for God." Or, you know, they just stone you to death for blaspheming.
The point I'm trying to arrive at is that no, church leaders are not perfect, but because they represent a perfect being, those leaders should be held to account for shortcomings. That's a lot of pressure and a lot of scrutiny. That would not make it an enviable position to be in.
So what do we do when they make mistakes? We're told that God removes a prophet if they are unworthy of the position. If we see a church leader make an egregious mistake, or catch them deliberately lying, what do we do? At the time of writing, God hasn't removed Dallin Oaks from his position in church leadership. We could understand that his living presence means he has not led the church astray. It could also mean that Oaks is the one who decides if he is satisfying the role of prophet.
So who holds church leadership to account?
Presentism¶
God is eternal and unchanging (1, 2, 3) except for when He's not.
I'll push further and say that demanding baseline decency is not a matter of presentism. How important is trustworthiness in 19th century cultural standards? Each of those four prophets were products of the 19th century. I assert that it absolutely is a reasonable expectation for early church leaders to be honest and trustworthy.
Presentism would require that 19th century culture permitted people to say "My words and actions are indistinguishable from God's, and also God wants me to bang lots of ladies," or say something like "psych! Only some of the things I say that God told me are actually from God. No, I won't delineate which things." Maybe someone who understands American culture in the 1850's could point to non-Mormon factions who made similar claims? I haven't found any. For what it's worth, I can point to a religious sect in the State of Deseret who seemed very comfortable making those kinds of statements.
To illustrate, Brigham Young was definitely a product of his time. The vitriolic racism and misogyny of his day will have influenced the revelations from God that he communicates to us. Any divine communiqué from God will have been filtered through President Young's vernacular and prejudices. So can we trust President Young to have worthily held the office of prophet, seer and revelator? Farting at an inopportune time isn't the kind of mistake that makes us question if he's really a prophet. Declaring that mercy-killing sinners "is loving our neighbor as ourselves; ... it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved" is what makes me question if this man is called of God. Claiming marital exclusivity to fifty-six women makes me question if he really was a prophet. Can we accurately call it a mistake if later church leaders disavow the teaching and insist that it never happened?
The founding prophet of our dispensation has been found to completely fabricate scripture, and can not consistently describe his theophany experience from which he derives all credibility. Are those all just "whoopsie" mistakes?
I assert that it absolutely is a reasonable expectation for church leaders of any century to be honest and trustworthy. I expect that they will not misrepresent what God said to them. I expect them to own up to mistakes and correct them. I expect them to meet even the barest minimal standard for being a decent human. I expect that they will not actively cause harm, and I do not think that this is a difficult or unreasonable standard to meet. I'm not demanding perfection, I'm expecting them to not be a complete scumbag. To me, those are different expectations.