A Monopoly on Exaltation

I read a discussion in a Facebook group recently that touched on the use of Elder Bednar’s infamous “don’t choose to be offended” talk (the actual title is “And Nothing Shall Offend Them”) as an excuse for people to say or do offensive things. Anecdotally, it sure seems like this is the major use that this talk is put to. I’ve seen the talk referred to many times, but it has been a long time since I actually read it, so this time I did.

What struck me in reading the talk this time is that I feel like Elder Bednar is making perhaps a narrower point than I had thought. He opens the talk with a story about how, as a stake president, he loved to go with bishops in his stake to visit inactive members. He would listen to their stories, and then gently berate them for letting offense that they had experienced at church interfere with all the blessings they can get only from church, like the sacrament and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. He doesn’t say anything about the success rate he got from confronting people–I’m guessing he would have told success stories here if he had any–but the important point is that he isn’t telling us that they shouldn’t allow themselves to be offended in general. He’s telling us that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be offended in a Church context, because we’ll be missing out on unique opportunities that we can get nowhere else.

I have always thought this talk fit with other talks on interpersonal relationships, on issues like anger or forgiveness. But now I think it actually fits better with talks like Elder Ballard’s “To Whom Shall We Go?,” where he asks people leaving the Church where they will go to get the support and ordinances the Church offers. Or with President Hinckley’s less confrontational but similar message where he quotes a young convert who was facing ostracism from his family as saying “It’s true, isn’t it?” and then “Then what else matters?” Or with President Nelson’s recent talk where he tried to close the temple work for the dead loophole so people wouldn’t think they could get away with living church-free lives now.

Especially in light of these other messages, the underlying assumption of Elder Bednar’s talk is that the Church has essential things–ordinances, but also teachings–that simply can’t be had anywhere else. It makes sense if this is true, then, that no amount of offensive behavior from local leaders, or indeed from general leaders, is a good reason to leave. The Church holds a monopoly on exaltation, so people who want to be exalted had better be willing to put up with anything so they don’t risk losing their access.

In the world of money and markets, monopolists are often guilty of (or perceived as being guilty of) leveraging their monopoly power to get more money out of their customers. The Church isn’t designed to be a money-making enterprise (although there may have been some mission creep). I appreciate that there are many things that General Authorities probably could do given the Church’s exaltation monopoly that they haven’t. They could increase tithing. “Where else will you go?” they could ask. They could inflict all kinds of more onerous burdens on members. They could require monthly or weekly temple attendance. They could require bishops to review members’ tax returns to be sure they’re paying enough tithing. They could re-start a United Order, and require members to deed all property to the Church. I think they don’t do things like this because they don’t see them as necessary, and again, unlike a business monopoly, they’re not trying to exploit the monopoly. They’re just pointing out that it exists.

That being said, though, I think there are clearly things GAs fail to do, issues they fail to address, because they think the Church has a monopoly on exaltation.

• They refuse to allow any type of formal feedback from the rank-and-file members to the GAs on matters of policy or abusive leaders or really anything.
• They conceal the Church’s finances.
• Until recently, they concealed much of the Church Handbook. I’ve read the comment somewhere that there are probably more secret operating handbooks for higher levels of authority (mission presidents, temple presidents, GAs), and this would make sense, I think. I’m happy that more of the Handbook is out there, but I doubt this is all of it.
• They seem pretty unconcerned with the health and well-being of missionaries, leaving their care in the highly variable and untrained hands of mission presidents and their wives. I feel like I’ve seen issues around failures of mission health and wellness come up over and over on the Bloggernacle across the years, and there are always people with horror stories to tell of how their mission presidents either stood by or actively stood in the way of their getting needed medical care. Here’s a recent example of such a discussion from Bishop Bill at W&T..
• In the specific case of garments, they’re slow to make changes and seemingly unconcerned especially with women’s experience. See this excellent post–“The Mormon Underwear Monopoly”–by April Young Bennett at the Exponent a few years ago.

I think an obvious contrast here is with the many Protestant churches that do not think of themselves as monopolies because they consider adjacent churches to be just as saved as they are. They’re more open about their finances, their members have more control of their church experience (e.g., serving on a committee to choose a new pastor), and they’re more open about their policies and procedures. It’s not surprising, given that such churches are always at risk of losing their members to another church.

What’s interesting is that, in spite of what GAs think and teach, it seems like many members don’t think of the Church as an exaltation monopoly after all. Many people become inactive. Some resign. Some, like my sister Lynnette, move on to other churches that GAs might not think of as a threat because the churches obviously don’t have Mormon priesthood authority or ordinances. In the end, though, I’m with Lynnette. If there is a god, I think such a being would almost by definition be bigger than human attempts to box them in with an exaltation monopoly.