Mormon,Mormonism Authority Figures

Recent research, as reported in the The Economist journal, indicates that many people who know they are innocent will confess to crimes they didn't commit. The article described several research programs where scientists are trying to understand why this is so.

Research is showing that people don't want to disagree with authority figures. A research project was reported in which 71 college students were asked to press computer keys as a person read aloud to them. They were warned to not press the ALT key because that key was faulty and would crash the computer.

In fact, the computer was set up to crash regardless, about a minute into the test. When this happened the experimenter asked each participant if he had pressed the illicit key, acted as if he was upset when it was “discovered” that the data had disappeared, and requested that the participant sign a confession. Only one person actually did hit the ALT key by mistake, but a quarter of the innocent participants were so disarmed by the shock of the accusation that they confessed to something they had not done.

It's a facet of human nature that people don't want to rebel against authority figures. The research reported in The Economist is important, I think, to Latter-day Saints, because the church places a great stress on authority. Even though it's not taught in the scriptures, many LDS believe that obedience is the 1st law of heaven. We are taught to accept the decisions of authority figures, even if such decisions are in opposition to our own beliefs.

Many years ago, I attended a Stake Conference in which the Stake President explained that the Stake needed to construct a new Stake Center. After explaining his position, he asked for a sustaining vote. I wasn't convinced the Stake needed a new building, but I raised my hand to sustain the Stake President because I didn't want to go against my church leader.

The question that we face is whether or not authority figures are always right. In the case of police, the authority figure may use intimidation and the hint of a lower sentence to get confessions. In the case of the university students, the research investigated whether the displeasure of a researcher that someone had apparently pressed the ALT key caused people to confess to something they hadn't done.

But, what about the case of the Stake President who wanted a new building? This is a more complicated decision, since many LDS believe our church leaders are always inspired by the Lord and therefore don't make unwise decisions.

I think church leaders, regardless of where they are in the church hierarchy, must be careful that they don't convey the impression that they are always right in their decisions and that it is "sinful" if members disagree with the leaders. As authority figures, they have a lot of psychological power over us, and they should be wise in the use of that power. Joseph Smith, while running for President of the United States, said he taught principles of righteousness and let the people govern themselves. Church leaders who expect members to always agree with the leaders, are acting the opposite of the philosophy expressed by Joseph Smith. I think that, in most cases, the leaders aren't aware they are intimidating the members. But the intimidation is there due to their position as presiding officers.

As we are called to positions of authority, we need to be very careful in the way we deal with people. We need to make special effort to ask members to do things in the church out of their love for Jesus Christ. We need to avoid asking members to do things out of obedience to us as Priesthood or Auxiliary officers. For example, the Stake President would have shown more respect and love of the Stake members if he, after he had explained why the Stake needed a new building, would have asked us to go home and discuss this with our spouses and children. Then, a High Councilor would be at their Sacrament Meeting the next Sunday to ask for their sustaining vote. He would be showing empathy with the members by giving them a week to discuss his proposal and to look at their budgets and ability to fund a new building (this was during the time that members in the western states made donations for 50% of the cost). I'm not suggesting that the Stake President didn't have great love for the people, only that he behaved as if it was their duty to sustain his proposal that the Stake build a new building. He seems to have looked at the situation from the viewpoint of a presiding officer and not from the viewpoint of a stake member.