Okay. Please forgive me for ignoring Keepa for weeks and then suddenly flooding the blog with rants. Since I have no one to talk to face to face, it is either a matter of posting my thoughts here or posting them on other blogs where they are not welcome. I love my Keepa’ninnies, who generally tolerate these moods. I really will try to get back to posting stories soon. I promise.
In the United States, “jury nullification” is said to occur when a jury votes to acquit someone they know to have broken a law because they do not believe the law is relevant in a given case. That is, the full jury may completely believe that someone is guilty of all of the elements outlined in a criminal statute, but they still vote “not guilty” because they believe the law shouldn’t exist in the first place, or because the defendant “has suffered enough already,” or because they believe “the victim had it coming,” or for some other reason decide not to uphold the law. It’s called “nullification” because the jury has nullified the effect of the law, or because they consider the law to be null and void, at least in the given case.
Jury nullification is considered almost heroic by some, because it counters a law they do not believe in, or because it extends mercy to a defendant for whom strict justice is not fair. Others find jury nullification a travesty of justice, because it undercuts the entire legal system or extends benefits to one that are not available to all.
I understand the first point of view, I think, but tend to align with those who find jury nullification a serious mistake. The jury’s business is to determine whether the prosecution has presented a case sufficient to believe that the defendant has violated a specific law; it is not the jury’s business to rewrite a law, or reinterpret it, or repeal it, or to apply its penalties unequally. We elect men and women to make the law following reasonable consideration and debate and public input, legislators with understanding of broad legal principles (either in themselves or through competent advisors), who are accountable to the people for the final form of a law. We do not expect a handful of ordinary citizens without training, debate, or accountability, whose names were drawn from a hat to decide which side of a courtroom presentation they believe, to make or unmake our laws.
I think it’s possible, within the Church, for a sort of “member nullification” to occur, although we don’t call it that. I think it is possible for members, whether trivial or significant in number, to believe they have the right and power to dispute or merely ignore and thereby overthrow the acceptance of a Church teaching. The specific examples at issue are same-sex marriage ((As a practice acceptable within the Church, for purposes of this post; I accept it as the law of the land and acceptable in the civil sphere.)) and ordination of women, but it could be just about anything: in the past, it might have been the continuation of plural marriage in defiance of civil law, or the continuance of plural marriage in defiance of Church law, or the ordination of black men to the priesthood, or the refusal to accept the divinely approved ordination of black men to the priesthood. In the future it could be just about anything about which some church members feel strongly at odds with the authorized teachings of the Church.
But as with jury nullification, I think “member nullification” is a very bad idea, a serious mistake for the individual and a threat to the Church. Unlike secular law determined by the voice of the people with the lawmakers accountable to the people, only the president of the Church determines doctrine; members can only sustain it to their benefit or reject it to their harm. A doctrine or principle or law of heaven cannot be changed by mortal men and women, even if they were to vote in unanimity and act in unison, even if they were to believe heaven had revealed the revision to them. This is a principle understood in the Church at least since 1831, when Joseph Smith dictated Section 43 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
And it doesn’t matter that what a lone member may do in rebellion is thereafter presented to the Church by its president and sustained by its entire membership. A Church member who publicly taught that plural marriage should cease in 1889, or a Church member who ordained a black man to the priesthood in 1977, was not only premature in his action, but was also in defiance of Church law and order, usurping the God-given authority of priesthood leaders. Such a member was wrong. He may have compounded his sins by attempting to shame his rightful leaders, saying they were fallen prophets, or calling them to repentance, or calling on members to forgive them for their errors. No such attempt at nullification can change the doctrine, but only condemns a man or woman for rejection of basic principles of the gospel.
But we don’t call any of that “member nullification.” We still call it apostasy.
Not a rant, just very insightful.
Interesting post. But there is a key difference between jury and member nullification. Because our country’s laws prevent double jeopardy, juries can actually have the final say in nullifying a conviction. The church operates differently. If a member ordains a black man in 1970, the church does not recognize the ordination and excommunicates both participants. If a bishop or stake president refuses to disciple a member who an apostle wants removed, eventually that leader is released and someone new called who will take action. So there’s really no equivalent in the church to jury nullification.
That said, there certainly are many situations where a member declines to follow the directives of a church leader out of conscience. Take a bishop who asks to be released because he can’t enforce the recent policy on children of gay parents. Or a member who declines to pay tithing because of disgust at the churchs mall. Or a handcart family that stays in winter quarters despite an apostles instruction to go west with the promise (that turns out false) that the snows will abide. These are all real examples of member nullification. The members aren’t directly challenging the church’s authority. And the church thankfully doesn’t evict them.
By and large, members have free reign to pick and choose their actions for themselves and still remain the church body. Only when a size able number of member stop supporting a teaching – be it polygamy, priesthood bans or gay marriage – does the church face member nullification that undermines the church as a whole.
So jury nullification happens with only 6-12 citizens (depending on the jury size). Member nullification requires 100s of thousands.
Dave K, your objections and examples underscore my premise: A member (or members) can nullify a teaching of the Church in their own lives without in the slightest modifying the the validity of the law.
This is only your second comment here, but I am aware of your participation on other blogs. You’re welcome to comment at Keepa as long as your comments fall within the norms of this community, which is very different from the culture of BCC or T&S. I moderate.
Great rant Ardis. Fully agree.
Thanks for allowing my comment Ardis. I have had comments deleted on Keepa before for reasons that I never learned (I expressed supported for women’s ordination). I know that BCC & T&S moderate out demeaning and irrelevant comments, but allow comments that respectfully disagree with an OP or challenge the OP.
Please let me know if you have a posted list of moderation guidelines so I can make sure I stay within the rules. The best I could find is the final paragraph of your “new to Keepa” perma-post that says comments should be courteous, not bash, and be fit for an audience of believers. I will continue to try to meet this standard.
[Dave K, I am not aware of having deleted any of your comments. I don’t do that as a rule without giving some sort of explanation, except in the most obvious and egregious violations of Church-bashing, and sometimes not even then, for idiosyncratic reasons.
I do not have and don’t intend to post a legalistic series of commenting rules. You and I have different standards, apparently, of what is “fit for an audience of believers”: Advocating or approving of withholding tithing because you object to the way the Church spends money, for example, and expressing “disgust” for Church leaders and their decisions, are not what I would consider remarks of a believer, no matter how courteously you think you have stated your disgust. Neither do I consider the patterns of discussion prevalent at other blogs, which you have participated in — repeating one’s position without added value in an evident attempt to weary into silence someone with an opposing viewpoint is very common elsewhere and is not permitted here. Above all, Keepa aims to preserve a forum where believers who have been driven away from the other blogs for one reason or another can freely share their positive views of Mormonism without fear of being drowned out by criticism. Other viewpoints have multiple forums and don’t need to be aired here. — AEP]
I’ll speak from my own experience here.
I have been in a legislative body. I can tell you that these are people who come with the same level of education and compassion and flexibility (or lack thereof) as any jury member. These are often people who have their own ideas about what should and should not be legal, and they do not change that stance in spite of learning that it will affect people negatively, or run counter to other existing law, or become a burden on government to enforce, etc.
They KNOW they are right. And you get enough of them in a group, and a law gets passed. And once that happens, it is VERY hard to make that go away.
Also, speaking from my same experience, these elected officials are mostly older white men. I found I had more in common with the support staff when I held office. And most of the men I worked with viewed me that way.
Your analogy actually works out to be pretty solid.
Back to the substance of your post. I think you should flesh out more of the distinction between members actively disputing against a church teaching and members who passively decline to follow or support a church teaching.
For active disputes, there is clear historical precedent that such behavior will not be tolerated. You point to one example in the OP about ordaining black men before 1978. IMO, that’s a very reasonable approach. The church needs to make its doctrine clear and enforce its governing policies, even if some members dislike them.
But for passive behavior, I’m not sure that your “member nullification” analogy applies, especially labeling such behavior as apostasy. Using the examples in my first post of a bishop resigning, a member not paying tithing, and a member staying in Winter Quarters, I would not characterize any of those actions as apostasy. Certainly they may lead to a loss of blessings and even a temple recommend. But the church handbook definition of apostasy is pretty clear, and it does not include mere failure to abide by a church teaching.
Using one of your examples for simplification, withholding tithing because you disapprove of the City Creek Mall *is* member nullification: It doesn’t matter whether you publicly advocate that others follow your lead, or whether you even tell anyone privately that this is what you are doing and why. You have nullified the commandment of tithing in your own life, compounded, perhaps, by other sins (pride in your own judgment over the teachings of church leaders, perhaps). That *is* apostasy — not full-blown leave-the-church burn-all-the-bridges apostasy, but the extinguishing of one source of faith and commitment.
Please take notice that when I referred to the culture differences between Keepa and some other blogs, Keepa does not host chest-butting arguments and repeated hair-splitting. You have clarified your objections, I have responded, and that should be the end of it. If you want to bring up entirely new ideas, well, I might entertain them, but please do not return to these examples, or mere substitutes for them, as if repetition would make them any stronger.
I *do* welcome new commenters, but I will maintain Keepa’s culture and not allow it to become just another bloggernacle blog.
Oh, good, I’m glad you’re back…your silence concerned me. Feel free to rant as needed—I’m interested!
As for this topic, it’s what we talk about in my teen Sunday School class nearly every week, the Magic Carpet flight plans. To properly fly a magic carpet, one must sit in the center of the rug. Dangling below, hanging on to the fringe is risky. Best is squarely in the center, safe, secure, free to go where the carpet goes, admiring the scenery without risking smashing into tall buildings below. The driver is really the rider; the carpet is magic, after all. Same as the Church. In the center is safest; the winds of doctrine that threaten even the most elect blow stronger on the fringes than in the middle.
Yes please, more Ardis, “ranty” or not. Though I do hope you can find other avenues that are comfortable for you. It can be frustrating when you just have something bubbling in you with no easy way out.
Rant on Sister rant on! Great comment from Deb. I’ve used the example of staying in the lifeboat and not just swim around holding on from the outside. The example of a Bishop openly not supporting a policy is correct as far as personal apostasy. But one danger is his example to others in his family and Ward. Many people ‘worship’ their Bishop and this action does cause a ripple effect. Maybe ‘member nullification’ may not be actually the same as ‘jury nullification’ but serves as a close comparison (IMO). These nullifications are what we used to say ‘lead to the road of apostasy’. We learned many examples from the BoM and GD class this year. Wow, did I just imply the BoM may be relevant.
Not that, Mex, oh, not that! 🙂
Excellent post. Thank you.
Like Deb, I was worried about your absence. My worry was relieved a bit when I saw that you had commented other places. ( I loved what you said on the love letter post, by the way) I am happy to read your rants.
There is some good stuff in this post, I appreciate the chance to read and then think about these things.
I agree (speaking to the original post) in general, but I do wonder about one part.
A lot of times we quote Wilford Woodruff’s line “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray” as meaning that it is impossible for the current prophet to offer up any direction on doctrine or practice that aren’t right.
I’m not convinced that this is actually the way it’s set up to work. I do think that in general, the current prophet won’t offer up incorrect direction on doctrine or practice—but, in the (unusual) event that he does, that there is protection extended to the church, and the body of the church won’t be led astray by it.
I suppose that would be “jury nullification”, but by a very, very large jury, rather than the actions of individuals or small groups (which the original post and much of the later discussion seems to have focused on).
I remember when I first learned about jury nullification in elementary school it seemed heroic: democracy at the lowest level could undo the effect of unjust laws, like the Fugitive Slave Acts. Law school changed my attitude when I realized that jury nullification most often meant that you could get away with a racist crime as long as you had a racist jury. If a law is to be unmade, I prefer it to be done by elected representatives, or at least an independent judiciary, not by good ol’ boys looking out for their own.
I appreciate the parallel with the Church: there is one lawgiver, and one person “appointed unto [us] to receive commandments and revelations from [God’s] hand,” and if those commandments and revelations are to be changed, I want the change to have the mark of divinity by coming through the authorized channel, just like I want laws in the civil sphere to be changed by the legitimate constitutional process.
I’m not sure I agree with the characterization of what you describe members doing as “nullification” though. As you point out, the reason it is called “nullification” for juries is that the jury actually nullifies the effect of the law — a factually guilty (or liable) person is found to be not guilty, and the law that prescribes a punishment has no effect.
By contrast (as you also point out), the doctrines and policies of the church cannot be made of no effect, at least by ordinary members. If I were to attempt to ordain a woman to be an elder of the LDS Church (which is not, to be clear, a thing I would attempt), it would not nullify the effect of current doctrine and policy: it would make me disobedient, but without authorization under the priesthood keys held by the President of the Church, it would not make her an elder. Similarly if I fail to pay tithing, the law is not nullified: I cannot attend the temple, or obtain other promised blessings.
So, I think a better term for the actions you describe might be “disobedience” or “breaking the law” rather than “nullification.” It would preserve the parallel with the criminal law, where a law is “broken” when a crime is committed, but “nullified” when the jury makes the law of no effect. Nullification might be a more accurate description of something church leadership could do — a member might break the law by refusing to pay tithing, but the law would be nullified if the bishop and stake president, knowing that, issued the member a temple recommend anyways.
I personally believe that even the President of the Church is not infallible, that the Holy Ghost speaks to members as well as leaders, and that members can appropriately pray — and even advocate — for change. But I absolutely agree that changes to Church policy and doctrine can only be implemented by the people with the keys to do it.
Also, although I mostly read Keepa for interesting bits of history, I also read it for your thoughts (and, if I’m honest, for the Saturday jokes — but those are nowhere near as important as either of the other two things). Happy to see more here.
Thank you for your careful and thoughtful writing — it’s better than mine,which was tossed off without a lot of thought as a somewhat angry retort to something I read elsewhere.
If I were to write it again with more care, I would make it clear that nullification of divine law is not a reality: those who declare their disagreement and supposedly superior judgment are acting as though they are nullifying the thing they condemn — when in fact they are not nullifying the law, but are being disobedient (your word) or apostate (mine, which I chose because the behavior I refer to usually goes beyond disregard for the law and often involves elements of pride, unrighteous judgment, and attempts to persuade others to join in the rebellion).
I’m fully in favor of jury nullification — a sovereign body of citizens deciding if a fellow citizen should be punished — a citizen’s last protection from Government tyranny. Jury nullification has an honorable tradition in favor of escaped slaves and their abettors, as juries in northern States acquitted in Fugitive Slave Law cases — and also in favor of polygamous Mormons in early territorial days, as juries comprising Mormons acquitted their neighbors.
But I’m with you on member nullification, which is just disobedience.
Ardis [#5], you’re misjudging me. I never _advocated_ that members stop paying tithing. I gave that as an example of a situation where a member disobeys – an example that helps the discussion of “member nullification.” You likewise gave several examples of disobedience and obviously were not advocating for them.
I usually don’t feel compelled to list my bona fides, but since you’re doubtful, I’ll just state that I am a life-long TR-holding, tithing paying, RM/BYU, sole bread-winner, perpetual leadership calling, peter priesthood member. At times, my church service has placed me in the rare position of having to consider issues of apostasy. I hope you understand that that is the position I come from in critiquing your use of the word. The church’s definition of apostasy is quite narrow and does not include mere disobedience, pride, or unrighteous judgment; it requires repeated open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders, repeated presenting as church doctrine teachings that are not church doctrine, or joining an apostate sect. It’s helpful that you’ve clarified your definition of the word in comments 8 and 18, but that wasn’t clear in the OP and that’s why I posed my questions in comment 7.
If one (or many) member(s) stop believing or practicing a church teaching, that may eventually lead to “member nullification,” but it doesn’t rise to the church’s definition of apostasy. Heck, as you’re likely aware, Elder Christofferson has given members permission to publicly support SSM so long as they don’t oppose the church.
Finally, after reading your post several times, I disagree that there are no instances where a member should “nullify” church doctrine – IF, by “nullify,” we mean simply staying quiet and not offering support. Consider the church doctrine of pre-existence fence-sitting (taught as doctrine in the 1949/1951 FP letter to bishops). Many members felt that doctrine was wrong. Some of them openly opposed it (e.g., McMurrin). Others quietly prayed for change and declined to teach it (e.g., Jeff Holland). Eventually the nullification grew strong enough that the church could repudiate the doctrine in its essay on the priesthood ban. I’m not _advocating_ for a McMurrin-style opposition. But I do think that faithful members can follow the path of Elder Holland and decline to support church teachings that they prayerfully have concluded are not right. I would argue that that form of “member nullification” is appropriate. Would you agree?
Dave K, I am posting this only because it so perfectly illustrates the sort of discussion I have told you is not wanted at Keepa. These comments no longer address the post itself, but the thread has become (if I allowed it to) a tedious dispute about who said what and what was really meant and why one party is wrong and WHY ARE YOU BEING SO MEAN TO ME?? It is a perfect illustration of the chest-butting thread where one party attempts to wear down the other by shouting louder and adding nothing new.
Worst of all, it is unutterably boring to readers.
Move along. No further comments will be publicly posted (although they will remain visible to you for a time, as long as you are on the same device you use to post them).
I believe member nullification is valid concept, at least from a congregational level on up, has a long tradition in Mormonism. A “sustaining vote” is taken for callings at all levels, for example; and for ordinations to the priesthood.
I think there are commandments that have been “member nullified,” too. and not because they’re controversial, just difficult. Food storage is one obvious example. Birth control is another. Doctrinally, members ignored ETB’s most conservative teachings, just as they ignored BRM’s views on playing cards and JAWs views on caffeine.
And yet, I find myself agreeing with the OP that most modern attempts to claim “member nullification” is really just an excuse to go braying off into the wilderness.
The phrase that ran through my mind this week, from Moses ch. 5, was “Believe it not.” Identifying when seduction is at work is important, to protect myself and others, but the more constant challenge is to be careful with the patterns, habits, depth, and extent of my own complaining.
Rant appreciated.