How do you define unrighteous dominion?

I view unrighteous dominion fairly broadly. To me it’s telling someone they have to do something simply because of your religious authority or demeaning someone that is “lower” than you in authority in a religious context. A primary president or primary teacher can exercise unrighteous dominion, but it happens more often with men in the LDS culture because men hold more positions of religious authority. I’ve personally been subject to unrighteous dominion by temple president counselors, stake presidents & counselors, and bishops & counselors. It’s deeply troublesome to me and I can remember the specific circumstances years later because it’s so traumatic.

As far as being told about it, it’s been ingrained in my since I was in seminary. My seminary teacher (a male) taught that anytime a church leaders uses authority to demean or demand obedience that it’s unrighteous dominion. I also remember in ward counsel an EQ president reading the DC 121 scripture and warning everybody there that this is the natural state of man – to exercise unrighteous dominion and that we all naturally gravitate towards it unless we consciously avoid it.

I feel that many religions struggle with this principle, especially those with a history of less democratic leadership styles. It doesn’t have to be overt, it can implied and very subtle.

I really like the description in D&C 121, and I really like that it says explicitly that it is the “nature” and “disposition” of “nearly all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose”. I think it is most accurate to read “men” generically as “humans” (to include women), since I believe it’s the issue of perceived authority and not sex (man or woman) that is the key. I think most people who gain authority have to deal with the inclination, to varying degrees, to dictate rather than lead. I think it’s all about how “authority” is defined – and I think there is a huge difference between “power” and “authority”.

Historically, however, I do think that men tend to be more authoritarian and dictatorial than women – but I think that’s more a function of cultural opportunity than sex. I think women have exhibited the same tendency, but their relative lack of authority has led to different manifestations than in men, speaking broadly and collectively. I know I’ve seen plenty of women who abuse authority when they do have it, so it’s not limited exclusively or genetically to men.

Finally, I think this is not a religious issue but a human issue – and I actually have seen more egregious cases of unrighteous dominion (numerically) in my professional life than I have in my religious life. A higher percentage of people I have observed in leadership positions at work have exercised unrighteous dominion than I have observed at church – even though I absolutely have observed it at church, in some cases egregiously.

I also know that a culture of unrighteous dominion can be perpetuated, often not intentionally (especially by those who pick it up from others), so there are areas (branches, wards, stakes, etc.) where it is more wide-spread and even pervasive than other areas. It takes conscious recognition and effort to stop it in those situations.

Having said all of that, I do agree with Roadrunner that most church leaders with whom I have worked and whom I know personally are aware of the issue and try to lead through unrighteous dominion. I think that the simple fact that we have D&C 121 to reference helps a lot in that regard.

It’s a good thing somebody posted this. I used to be on a Facebook page for LDS singles that had an LDS woman on it that lived in southern Illinois that would always get on women’s cases if they weren’t dressed perfectly modest according to LDS standards. Even if a woman posted a picture of herself with a tank top on or a sleeveless shirt, the woman that acted like the modesty police would still get on that woman’s case about it. And there was a beautiful LDS woman on there that loved to post selfies on the LDS page. Others and I commented on her pictures. And, of course, the modesty police woman made a smart remark about her not being a member of the church. I told the woman she was a member. I thought everything was all right, but then this fanatic email me and tells me the woman posting the selfies was certainly not a member of the church and that the woman was a professional. She also told me that I wasn’t a righteous priesthood because I wasn’t noticing the more modestly dressed women. Honestly, I have noticed the more modestly dressed on that page too and I had talked to them a little bit, but she obviously didn’t see that. Anyway, I blocked that woman that chewed me out and I don’t bother with LDS singles pages on Facebook anymore. I can see why some unrighteous dominion happens due to religious fanaticism.

I also think it’s really, really, really important to separate unrighteous dominion from being insensitive or being a jerk. They aren’t the same thing.

Unrighteous dominion is trying to use authority to compel someone to do something based on nothing but that authority. Fundamentally, it’s a misunderstanding of what having authority means – about how it ought to be used.

If someone doesn’t make a claim to authority in what they do or say (explicitly or implied – or even unspoken and assumed), and if there is no attempt to force obedience, there is no unrighteous dominion happening; rather, there simply is someone being a jerk. Expressing a sincere belief (even if I disagree and think it’s a stupid or even harmful belief) is not unrighteous dominion, unless the person is doing so from a perceived position of authority and trying to force others to obey against their will. It’s the attempt to use force, compulsion, coercion, etc. that is the key – and that doesn’t have to be physical intimidation to be real.

Sometimes, that is a fine line, since unrighteous dominion can be exercised by someone without “real” authority but only with authority “as they suppose”. This means if a member of the Church insists that non-members act the way the member believes they should act and tries to compel such action based on their “authority” as a Mormon (meaning they act in such a way that they are trying to force others to act as they act), that is unrighteous dominion – but if someone merely ridicules others who act differently, they are not exercising unrighteous dominion. Instead, that person is just being a jerk. The same is true of members interacting with other members. Again, it’s the attempted use of compulsion that is the key.

Finally, there is real authority that comes with leadership (of any kind and at any level), and, sometimes, decisions have to be made in a time frame that won’t allow for gaining consensus. Sometimes, in some situations and organizations, decisions even have to be made unilaterally, with no input from anyone else. Making a decision and enforcing it in such situations is not unrighteous dominion automatically. Sometimes, it’s nothing more than dominion – which isn’t always bad, since only “unrighteous” dominion is what is described as being bad.

As I said, I really like the wording in D&C 121, especially since it starts with someone accepted by the people as a prophet losing it and asking God to exercise unrighteous dominion (Joseph’s plea in the Liberty Jail), and since it says clearly that the tendency is in nearly all of us.

And behind it all is a huge ego.

or insecurity and/or ignorance of any other way to get things done

Often, it’s the easiest way to get things done for someone who fears making mistakes and can’t choose among suggested alternatives; often, it’s the behavioral model of leadership learned in their formative years.

There are parents who hated having parents that were abusive in some way that end up being abusive in some way to their own children. They don’t want to be abusive; they loathe themselves when they realize they have been abusive; they simply don’t know any other behavioral model, since it was the only one they saw and learned.

I also think it’s really, really, really important to separate unrighteous dominion from being insensitive or being a jerk. They aren’t the same thing.

Unrighteous dominion is trying to use authority to compel someone to do something based on nothing but that authority. Fundamentally, it’s a misunderstanding of what having authority means – about how it ought to be used.

I would agree with this definition and venture ot say that “compulsion” is a key component of unrighteous dominion. As mentioned in D&C 121 — as the trigger for the heaven’ withdrawing themselves and saying “amen to the priesthood authority of that man”. Any time we force people to behave a certain way, against their will, we exercise unrighteous dominion.

While unrighteous dominion is alive and well in the workplace. I think it sticks out as far less acceptable in the church where people are volunteers, and leaders have the cultural deification of leaders to deal with. This makes it a particular eyesore when it happens.

I also believe that the imposition of external punishments for behavior that is not at the center of the gospel or required by core doctrine also represents unrighteous dominion.

I’m sure this will not garner full consensus in this group, but I believe that the church has instituted certain policies that represent unrighteous dominion. Such as the one-year waiting period for civil marriages. This policy uses the church’s authority to impose restrictions on privileges that are not gospel requirements. And these restrictions are meant to serve non-gospel ends. The policy is meant to force people to behave a certain way by giving them negative choices — you can do what I say, or suffer cultural embarassment or a penalty.

I could think of other examples, but this one sticks out as particularly irksome and exemplary of unrighteous dominion.

I

Daeruin made the following comment in the wrong thread. (Don’t worry. It happens more than you’d think. 🙂 )

Do they still do the wait one year thing if marrying civilly? I’ve seen it go both ways so I wondered what the official policy was.

1) I’ve seen the wait one year thing but usually always in conjunction with waiting a year after becoming a member. Like one person in the newly formed relationship is a recent convert.

2) Where I served my mission the government didn’t recognize marriages in the temple so the norm was to get married civilly and then enter the temple to be sealed… but that was usually a one-two punch with the sealing occurring immediately after the civil union. Also, it was a necessity due to government regulations.