In other words, if everyone followed Elder Oaks’ advice and kept potential criticisms to themselves even in the face of policies or decisions that ought to be criticized … what would people think? They would think that Mormons are the equivalent of robots that take orders from the COB and their local leaders. They would ignore the standard disclaimers (that leaders do not dictate political positions to members; that leaders teach correct principles but the rank and file of the Church govern themselves) and instead conclude that we practice groupthink.

So I think some public criticism is healthy to avoid this scenario. It reminds people and ourselves that there is diversity in the Church and that one can disagree with some things without becoming a dissenter and perhaps even without being disagreeable.

One I didn’t mention is that safety, security, and (economic) well being of a populace is more closely tied to the correct operation of a well functioning state than the welfare of the same is tied to functioning religious organizations, at least in the short term.

Blake,
I cherish our discussions on Prop 8, and frankly think that they serve as a model for productive dialogue on difficult issues. They did take up a lot of time that I don’t think either of us had to spare, but I am really glad that we did it. Thanks again for those conversations, and for future ones that I hope to have with you.

Such organizations remain stable despite wild debate only due to the consensus that everyone is compelled to support certain types of duly legitimated determinations, and that some determinations are so important that coercion is a legitimate resort. That is ultimately what a secular government is for, to maintain a monopoly on coercion.

In a religious hierarchy things are different because (1) the stability of the institution is much more closely tied to faith and confidence – there is no coercion, no mandatory taxation, the whole thing is much more susceptible to failure due to a crisis of confidence or division and discord.

(2) The legislative or deliberative function in many religious organizations is sufficiently hierarchical to the degree that people in the lower echelons don’t even hear of the issue until the higher group considers it to be in the executive stage. By that point they don’t want to hear any more deliberation – the success of the organization is dependent on direction – any direction – actually being carried out and not just deliberated to death at all levels of the organization.

The stability of a religious organization with such a centralized deliberative function is completely dependent on the honor, respect, confidence placed in the higher levels of leadership. There is no clean way to have anything but relatively muted and respectively deliberation and commentary once a higher level council has made a determination, because it compromises the organizations very existence.

Short of some radical ecclesiastical change that expands the legitimated deliberative process to wider circles in some sort of quasi-representative, democratic, or meritocratic manner that is the way it must be. Such an expansion supports the two phase approach of consensus then execution. If consensus only really matters in higher level forums, at the lower level there is only really an executive phase. Public criticism once an issue is in the executive phase tends to be debilitating in a voluntary organization.

I guess I have some sense for the virtue of private dialog that TT so eloquently discusses because I have had the opportunity (and from perspective the privilege) of discussing a number of issues that I raised directly with members of the 12. I had the opportunity to discuss issues of timelessness, foreknowledge and free with Neal Maxwell on several occasions. I also had the opportunity to discuss the issues related to my expansion theory of the Book of Mormon directly with 3 of the 12 very openly and critically. I appreciated the sensitive and loving way in which they approached the issues with concern about their implications and what such issues mean for faith.

However, not everyone lives in SLC and not everyone has access to the 12. To be quite frank, discussing the issues with my local leaders would never have worked for a number of reasons. Political dissent is much more sensitive I think. Theological issues are often quite innocuous despite disagreement. My sense is that dissent on political issues is much more of a threat to unity. Further, determining and weighing the values of unity and the gravity of issues like Prop. 8 is not an easy task. I happen to support Prop. 8 — but for reasons that are not supportive of state-sponsored marriage. TT and I have had long (and time consuming) discussions in which we disagree. However, I think that we have maintained a friendship and respect for each other.

This latest brouhaha over SSM and Prop 8 seems a lot like blacks and the priesthood except that societal SSM per se, as in California before Prop 8 passed, didn’t impact the church’s inhouse practice regarding marriage. Are you or is anyone else relative to the blacks and the priesthood evolution aware of any persuasive argruments that say why my self-imposed silence was better not only for me, but why the delay in making the change was beneficial to the Church and its members? It seems obvious to me why it wasn’t beneficial to blacks.

I started through those prior postings relative to this subject when you first put the links up. Thanks, and I’ll try to get back to you on it over there.

As for the success of the private communication option, unfortunately the nature of this kind of approach prevents us from knowing how successful it actually is. There are anecdotes, for instance, of when certain individuals have brought an issue, doctrine, or practice to the attention of a leader who then intervenes or changes their mind, but these anecdotes are most likely never revealed. There are also anecdotes about private communications that have become public and subsequently poisoned the discussion and it feel apart. One problem with this approach, at least when it comes to issues that go to the top of the church is that only certain voices that actually have access to leadership are privileged. This, I agree, is a limitation.

I do agree with Oaks that silence and/or private communication has a virtuous quality to it, one which can make a person better. That does not mean that I think that this approach must be pursued in all circumstances. The locus classicus is Lester Bush’s article on blacks and the priesthood which is generally thought to have had a great influence leading up to the revelation.

For me, given that I do think that some kinds of criticism and public discussion is not only helpful for making the church a better place, but also necessary, the question is how to know the difference about when silence is better and when public criticism is necessary. I am not sure if I have adequately solved this issue, but I have pointed to some ways in my previous posts, collected here, with some others by fellow FPR bloggers.
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/10/recycled-posts-on-criticism/

Let me know what you think, and thanks for reading/lurking!

Eric,
That is incredibly kind. Thank you!

May I, in private, — just kidding — but with utmost respect to all, say that it seems to me that hamstringing free and open speech within the Church on public issues (like the ones Blake mentions, for example) is a vice. I might feel differently if I saw or felt that the private-communications venue had been or was now more viable than our sad history has shown. When outrageous acts have been perpetrated and unacknowledged under the cloak of privacy in past practice within the Church (e.g., MMM) and took so long to gain public acknowledgement and some degree of resolution, I have little hope that privacy works that well. And it seems inimical to me of a loving Heavenly Father. I have nothing against the notion of “let’s discuss that in private” when we’re dealing with personal issues. It’s another matter for me when we’re talking about public issues and policy that reaches beyond the walls of the temple or chapel.

In the late ’70s and early ’80s, I quietly struggled with my faith perhaps more than had been normal up until then, even though the big mess with civil rights and blacks and the priesthood had cleared up pretty nicely. I hadn’t agreed with the Church’s positions on those issues, but had kept pretty much mum.

The LDS God that most people preached and believed in was, it seemed to me back then and it had for some time, too much like the Catholic or Protestant God: you know, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., etc. One big bugaboo for me in those younger days was foreknowledge and its implications relative to agency. I am not trained in philosophy or theology, but the two notions just seemed incompatible.

I prayed, read, and studied the scriptures and the talks of the GAs, and even began broadening my resources beyond the LDS authorities, even going beyond the Church. At times, I made comments in Sunday School or at Priesthood Meeting, usually on the notion of foreknowledge and agency. It seemed to elicit askance looks and/or scowls. In fact, it still does.

I knew about SUNSTONE and DIALOGUE and even subscribed — to SUNSTONE, for a while and DIALOGUE, to this day. One day at the UofU library, I looked into a back issue of DIALOGUE: issue, Summer 1984, where I found the article, “The Mormon Concept of God.”

Reading that rather provocatively and confidently titled article wasn’t quite as satisfying as the June 8, 1978 revelation some years before for me, but it meant a lot to me and my faith. It felt like an answer to my searching and prayers. It had a profound effect by making me realize that others (well, at least one other) felt — but on a much more profound level — somewhat like I did on the subject. Not that such thinking was necessarily right, but that we had similar feelings about God. It made it easier for me to cope with my differences in belief and thought from so many of the members in my ward and stake and even in the interpretations I was reading and hearing from Church authorities above the local level.

Since that time, of course I’ve tried to pay attention to Blake’s writings. A lot of them go right over my head, but I still I consider them as best as I can, sometimes agreeing , sometimes not, and sometimes confused. I also like to lurk here in the Bloggernacle when I have time.

All of this is simply to say that I have great respect for the faith and thought of others like TT and Blake — even his, to me snide, “so-called saints” judgments that stabs to he heart — and others in the bloggernacle who put themselves out there in a public place and their ability to enlighten me mostly in positive ways.

Forgive the length of this. You can tell I have too much time on my hands today.