There was a good article in Time Magazine last week on why we need opposition in all things. The author, a young PhD student at the time, had given a presentation at a conference. After he was done, a senior member of the group, who had read his paper beforehand, got up talked about his paper.
The discussion started well enough, with Bolton calling my idea “intuitively plausible,” but then he said a key ingredient in my study “makes no sense.” I felt like I’d been punched in the stomach. I’d been thrilled to be invited to this conference, where I was the only student in a room full of professors. But now they’d be going back home and telling their colleagues about this young upstart who gate-crashed an event for seasoned faculty and presented nonsense.
In Defense of the Devil’s Advocate, Time
The student was so shocked he didn’t even here the the person give his thoughts on the next speaker. But then he said he was shocked out of his slumber when the critic said the following speaker had found correlation, but no causation, a fatal blow to any theory.
The student then watched the week unfold, and realized that after every speaker, a senior person would get up and “commending the question the researchers were exploring but then explained why they hadn’t yet fully nailed the answer due to alternative explanations or other quibbles.” The student learned that constructive criticism was simply part of the academic process. There is no shame in receiving the criticism, and in fact it is needed to further your thesis. he said “Highlighting flaws isn’t unkind; instead, one of the most unkind things you can do is to notice a problem and not point it out.”
The author then talked about the role of constructive criticism outside of academia. He said it is called “the devil’s advocate”. Sometimes corporations will designate a whole “red team” to look at flaws in a plan. He talked about how President John Kennedy, in planning on how to respond to the Cuban Missile Crisis, had two teams, one supporting an invasion, and one for a blockade. Sometimes the culture is such that a designated team is not needed. Google fosters this by giving a bonus to any team member that finds a fatal flaw in a project that causes it to be canceled.
When he ran General Motors, Alfred Sloan closed a meeting by asking “I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here?” Everyone nodded. Sloan continued, “Then, I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what this decision is about.” He believed that no decision is black and white, and if no one raised any concerns, this wasn’t because there weren’t any but because he hadn’t yet given his colleagues time to think of them.
In Defense of the Devil’s Advocate, Time
How well does the LDS Church handle constructive criticism? I think Elder Oaks summarized the answer pretty well when he said “It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.” Could you imagine President Nelson, after the Q15 voted unanimously to prohibit the children of gay parents from getting baptised (colloquially known as the POX) , saying “I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what this decision is about.” I believe hell would freeze over before this ever happened in the Q15.
So lets give the Q15 the benefit of the doubt; maybe they do this, and when there are negative votes, we never hear about it until all the “flaws have been corrected”. But if this was the case, they didn’t seem to look at the unintentional consequences of the POX, and were forced to recant it just three years later. Maybe if somebody in some meeting at Ensign Peak had played devils advocate and objected to creating shell companies to hide the Church’s wealth from the SEC and the membership, they would not have been fined $5 million, and been embarrassed with the revelation.
The closest the Church has ever got to a “red team” was the now discontinued practice in Stake disciplinary councils of dividing the High Council in half, with six supporting the church (prosecution), and six supporting the accused (defense). I have sat in as a replacement of a missing High Councilor, and was selected for the defense. I understand the High Council is no longer used, and just the SP does the court. (Please comment if this is wrong)
What is your thoughts of having a devil’s advocate at work, school, or church?
Is there a way the Church could receive constructive criticism without that criticism “undermining the authority of leaders”? Could the church set up a “feedback line” that wouldn’t get the leaders all bent out of shape? (or is that out of the question when said leaders are “called of God? )
Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
I think it would be wonderful if there was some form of a feedback line – whether it be online, phone, or even mail in suggestion cards. They already do select surveys with select individuals so it shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility. Learning about the Strengthening the Members Committee was a major shelf-breaker for me. Given the existence of that department, providing unsolicited feedback (or even solicited feedback) should be a concern of members.
I think the true problem with accepting feedback is that it cannot jive with the official position that what the Q15 says is “direct revelation” from God. If it’s directly from God, it’s not up for debate by mere members. If policies, statements, “doctrines”, and the like are subject to feedback then that undermines the stated authority of the Q15. That would erase their power. (I put doctrines in quote marks because I’ve seen too many things enacted as doctrine and even stated as such, only to be told later it was only a policy. Gaslight much?)
To circle back, I do think an official platform for feedback would be greatly beneficial. Currently you can say something to your local leader, but let’s get real – they can’t change anything and it rarely travels up the food chain. Currently, the most effective form of feedback is through your tithing dollars (or lack thereof) and your feet: walking out the door and not returning (if you’re male). Those two items of feedback are noticed. This is unfortunate because there are those who would like to remain in the community, draw closer to God, and participate but find they can’t as things are currently.
I have a trust crisis (not faith crisis) with Church leadership for many reasons. One reason is that they (the Q15) can never seem to admit that they are simply making the best decisions they know how to. Instead, everything is presented as the Lord’s will.
They could have handled the POX so much better if they had been honest with us. They could have admitted that due to gay marriage becoming basically legal in the US in June of 2015 thanks to the Supreme Court, they felt that the Church needed to take a stand internally against it. That’s actually a reasonable response if that’s your belief, image, and brand. And 41 months later when they reversed course, they could have admitted that the reaction and blowback both externally and internally caused them to reconsider. Instead, we get a statement by RMN about him pleading with the Lord for an “adjustment”.
I think that most of us, whether we are TBMs, progressives, or even x-LDS, would at least respect the Q15 if they displayed just a little humility in their decision making, even if we disagreed with their decision. But instead, they claim to speak for the Lord and when it’s obvious to many of us that that is not the case the trust crisis sets in.
Scholars, scientists, lawyers, are all engaged in a community-wide effort to get to the best/right result. Scholars and scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals. Can your idea pass peer review? This implies respect for your peers, and acknowledging that you are not the smartest person in the room. Another scientist has to be able to reproduce your results.
Scholarly articles build a foundation on other scholarly articles, either to support or disagree, but either way advancing the discussion means acknowledging what others have already said.
Lawyers get “peer reviewed” all the time, and it isn’t termed constructive criticism. A lawyer files a motion, another lawyer objects, a judge decides who prevails. The adversary system in law presupposes that the best result will be achieved by having a “red team”, i.e., someone who opposes the other party. Ideally, this fleshes out all the ideas, all the problems. After full discussion, consideration, and evidence, the judge makes the decision. The judge’s decision can be appealed to another judge. No one is right all the time.
These “devil’s advocate” systems are all predicated on the notion that the work is a group effort. No one person controls; no one person has final say. It takes time, effort, opposition, and argument to get everyone on the same page. You have to respect the process. A scientist who bypasses peer review isn’t a hero; he’s arrogant. A scholar who presents an idea that doesn’t build on all the work already done isn’t a genius; he’s out in left field. A lawyer who gets angry when someone files an objection isn’t talented; he doesn’t understand his role in the system.
The Church can’t field a “red team” because it doesn’t believe any of the decisions and policies are a group effort. Having one prophet forecloses any participation by lesser beings. Imposing constructive criticism on the Q15 would mean overhauling their most foundational ideas about the role of prophets.
The church holds an absolutist position. They’re either entirely right, or they’re entirely right. There is no room for disagreement.
Informed disagreement is a necessity in any profession or environment. Our ideas and thoughts should be tested in order for us to improve them. Uninformed disagreement, such as wild conspiracy theories based on logical fallacies and outright lies that challenge your ideas, are a waste of time to entertain.
I think voices that dare point out problems are the most valuable thing a company, government, government agency, or church can possibly have. Too often these voices are ignored. Consider, O rings and explosions. We all heard what happened when an expert said it was too cold to launch the space shuttle Challenger and that advice was ignored. That voice that dares to go against the crowd is *the* most valuable thing any organization can have. But more organizations need to respect that.
And I am pretty sure that somebody among the twelve apostles pointed out that forbidding children of gays baptism would be unpopular. Can’t you just see Oaks glaring angrily at that person and that person shutting his mouth.
The angry out cry when that POX was announced was also a good indication that the policy was very unpopular. It was totally different than the similar policy of forbidding children of polygamists from being baptized because polygamy is *taught* while being gay is inborn. And many active families end up with gay children and it is those active family’s grandchildren, nieces and nephews being forbidden baptism. Too many families were affected for it to be an acceptable policy and too many members were in favor of gay marriage and willing to say the church’s stand on gays is wrong. And it was obvious to anyone paying attention to the gay issue in the church that their “brilliant” policy would go over like a lead balloon. So, I for one just cannot believe that the GA with the gay brother or the one with a gay son didn’t think the policy would flunk popular opinion.
So, would it be wonderful if the church had some method of listening to constructive criticism? Well, obviously. But the top leaders live in a bubble where they are surrounded by people who hang on their every word and think random thoughts during the night is “the voice of God” instead of random thoughts during the night. They tell their underlings to be sure to face the correct direction and it is *not their job to represent the members to the leadership* but to represent the leaders to the members. So, it isn’t anybody’s job to pass all those messages up the chain of command. Yet they tell the members that is the proper way to get messages to them is talk to your local bishop and they will pass it up the chain of command. And then tell those middle managers NOT to pass anything up the chain of command. This tells me that they do not want any feedback at all.
So, the chances of them implementing some kind of system for the members to pass along constructive criticism…zero.
In a marriage, hopefully there are 2 decision-makers. They can be equal partners with give and take, managing the relationship. If there is only one, it is called a dominant spouse or many times a patriarch. They would ignore the other person’s feedback (be it a devil advocate) and take excessive control.
A small organization can run smoothly and maneuver quicker to changes compared to a large group. Many times, it is easier to have one decision-maker who can navigate the ship and get things done quicker and, in their mind, more efficiently. The larger the organization the more layers of management exist and more bureaucracy. Larger groups also have greater points of view and approaches which can lead to dissent. Be it a company, a government, or a church if it gets too large the more complicated the decision making becomes. Sometimes, the top decision-maker can manage the organization by ignoring the “devils” of the sub-ordinates or just turn to a dictator style of management.
With current international politics there are 2 different styles of dictators now Putin/Jinping/Jong Un vs Bukele (Pres of El Salvador). We all know about the communist dictator style, keep your mouth shut or you will be ousted or killed. Whereas Bukele is “the world’s coolest dictator”. Bukele is managing for the best of Salvadorian society, whereas Putin is NOT. RMN and the Q15 may think they are like Bukele and running the church for what is best for the whole church. Is the church defined as the institutional church with its’ name and bank accounts, or is the church the individual members? Your answer depends on your experiences and how your personality meshes in your ward or the North Temple Organization.
I used to think chauvinism was only defined as male superiority over females. With inquiring, Britanica states “the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one’s own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior.
The church has been subdivided within itself with decision makers viewing them self as more essential than the populace. I have been a “my own advocate ” during many of my church experiences. From attending other stake youth conferences instead of my own, to questioning baptizing 9-year-olds and intellectual disabled persons, to having 15-minute presidency meetings as opposed to the inefficient 60 minutes, to questioning early morning seminary. Do the Q15 clean the bathrooms and use their retirement funds to serve the church?
The chauvinists see many of us as devils, since the LDS church is a system of follow the prophet and “your thoughts are not my thoughts”. Just give us your kids and your money and leave your opinion at the door.
Harry Truman famously quipped that he only wanted to be sent “one-armed economists” because he was tired of experts proclaiming, “On the one hand, this” and “On the other hand, that.” It takes a certain level of intellectual humility to entertain ideas that run counter to preferred course of action. Some people (and institutions) are not ready to entertain contrarian opinions and perspectives.
When President Nelson became the prophet in 2018 he said something that gave me a lot of hope that maybe, just maybe, the church as a whole was opening the door to getting more feedback. On the topic of personal revelation in general conference, this is a small part of what he said:
The idea of needing good information is a powerful one. Sadly, I don’t think the church as a whole has embraced this enough. Imagine how much more enlightened our local leaders would be if they took that approach before extending callings! Imagine how much smoother the entire church would run if there was a certain amount of humility that said, “We don’t know if we have enough information to get good inspiration, therefore we probably need to develop a system to get good feedback (e.g., “good information”).” The logical extension of this process, however, probably looks more like a bottom-up process of revelation for The Body of Christ and would culminate in a democratic decision making process including on sensitive and contested issues of policy and doctrine. Unfortunately, this would deviate substantially from the top-down framework of revelation coming solely to the prophet and everyone else being asked to obey and sustain. For this reason, I think a more Devil’s Advocate approach is unlikely to be adopted unless things are so dire with retention/conversion that it will seem as if it is the only course. But by that time, it may be too late.
Just a minor point of clarification, but wasn’t Monson Church president in 2015? Or are you referring to President Nelson because he was President of the Twelve and therefore de facto Church president, since Monson was already too dementia ridden at the time?
JB – you’re right about Monson, and that he was president, but Nelson was the newly installed President of the Q12 (Packer had just died in July). From various sources, it appears Nelson put pressure on Monson (who was not in possession of his full faculties) to push it through with little or no discussion among the Q12 (several of whom later said they wished they had objected). In January 2016, after some of these things had begun leaking out, Nelson gave a devotional talk where he said everyone in the Q12 felt the Spirit confirming the rightness of the decision, thus making them all get in line and squelching dissenting opinion.
@Bryce Reading your post reminded me of this recent SL trib article.
Secret meetings could have ended the LDS priesthood/temple ban a decade before it happened (sltrib.com)
The church announced the end of the racist policy on June 9, 1978. What did Kimball think of how apostle Bruce McConkie exaggerated the revelatory experience to the public?
After the revelation, Kimball will praise McConkie in private for his support. Then McConkie and [apostle] Boyd K. Packer, a close ally, start to give firesides in the church in which they embellish some of the experiences that happened. They say stuff like, “the [past] church presidents appeared to the Twelve on June 1st.” Jesus himself, Packer said, “appeared and told us that we needed to lift the ban.” When those otherworldly reports filtered back to Kimball, he was furious because that’s not what he said happened. And he didn’t think that it needed to be embellished. … He said that “we want people to know, including the media, that the ban was changed because we listened to the Holy Ghost. It was the Holy Spirit that told us this is what needed to happen. There was no audible voice. There were no manifestations.”
RMN gave credit then blame God. BRM/BKP testified of heavenly visitations and squelched other opinions. Even though SWK was in charge he lost the narrative to the Q15. SWK told the truth, as a church body we read only about the BKP and BRM inspiring embellished stories.
In this case the Prophet was the devil’s advocate, and he was ignored.
Because I have a lot of friends and family that will always associate with the church, I want it to be as healthy of an organization as possible for their benefit.
As such, I volunteer as tribute to be the church’s contrarian. I commit to being anonymous and invisible. I’m happy to provide friendly advice for free as long as it doesn’t turn into a full time gig. I’m also happy to provide unfriendly advice as the case may be when they ignore me.
I doubt this will ever happen. Why would they listen to me, a lazy learner? But it’s fun to dream.
There’s always room for improvement–but there isn’t another organization that can come close to building the Kingdom as well as the church does. So-yes-constructive criticism can be productive in the church so long as we allow revelation to have the last word. The most important decisions are not made by a simple majority–it must be complete unanimity.
There are two examples of healthy dissent that drives better decision-making that readily come to mind: 1) we used to do what was called a “pre-mortem” when making decisions. As a group, we needed to explain why the policy we were implementing (or new platform, or project, or whatever) failed…before we ever implemented it. Then, we either decided to go forward but with a more robust plan to address the flaws, or we scrapped it for another idea. and 2) watching Judgment at Nuremberg reminded me just how good the process of a trial can be, when the defendant is vigorously represented. The opposing view needs to be as vigorously defended as the sustaining view in order to really explore the flaws with an idea.
But that brings me to why the Church can’t function properly in decision making. They operate like SCOTUS, like today’s corrupt SCOTUS that has no real checks and balances on it. They decide what to even consider, and they put a hand on the scale. Unlike SCOTUS (and believe me, any ray of sunshine when comparing to that corrupt body is helpful, but this ISN’T a positive difference), they don’t publish dissenting opinions. If you really want to see the value of judicial decision-making, reading dissents (whether you agree or not with the decision made) is often extremely valuable. There is some similarity between the appointment for life aspect as well. If you are a justice and you have an agenda, you want to implement and change-proof your agenda so that you cement your legacy even after your retirement/death. We currently have a pair of activists running the church, or so it looks to me.
Now, church leaders are basically beholden to nobody but their own better angels, so the analogy falls apart (except that an unchecked conservative majority seems to want a lot of the same things, and it’s an indictment of some glaring blind spots and privilege). But I guess you can still say “you and what army?” to either of these two groups.
@Bishop Bill the last stake disciplinary council I attended was in 2020 so I don’t know if this still is true, but at that time the High Council still was assigned to defend to prosecute and the SP mostly just listened. Before it began he was clear that the HC only advised, not decided and that he was able to go against the advice of the HC even if unanimous.
Devils advocates, or some mechanism to ensure feedback, helps ensure better decisions. There may be instances were command decisions are required that don’t have time for debate – perhaps ER rooms, battlefields, burning buildings, but most scenarios really benefit from what my profession calls “credible challenge.” I work in a company that has had issues with poor leadership decisions in the past and regulatory agencies required us to change our culture and processes. All someone has to do is say “I’m raising my hand” or “I’m providing credible challenge” and pretty much everything stops and we listen. Grinding bureaucracy sometimes results but it’s better than autocracy.
Toad, I looked it up myself. From section 32.9.2 of the handbook:
Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations. For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when:
There are contested facts.
They would add value and balance.
The member requests their participation.
A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved
Contrary to the Church’s narrative, which many memebers buy, the Church isn’t actually that great at its mission. I don’t know what world some people believe in where, say, an approximate 30% success rate is success (measuring by conversion, meaning people who are on the books and are active), but most people would consider that quite poor. No, the Church isn’t actually that good at conversion to the Mormon narrative. Making money (by which I also mean, of course, acquiring money through pressure dcampaings for donations)? Sure, if that’s the measure of success you’re looking for, then it’s doing a fairly good job. The Church could use some more devil’s advocates.
Someone took my handle,
I think it depends on how we frame success. For example, though the church may be weak in some areas, I think it does a better job than any other organization at getting people on the high road to eternal life. That said, there certainly may be room for constructive criticism with respect to improving how it goes about that particular work. But even so, inasmuch as no mortal has ever experienced eternal life we must allow revelation to have the final word.