Responding to my objection to an online essay mocking Elder Pace's recent BYU talk*, someone asked what I considered a better way to handle such disagreements. This is my response.

* (Elder Pace's talk was interpreted by some as casting women in the role of quasi-divine beings whose purpose in mortality was to help their husbands gain exaltation, seemingly insulting both to the hapless, deficient men and, more importantly, to the women whose lives must consist of more than just being a "helpmeet" for their husbands.)

Hugh Nibley was one of the most brilliant LDS minds of the Restoration. I believe he knew more about scriptures and the gospel than almost anyone of our time, at least from an intellectual perspective. He also had direct access to General Authorities all the way up to the First Presidency. He had only to request a meeting with the Prophet and he would surely have been granted one that week, if not the same day. He had the Brethren's respect, he had their ear, and he knew that he would be approximately five times smarter than anyone else he would talk with.

Yet for all his brilliance and all his intimate access to the very highest levels of the Church, Hugh Nibley's approach to the issue of disagreements was to keep his opinion to himself. According to his biographer and son-in-law Boyd Peterson:

There are several examples I could cite where Hugh disagreed with Church policy. But when he could not argue forcefully for the Church, he kept his mouth shut. During the debate over blacks and the priesthood, Hugh evidently disagreed with the policy. Nevertheless, he never voiced those beliefs until after the priesthood ban was lifted. I once asked him about something that might be seen as heretical today but which was not in the nineteenth century, and he responded, "I never think about that." Then he paused and restated, "Well, I think about it, but I never talk about it." This may seem cowardly to some, but clearly Hugh was able to do more for the Church by remaining loyal and quiet; he would have lost that ability had he come out in open opposition to the Church's position.

I agree with Brother Nibley. If we have disagreements with Church policy, doctrine, or the administration of our leaders, our place is to shut up about it.

Of course, this is only true if we actually believe the LDS Church to be the kingdom of God on earth and the restoration of Christ's primitive Church. If we don't believe that, then we can say or do whatever we want (within the constraints of law). But in that case, why are we wasting our time? What is the point in being part of a fraudulent outfit that takes 10% of our income to teach our children fairy tales about angels and gold plates?

So what if you're a faithful and believing member, but you really really really really really want to say something in response to a particular outrage? To begin with, considering Brother Pace's remarks an "outrage" probably marks you as over-sensitive. But if you feel you really must say something, I can think of several alternatives, any of which would be far preferable to writing and openly publishing a piece of uncharitable mockery. In order of propriety, from most appropriate to least, I see some of these alternatives as:

1. Fast, pray, and discuss the issue with your Father in heaven.
2. Talk with your quorum/RS president, bishop, and/or stake president about your concerns.
3. Write a (polite) letter to Elder Pace, setting forth your objections.
4. Mention your disagreements with family and friends, being careful not to mock or take to task, but simply to outline the areas you think the speech fell short.
5. If you feel you absolutely cannot help being public with your criticisms, keep them directed closely at the points of objection, never allowing them to become a mockery of Elder Pace or a criticism of his person.