The New Openness?

It is interesting that the Church has released today a statement responding to charges (is that really the right word?) of a "New Openness" on its part. I have already addressed this issue somewhat on a previous post. Over the last few months, particularly since the airing of the PBS documentary on the Church, I have noticed what I perceive as an increase in officialy sanctioned pieces that address the legitimate concerns of outsiders as well as members. At the forefront of this in the Ensign article on the Mountain Meadow Massacre, which comes in the 150th anniversary year of the event, and around the same time as the release of a new theatrical movie about the massacre. I have not read the article as yet, but I understand it to be pretty honest about those shameful happenings in the Church's history.

Interestingly the Church statement seems to want to attribute the perceived openness to changes in the media cycle, which arguably have been around for years, rather then to any particular event, or pressure from any group. That's fine as far as it goes, but I think myself and many others wouldn't have a problem with the Church responding in the way that it is, due to specific triggering instances. There is precedent for responding to the times going back to the Old Testament, indeed that's largely the point of having a prophetic and inspired leadership. But public relations pressures, and a perhaps over-desire to avoid anything that seems like the Church is following a course dictated by circumstances beyond its control, make these more general, thus belated seeming statements, par for the (non outside dictated) course. I'm not saying that a changing media and information environment isn't a major factor in the welcome advent of the new openness, but I just find the timing interesting, as well as a(perceived) institutional preference for a certain rhetorical closedness even in openness.