GC Elder Christofferson: Voice of Warning – Offensive?

[Anonymous]

I remember during Conference weekend, this talk was not popular.

We went over it in church last week, and I’ve taken time to listen to it, and re-read it 3 times.

The overall feeling I have with this talk and how it is presented is that the Church leaders are hearing lots of complaining, and Elder Christofferson is trying to give a response from their view that it is their job as church leaders to teach standards they believe the church needs to hold fast to…they are Watchmen on the towers and have a job to do and if they don’t do their job…it is on their heads.

That concept is fine…the Ezekiel scripture is fine…I don’t have a problem with the concept. They call people to repentance and they teach truth. That goes along with being in the ministry.

And…from their perspective…their heart is in it. They do not try to do this to get tithing money so they can live in luxury. They do not seek to rule over or gain power (or they’d stay in their successful business careers).

I believe them when they say this:

Quote:

The motivation for raising the warning voice is love—love of God and love of fellowman. To warn is to care. The Lord instructs that it is to be done “in mildness and in meekness”14 and “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness … , and by love unfeigned.”15 It can be urgent, as when we warn a child not to put his or her hand in a fire. It must be clear and sometimes firm. On occasion, warning may take the form of reproof “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost,”16 but always it is rooted in love.

This is very inspiring to me. Love is truly the reason for anything we do in church. It has to be.

My problem, however, is that it greatly feels like the things that seem to be non-sequitur, as in…they make a statement, then draw a conclusion that doesn’t follow. I agree with their premise…but not how they apply it.

For example…we love you so we need to send a warning, like a parent does to a child. Therefore…. those that disagree with us are wrong and just trying to be selfish.

And by doing that…it promotes a lot of discord in the church, but it all comes down to personal interpretation that I don’t really know how to discuss it with other members without it seeming like I am the one that is kicking against the pricks, full of pride, or hypocritical and rebellious.

I just wonder if we could discuss in this thread why we take Elder Christofferson’s words as offensive (if that is the case), because based on what he is saying, I would agree with what they want to do to warn out of love…but based on how people turn it into something to support their opinion on a specific issue that is not black and what, it is problematic.

The problem is not that we have leaders or can listen to leaders. The problem is a specific topic that is not black and white and there is not enough trust to just accept it on authority only.

Maybe we can find ways to discuss it so we can have discussions in church or with family or friends and not sound heretical.

Here is one issue I take with the talk:

Quote:

How much better it is to have the unchanging law of God by which we may act to choose our destiny rather than being hostage to the unpredictable rules and wrath of the social media mob. How much better it is to know the truth than to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”27 How much better to repent and rise to the gospel standard than to pretend there is no right or wrong and languish in sin and regret.

I agree with all of those statements he makes. It is better to have an unchanging law of God than unpredictable rules by social media. But…what exactly is he talking about? What is the context…because I am not sure we are all viewing “truth” vs “social media mob” as the same thing.

For example…if these statements are used to apply to some current church policies on SSM…then, I don’t agree. Because SSM isn’t some fad that sinners just want to call right so they can sin. That is the fallacy in how it is presented.

What is another example that comes to mind? There are many.

My point is, that after much study and thought…it isn’t just “truth vs tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine”…the problem is more complex and in depth…and my biggest problem is that I don’t see “Unchanging Laws of God”.

That doesn’t mean we don’t need watchmen…just we need good ones that have relevance and don’t cry wolf.

They want to feel secure by being right…but…they will change when wrong. Therefore…based on history of seeing how church deals with things and the lack of trust I have in broad sweeping statements…I cannot just take church leaders’ words without question, and I am not doing that because I prefer changing social anarchy to determine rules.

I am seeking truth…and find it more complex than the binary options being presented by Elder Christofferson.

So…that is what I would like people here to share with me.

1) Do you see the same problem I see in how they use a gospel of love premise…and then make a conclusion about something that may or may not follow…making it hard to discuss it?

2) Do you see a problem with my logic in presenting this stuff above?

3) Do you have strong feelings or other issues with the way Elder Christofferson presents this subject that you can share your own concerns about this talk and why you liked or disliked it?

I really want to try to know better how to view this, as I see it at church all the time. I have no problem with leaders teaching truth. I just hate that we get 30min in Sunday School to scratch the surface, make huge wide-spread sweeping statements like “Divorce is the biggest cancer of this generation”, and then people feel justified to judge or exclude others from our congregations without any real meaningful discussion on it.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I believe them when they say this:

Quote:

The motivation for raising the warning voice is love—love of God and love of fellowman. To warn is to care. The Lord instructs that it is to be done “in mildness and in meekness”14 and “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness … , and by love unfeigned.”15 It can be urgent, as when we warn a child not to put his or her hand in a fire. It must be clear and sometimes firm. On occasion, warning may take the form of reproof “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost,”16 but always it is rooted in love.

Here is one issue I take with the talk:

Quote:

How much better it is to have the unchanging law of God by which we may act to choose our destiny rather than being hostage to the unpredictable rules and wrath of the social media mob. How much better it is to know the truth than to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”27 How much better to repent and rise to the gospel standard than to pretend there is no right or wrong and languish in sin and regret.

I agree with all of those statements he makes. It is better to have an unchanging law of God than unpredictable rules by social media. But…what exactly is he talking about? What is the context…because I am not sure we are all viewing “truth” vs “social media mob” as the same thing.

I really want to try to know better how to view this, as I see it at church all the time. I have no problem with leaders teaching truth. I just hate that we get 30min in Sunday School to scratch the surface, make huge wide-spread sweeping statements like “Divorce is the biggest cancer of this generation”, and then people feel justified to judge or exclude others from our congregations without any real meaningful discussion on it.

I see genuine concern for the church’s well being and love for the church organization. I haven’t perceived love unfeigned for individual members since my faith transition a few years ago. I believe if Q15 and Q70 looked at the real challenges facing the average church member – instead of the organization of the church – we would have a different church.

Like Heber, I actually agree with the idea that we shouldn’t follow the unpredictable rules of social media. However, I can state with equal firmness that we shouldn’t unquestioningly follow a group of men where there is little feedback or accountability. Simply stating “follow us because we love you” doesn’t cut it for me – because I don’t see the love as often as I’d like.

To respond to Heber’s questions:

Quote:

1) Do you see the same problem I see in how they use a gospel of love premise…and then make a conclusion about something that may or may not follow…making it hard to discuss it?

Yes – claiming some sort of moral authority has the benefit of promoting obedience if you believe in that moral authority. Once you lose that moral authority for a person or group, you must rely on something else like logic or precedence. Claiming some sort of moral authority like love makes it difficult to discuss because it seems more like a personal attack rather than an exercise in reasoning.

Quote:

2) Do you see a problem with my logic in presenting this stuff above?

No, I find this thread interesting and want to see where it goes.

Quote:

3) Do you have strong feelings or other issues with the way Elder Christofferson presents this subject that you can share your own concerns about this talk and why you liked or disliked it?

My issue with this talk is the assumption that he (they: Q15) know best. I believe I know what’s best for me. The whole concept of watchmen implies they see things I can’t see, but at this point in my life I’m not convinced the watchmen have a better vantage point than my own. I don’t find the talk offensive; I find it presumptuous.

[Anonymous]

How my MIL is like the LDS church

Quote:

Surely love would compel parents to warn their closest “neighbors”—their own children. This means teaching and testifying of gospel truths. It means teaching children the doctrine of Christ: faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.17 The Lord reminds parents, “I have commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth.”18

I have a manipulative, controlling, and intrusive MIL. Shortly after DW and I were married she sent a letter to all her married children. Apparently one of the married children had asked their mother to stay out of their marriage. In response everyone got a letter with this same justification. It said that the job of a parent does not end when the kids leave the house or start families of their own. The parents will still be held responsible if they fail to warn their children of the consequences of wayward choices and behavior. I responded back with what I felt was a very respectful letter with some choice quotes from SWK’s talk “In-Laws get off the boat” These letters were never spoken of. To this day, I do not know if they received my response. I do believe however that this was an important moment for boundary setting in my nascent marriage.

Love?

I believe that my MIL feels that her behavior is motivated by love. However it is an extremely limited form of love. How much love does it take to motivate you to tell people how right you are and how wrong they are? Granted there is a time and a place to do so but one should be careful of one’s own heart and motivation in doing so. (also the concept of warning grown adults so that God does not hold you responsible for their sins is extremely condescending. “Uh…Thanks…for the warning. We’ll go ahead and accept responsibility for our own sins from here on out.” :sick: )

Love Languages

The concept of love languages is that everyone gives and receives love best in one or two love languages. If you can determine the love language of the recipient and modify your own love language to match then the love is received much better. I have actually been very direct in telling her “X is what your daughter needs from you in order to feel like a priority.” This has yet to be headed.

There have been many examples over the years that make me believe that my MIL is oblivious to our love language. For Christmas all the married children received a binder with empty plastic inserts. every few months thereafter we receive a photocopy of an ensign article with some variation of “this is so true” written across the front. In talking to some of the other married children, we all receive the same articles. I’m a little confused on how it is supposed to work. Am I supposed to share it in FHE? Once I share it what is the point of filing it away in my binder? Is it so that even after they pass away we will still have these articles that they liked enough to share?

I can see how that might address their needs but it is so very tone deaf to the needs of my family and my children.

My MIL seems to feel that she is always right and she never apologizes. If there is some falling out where an apology might be in order there will be a period of no contact followed by a contact about some innocuous subject and the disputed incident or subject will just never be mentioned again.

There is more that I could say but surely this post is long enough.

How do DW and I cope with that?

Sometimes Ray says “humans gonna human”, this is helpful to remember in this situation. My MIL does not seem to have much depth of emotional intelligence. She seems to not even be able to understand her own part in hurt relationships. Honestly at her age it is doubtful that she will ever change. Hawkgrrrl says something to the effect that “The person that is more capable of deliberate response is the party that must act”. Because we view the MIL to be incapable of taking additional steps, the burden falls to us to avoid responding in a way that would result in a severed relationship. We must both maintain effective relationship boundaries AND constantly forgive the rather awkward and ineffective attempts to show us love.

In the specific example of the photocopied ensign articles, we stick them in the closet. seems like an easy enough thing to do to avoid throwing them away and we will have them if anyone ever asks us to present them. Maybe we will arrange them on the table at their funeral as a representation of the testimony they left behind. That seems like the honorable thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

I believe if Q15 and Q70 looked at the real challenges facing the average church member – instead of the organization of the church – we would have a different church.

Thanks RR for that insight. It actually helps me understand their motivation and actions.

[Anonymous]

If memory serves I was moderating during that talk and suggested that this talk could be skipped.

My struggle comes from a strange place. I hurt for him. I think he is a man torn. His brother is openly gay. His mother sat the family down and said the gay brother would be included just like all the family. Elder C. has invited people who experience FC or LGBT issues in their families to his office. He has counseled them to be leaders as they forge these roads. THEN he gives a talk like this.

I can’t put my finger on it but it seems almost bi-polar. I don’t know if he gives talks like this because he is a Jr. Q15 member. I don’t know if he resents his brother/family situation. I don’t know if his Q15 mentor pressures him to give talks like this. But something doesn’t match.

Because of this disconnect I am less offended by the talk. I will never like it, but I don’t feel so effected by it now.

I also have come to the conclusion talks come and go. Remember Elder Kearon’s beautiful Refugee Talk. TBM’s, StayLDSers, and Post-Mo’s were all inspired by it. Then poof. Forgotten. Same with the bad ones.

Following DJ advice I now just keep a file of the ones that inspire me and let the other ones go. This ones a definite go.

In conclusion – the “voice of warning” has been around since before Christ and the world still turns.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps because he has a gay brother his hands are tied even more. When president Obama was elected many black people where expecting more and faster intervention on their behalf. President Obama felt that he had to represent all the people and not just the black voice. A non-black president might have more freedom to push programs that assist majority black neighborhoods without others crying foul.

The Q15 make a significant effort to present a united front. I speculate that Elder Christofferson simply cannot become the public LGBTQ advocate in their ranks. I hope that privately he is able to present a perspective to the rest of the q15 that might not otherwise get considered.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

I don’t find the talk offensive; I find it presumptuous.

That is a good way to put it. Perhaps part of the journey to StayLDS is to develop maturity and inner strength so you deal with these things. They are presumptuous and are not trying to philosophize or logically establish truth. They are presumptuous because they are called to the work and so part of their effort is to do what they think they are being called to do. It doesn’t make them more right or even wrong…it just is what they are doing. We can observe that. We can accept that, regardless of what the topic is, we can separate out content from intent…and recognize each for what they are to us, and not conflate emotional issues that complicate navigation in the church. Leaders are doing what they feel they are supposed to be doing. Fine. Let them lead. I can honor that, sustain and support them even, regardless of whether I agree with them or what I plan to do about it.

Very similar to Roy’s MIL…which is a great analogy and very helpful in this context. Roy’s MIL is trying to do what she thinks is right (bless her pea-picking heart). Her heart is in the right place. Does that make her “wrong” for doing it? Does that make the children “wrong” for reacting to it with letters about it being a bit too intrusive for adults to talk to adults in such a way? Isn’t it better to have a parent try to express love (even if they don’t do it perfectly effective), than to not try anything and not care at all?

Here is another quote from the talk:

Quote:

Sometimes those who raise a warning voice are dismissed as judgmental. Paradoxically, however, those who claim truth is relative and moral standards are a matter of personal preference are often the same ones who most harshly criticize people who don’t accept the current norm of “correct thinking.”

I don’t think truth is relative and moral standards are a matter of personal preference, so I guess in some ways I don’t take issue with this because it isn’t talking about me. But in some ways, it is weak in my mind…and is just turning into…”I know you are judgemental, but what am I? Nuh-uh…you are. I’m not, You are….”

But, I don’t see only 2 options…church authority on truth, or all truth is relative and people can irresponsibly determine whatever they wan to call truth in society. Those aren’t the only options.

Perhaps I won’t give them any ammunition from me, because I don’t harshly criticize with hateful rebellious actions. I will agree with their premise if founded upon scripture and gospel principle…and stop there…even while in my heart I will disagree with their statement on what they say to do about it, and go my way to think for myself how to apply the premise differently.

I will criticize what I see is some poor teaching of the gospel of love that I believe Christ taught, and mormon prophets are trying to access. But I will try to temper it so I can maintain some social capital with ward members and family.

It is a widely different thing…to disagree with Elder Christofferson, but not be filled with hate and destroy the church. Those are different. So perhaps it comes down to me and how I handle it. I think I mostly object with the sensationalized talk at church of using extremes to make a point (ie…you believe the truth from church leaders, or you are wanting relative truth and chaos in the universe…similarly…I would criticize anti-mormons that we should love and accept people like CHrist did, or the church leaders have an evil agenda to persecute and hate homosexuals).

The truth is usually in the middle, where the true essence of it is found.

As Roy put it so well…what I see they call love as a voice of warning on some issues is

Quote:

is an extremely limited form of love.

I also really like how Roy exemplified respect, even if you can’t help but roll eyes to what they are trying to do. Put their stuff on a shelf, in the closet, and shrug it off. That is a choice we can make to handle it without attacking or destroying relationships.

Another point… if the church leaders are similar to parents, they will love all their children…and the prodigal son needs love and acceptance when they’ve truly squandered things and are humbly seeking help, and also the faithful son who was always obedient also needs love and teaching that supports their faithful choices all along. And you know what else? Those aren’t the only 2 kinds of kids you can have…there may be a whole sliding scale of behavior kids show and parents need to seek how to love them and meet them where they are…not bucket all kids in only 2 groups, in doing so alienate the kids who don’t feel understood. Lazy parenting leads to lack of relevance in the lives of children.

It would be nice if parents were always right and always wise…and yet…we know they are good to listen to and respect…but at some point you grow up and accept the fact that they don’t know much more than you do, and they are trying their best, and it isn’t wrong that they keep trying to do what they feel is right in their heart…and that gesture can be appreciated…regardless of the topic…it is a gesture to be appreciated.

Sometimes…these talks may seem to be geared to only certain groups, and feel like they are limited forms of love.

We each determine what mom3 wrote and we embrace it and internalize it, or shelf it.

mom3 wrote:

the “voice of warning” has been around since before Christ and the world still turns.

Ultimately…I think we let go of their direct impact in our lives…accept the leaders as sages and words of wisdom…then we go on with life and try to sift through stuff to find what is helpful to us…in true orthoprax fashion.

Good thoughts everyone. I still have some questions…I will use another post to pose my questions…this is all just in reaction to the replies so far. THanks for all your thoughts and replies.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Perhaps because he has a gay brother his hands are tied even more.

This could go back to RR’s point I was picking up on…about being presumptuous. Perhaps he has a gay brother providing him with his own perspective, being close to someone to see it first hand. However…he may see himself as the “right” brother, like a Nephi, always asking why his brothers are not faithful like he is. Being an Apostle…again…there is the presumption what the other Q14 are saying are “right” for all, and the voice of warning is needed even within our own families, as the Book of Mormon teaches us.

[Anonymous]

Heber wrote

Quote:

This could go back to RR’s point I was picking up on…about being presumptuous. Perhaps he has a gay brother providing him with his own perspective, being close to someone to see it first hand. However…he may see himself as the “right” brother, like a Nephi, always asking why his brothers are not faithful like he is. Being an Apostle…again…there is the presumption what the other Q14 are saying are “right” for all, and the voice of warning is needed even within our own families, as the Book of Mormon teaches us.

This. Yes. I have family who have become more strident as the years have gone on. With each passing season the entrench in ways I never imagined. When we were younger they were the balanced one. Now it’s church clothes all day on Sunday. First one to the pulpit on Open Mic Sunday. Prayers every time you put food in your mouth. Early morning scripture reading even on vacation. (Scriptures take up a lot of room in a suit case. Just sayin’).

I can totally see it. Which means in private there is a lament. A cry to God of agony because for all the effort one direction. It won’t fix the effort in the other direction.

[Anonymous]

In all fairness to him. This is a message of his I can get behind.

Quote:

“A life devoted to service to others allows conscience to flourish. Service provides a natural barrier against the ills that flow in the wake of self-will and self-interest. A focus outside ourselves and beyond personal autonomy and personal pleasure will protect and strengthen conscience.” Elder Christofferson.

Picking and choosing. It’s a lifetime pursuit.

[Anonymous]

I marked both “didn’t like” and “offensive” because I found each in the talk.

Here’s the thing about damaging false dichotomies, which are mostly what I took offense at in this talk: I don’t buy them, but they affect me anyway. I can be as mature about them as it’s possible to be, and not let them change how I view loved ones or myself. I can spot them easily. I can think about them critically, and find the truth in the middle, or even in an off-axis direction.

Can I say the same for my friends on the ward? Can I trust them to disbelieve the words of someone they believe is an apostle of Jesus Christ when his words don’t match up with reality? Will they even try to verify what he said? Will they learn the lesson he should have taught instead of the lesson he actually taught?

I know a few people in my ward will do that and a few people who definitely won’t. I don’t know about the rest.

I can NOM up damaging false dichotomies very effectively, but I can’t trust others I have or might want to have meaningful relationships with to do the same. So I emotionally disconnect, keep my distance, and put up walls.

What about the youth in the Church whose hungry minds are gobbling up this poisonous bile? What about the youth in my own home? I would rather they watch porn than absorb the divisive filth they’re exposed to in so many Sunday lessons and in talks like this. Porn would lead them to denigrate at most half of the world instead of almost all of it. Porn stars don’t demand to be followed on pain of losing your immortal soul. Porn might even be less addicting.

The Church’s divisive rhetoric – which includes parts of this talk but is much more widespread – forces me and people like me to protect ourselves from our own families and friends. I can hardly think of anything more offensive than that.

[Anonymous]

Elder Christofferson:

Quote:

“In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. … [In the shame culture,] moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion.

Quote:

The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner. The modern shame culture allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.”

There is more than one shame culture. We LDSs preach about inclusion and exclusion about others and they say it about us. Much of this talk is a double edged sword. For example, I’m convinced that future generations will shape this church in unexpected ways.

Quote:

We trust that especially you of the rising generation, youth and young adults on whom the Lord must rely for the success of His work in future years.

[Anonymous]

Reuben wrote:

What about the youth in the Church whose hungry minds are gobbling up this poisonous bile? What about the youth in my own home? I would rather they watch porn than absorb the divisive filth they’re exposed to in so many Sunday lessons and in talks like this. Porn would lead them to denigrate at most half of the world instead of almost all of it. Porn stars don’t demand to be followed on pain of losing your immortal soul. Porn might even be less addicting.

I disagree Reuben. I respect the emotional position from whence this idea comes but I think that we can agree that it goes too far. Poisonous bile? certainly not hate speech. More nationalistic if you ask me. I think the comparison to porn is a significant stretch. I am sure that in my most frustrating moments I might gravitate towards extreme examples but in the end they are not particularly helpful. As a moderator, I ask that we try to refrain from such extreme comparisons and that we move on with the purpose of the thread.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

Elder Christofferson:

Quote:

“In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. … [In the shame culture,] moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion.

Quote:

The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner. The modern shame culture allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.”

Those quotes from Elder Christofferson’s talk were taken from a NYT opinion article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/opinion/the-shame-culture.html

It also says the following:

Quote:

Many people carefully guard their words, afraid they might transgress one of the norms that have come into existence. Those accused of incorrect thought face ruinous consequences. When a moral crusade spreads across campus, many students feel compelled to post in support of it on Facebook within minutes. If they do not post, they will be noticed and condemned.

Some sort of moral system is coming into place. Some new criteria now exist, which people use to define correct and incorrect action. The big question is: What is the nature of this new moral system?

I believe that he is talking about political correctness. This is the same “moral crusade” that helps people understand the social consequences of telling racist or sexist jokes. Sure we can argue that sometimes it goes too far but, in general, I am pleased with the progress that society has made in these directions. Also, I must admit that facebook was not a big thing when I was going to school but “If they do not post, they will be noticed and condemned.” seems crazy extreme to me. Does this mean that if I fail to put a rainbow flag over my facebook profile picture that I will be “noticed and condemned”? Seems like a silly characterization to me. I do not buy it.

[Anonymous]

Roy, I’ve written and rewritten defenses of my analogy to porn, and every iteration seems it would lead to this thread going down in a tailspin. This tells me that you’re probably right about that analogy going too far.

I’ve got to defend the poison bit, though.

One of the main reasons people who leave the Church or even just stop believing lose relationships with believers is that those believers have bought into the false dichotomies and other divisive rhetoric. So I don’t feel like I’m exaggerating when I call that rhetoric poison. The fact that it isn’t intended to be poison doesn’t change what it is. The fact that we’ve learned to spit it out doesn’t change what it is. The fact that we’ve learned how to deal with believers who drink it freely doesn’t change what it is.

I don’t like to think that Staying LDS will require so much reframing and nuancing and finding the good that I lose the ability to recognize and evaluate the bad. “Us good, world evil” is bad, and it kills relationships. It’s poison.

[Author]

Posts