GC Elder Christofferson: Voice of Warning – Offensive?

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ydeve – I did only ask one question. I had two but my phone rang. My mind went blank and I pushed send. Thank you for answering the one question.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Roadrunner wrote:

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.

Is the double edged sword that they are trying to truly love people by inviting them to partake of life principles they truly believe will bring happiness to others, and yet…by doing so alienate and judge and tell others they are wrong at the same time?

Or are you saying that it is not so simple as one shame culture…but there are multiple facets which aren’t presented in this talk?

My comment about the double edged sword wasn’t that sophisticated. I only meant that if he’s relying on the younger generation to teach the same things he might be surprised. We here at StayLDS seem to hope the next generation will lead more compassionately. So different groups hope opposing positions from the same youth.

I also meant that staunch LDS preach inclusion but don’t seem to include LGBT and women in our definition of “inclusion”. The shame culture as referenced by Elder Christofferson preaches inclusion unless you disagree with them. So both LDS and prevailing social media preach inclusion but neither does it.

Double edged sword is probably not the right label but that’s the idea.

My thinking about LDS having our own shame culture was that it’s broader than social media – and yes there are many facets. Garments come to mind. LDS use wearing garments, temple marriage, and WoW as effective and hurtful shaming mechanisms. We pressure and shame non temple-ready members tremendously – especially the youth – into adhering to our temple standards.

[Anonymous]

Just to say it, shame is used by nearly every group that believes something passionately – liberal or conservative.

I wish badly that we were less “natural” in that regard, but, collectively, we aren’t.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the analysis and discussion of this talk. Frankly, I am at a point in my life where most of what is said in General Conference just washes over me. Until I read this thread, I had forgotten about the talk and certainly couldn’t have said much about it.

[Anonymous]

ydeve wrote:

The fact that most people may enjoy your food doesn’t change the fact that it’s deadly poison to others. The fact that those others can still technically choose not to eat your food does not absolve you of how you pressure them into eating it.

Great response ydeve. The whole thing, really. Thanks. This quote above is brilliant. The analogy of eating food is perfectly congruent to gospel teachings (Adam and Eve, Levi’s dream, the sacrament, etc). And some really do have allergies, not because they are making excuses to want something different. Those who like this particular food item from the buffet may not understand others who don’t, and may come up with hypotheses on why that is…but it is all coming from their point of view. Until they have experience with it, it’s hard to understand why some don’t want what they want. Allergies are a great example of the true poison it can be for some.

I would disagree some about love. I think many at church and in leadership try to love the person as they are but invite (not demand) a better way (from their point of view…assuming it will be a better way for another person with all the best intentions). But I can also see how it comes off not feeling that way, and I certainly see some people use it wrong and cause damage for which they will be held accountable.

Reuben, I do think the cumulative effect of what is said and taught plays a big role. And that is significant to me. Because when talking with others I sometimes have to remember that it isn’t just what Elder Christofferson is saying word for word in just this talk…but all the underlying feelings and e.otions we bring into the discussion that make it difficult to talk about. Especially, as you said, Orthodox believers may skim past some parts and accumulate on certain ideas. And those in crisis are accumulating different pieces. And it leads to talking past each other…or just not having the talk at all for the exhaustion. I really think that point is key.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

My thinking about LDS having our own shame culture was that it’s broader than social media – and yes there are many facets. Garments come to mind. LDS use wearing garments, temple marriage, and WoW as effective and hurtful shaming mechanisms. We pressure and shame non temple-ready members tremendously – especially the youth – into adhering to our temple standards.

Good point. It seems like the reward for obeying these commandments is approval by others, less guilt, and a feeling of inclusion to the “in” crowd. The lesser things. Or as Roy put it…a lower form of love.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

On the other hand, it’s not the worst talk ever either. Even bad talks often have nuggets of good in them.

I agree…and I also find nuggets for some are not the nuggets I want.

Quote:

My understanding of the gospel of love as taught by Jesus (and not mentioned by Jesus in the BoM, BTW), is unconditional and universal.

Hm….so what do you think of this part of the talk:

Quote:

Because of His incomparable love and concern for others and their happiness, Jesus was not hesitant to warn. At the outset of His ministry, “Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”20 Because He knows that not just any path leads to heaven, He commanded:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”21

He devoted time to sinners, saying, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”22

As for the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus was uncompromising in condemning their hypocrisy. His warnings and commandments were direct: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”23 Surely no one would accuse the Savior of not loving these scribes and Pharisees—after all, He suffered and died to save them too. But loving them, He could not let them go on in sin without clearly correcting them.

I think some members confuse or conflate love with something else. When I think of Jesus demonstrating love I think of healing the sick and forgiving sins. That’s not to say I don’t think Jesus chastised people because there are examples of that as well – but generally not the same people at the same time. I don’t think the love and chastising are the same. I don’t think Jesus chastised people because he loved them (or because he didn’t love them). Everyone sins and everyone would deserve chastising, and I do recognize there are members who believe we are chastised by God in this life in the form of trials and tribulations. I am not one of those people, although I once was. Therefore, I disagree with “Because of His incomparable love and concern for others and their happiness, Jesus was not hesitant to warn.” No disrespect intended toward DTC, we just see it differently from each other.

[Anonymous]

I don’t remember my original thoughts when listening live. General conference is hit or miss for me. On my good days I find the majority of conference isn’t applicable or relevant to my life. On my bad days general conference feels like being attacked from every angle until one of the speakers finds the chink in my armor, I get triggered, and I become extra sensitive to the remainder of the talks. I think this talk fell somewhere in the irrelevant to me camp.

There are already many wonderful replies. I don’t know that I’ll add much.

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. …

Oh boy. I don’t think any tribe sets out to become a guilt or shame culture, I think it’s more the case that there are elements of guilt and shame cultures in every tribe. It’s baked into human nature so it tends to come out in all tribes. Unfortunately, considering every tribe I belong to, I’d say the tribe where I feel the effects of the guilt and shame cultures the most is when I’m at church, it’s not even a contest. It’s extremely difficult to be aware of the shame culture that thrives in the church when you feel included and feel honored by your tribe. Apostles, stake presidents, bishops, temple married return missionaries, men in general. Honored and included.

Gays, intellectuals, and feminists (BKP’s infamous three). To that I’ll add doubters, disaffected, introverts, and people that don’t fit the Mormon mold. I feel like there’s a subconscious push from the included group to draw a line in the sand that excludes others. Hey, a story is only as good as its villain, right?

Here I get the impression that Christofferson is pointing the finger outward. It’s society, “the world” that creates shame culture. To borrow (yet again) from Uchtdorf, where’s the “Lord, is it I?” in all of this? Shame culture is a natural outcropping of any tribe and our LDS tribe draws the line so deep in the sand that it’s created an ecosystem in which the shame culture part of our human nature can flourish.

Quote:

… Everybody is perpetually insecure in a moral system based on inclusion and exclusion. There are no permanent standards, just the shifting judgment of the crowd. It is a culture of oversensitivity, overreaction and frequent moral panics, during which everybody feels compelled to go along. …

Shifting judgments can be hard to deal with but so can uncompromisingly harsh, fixed judgments. Pre-faith crisis I had scrupulosity. I was “perpetually insecure” about my standing with god. Church culture that overemphasizes works and outward appearance helped cultivate a dormant tendency towards scrupulosity. There are many roads to “perpetual insecurity” other than “people’s judgments change.”

I see it as being more of an issue of operating at extremes. It’s difficult to deal with “every wind of doctrine” but it’s just as difficult to deal with uncompromising doctrines that are not flexible enough to accommodate continued revelation.

This part of Christofferson’s talk feels like pushback against a PC society. I’ve observed that the people pushing back against a PC society are often guilty of the same behaviors that they criticize. The only difference is what one considers to be PC, both sides tend to draw lines that they don’t want others to cross.

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.

I think we need some instruction on how to hate a sin but love the person committing it. We get that process wrong far more than we get it right. Maybe we could start by not instructing people to hate anything. “Don’t sin, love the sinner.” There, I said it without calling people to hate anything.

…and I’ve sat in many a Sunday School lesson and I’ve participated in more than a few discussions with orthodox friends to know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of people being “strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.” We take “Lord, is it I?” and morph it into, “Lord, look at how it’s them.” It isn’t a matter of which side of the debate you’re on. Both the sheep and the goats can be strangely unmerciful.

[Anonymous]

On the subject of love and correction:

Again, I feel Christofferson is pointing the finger outward. I don’t know who to attribute this quote to, Tullian Tchividjian? :

Quote:

The Bible makes it clear that self-righteousness is the premier enemy of the Gospel. And there is perhaps no group of people who better embody the sin of self-righteousness in the Bible than the Pharisees. In fact, Jesus reserved his harshest criticisms for them, calling them whitewashed tombs and hypocrites. Surprisingly to some, this demonstrates that the thing that gets in the way of our love for God and a deep appreciation of his grace is not so much our unrighteous badness but our self-righteous goodness.

Someone else talked about beams and motes but I’m struggling to find the source for that one. I should point out… it’s hard to tell which direction the finger points. “The world” could mean anything that doesn’t follow Christ, meaning for all I know he could be pointing the finger at elements of church culture. It’s hard to tell who is in the crosshairs because as a culture we often make synonyms out of church, god, Christ, leader, gospel, etc. That said there does seem to be an implication that church leaders set themselves up as the highest moral authority. As Roadrunner said, it’s presumptuous.

I like Roy’s story of his MIL. Roy realized that his MIL probably isn’t going to change so he changed. It sounds like Roy decided to absorb some injustices and be the more mature adult in the room, which I’m sure is very difficult. The church right now is very stage 3, I don’t think we’re going to be happy if we expect the church to adopt a more stage 5 mindset to accommodate people, I think we have to absorb some of the injustices and be the more mature adult in the room.

Imagine how Roy does that with his MIL. After a while you learn that telling your MIL, “Shut up, I’m the adult in the room,” isn’t the best plan to stick with… even when the other adult in the room tells 15,882,417 other people, “My SIL is wrong, I’m the adult in the room.” 😈

[Anonymous]

nibbler, you touched on keeping expectations realistic and us not expecting them to be stage 5. That is a good point.

I think the church’s vision and mission is to be the correct stage 3 organization. Or perhaps that model doesn’t apply, but the point is…they see their purpose and calling as one of leadership in the kingdom of god.

How can that be done without providing correction and establishing standards? Other organizations that make it their purpose to be more universalist and open and accepting of all things have a different set of problems…for them…they struggle with a purpose of what they stand for.

Perhaps one is not “better” than the other…simply…the church has it’s mission and purpose…and so that will include loving correction and a call to conform.

They would have to redefine themselves to change that. Which would take a strong prophet. I don’t see it happening.

So…instead it does seem like we find ways to accept it for what it is and accommodate into our lives best we can, because i don’t see it changing much, maybe having to absorb injustices at times for a greater purpose…like Roy does.

Perhaps, even, as we do that…we learn how to live gospel principles we could not otherwise learn to live. And so…in the end…it achieves a purpose for us, justifying our commitment to something we at times disagree with and feel unloved by…because Jesus taught we need to love those that are very hard to love or who hurt us…not just love the people who are easy to love and nice to us, and so we learn to wrestle on our end with the organization that marches forward, even while leaders continue to learn over time how to show an increase in love when they do feel the need to reprove at times with sharpness.

[Anonymous]

Each stage has its pros and cons. There is no ideal stage and here we’re talking mostly cons of stage 3. There are many pros.

I prefer talks that get people to reflect inwardly. The “Lord, is it I?” talks vs. the talks that create external boogeymen and as is too often the case talks that create boogeymen out of our friends and family members. I’m not saying this is one of those talks, I’m just saying it’s a message that’s a natural outcropping of entities similar to the church. As others have pointed out, we can learn how to find peace with some of the hurtful elements of our culture but how those hurtful messages are internalized by our community is outside of our control. Learning to zen past one conference talk becomes having to learn how to zen past an entire community that internalizes the talk.

Not to single anyone out, the discussion was great, but I enjoyed Reuben’s and ydeve’s comments.

It can hurt to be in one of the outside groups, like you’re listening to general conference and a speaker is vilifying a group and you have that sudden moment of clarity where you think, “wait a second, that’s me.” and you feel your only crime was being different.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

This part of Christofferson’s talk feels like pushback against a PC society. I’ve observed that the people pushing back against a PC society are often guilty of the same behaviors that they criticize. The only difference is what one considers to be PC, both sides tend to draw lines that they don’t want others to cross.

The opinion article that Elder Christopherson is quoting makes it much more clear that this seems to be talking PC.

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.

I assume that this includes gay marriage since it is the movement of the moment AND that this is an issue church members have been labeled homophobic for expressing their views.

I like your observations nibbler. I heard on the radio that retailers risk the wrath of certain Christians by displaying happy holidays decorations. In an effort to be less religion specific and avoid offending potential customers many retailors have made the move to happy holidays. A new survey finds that some Christians become more offended at this “war on Christmas” than non-Christians ever were. This puts retailors in a tight spot as they would rather not pick a side and just want to sell products to as many people as possible.

I understand that PC has its problems but when I look at shows like Madmen it seems that much important progress has been made.

[Anonymous]

I have thought quite a bit about the metaphor of this talk and others like it being poison. I still do not fully agree but I do find truth in your position. Part of why I do not want to label it “poison” is because it is not terribly extreme – more “Rah Rah we are the best, so much better than those other guys tossed to and fro with every changing tide.” If I label that as “poison” then what do a label the truly offensive hate speech? Also If I label his complaining about the PC police as “poison” then I fall into the trap and prove his point (in that I label his viewpoint as bad because it does not conform to mine). It is also interesting because it does not seem to harm all the listeners. Some find it inspiring and a confirmation of their previous viewpoints. They then become convinced of their rightness and more likely to act uncharitably to the “other” but they also seem happy in doing so. If this is poison then it must not act in ways that I expect poison to (namely harm everyone, especially those that consume the most.)

After listening to you explain your position I think of the metaphor of “drinking the Kool-Aid.” It can be used to mean essentially “now you are buying into the party line” or “now you are singing the company praises”

Of course, the Kool-Aid is also a reference to drinking literal poison on the strength of confidence in the rightness of your beliefs. An organization needs both the passion of rah rah champions and the pragmatism and balance of some sort of dissention in order to stay healthy. When people get too confident in their beliefs bad decisions tend to get made (like drinking poison, or charging off into the wilderness without proper supplies, or slaughtering a wagon train full of people.)

Anyway, that is my 0.02 on the subject.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I prefer talks that get people to reflect inwardly. The “Lord, is it I?” talks vs. the talks that create external boogeymen and as is too often the case talks that create boogeymen out of our friends and family members. I’m not saying this is one of those talks, I’m just saying it’s a message that’s a natural outcropping of entities similar to the church.

Good comments.

But if I can…it was what I was asking of Reuben also…which is…what is Elder Christofferson really saying that creates the “external boogeymen” or is it just an accumulation of things outside of this talk that get brought into the critique of Elder Christofferson in this case?

In some ways I feel for Elder Christofferson…it kind of sounds like he is saying what Roy brought up in the commercial position these companies are placed in…regardless of intention…

Roy wrote:

This puts retailors in a tight spot as they would rather not pick a side and just want to sell products to as many people as possible.

…the retailers have to navigate through the opinions of the groups and are caught in the middle of being offended by both extreme positions. At some point, not that PC is worthless, but at some point PC should not overpower delivering a message, and sometimes with boldness when needed.

The church can’t resort to just not taking a position on things in fear of offending people. They have to find loving ways to send their message, which is what all leaders do, and all have done throughout time. All churches do.

Can we really demonize them for doing what they are called to do? ARe they really doing it so callously…or can we recognize, even if we disagree, that they are trying to do it lovingly…even if it doesn’t remove the personal injury from the position they take on things?

In the talk, he points out the message is for EVERYONE (not just an external group):

Quote:

Far from being anxious to condemn, our Heavenly Father and our Savior seek our happiness and plead with us to repent, knowing full well that “wickedness never was [and never will be] happiness.”9 So Ezekiel and every prophet before and since, speaking the word of God out of a full heart, have warned all who will to turn away from Satan, the enemy of their souls, and “choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men.”

He claims they are not “anxious to condemn” and probably find that to be the least fun part of the job they were given. But if they feel that is needed for them to accomplish their purpose, they try best they can to do it lovingly…even if some will not feel it that way…and sometimes rightly so since they are mortals and won’t do it perfectly or can’t see every angle of it (yet).

In fact, right before that paragraph he specifically states…

Quote:

Interestingly, this warning also applies to the righteous. “When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his [righteous deeds] shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.”

As we saw in the D&C…Joseph Smith was the most chastised of anyone in the scriptures, right? They do not only pick on external groups to call to repentance…but everyone. That is part of religion. Right?

Wherein lies the problem with Elder Christofferson’s talk, precisely?

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Part of why I do not want to label it “poison” is because it is not terribly extreme – more “Rah Rah we are the best, so much better than those other guys tossed to and fro with every changing tide.” If I label that as “poison” then what do a label the truly offensive hate speech?

Roy, first…I think the original problem I have is how Elder Christofferson lays out extreme dichotomies.

There are more options than just those two…but that is all they present, which bothers me, but it doesn’t mean I must take a side with him on one or hate him on the other…instead…I can agree with him…if he says it is better for one thing than they other option…I agree…that would be better. But that is where the non-secuitur or “does not follow” red flags come up for me…you don’t make a sweeping generality (It is good to obey God), and then apply it to something specific that doesn’t follow (therefore we must declare jihad and behead all non-believers). But that dichotomous speech seems to be what is irresponsibly done far too much, and seems unnecessary.

But fighting against it with equally dichotomous arguments (like saying the church is all evil and controlling and they just want tithing money) is doing the same thing back in return…and no progress is made.

Intelligently…one must see that the church has changed positions on almost all things…pick any example you want…blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, temple ceremonies…whatever…and one can see that we could throw it right back to the chruch that they are ungrounded and just toss to and fro with every changing tide.

Instead…we can agree on the principles and reality of what happens…the church changes (a proven fact) and it is done by revelation when there are good reasons for it (opinion). They should just extend the same courtesy to others not of the church…and see that society changed (take segregation for which the church was far behind in changing) and see society changed (fact) with a good purpose (opinion), when grounded on logic and sound judgment of people in society trying to progress society.

It is not so black and white, good vs evil…church vs devil. It is just differences on some specific applications based on opinions.

As you stated…

Roy wrote:

I understand that PC has its problems but when I look at shows like Madmen it seems that much important progress has been made.

. Society has shown great progress. The church should do more to call out the progress and give it credit where due.

It just is silly to suggest the church or God NEVER changes on anything, and everyone else in the world is just willy nilly about life. Sure there are willy nillies in society…but they are in the chruch too…so…that whole point makes no sense. It’s just an extreme statement and can be irresponsibly used by listeners who like that simplistic quote to further their own cause…even if it is not really the church’s cause or preferred application…it is individuals using it and when they use it to shame or guilt others, they are sinning.

So…what is the point he is trying to make? It is that the church will not bow to social pressure just to be popular with the masses and public opinion of the day. Instead…they thoughtfully seek revelation to guide them for a long-term best position (in their best stab at it).

OK. I don’t have to agree with their stance on SSM to agree they are trying to do what they think is best to serve God. I just disagree with them on a topic, but not their intent.

Am I defending EC? Well…somewhat…but criticizing too. Because I think the truth I cling to is somewhere in the middle, not on either extreme.

He is allowed to call people to repentance and follow Christ. He doesn’t need to use silly dichotomies to make the point when those are not the only options that are really going on with the church and people struggling with it. They are absurd to me, as I mentioned above. The church changes sometimes. Society changes sometimes. Why can’t they just say that? I think they would earn more trust with people if they did.

But it doesn’t mean Elder Christofferson is spouting hate and fire and brimstone for all heathens…he is trying to reconcile Christ’s teachings of love with the call for moral standards in church members even when it is inconvenient or not PC to do so, even while expressing the voice of warning to the righteous…so they don’t get puffed with pride thinking they are better.

I think it is right to compare it to allergies that are poison to some, but truly nourishing for others.

But…just because some have the peanut allergy…they don’t then need to tell everyone else it is poison to everyone and that they just are naive to not see the poison that will some day get them.

Instead, the truth is it is poison for some, and nourishing for others. Those that have an allergy should stay away from it, but let others enjoy it if they find it nourishing to them without allergic reaction to it.

It is one conference talk with one message about a voice of warning and the role of watchmen on the towers.

I can find problems with the way Elder Christofferson delivered some points and what they can be extrapolated to mean. But it doesn’t HAVE to be taken that way. We can choose how to process or digest the message with our children, because the words themselves are not inherently hate speech or evil.

Much of it is how we internalize it.

To your 2nd analogy about “kool-aid”…that’s an interesting choice…since it was the poison in kool-aid that killed members of that group who trusted the charismatic leader. Kool-aid normally is harmless, other than unhealthy sugar, but typically not lethal. In one case…it was. More to think through on that analogy.

[Author]

Posts