GC Elder Christofferson: Voice of Warning – Offensive?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

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?

For me it’s more implied than stated outright. Official church communication sometimes takes on a passive approach. We don’t talk about gay marriage in direct terms, we use phrases like “religious freedom” with a nod and a wink where most people believe they know the real topic being addressed.

Elder Christofferson doesn’t include much context in his statements, which tempts people (like me) to project my thoughts and invent things that he didn’t say. In the talk he speaks of social media and people that pretend there is no right and wrong. My mind might automatically translate this to “people that don’t believe homosexuality is a sin” because it’s the social issue of the day for religions and because religious adherents are currently (and understandably) pushing back against being labeled bigots by a growing voice in society. But who knows, Christofferson strips out most of the context. I don’t know whether he did it purposely but it does feel like he’s trying to say something without coming out and saying something.

The assumption that he’s indirectly talking about gay marriage isn’t exactly a leap.

Quote:

Deseret News opinion editor Hal Boyd cited one example of the disservice inherent in staying silent. He noted that while the idea of marriage is still a matter of “intellectual debate” among elites in American society, marriage itself is not a matter of debate for them in practice. “‘Elites get and stay married and make sure their kids enjoy the benefits of stable marriage.’ … The problem, however, is that [they] tend not to preach what they practice.” They don’t want to “impose” on those who really could use their moral leadership, but “it is perhaps time for those with education and strong families to stop feigning neutrality and start preaching what they practice pertaining to marriage and parenting … [and] help their fellow Americans embrace it.”

IOW the attitude of “let consenting adults of the same sex get married, what’s it to me?” or “what consenting adults do is none of my business” isn’t tenable, you have to pick a side (and I’m the watchman so…). This speaks to being presumptuous as mentioned earlier… but it’s not like they believe they are being presumptuous. As you say, they’re just doing what the believe to be their job.

Side note:

Quote:

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

This one is a personal pet peeve of mine. I seriously dislike it when general conference feeds people’s persecution complexes. After a while simple disagreements become (I’ll even use general conference-ese ) “so-called persecution.”

I’d like a tl;dr; version of this talk. I’m not a strong reader/parser and I feel like it’s an art. The interpretation of art better reflects the individual doing the interpretation than the artist’s original intents. But here goes…

I’m doing the CYA thing because god said if you don’t tell people how they are wrong then you get in trouble for stuff they do, so I’m telling you what’s wrong so you’ll get in trouble for what you do, not me… and what you’re doing is you’re becoming overly PC (a conservative political talking point in the larger context of the political climate of when the talk was delivered) and you’re trying to carve out some middle ground in the gay marriage debate. Be more ultra-conservative. Amen.

I voted for the whatev option. Specifically because I don’t believe the church holds the moral high ground on the implied issue.

I don’t know if this fits but I don’t care. Take the confederate flag as an example. Some people take issue with the confederate flag and I’ll boil it down to it being viewed as a symbol of racism to save writing a novel. Others view it as a symbol of heritage. The heritage people get angry when the anti-racism people have a flag taken down, the anti-racism people get angry when the heritage people put up a flag. The debate goes on and on. BOTH sides fall for fake news stories on social media that are aimed at exploiting people’s deep-seated emotions and it’s hard to see past your own bias. “News” is more about confirming existing beliefs. Whoa, I’m way off topic…

What if your own personal view is that the confederate flag is a symbol coopted by racists and you’re in a tribe that insists that it’s a symbol of heritage? …or vice versa… and for some strange reason your tribe holds general conferences from time to time. What if there’s a general conference talk on the awesomeness of the heritage of the symbol, and god’s watchman is calling out anyone that views the flag as a racist symbol and calling out anyone that is ambivalent towards the confederate flag… it’ll hurt and it will cause conflict because there are many people that will place their faith in the watchmen faaaaaaaaaaaar above their own personal comfort.

And another story on racism, since that was the moral issue of generations past (and present ). My grandparents were products of their time, they said many racist things. As a kid I may have internalized some of it (that’s how these things get passed down, generation by generation) but as an adolescent I quickly learned to tune out my grandparents when they went on racist rants. That’s why I mark this talk down as whatev. It’s just grand pappy spouting off about black people again. 🙄 But grand pappy says he knows better than me and that as a youth it’s my responsibility to believe what he believes about black people. 🙄 🙄

So it’s “whatev” for me because the battle for my soul has already been “lost” on the implied issue.

More to follow… if you can stomach it.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

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.

Yeah, but we often pull our religious beliefs from scripture and scripture is loaded with this sort of thing.

Separate thought:

Quote:

Then speaking directly to Ezekiel, Jehovah declared, “So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them [for] me.” The warning was to turn away from sin.

Generalities. “Turn away from sin.” Okay, but could you be more specific and precise because that means nothing. What is sin? Is it a specific behavior? Is it a specific thought? Is it a specific belief?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

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.

I really like this. It is wrong for people to try to get everyone to eat the same thing without concern or awareness for their individual conditions and needs. It is wrong for people that cannot eat that food to paint that food as unfit for consumption by humans and try to get everyone to stop eating it. (however there are still bona fide hate speech items that really are worth banning from the cafeteria. being able to identify and more or less agree on them is important.)

Heber13 wrote:

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.

I have heard it used in a business setting to basically mean “Now your a company man” with a subtle nod to “don’t become so much of a company man that you no longer think independently.”

[Anonymous]

Random thoughts time:

What effect do you believe changing “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” to “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.” would have on a culture?

How easy is it for people to reflect and say “I showed poor judgement.” I’d guess that most of the time people believe that their judgements are always righteous. Maybe neither statement is perfect but I prefer the simple “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

I bring this up because I feel a part of the talk is a call for people to pass judgment on others.

Quote:

While the duty to warn is felt especially keenly by prophets, it is a duty shared by others as well. In fact, “it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.” We who have received a knowledge of the great plan of happiness—and its implementing commandments—should feel a desire to share that knowledge since it makes all the difference here and in eternity. …

“A desire to share that knowledge” 😆 It’s as easy to do as sitting on a particularly juicy piece of gossip.

There’s a difference between telling someone the good news and telling someone how they’re sinning.

On poison/allergies. When I fit the tribe mold I couldn’t see anything wrong with any talk given over the pulpit. Once I allowed myself to be me I found that conference wasn’t 100% good. But my point is that these problematic areas were completely invisible to me when I was all-in. Maybe that’s why some feel strong enough about the bad to call it a poison, because it is taken as good. Like that peanut allergy where someone is clearly experiencing symptoms but continues to eat peanuts because it’s their duty… and the throat swelling is because they’re sinning. I’m thinking of the people teetering on severe depression due to scrupulosity here. Believing “maybe it isn’t all straight from god’s lips to my ears” can be a lifesaver, helping someone put down the peanuts before the peanuts kill them.

Quote:

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.

Whenever I bring up something “neat” about the goings-on of the organizational church DW will often say, “They’re only supposed to preach faith, repentance, and baptism, they shouldn’t stray like that.” And I’ll go against myself here. Stick to faith, repentance, and baptism, don’t get into specifics… but could you be more pointed in your language and get into the specifics so I’ll know what the heck you’re talking about?

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Elder Christofferson doesn’t include much context in his statements, which tempts people (like me) to project my thoughts and invent things that he didn’t say.

I think that is a very good way to put it…and clearly states what I think creates this problem…some take it offensive, some take it as inspirational…in part because it is lacking the context and specifics that they don’t put into a short talk in conference that is to apply to all members and held as a reference tool for years and years. Because of that…I think it is normal we project our thoughts and experiences into the words we are hearing.

But…they key for me is to recognize and know we are doing that, others are doing that…and in having discussions with others about it…it becomes critical to recognize that is going on, if we want to try to have productive discussions about it. We can talk about our projections into it…just frame it as such instead of firing off sweeping statements back that technically aren’t what was being said.

It can be tiresome, I guess. But…I think it is important to recognize and distinguish between what I think he means and how I take it…from what is actually said. Parsing it out helps provide a space for people to share how they see it to each other, each from their point of view.

nibbler wrote:

In the talk he speaks of social media and people that pretend there is no right and wrong. My mind might automatically translate this to “people that don’t believe homosexuality is a sin” because it’s the social issue of the day for religions and because religious adherents are currently (and understandably) pushing back against being labeled bigots by a growing voice in society. But who knows, Christofferson strips out most of the context. I don’t know whether he did it purposely but it does feel like he’s trying to say something without coming out and saying something.

I agree…without knowing exactly, we go off of all the outside context and assume what he is talking about. It isn’t a stretch at all to see where you are coming from with this.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your take on this, at all. Just do see that parsing it out can sometimes be one way we focus on what was said and not said, and what we can try to draw from it. Because he wasn’t specific…it also leaves me the freedom to apply it through my lens, as I see it, and not feel I’m being heretical or going against church leaders. Sometimes I get myself in trouble with that, because others say, “C’mon, Heber…you know what he is talking about…” – and I need to keep it honest and logical…but…I do find sometimes there is more leeway in what they are saying then just the first thing we jump to based on our view.

The leaders are just trying to do their best, and follow Christ and be christ-like. I think they are sincere, and not hate-mongers. It doesn’t mean they sometimes don’t realize others have the peanut allergy and were making dangerous risks when they didn’t realize it…for which…they will be corrected in time, and should not be excused.

I guess that’s all…I find things about it that bother me. And I don’t. I’m still searching for answers.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

however there are still bona fide hate speech items that really are worth banning from the cafeteria. being able to identify and more or less agree on them is important.

well said…and also…to me, that means if there is a bona fide risk and I need to speak up and protect my children or family or even avoid the cafeteria I know is unsafe for my kids even if others don’t see the risk…I can choose to speak up and do what is needed to help make changes. However is most productive to do that.

I often say that church is the practice grounds for us to learn how to deal with these things. God doesn’t make the church perfect, or we wouldn’t have issues to grow from handling them with love. There are sometimes no way around some problems…just through them.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I don’t necessarily disagree with your take on this, at all. Just do see that parsing it out can sometimes be one way we focus on what was said and not said, and what we can try to draw from it. Because he wasn’t specific…it also leaves me the freedom to apply it through my lens, as I see it, and not feel I’m being heretical or going against church leaders. Sometimes I get myself in trouble with that, because others say, “C’mon, Heber…you know what he is talking about…” – and I need to keep it honest and logical…but…I do find sometimes there is more leeway in what they are saying then just the first thing we jump to based on our view.

Out of curiosity, do you think Christofferson had a specific thing in mind when giving this talk? If so, what do you think it was?

Honestly, in thinking about my PH quorum, if I were to survey people I’d guess 10 out of 10 would say that this talk was about SSM… which might either be me projecting again or be an educated guess based on comments I’ve heard from my PH quorum over the years… which in turn fueled my speculations about what Christofferson is seeing from the social media that mobs him. Chicken and egg…. but it could very well have been a generic talk about watchmen. An alternate tl;dr; could be:

Look, I don’t like calling people to repentance but I have to, otherwise god would be upset with me because that’s what god called me to do, and if I don’t do it… so I’ll do my duty to call you to repentance. It’s nice that god calls a person to this position because it helps ensure our standards don’t slip over time. Take the debate over marriage as a for instance. Look how loosey goosey that is right now. Amen.

[Anonymous]

I was thinking back to the first time I heard the talk…and of course a read through it a couple more times since then, and we had a combined EQ and HPG lesson on it (for which SSM did not come up once in the class…which it often does in our ward, but didn’t this time…which also means it may have been what others were thinking about…but it didn’t come up in our discussion for whatever reason).

In all honesty…what came to my mind was that the leaders are dealing with a lot and there are so many avenues for push back (internet, etc) that they are hearing more and more on all issues. I didn’t immediately focus it down to SSM as the reason the talk was given. But certainly…that is part of the issues they deal with. (I don’t feel bad for them…just is part of the job…as is reminding people they are called to cry repentance as part of their job).

In general, I thought his message was to remind people that leaders have a job to do, it should be done in love, but it has to be done and always has been done. It was reminding people there is a purpose behind it.

And I remember the first time I heard it I rolled my eyes at the dichotomous speech…as I mentioned in my first post. But I would probably say it wasn’t a specific talk with SSM as the backdrop…at least in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

In general, I thought his message was to remind people that leaders have a job to do, it should be done in love, but it has to be done and always has been done. It was reminding people there is a purpose behind it.

Maybe he was just reminding us….

Jack Nicholson wrote:

You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall!

[Anonymous]

To clarify, the talk wasn’t the peanuts. The talk was pressuring everyone to eat the peanuts and how our friends all must have peanuts for proper nutrition. And how it’s our sacred duty to ensure that everyone eats peanuts. With the strong implication that suggesting that anyone is allergic to peanuts is blasphemy.

That is why the talk is so offensive. It’s not just something that some people should ignore. It perpetuates a culture of forcing people to partake of things that are deadly to them and shunning those who choose not to.

[Anonymous]

^This. The cultural implementation is the root issue.

[Anonymous]

ydeve wrote:

To clarify, the talk wasn’t the peanuts. The talk was pressuring everyone to eat the peanuts and how our friends all must have peanuts for proper nutrition. And how it’s our sacred duty to ensure that everyone eats peanuts. With the strong implication that suggesting that anyone is allergic to peanuts is blasphemy.

That’s a good point. I can almost imagine them saying something like…

Leader: “Look, we honestly didn’t know some people were allergic to peanuts, we thought they were just making excuses not to eat it cause they didn’t like them or they wanted to eat something else. Now that we know, we have changed our stance on peanuts. All those who faithfully obeyed in the past and died because of eating what they were told to eat, God will make it right in the next life and they shall have their reward.”

: “Or you could have just stopped making people feel obligated to eat peanuts in the first place, and your followers shunning people who were honestly trying to avoid poison to them…it took you too long to learn that what may be good for some people in Utah county is not always the best for everyone else in the world. To quote an apostle of the Lord: ‘Ultimately, we are all accountable to God for our choices and the lives we live.’….that includes you!”

…I could see some future thing that feels kinda like that will be what happens.

Quote:

That is why the talk is so offensive. It’s not just something that some people should ignore. It perpetuates a culture of forcing people to partake of things that are deadly to them and shunning those who choose not to.

It can have that feel to it, especially when filling in the blanks and seeing it in the context of what nibbler was pointing out when nibbler said:

nibbler wrote:

Official church communication sometimes takes on a passive approach. We don’t talk about gay marriage in direct terms, we use phrases like “religious freedom” with a nod and a wink where most people believe they know the real topic being addressed.

Perhaps the talk is about being a nutritionist coach, and their job is to tell people what is healthy to eat…and they are just doing their job. The problem is, among other things, they stand fast on peanuts are necessary for everyone.

Therefore…toxic message when the background is what it is. A nutritionist coach doing their job isn’t the problem…but the fact they insisted on peanuts as the only option…that is the problem.

I agree, ydeve…I try to think through these things on how we can have love and support leaders trying to teach love…but I don’t know how to get around the things they’ve said in the past…even if they try as hard as they can to say it nicely…it is just reinforcing the culture against poison.

Good for me to think through and remember.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

That’s a good point. I can almost imagine them saying something like…

Leader: “Look, we honestly didn’t know some people were allergic to peanuts, we thought they were just making excuses not to eat it cause they didn’t like them or they wanted to eat something else. Now that we know, we have changed our stance on peanuts. All those who faithfully obeyed in the past and died because of eating what they were told to eat, God will make it right in the next life and they shall have their reward.”

: “Or you could have just stopped making people feel obligated to eat peanuts in the first place, and your followers shunning people who were honestly trying to avoid poison to them…it took you too long to learn that what may be good for some people in Utah county is not always the best for everyone else in the world. To quote an apostle of the Lord: ‘Ultimately, we are all accountable to God for our choices and the lives we live.’….that includes you!”

[img]https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/3163295/avatar/avatar.1400067532.png[/img]

lol, it’s all, “Eat the peanuts. Do it. Do it. Do it.”

…until someone dies from a peanut allergy then it’s all, “god will make it right in the next life.” … but make it right for whom? :angel:

Suddenly there’s some mercy when the shoe is in the other foot.

[Author]

Posts