Todd Christofferson addressed crisis of faith issues

[Anonymous]

Well my only hypothetical question is this: How does [edited: the leadership] justify proclaiming the one true church and one true gospel to the world, using partial truths, misleading claims, and cloudy history to do so?

[Anonymous]

Reflexzero wrote:

Well my only question is this: How do you, Mr Christofferson, justify proclaiming the one true church and one true gospel to the world, using partial truths, misleading claims, and cloudy history to do so?

One because we all make assumptions based on partial truths, two because history is always “cloudy” and open to some interpretation, and three because he actually believes in the church and that he is on the Lord’s errand. He probably believes that keeping people in the church is semi-equivalent to offering them salvation and if he can keep them from becoming distracted at some of the “tinkling cymbals and sounding brass” along the strait and narrow path then he has done a good deed and can go to his maker knowing that he did his duty.

I also wish to give you a friendly reminder that the rules say we can’t address posts to GA’s or people outside of the forum. I’m not completely sure of the specifics (or how close you might be to the line), but just thought I’d give you a heads up.

[Anonymous]

Reflexzero wrote:

Well my only question is this: How does [Edited: the leadership] justify proclaiming the one true church and one true gospel to the world, using partial truths, misleading claims, and cloudy history to do so?

I completely edited and erased all my remaining comments and mod comments.

[Anonymous]

[Ray’s Admin Note:] This is a Mormon site. No matter one’s feelings, be respectful of positions. Don’t use “Mr. Christofferson”; it’s Elder Christofferson. It’s the exact same issue as me using “President” not “Sister” when referring to the Relief Society, Primary or Young Women President – or “Pope Francis” not “Mr. Francis” on a Catholic site.

[Personal comment:] cwald, I really believe your description of what Elder Christofferson said is a terrible distortion of his words. When those words are read carefully and not emotionally, he NEVER said the LDS Church has been perfect at presenting its history or that people who criticized the Church for the past presentations were and are apostates. He actually said people still are criticizing the Church for covering up its history when, in fact, they are in the process of publishing everything they have that was written by Joseph Smith, without apologetic explanations. He’s right. This is not the same approach as the past, and it is unfair and incorrect to make the same criticisms now as were levied in the past.

You have said many times in this forum that you can’t stand it when people criticize you and others from a black-and-white mindset – but I have seen you moving into that sort of mindset over the last few months, and it concerns me greatly. Please, coming from a friend, listen to what I’m saying and try not to end up with that type of view.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

cwald, I really believe your description of what Elder Christofferson said is a terrible distortion of his words. When those words are read carefully and not emotionally, he NEVER said the LDS Church has been perfect at presenting its history or that people who criticized the Church for the past presentations were and are apostates. He actually said people still are criticizing the Church for covering up its history when, in fact, they are in the process of publishing everything they have that was written by Joseph Smith, without apologetic explanations. .

Really?

You get that interpretation from this….?

Quote:

“While some honestly pursue truth and real understanding, others are intent on finding or creating doubts. Their interpretations may come from projecting 21st-century concepts and culture backward onto 19th-century people. If there are differing interpretations possible, they will pick the most negative. They sometimes accuse the Church of hiding something because they only recently found or heard about it—an interesting accusation for a Church that’s publishing 24 volumes of all it can find of Joseph Smith’s papers. They may share their assumptions and speculations with some glee but either can’t or won’t search further to find contradictory information.”

An “interesting accusation” indeed.

But that is fine. Heber. Just delete the entire previous post. It’s not faith promoting and it will only get stayLDS in trouble. You don’t want to have heretics here that will speak out to the brethren and start demanded reformation from the one true church

…it will destroy all the collateral and good will that we’ve spent years building here with the church leadership. I have no desire to turn this site into an anti mormon website and have sincere members of the church go for answers and discussion and get accused of being apostates and belonging to apostate website. I know I how that feels.

Middle way mormons who need or want to stay, for whatever reason, need a safe place…a soft landing, and this is the best there is to accomplish that mission on the net.

Best of luck.

Actually, nevermind. I will delete the previous post myself on my way out.

I’ll be back.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’ll be back.

Good.

[Anonymous]

Ray, I genuinely appreciate the work you contribute to this website. But I’m a little concerned that it’s becoming stay-ray’s-version-of-LDS.com

I rarely see any other moderator intervention or commentary. I often see your personal and administrative views mingling together into one post.

I’m trying not to make this comment personal. I’m simply concerned that the forum could get very one-sided if we chase out the likes of cwald any time they express displeasure at something a church leader has said. This should not become an echo chamber. While I don’t want the constant vitriol of NOM.com I also don’t want any naysayer to be kicked out.

ADDED NOTE: I was feeling a little emotional when I wrote this post. In light of some of the discussion I’ve edited the next part for tone and content:

EDITED: This line from Elder Christofferson is not an accurate reflection of the experience for many members. /END EDIT

Quote:

They sometimes accuse the Church of hiding something because they only recently found or heard about it—an interesting accusation for a Church that’s publishing 24 volumes of all it can find of Joseph Smith’s papers.

EDITED:The official church manuals do not address the uncomfortable history. A lot of our history that has been discussed by the church is often a long, long way out of sight of the membership. /END EDIT

I will avoid making an accusation of WHY they are hiding it. I hope it’s with the best of intentions. But hiding means putting something in a place that is not in plain site.

Quote:

hide

/hīd/

Verb: Put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others

I often compare this to sex education. A parent might chose not to address the topic themselves. This leads to a distorted description on the playground. “Why didn’t you teach me properly?” the child might later ask the parent? “Why didn’t you tell me about the reality of it and all of the positives of it in a safe environment? Why didn’t I get an accurate but encouraging perspective from someone I love and trust instead of a twisted, misrepresented perspective from my peers?” The parent could reply “What are you talking about? There’s a biology book on the third shelf in the study. It’s covered in there. You didn’t ever find it? Well it’s not my job to point out every book for you, if you can’t be bothered to look for yourself that’s your problem not mine. I’ve known about sex for years, I can’t believe you didn’t when there’s so much information available about it.”

EDITED: The church has not fully addressed the difficult history. I’m glad that it appears to be heading towards doing so. Putting 1000s of old documents onto a website most members have never heard of is not putting the history in plain sight. It still has a long way to go.

The Adult Sunday School curriculum could offer more in pointing towards approved sources and resources. We’re in the middle of church history this year. It would be an easy process to add links in the lessons to the Revelations in Context (which have stopped by the way – there was no Revelations in Context about the martyrdom). They could also add links to relevant sources on jsp.com.

The church is now making progress documenting its history, but it’s still out of sight for most people and not easily noticed by the majority who are not willing to dig deep.

/END EDIT

[Anonymous]

As stated in my earlier post, the only thing I really took issue with in Elder Christofferson’s talk was his denial of hiding history and justifying that by people just discovering it. People are just discovering it because it was hidden from most people and you can never tell when the antis are lying or making something up. I do agree that releasing the papers is an important step in being more transparent. Please don’t construe this as an attack on Elder Christofferson, I like most of what he says and liked most of the particular address in question. But I think no one can really deny that the church hierarchy did for many years undertake to keep some elements of church history purposely hidden from the masses, members and non-members alike. I’m not saying they outright lied, I’m just saying that before things like releasing the Joseph Smith papers and coming clean on Mountain Meadows it was very difficult to access the information.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Ray, I genuinely appreciate the work you contribute to this website. But I’m a little concerned that it’s becoming stay-ray’s-version-of-LDS.com

I rarely see any other moderator intervention or commentary. I often see your personal and administrative views mingling together into one post.

I’m trying not to make this comment personal. I’m simply concerned that the forum could get very one-sided if we chase out the likes of cwald any time they express displeasure at something a church leader has said. This should not become an echo chamber. While I don’t want the constant vitriol of NOM.com I also don’t want any naysayer to be kicked out.

I didn’t catch all the details of the exchange, but I just wanted to say you see Ray’s comments and actions the most because he takes/makes the most time for this forum. No two people agree all the time but Ray does have our full support the majority of the time.

There is a fine line between disagreement and complaining, in short the former is okay while the latter does not serve our purposes here. As long as comments can lead to some form of productive conversation we let them stand. Occasionally individuals may need a reminder to stay on course, I know I do, but hopefully we can stay on topic and remember to address issues instead of people.

mackay11 wrote:

Plain and simple, the church has not addressed the difficult history. It still does not. Putting 1000s of old documents onto a website most members have never heard of is not putting the history in plain sight. It is still hidden to this very day.

To me this is a question of intent, is there an active choice to steer the conversation deliberately away from uncomfortable facts? I can see some possible cases but for the most part I’d say no. The biggest reason is most members are not aware of the biggest difficulties, and then when they are I’d say most faithful members don’t “get” the gravity that the issues can produce. As I read faithful blog posts and comments around questioning/doubting I realize that “heavy” issues do not make a dent in so many lives. Why would they choose to discuss historical items that they don’t really care about when all they see is some topics lead people to become frustrated or angry at the church — they don’t want to become “angry.” They don’t want their family and friends to become “angry.” Why should they support a discussion when they don’t believe the basis of it has any real merit and they don’t like where their projections lead? It is human nature and I choose to believe for the most part it comes from an honest intent.

But I do hope we as a church can grow into discussing the issues more openly, and I do see some signs of progress in that direction.

[Anonymous]

Please everyone, take a moment to refresh your memory of the Rules of Etiquette and the role the moderators play.

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=655” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=655

Quote:

We actively moderate the content at StayLDS so that information and dialogue stays focused on the mission objectives of the community. Please refer to the information published in the “Rules and Policies” forum section, especially the “Rules of Etiquette” for StayLDS and the “Mission Statement” of the forums.

… Everyone that works on managing StayLDS is a volunteer who donates their spare time to the project.

Please keep in mind that a great many people only read the forum discussions and do not actively participate in the conversation. StayLDS produces content for a large audience. We take the approach of treating the site and forum content like a magazine or a self-help book in the process of creation. We encourage participation. We seek participants who encourage useful and productive discussions. We want to maintain a diversity of different views and approaches to the subject matter. Like editors of magazines or newspapers though, we moderate content for quality and relevance.

This should not be interpreted as moderators only want people to see things our way, or that there is only one side to a conversation, ours.

It is keeping in line with the Rules and Do’s and Don’ts listed here:

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21

Quote:

The Purpose of the Discussion Forums:

Please keep in mind that this site has an explicit and defined purpose. The purpose is to help each other create a positive experience for ourselves in the LDS Church, however that might happen, after having entered a process of questioning the history and teachings.

So with that in mind,

Please keep the guidelines below in mind when you participate. These are general ideas to keep the social tone positive, yet still open for frank and honest dialogue.

The List of Do’s

Please share your feelings, even if you have sometimes been disappointed with something in the Church. That is ok. It is helpful and positive to share these feelings. You will probably find a lot of kindred souls here. PLEASE NOTE: Sharing stories of disappointment and frustration must be done in a way that fosters a discussion about solutions. Feel free to share something that bothers you along with a solution that worked for you personally. Feel free to share something that bothers you and ask for help or alternative viewpoints and solutions from the community. If you only post a problem, and we can’t figure out how to turn it into a discussion in line with the mission of StayLDS, it will probably be deleted or a moderator will ask you to edit the post.

We appreciate those, like cwald, that respect that and self-moderate. Everyone should know he did that on his own, which we appreciate. There are others also that are helping to self-moderate the content when it seems to bump up against the line.

We are all just volunteers, trying to provide a positive environment to discuss things. We realize pain and hurt is experienced (I have experienced it), and understand it is helpful to have a safe place to vent. BUT…please remember to keep to the rules, and if you do share frustrations or need to vent, use this forum to work through how you feel about that, and not simply vent with no questions or no suggestions on how to resolve those feelings.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

I’m trying not to make this comment personal. I’m simply concerned that the forum could get very one-sided if we chase out the likes of cwald any time they express displeasure at something a church leader has said. This should not become an echo chamber. While I don’t want the constant vitriol of NOM.com I also don’t want any naysayer to be kicked out.

Naysayers will not be kicked out, unless they are not adhering to the mission of the forum, and are not adhering to the rules of etiquette.

I agree, this is not an echo chamber or vent session. How do you process Elder Christofferson’s remarks with your experiences?

mackay11 wrote:

The church has been hiding its history for decades. The church manuals that are given for official study and instruction bury the majority of the uncomfortable history a long, long way out of sight of the membership.

Are you, mackay, able to hold yourself to the same standard you are holding the church to? Have you told all your friends and family and work associates everything about your history…I mean EVERYTHING?

That question is rhetorical, and not meant to be an attack…you don’t need to answer it, but simply think about that. I also wish I knew this stuff about history before I was 38 years old. But honestly, if I stand back, and put myself in the shoes of the leaders who council about this stuff…what would I have done different, what could I have done different?

I have had personal conversations with General Authorities and local stake leaders. They say something very different to me one on one than they feel they can say over the pulpit as representatives of an organization with a specific mission. They have their individual opinions, but the church has learned what happens when opinions are given and then taken as church doctrine. I can understand their dilemma. I have my personal opinions about it, but I do not resort to casting a judgement on the church leadership as devious, untrusting, duplicitous men.

When I’m frustrated, I can feel that way sometimes, but in all honestly when I’m not emotional, I cannot believe they are that way intentionally. Thus, there is a problem for me to deal with. Not a problem for the church to apologize for.

Cwald had made an interesting comment on generational issues that do exist [although afterwards he removed it]. I think my grandparents were very positive folks, and didn’t enjoy discussing the negative side of things. Our generation seems to go to the Internet to want to see things in black and white. It is a different world today than 30 years ago, or 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. Perhaps the church, as Elder Christofferson mentioned, is trying to change, but it takes a long time for a big ship to turn. Sometimes not to the speed we want or feel is necessary.

This has been discussed many times on this forum and is in the How To Stay essay (here: http://www.staylds.com/?page_id=462” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/?page_id=462).

Quote:

Publicizing Mistakes and Problems

You might feel as though the church has a responsibility to be completely open with all of its major flaws and weaknesses; but in the real world, this approach is probably not realistic. For example, do you live up to this standard in your own life? Do you tell everyone you meet, even everyone close to you, all of your deepest and darkest secrets? While it is true that the LDS Church claims to be God’s one and only true church, we might try to see that in reality, it is run by imperfect men in less-than-perfect circumstances. Given that realization, why would we expect the church to be any different? It is unreasonable to expect complete transparency from human beings and human organizations — even ones that claim divine authority. Humans simply don’t work that way.

We are not saying it is right for anyone to withhold information about their own wrongdoing from those who depend on them. Ideally, we should all be willing to confess the things we have done wrong and try to make amends. That approach is the ideal for individuals and for institutions. But we all fall short of that ideal sometimes, in some areas. We can try to understand the human institutional impulse to remain silent about missteps. We may eventually look with compassion on the ways in which humans and institutions seek to hide their flaws. We may forgive, and we may leave ultimate judgment to a higher Judge. Even while we do all that, we do not need to say that hiding one’s flaws is right or blameless.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Are you, mackay, able to hold yourself to the same standard you are holding the church to? Have you told all your friends and family and work associates everything about your history…I mean EVERYTHING?

That’s a really bad comparison. The church holds itself up as GOD’S CHURCH. It claims it has GOD’S AUTHORITY and that GOD established it through a PROPHET of GOD. Then it encourages/requires its members to be open and honest with it and dedicate literally every aspect of their life to it. I think apologists and the church leaders sometimes forget the size of the investment they are requiring from people. Given that level of investment, full disclosure is completely rational and within a person’s right to ask for, and it’s absurd that people have to press the church so hard for something it should have always been doing.

Now if you think mackay is requiring the same of his/her friends and family that the church is requiring of its members then you have a good comparison. I doubt that he/she (sorry mackay, I don’t know your gender) is, so I think that comparison is garbage and inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I really like Elder Christofferson and his “Give Us This Day” is one of my favorite talks.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=8c83cccfea02b210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=43d031572e14e110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

And if teeny, tiny baby steps are all I need, then I should be happy with this faith crisis talk. But I need bigger steps. …[snip]

Bottom line, I am uncomfortable with the lionizing of Joseph Smith. I wonder sometimes if I am a Mormon at heart because I bristle when I read Elder Christofferson say that without Joseph Smith we wouldn’t have “true Christianity.”

But I’m going to church tomorrow.

How did church go, Ann? Anything uplifting?

[Anonymous]

wl44 wrote:

Given that level of investment, full disclosure is completely rational and within a person’s right to ask for

Give me another good example where full disclosure is required, and shows the church is lacking compared to other comparable organizations.

I realize I may sound like I’m defending or excusing the church. I’m not. I’m just trying to keep it realistic, and less personally emotional for me. That’s just how I deal with it.

If your feelings are based on investment required…that’s an easy one for me to fix…I just invest less. Then I don’t have to put that requirement on the church for me. When they tell me I must attend meetings away from my kids and sacrifice…I just say I can’t do that. And life goes on. The church goes on. They can’t make me do what I cannot do in my circumstance, and I cannot make them do what I want them to do.

That’s my strategy.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I think no one can really deny that the church hierarchy did for many years undertake to keep some elements of church history purposely hidden from the masses, members and non-members alike.

I don’t deny that, and I never will. My only point was that the Church isn’t doing that now, and it’s not fair to claim it is doing that now. Having listened to Elder Christofferson say lots of things, I think he was trying to say that it’s interesting to criticize the Church for being an organization that hides its history when it is trying so hard now to publish unvarnished, unwhitewashed history – and that is a valid point.

What I was trying to say is that there are multiple ways to read his words (just like there usually are with just about anything anyone says), and I think that particular man deserves some credit, given everything else he has done to reach out and remove former barriers. If it had been Pres. Packer making the statement, for example, I can’t say I would have read the words as meaning the same thing coming from Elder Christofferson.

Finally, I have tried to make it crystal clear that I don’t care how anyone constructs their own paradigm for staying LDS – and I mean that passionately and sincerely. What we can’t have here at this site, however, is non-productive commentary that is nothing but lashing out and attacking in nature. It’s a fine line, but we have a mission – and that mission is, first and foremost, to help people stay LDS and, second, to help them leave, if necessary, with a degree of peace and calm they wouldn’t have possessed otherwise. This is a site dedicated to moving from Stage 4, if you will, to Stage 5 in Fowler’s Stages of Faith – not digging into Stage 4 and wallowing in venom or returning to Stage 3 and believing or disbelieving in stark black-and-white terms.

Now, personal comment and apology to everyone:

I had a bad couple of days as a moderator. One situation was completely warranted (for reasons I won’t share here); one situation was not. I have apologized to cwald, and he understands – both the apology and the overall issue. He wasn’t banned, and he edited his own comment, just as I did mine. Please don’t let those situations blur what we do here – and please remember that the issue of moderation comes up whenever we get a large influx of new participants who aren’t used to how we operate – especially in the extremely rare instance when we have to take drastic actions.

/Back to the discussion of the post, please.

[Author]

Posts