Distance from those who doubt

[græy]

My wife and I are slowly making our way through Leah Remini's Scientology documentary, the big continuing theme throughout the series is "disconnection." Where member are told to cut off all contact with those who are critical of the church. Parents have lost children, children have lost parents, husbands and wives have lost each other. My wife is saddened about that.

I don't think its a good idea to throw the similarities in her face, but in preparation for an eventual discussion on the topic I'd like to review any conference talks, ensign articles, etc. that direct active members to distance themselves from those who raise questions, or criticize the church. I feel like there was one in the most recent GC, but I have not been able to find it.

So, what do you say? Does anyone have links and/or references to such articles and talks?

[Arcturus]

From a GC talk by Glenn Pace in 1989:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... t?lang=eng

I will discuss three groups of critics. In order of ascending concern they are (1) nonmembers, (2) former members, and (3) current members.

...

The second category of critics is former members who have become disenchanted with the Church but who are obsessed with making vicious and vile attacks upon it. Most members and nonmembers alike see these attacks for what they really are. What credibility can possibly be given to a person who mocks beliefs held sacred by another? Anyone who would resort to these attacks unwittingly discloses his or her true character—or lack of the same. As members of the Church, we are appalled by such attacks. Hopefully, however, they make us more sensitive and extra careful not to make light of the sacred beliefs of other denominations.

In addition to attacking our sacred beliefs, some former members speak evil of the Brethren. Joseph Smith received his share of this criticism from the dissidents of his day. The Lord’s revelation to him is applicable to us today:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

“But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.” (D&C 121:16–17.)

It seems that history continues to teach us: You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it.

There are a lot of talks out there with this type of rhetoric. While there's no explicit directive of what to do in your relationship with a former member, someone who has lost their testimony, etc., what do you think the average orthodox Mormon will do with someone who is under the influence of Satan?

"One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it."

[Reuben]

Christofferson, Young Adult CES devotional September 2014:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ ... -your-life

He spews the following bullshit right after telling a story about how it was so horrible that an Amish family was shunned after joining the church.

Yes, the cost of joining the Church of Jesus Christ can be very high, but the admonition to prefer Christ above all others, even our closest family members, applies also to those who may have been born in the covenant. Many of us became members of the Church without opposition, perhaps as children. The challenge we may confront is remaining loyal to the Savior and His Church in the face of parents, in-laws, brothers or sisters, or even our children whose conduct, beliefs, or choices make it impossible to support both Him and them. It is not a question of love. We can and must love one another as Jesus loves us. As He said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” But, the Lord reminds us, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” So although familial love continues, relationships may be interrupted and, according to the circumstances, even support or tolerance at times suspended for the sake of our higher love.

It's not shunning if it's just, you know, "interrupting." Out of love. Which is why Jehovah's Witnesses say they do it, too.

Notice that there's enough ambiguity to shield him from blame. That's a consistent feature of discourse intended to distance believers from doubters and unbelievers. Almost every individual talk or article has wiggle room because church leaders can't bring themselves to say "shun the doubters and unbelievers" directly.

[Reuben]

Montoya, Ensign, June 2017:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/06/over ... r-of-doubt

Like the fungus that enters these trees, doubts can invade our thoughts. If we let them grow, over time they can affect our roots and rot our foundation of faith until we too may be cut down.

My problem with this common tactic of comparing doubt to disease is that it engages very old instincts that defend against contamination. Anything that touches a contaminated thing is contaminated. What does that say about your friend who doubts? He's contaminated, too. So stay away! Don't get contaminated!

Just after that, he produces this gem:

So-called friends can introduce doubt by asking hurtful questions.

"So-called friends"? And what in the hell is a "hurtful question"?

He never says to shun doubters. He doesn't have to. He's working a different angle: get believers to do it by instilling fear of being contaminated.

[Reuben]

Clayton, BYU commencement, April 2016:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?i ... fullpage=1

"The faithless often promote themselves as the wise, who can rescue the rest of us from our naivete," Clayton said. "We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith, and instead reconnect promptly with the holy spirit."

Notice that "proselyting efforts" gives him wiggle room, and listeners very broad license. Does he mean your spouse, who has just discovered that Joseph Smith married teenagers and other men's wives, and wants to share it with you?

[Not Buying It]

Christofferson, Young Adult CES devotional September 2014:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ ... -your-life

He spews the following bullshit right after telling a story about how it was so horrible that an Amish family was shunned after joining the church.

Yes, the cost of joining the Church of Jesus Christ can be very high, but the admonition to prefer Christ above all others, even our closest family members, applies also to those who may have been born in the covenant. Many of us became members of the Church without opposition, perhaps as children. The challenge we may confront is remaining loyal to the Savior and His Church in the face of parents, in-laws, brothers or sisters, or even our children whose conduct, beliefs, or choices make it impossible to support both Him and them. It is not a question of love. We can and must love one another as Jesus loves us. As He said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” But, the Lord reminds us, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” So although familial love continues, relationships may be interrupted and, according to the circumstances, even support or tolerance at times suspended for the sake of our higher love.

It's not shunning if it's just, you know, "interrupting." Out of love. Which is why Jehovah's Witnesses say they do it, too.

Notice that there's enough ambiguity to shield him from blame. That's a consistent feature of discourse intended to distance believers from doubters and unbelievers. Almost every individual talk or article has wiggle room because church leaders can't bring themselves to say "shun the doubters and unbelievers" directly.

That’s appalling. Absolutely sickening. He’s advising people to abandon family relationships for the sake of “our higher love”. I can’t imagine the emptiness that follows from abandoning a family relationship all because of horrible advice from the likes of Elder Christofferson.

[græy]

These are perfect Arcturus and Reuban, thank you.

Montoya, Ensign, June 2017:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/06/over ... r-of-doubt

So-called friends can introduce doubt by asking hurtful questions.

"So-called friends"? And what in the hell is a "hurtful question"?

This was the recent one I was remembering, but for some reason I thought it was a GC talk.

[Reuben]

These are perfect Arcturus and Reuban, thank you.

Montoya, Ensign, June 2017:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/06/over ... r-of-doubt

So-called friends can introduce doubt by asking hurtful questions.

"So-called friends"? And what in the hell is a "hurtful question"?

This was the recent one I was remembering, but for some reason I thought it was a GC talk.

If it's not apostley enough, I heard Elder Ballard use exactly this analogy in a Northern Europe area broadcast earlier in 2017. I don't remember him saying anything about "so-called friends" or "hurtful questions," though.

[MoPag]

Christofferson, Young Adult CES devotional September 2014:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ ... -your-life

He spews the following bullshit right after telling a story about how it was so horrible that an Amish family was shunned after joining the church.

Yes, the cost of joining the Church of Jesus Christ can be very high, but the admonition to prefer Christ above all others, even our closest family members, applies also to those who may have been born in the covenant. Many of us became members of the Church without opposition, perhaps as children. The challenge we may confront is remaining loyal to the Savior and His Church in the face of parents, in-laws, brothers or sisters, or even our children whose conduct, beliefs, or choices make it impossible to support both Him and them. It is not a question of love. We can and must love one another as Jesus loves us. As He said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” But, the Lord reminds us, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” So although familial love continues, relationships may be interrupted and, according to the circumstances, even support or tolerance at times suspended for the sake of our higher love.

It's not shunning if it's just, you know, "interrupting." Out of love. Which is why Jehovah's Witnesses say they do it, too.

Notice that there's enough ambiguity to shield him from blame. That's a consistent feature of discourse intended to distance believers from doubters and unbelievers. Almost every individual talk or article has wiggle room because church leaders can't bring themselves to say "shun the doubters and unbelievers" directly.

That’s appalling. Absolutely sickening. He’s advising people to abandon family relationships for the sake of “our higher love”. I can’t imagine the emptiness that follows from abandoning a family relationship all because of horrible advice from the likes of Elder Christofferson.

I think Christofferson is just straight up crazy. Like legit, crazy.

[Corsair]

I think Christofferson is just straight up crazy. Like legit, crazy.

Elder Christofferson is "friend of a friend" from me. He's not crazy; he's obedient and committed to the LDS cause. It was explained to me that Elder Christofferson is a very kind loving man, but he is also a good soldier. He will do what he is told to do and holding this harder line appears to be in support of basic organizational longevity.

We all would like changes in the church, but the institutional church has their own plans for sticking around for another few centuries. Being conservative to a core set of principles will help retain the orthodox, tithe paying, and leadership advancing members. The LDS church knows it's going to lose some of its membership no matter what it does. They simply figure that retaining the committed and hard working conservatives adds more to their social and fiscal bottom line than worrying about the liberals that didn't want to serve in high demand leadership callings anyway. Christofferson's message simply holds the party line in the most direct way possible.