Sometimes the best response to criticism against the Church is silence.
President Joseph F. Smith taught the following concerning critics of the Church:
It is written, and I believe it is true, that although it must needs be that offenses come, woe unto them by whom they come [see Matthew 18:7]; but they are in the hands of the Lord as we are. We bring no railing accusation against them. We are willing to leave them in the hands of the Almighty to deal with them as seemeth him good. Our business is to work righteousness in the earth, to seek for the development of a knowledge of God’s will and of God’s ways, and of his great and glorious truths which he has revealed through the instrumentality of Joseph, the prophet, not only for the salvation of the living but for the redemption and salvation of the dead.
God will deal with [our enemies] in his own time and in his own way, and we only need to do our duty, keep the faith ourselves, to work righteousness in the world ourselves, and leave the results in the hands of him who overruleth all things for the good of those who love him and keep his commandments.
We have no ill feelings in our hearts toward any living creature. We forgive those who trespass against us. Those who have spoken evil of us, and who have misrepresented us before the world, we have no malice in our hearts toward them. We say, let God judge between them and us; let him recompense them for their work [see D&C 64:11]. We will not raise a hand against them; but we will extend the hand of fellowship and friendship to them, if they will repent of their sins and come unto the Lord and live. No matter how malicious they may have been, or how foolish they may have acted, if they will repent of it we will receive them with open arms and we will do all we can to help them to save themselves. [1]
I love the words to the hymn Should you feel inclined to censure:
1. Should you feel inclined to censure
Faults you may in others view,
Ask your own heart, ere you venture,
If you have not failings, too.
Let not friendly vows be broken;
Rather strive a friend to gain.
Many words in anger spoken
Find their passage home again.2. Do not, then, in idle pleasure
Trifle with a brother’s fame;
Guard it as a valued treasure,
Sacred as your own good name.
Do not form opinions blindly;
Hastiness to trouble tends;
Those of whom we thought unkindly
Oft become our warmest friends.
If you should happen to encounter criticism of the Church online in the next day or two, remember the counsel of President Joseph F. Smith and the words to the hymn Should you feel inclined to censure before responding with anger or malice, or responding at all.
In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord speaks of the enemies of the Church saying:
8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.
9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;
10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.
11 Wherefore, keep my commandments; they are true and faithful. Even so. Amen.
D&C 71:8-11
Responding to our critics only serves to stoke the fire of publicity and serves to call attention to their caustic calumny. Silence, however, confounds them and soon the curious crowd moves on.
———-
1- “Chapter 29: Bear No Malice toward Anyone,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, 257
Brian D., I love silence. Ask my wife. I could be perfectly happy and content: living, smiling and never confronting.
But in a community or family when people aren’t communicating . . . things can go downhill.
We need to speak the truth in love to one another.
Todd:
I am not against communication. Rather, I am against responding to criticism when it serves no purpose, especially when the response is filled with the same anger and rage in the criticism.
Brian D, I think you make a good point about avoiding anger and rage. That is certainly right. However, I also think there is a need to answer unfair attacks evenly and calmly with the truth. I think Joseph Smith offered the best model here. When we were attacked unfairly, he calmly and repeatedly asked the state and federal governments for redress. The LDS press at the time printed the truth to try to counter lies. Several Church “apologists” printed the truth about Joseph Smith’s history and the history of the Church. He didn’t just sit back and let the lies to unanswered.
In my personal relations with people who have said unkind things about the Church, I’ve always tried to use Joseph Smith as my model. He always frankly forgave his critics when they asked for forgiveness and welcomed them back. And there are times when he remained silent. But there were many, many times when he spoke out in defense of the truth.
Geoff, I agree with you that sometimes we can and must respond to our critics. I simply said sometimes silence is golden. 🙂
In situations where our critics are hoping for a response and for publicity to advance their cause, I think it best to sit back and remain silent.
OK Brian, agreed.
And I would be agreed on #2.
“When attacked by error, truth is better served by silence than by a bad argument.” – Dallin H. Oaks
You left out verse 7:
“Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.”
I’m not sure this passage supports the point you’re trying to make.
Chip, verse 7 is actually a verse some enemies of the Church love to quote when I won’t engage them in debate. It doesn’t really support my point, but it is a good scripture for some future discussion.
Connor, I LOVE that quote!! So true!
If we all followed that hymn, the Bloggernacle woul be 80% smaller.
Post #2 all describes why I rarely comment or particiapte in the ‘Nacle much, and when I do, it is usually in short comments (well, that and this dissertation that is taking longer to write than I would like).
[although I do have some longer posts in the second draft stage I plan to get up on M* before the month is out….]
But verse 7 provides the context for the rest of the passage.
While I agree that sometimes silence is golden, I think there are times when it is right and good to see to it that “their shame [is] made manifest,” as this passage promises.
It is important to follow the Spirit, to be able to recognize which approach is appropriate in any particular circumstance — but that requires that you keep both options on the table. And I don’t think that “silence is golden” should necessarily be the default position.
Lately, my daughter, Sarah (aka Princess Buttgold) has been anti the church. And I don’t say a word back because if I get started, I’ll probably devolve (if that’s a word) very quickly to strangling her and shaking her and slapping her around. So I just keep my mouth shut.
Like Todd, I prefer silence. And I think that arguing with people who are against the church just gives them more steam.
Unless you’ve killed them by shaking and strangling and slapping them. There you would have golden silence.
A couple of years ago, I went to the Manti Pageant with a group from my ward. In the road by the temple were the usual crowd of Anti’s, preaching, yelling, and waving signs around.
I noticed one particular young man, who was brandishing a $100 bill, and repeating again and again, “I will bet one hundred dollars that I can show you three contradictions in the Book of Mormon.” In the group around him were about 20 LDS youth, and several LDS adults. And the entire group was cowering before this one man.
In this setting, the adults’ approach of “silence is golden” came across as weakness, an admission that the Book of Mormon couldn’t be defended even against such a childish attack; and the doubt that this engendered was apparent in the demeanor of the kids. Clearly, this man needed to be exposed as a phony, to show these young people that there was nothing to fear in his claims.
To make a long story short: I told him I would accept his challenge, but I wouldn’t accept his money — and then I proceeded to demonstrate that not one of his supposed contradictions could withstand a close reading of the text. When we finished, he agreed that he had lost the challenge, and I bore my testimony to him and to the youth gathered around. The kids were literally cheering by the time it was over.
That change of demeanor was the most important part of the experience for me. Standing by, with an attitude of “silence is golden,” would have sent those kids home with their testimonies rattled; instead they left with their faith intact, and their confidence restored.
Note that this was a civil exchange. This man was shamed, not by any insults or harsh attacks from me, but by the weakness of his own arguments.
Note also that the point wasn’t necessarily to convert this man to the gospel, but to expose him in front of others whom he was beginning to influence. That distinction may be the key to deciding whether “silence is golden” should apply to any particular circumstance.
Chip, there is nothing more exciting error, to be sure. I think the “silence is golden” is best applied when someone is trying to draw attention to their cause and responding only draws attention to the critic.
I’m glad your exchange with this critic was civil. Whenever I engage with a critic I let them know that if they cannot be civil in their discussion, I won’t bother talking to them. For the most part, they tend to be civil and pleasant.
I met with the author of “They Lie in Wait to Deceive” several years ago and enjoyed discussing his books with him. His books did more to discredit several famous critics than anything else I have seen thus far. There was actually a member of the 1st Presidency who sent him a telegram thanking him for his books. No official endorsement of his books was ever offered (nor would it ever be), but there was gratitude by many in Salt Lake.
I’d have to say “keep your money” I’ve forgotten any argument I might have learned and know practically nothing to argue against critics with except “you believe what you want and I’ll believe what I want.”