In my “What’s the Point . . .” series, this one seemed particularly timely given that our semi-annual General Conference is right around the corner. Without further ado, let’s talk about what the point of General Conference could be. As with most topics, there are many ways each of these aims could be achieved, and it’s also possible that all of these are aims of General Conference.
Clarifying doctrine. By contrast, consider some other churches in which there is a local pastor determining how to interpret scripture and the gospel, providing that clarity to his or her own flock. Not all churches have the same hierarchy that ours does in which doctrinal deference is given to the higher ranking person regardless of qualifications or background (in many churches theological degrees are required for the ministry). General Conference gives our leaders the ability to opine on their own interpretations of doctrine: Uchtdorf speaks about grace and avoiding hypocrisy, Oaks speaks about religious freedom and white shirts, Eyring speaks about forgiveness and duty, Nelson speaks about conditional love and obedience; these are just some of the themes each of these have chosen to speak on. A church leader looks across his stewardship and determines that a course correction is needed or a bit more emphasis or clarification of misunderstood doctrine from his perspective, and that instruction is given during General Conference and quoted thereafter as authoritative.
Sustaining distant church leaders. Because of this top down approach, General Conference fills the role of encouraging and enabling fealty to distant church leaders as the sole authorities to define doctrine, receive church-wide revelation, and set church doctrine. This is a way to make Mormons more uniform world-wide by bringing everyone together and having us sustain those leaders as a group. This creates unity among members and reinforces the hierarchy that keeps us all in line with one vision.
Revelation for the church. There’s always a bit of excitement prior to General Conference, an anticipation of changes being announced. At times General Conference has been used as the vehicle to announce Church-wide changes that have been revealed to our inspired leaders. While some changes are announced in local wards via a letter from the First Presidency (or, ya know, “leaked” accidentally to 32,000 bishops and stake presidents with no warning or explanation until after the fact), others have been held and announced to the membership in General Conference to ensure the message is given sufficient importance and focus.
Addressing a worldwide audience. Growing up, the fact that General Conference was broadcast to the world at large was something that really struck me, and unlike other broadcasts, it was picked up by the local network station (I think NBC) in my native Pennsylvania. Given that Mormons were less than 2% of the population in my home state, this felt like a big deal to me, evidence that our tiny religion was speaking to the world at large, people who were potential future Mormons, people who needed to hear from our inspired leaders. I was often disappointed when so many of the speakers came across as very Utah-centric, speaking to insiders only. General Conference is still called a Worldwide conference, but it appears to have mostly given up pretensions to being targeted to the world at large rather than just Church members, although the messages are still curated and shared with investigators in some areas of the Church’s online presence.
Providing lesson materials for the next 6 months. This is a newly emerging trend, but it is solidly in place at present; recent conference talks have replaced the manuals for both Relief Society and Priesthood, and they are often the assigned topics for sacrament meeting talks. This is an offshoot of the “Clarifying Doctrine” point, but it’s also killing two birds with one stone. It further reinforces centralized control of doctrine and also saves time and investment in a curriculum department. It makes the Church more nimble as changes in doctrine or direction are introduced. New jargon like “covenant path” can quickly saturate the culture in a way that couldn’t happen when curriculum was a death-by-committee process requiring months and years of planning and vetting. No such restrictions apply when messages are straight from the horse’s mouth in farm-to-table fashion like they are now.
Auditioning future leaders. I’m only being slightly tongue in cheek here. There does seem to be an element of succession planning at play in the selection of speakers and those who give prayers; otherwise, conference would be much shorter and only include members of the Quorum of the Twelve, or even shorter and only include members of the First Presidency. Instead, time is given to members of the Presiding Bishopric or the Seventy in the form of assigned talks and prayers. I have often noted the effluence of some of these prayers that are often as long as a youth speaker’s talk in our local ward; if we aren’t intentionally auditioning the B Level leaders for future positions, some of them certainly seem to think they are being auditioned! This is one of the aspects of General Conference that seems fairly unique to this specific forum. Succession planning can occur in a less public way when apostles take more junior leaders with them on trips to various areas of the world, but this is the one place that their ability to address the Church at large can be assessed.
To provide individual members with inspiration and personal revelation. Messages delivered in General Conference are varied in content, tone, and style. They are delivered by a variety of speakers who chose their own topics (topics are not assigned) through their own personal inspiration. Often as Church members, some talks really speak to us while others are forgettable or just don’t resonate for us. In some cases, some speakers or messages rub us the wrong way. In other cases, the messages just don’t land. But in nearly every conference, there are 2-3 messages that seem personally crafted just for us, something we needed to hear or that improves our outlook or understanding or that gives us hope or changes our thinking. Those are the diamonds in the dung heap (that’s a paraphrase of Thomas Jefferson who cut up his Bible to only retain the things he thought were actually inspired)–not that we necessarily think of any of it as “dung,” just that the contrast between a dull dung heap and a diamond is so stark that those messages leap out at us! That’s what inspiration feels like.
Those are the reasons I’ve got, but you might be able to think of different ones, and you’ll get your chance in the comments. For now, let’s take a vote. Which of these reasons do you think is the primary reason we currently have a semi-annual General Conference?
Back to your own experience, as you think through the past years, what messages felt specifically crafted to you? Were there some that leaped out to you? What messages missed you completely that you know were meaningful for others?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I reluctantly voted for “lesson material for the next 6 months.” Ugh. Not what Conference could be or should be but what it has become. This is probably not the thread to talk about Conference upgrades … but Conference needs an upgrade. They have redone the curriculum and now redone the youth program and are even redoing the hymnal. Time to shoot higher and redo the whole approach to Conference. How about at least tailoring sessions? Make one session address youth issues. Another womens issues, with several RS speakers. Another focus on the new Saints volumes. Another on grace and forgiveness in God’s church. Themed sessions alone could make things more interesting and would be a springboard for bringing in a few qualified non-GA speakers.
I don’t care much about the why, I’m just happy I get to “attend church” twice a year by sitting on my couch in my pj’s.
When I was a kid, General Conference was a much-appreciated break from the 3-hour block. We’d skip the Saturday general sessions. Priesthood session was very much a father-son outing, complete with dinner & ice-cream. Generally, we’d watch the Sunday morning session as a family in the living room and call it good for the weekend.
When I was preparing for a full-time mission, I started attending Saturday session broadcasts at the chapel on my own as a way to center myself and think more deeply about my religion. Now as an agnostic, conference has become a way to take the Church’s temperature as well as my own. I can inventory which doctrines, policies, and leaders, sound worthwhile and which ones seem faulty. As the weekend approaches, I anticipate a range of feelings from being uplifted to thoroughly annoyed.
I know General Conference is older than TV and the Internet, but in the 21st century, it seems a tad ironic that the leadership asks us to spend a whole weekend binge-watching GA talks, many of which will speak out about the dangers of indulging in other things. Go figure. There does still seem something worthwhile about the whole exercise.
GC — otherwise known among some in Salt Lake valley as “Mormon holiday weekend.” It used to be that Park City became extraordinarily crowded with visitors from the valley during GC. Now it seems always too crowded to go there at all. But still a holiday for some.
I think that traditionally conference was a chance for the Church as a whole to connect and for members to hear from the leaders (as you’ve articulated well in your post). In the analog world, speakers would read talks that were heard by people in the audience or over radio/tv and later reprinted to read. However, I’ve noticed that (especially under Pres. Nelson) we have been doing this more and more outside conference with face to face firesides, trainings, videos and press releases, kind of circumventing conference. I think these are good ways at connecting with the Church, but may make it necessary to tweek some things with conference that are being accomplished through other avenues.
If you go all in and do all the sessions, it ends up being a huge time commitment and taking the whole weekend. I used to feel exhausted by the end of the last session (now I usually skip the Saturday stuff).
I would like conference to be whittled down to 1-2 sessions on Sunday. I think this is unrealistic because the trend has been toward more consolidation of power/authority, but I would like actual church business to be discussed and presented to the Church for a real sustaining vote and have people actually be able to vote (through LDS account) and have the votes mean something. It would be nice to have the audit report actually be a review and discussion of Church finances.
I would love some keynote, multimedia talks by the First Presidency, Q12 and some of the female leaders (3-4 total talks). I also think it would be interesting to have a non GA/aux leader guest speaker or highlight a church function/department that is not well-known and interesting (video about the granite vaults, humanitarian efforts, church history sites, etc.).
I would add one note that I hope won’t be too unkind. Compelling, dynamic leaders do not talk about why people should trust and listen to them. The messages usually speak for themselves based on their substance and delivery. When was the last time you heard a Ted Talk where the presenter spent a good amount of time talking about why people should listen to them and trust their message? Listen this conference to how many messages focus on why we should trust our leaders. I think this comes off as a little insecure and desperate and also shows that people are not listening to leaders and they are not confident that their messages and delivery will stand on their own.
I have to agree with felixfabulous. On my cynical reading/listening times to the last couple of conferences, it seemed like several speakers could have spent less time telling us to follow their counsel, and more time actually giving us counsel. And can we not be so afraid of plain speaking? You lose some credibility when you call sexual assault “nonconsensual sexual immorality.” Joseph and Brigham spoke plainly. Why can’t today’s speakers do the same?
One reason you didn’t list is “to make sure the Conference Center wasn’t a huge waste of money.”
Auditioning future leaders made my stomach churn. The concept of jockeying for position inside the church is revolting because it’s everything that we’re not supposed to be.
I, too, am with felixfabulous. I think the purpose of GC is really two-fold:
1. As a few folks have noted, really hammering home the whole “listen to your leaders” angle. Felix is right that it comes off as kind of desperate. It’s a poor leader who has to constantly remind people that they are the leader. Part of that rhetoric, of course, is that the world is evil and scary and so you need to listen to the leaders so as to avoid being influenced by “the world”. That’s also where a lot of the obedience talk comes into play, I think.
2. Making sure that the members keep toeing the line. I suppose that’s related to the whole obedience thing, but most of the GC talks I read/listen to (not many, anymore) talk a lot about various forms of obedience. Keeping on the “covenant path”, making sure you’re “in the boat”, etc. I’ve spent a fair amount of time studying political rhetoric and I believe that what I hear at GC is really no different from a given political leader (take your pick) telling you that s/he’s the only one who can guide the country out of the mess it’s in, etc. I just am really suspicious of that kind of rhetoric. We spend a fair amount of time, I think, emphasizing the importance of individual accountability that I find a lot of GC rhetoric to be intrusive and unhelpful. Also, it’s pitched at such a broad audience that it really does come off as condescending and quite insincere. And I’m with CS Eric on the whole being afraid of plain speaking as well. “Same sex attraction”, e.g., is just a bizarre and unhelpful euphemism.
My vote was for “To provide individual members with inspiration and personal revelation”
I feel like the spirit uses opportunities when you’re tuned in and paying attention to help concepts make sense regardless if that’s what the speaker is actually talking about. But I think our readiness to be taught is what allows the spirit to jump in.
“straight from the horse’s mouth in farm-to-table fashion” Are we serving tongue for general conference brunch? That’s quite the mixed metaphor!
As to the poll, I think conference is once again a historic artifact. In the late 19th and early (and mid) 20th Century, it was basically a leadership training retreat, done the only way it could be done in that era, with various sessions taking place over a full week. There’s still leadership training that takes place in the days leading up to general conference, but like many items in Mormonism, current practice is best understood by looking at the past.
General Conference can potentially be a collective spiritual experience like the people who were reborn at King Benjamin’s address in the Book of Mormon. General Conference can fulfill many noble and needed purposes. But for some of us it can trigger PTSD. Sadly, I have seen too many local priesthood leadership weaponize statements made by the Brethren at conference and elsewhere. I have experienced the resulting unrighteous dominion numerous times.
General Conference was a spiritual experience for me when it took place in the Tabernacle and I was physically present. I suspect that was in part a result of being a part of a congregation gathered to worship and learn. Broadcast conferences feel entirely different. I haven’t been in the conference center, but a crowd that large would feel oppressive to me and not like the congregational experiences of long ago. I wonder if anyothers feel or have felt that way.
The Other Clark: I enjoy a good mixed metaphor, but my favorite is “Ignorance is nine-tenths of the law.”
How about having a historian speak in GC? Or a scientist? Or a social scientist? And not assign them a stupid subject. Let them talk about history, or some aspect of science, or economics.
How about talking about the global church, and not just faith promoting stories? The gospel should encompasses all truth and global concerns.
I’d like to hear the perspective of people that voted “address the world at large.” Specifically because one of the reasons I stopped watching conference a few years back was because so many of the messages felt insular and inward focused.
I voted to provide material to cover for the next 6 months. That’s the other reason I stopped watching conference a few years ago. There’s no need to watch conference live when we end up revisiting one talk at a time during sacrament and priesthood meetings over the next 6 months.
One can go through the past 20 years of conference talks, randomly pull 10 hours of them and compare them to what is said this weekend and not learn anything new.
How come there’s not an option for “because traditions die hard”? 😛
straight from the horse’s mouth in farm-to-table fashion
My first instinct was to wonder if you’re really sure it’s the horse’s mouth, but I squelched myself. As you can see.
The ability of the Church to disseminate the message more quickly and in more easily accessible form than a weekend full of often badly-written talks leads me to believe that it’s largely about control and leadership presence. The lesson thing rings true, but frankly we used to do lessons based on Ensign articles, too. I think that in a worldwide church with a necessarily decentralized leadership, on a day-to-day, Sabbath-to-Sabbath level, it’s important for general leaders to be (literally) visible in a formal setting to the entire church.
When I was first baptized, my future FIL told me about GC, and said I’d get an idea of the gentle and indirect ways in which the leaders of the church guided members and local units. I think that guidance has become less gentle and more ham-handed in the intervening 33 years, but it’s still about course correction, consistency, and unity of purpose.
Enjoying Elder Holland addressing what’s the point of general conference….
Another possible reason for General Conference is to maintain tribe cohesion. When I lived in Japan and watch conference I knew that the members of my family were too, Now when I watch conference, I know that in addition to my family , my extended family, I know there are people around the world are watching and believing as I do. The Church can and does do most the things in this blog talks about by way media announcement, the newsroom, announcements over the pulpit in church, and social media. for that matter, with the event of LDS tools a mass email/text could be done. None of these methods of communication are as effective as General Conference in giving the sense of community.