This week, let me put my geek credentials on full display. In the movie Star Trek VI, after a briefing ordering Captain Kirk to escort a visiting delegation of Klingons to a historic peace summit, Captain Spock relates an old Vulcan proverb… ‘Only Nixon could go to China‘.” To quote from Wikipedia: “Nixon, having had an undisputed reputation of being a staunch anti-Communist, was largely immune to any criticism of being “soft on Communism” by figures on the right of American politics.”
In my previous piece I talked about evaluation of the statements and teachings of leaders in the church within the marketplace of ideas. Similarly but entirely different, I’ve wondered whether General Authorities develop a focus, expertise, or reputation for addressing topics in certain areas. I’m sure that many of these are developed through their own life experience, personality traits, gospel interests, as well as their topical and committee assignments.
A few brief examples:
Whenever President Nelson talks about evolution (or other scientific topics), people react for better or worse, I feel much more than if similar comments came from Elder Neal Anderson. Whenever President Oaks talks about LGBTQ issues, people react for better or worse, I feel more than they would for President Uchtdorf. Whenever Elder Bednar talks about obedience…you get the picture.
These individuals have developed reputations in these areas, Pres. Nelson because of his education and professional experience, Pres. Oaks because of his profession, historical assignments and (personal gospel interest?), and Elder Bednar because he lived in Rexburg….
(I kid. I actually don’t know why Elder Bednar has developed his focus/reputation.)
Growing up I always loved to hear Pres. Monson’s talks during conference. He always seemed to inject so much of his own personality into them, and I appreciated his stories about practical applications of gospel principles. Even at the MTC, when the general authorities came to speak, his talk was a little unconventional, which I sincerely appreciated in the midst of the many maudlin EFY-styled talks we seemed to usually get.
Nixon was effective in his approach to and message in China partially because of his reputation as a strong anti-Communist. Even though this action was a very bold step for him, the message was successful particularly because of his strong anti-communist “street cred.” His reputation (part of the medium) affected the reception among his supporters and ultimate success of the message. On the other side of the same coin, I personally found Pres. Monson’s talks effective because his history of practical applications resonated with me. His reputation affected the reception and success of the message with me. On the other hand, some of Pres. Nelson’s comments on evolution in particular have come across all the more odd to me since he has had science and medical training.
Questions to ponder:
- With General Authorities, does the medium (messenger) affect the message reception and success? Do you find that the statements of Pres. Nelson, Pres. Oaks, and others, have more impact/more effective/less effective based on their area/reputation?
- Do certain General Authorities resonate more or less with you based on their life experiences and personality?
- Feel free to share experiences when a GA personally resonated with you more than others. Why do you think they did?
- Note: While I recognize the potential influence of the spirit in every talk, the Holy Ghost does not work with a blank canvas in any of us.
- Regarding Nixon in China, how would you feel people would receive a similar bold message from Pres. Nelson or Pres. Oaks, vs Pres. Uchtdorf? Consider hypotheticals such as extending recognition of marriage to same-sex partnerships or extending priesthood offices to women. Would there be a different reception based on the messenger?
Wheat & Tares 
I feel like there are two separate points here. First, the messenger factor. Sure, I look forward to talks by Pres. Uchtdorf and Elder Christofferson. Once upon a time (like a generation back) Pres. Oaks and Elder Holland would have been on my list, but having changed their tone and message, not so much anymore.
Second, Nixon going to China. That’s a messenger going against their own biases or prior messages. The equivalent would be Pres. Nelson or Oaks doing a 180 on gay marriage. The closest we come on this was Pres. Woodruff rolling back polygamy and Pres. Kimball ending the temple and priesthood ban for those of African descent. (Well, we’re all of African descent, but you know what I mean.) So there is precedent for Nelson/Oaks changing course. The odds are maybe one in a million. (“So you’re telling me there’s a chance?” Yes a very slim chance.)
Our YW had a group text discussion on how the moment Elder Oaks stands up to speak at conference, they leave the room. (Not all girls felt this way, some were offended that others did.) I’m hearing similar things from our cousins in other places. So for a contingent, the messenger has ruined his ability to influence because of not just the message but the way he chooses to present it.
Personally, I see this as being somewhat the effect of advanced age. In watching my parents get older, they also seem to be having similar problems as their personalities change.
With regard to Pres. Nelson and the big bang theory, Ben Spackman made the insightful point on Rick’s Gospel Tangents podcast that Nelson’s education predated much of what we accept today on the origin of the universe. Nelson graduated from medical school in 1947. The phrase “big bang” wasn’t coined until 1949, and the theory didn’t begin to get widespread acceptance until 1964 (when the type of radiation predicted by the model was found). Whatever scientific education Nelson had in undergrad and medical school, it pales compared to what we know now. (Even with biology, the double helix structure of DNA wasn’t proposed until the 1950s.)
I think Elder Holland has developed a reputation for being sympathetic towards those who have mental illness. His “Like a Broken Vessel” talk a few years back felt groundbreaking when it seemed that he admitted a period of depression. I suspect Sister Abuerto’s talk in this year’s Women’s Session will be similarly remembered as a major milestone when it comes to addressing suicide. In both cases, these were not just intellectual musings, they were based on painful personal experiences. So, yes, those experiences give them more credibility on those topics in my mind.
I was an employed mother with young children when Elder Benson was anticipated to soon be announced as the President and Prophet. I had some anxiety about his messages. Just before his advanced calling he spoke in stake conference in my stake. What I saw and heard was just like anybody’s grandpa. That impression surrounded everything I heard from him during his leadership.
It’s cognitive dissonance, for sure, and it’s causing heads to explode. It baffles me when Pres. Nelson (supposedly a brilliant man of science) flippantly rejects evolution with cheap shots (“explosion in a print shop”). Likewise when Pres. Oaks–who’s experience on the bench should have helped him develop a mind towards fairness and social justice–continues his anti-LGBTQ crusade, consequences be damned. Or like when Elder Christofferson became the Church’s damage control spokesman after the Nov 2015 policy was leaked (knowing full well who his brother is). It’s maddening. It would be like if Elder Uchtdorf suddenly went on a tirade about the supposed evils of jet engines and powered flight. At least Elder Packer was always predictable in his attitudes and patterns, not matter how unpalatable.
@ Dave B
You are correct! While both sets of examples have very different contexts, they are both sides of the same coin, and the essential point is the same – the messenger (the medium) affects the delivery, response, and ultimate success of the message. It can be relevant when the messenger has a great deal of experience in the matter, and so people respond for better or worse based on the messenger’s experience. And it can also work when the messenger does something different or expansive from their history. Pres. Nixon had definite anti-communist “street cred” – and so his overtures towards China were successful in part because he wouldn’t have been accused of being “soft on Communism.”
Your example of previous Presidents of the Church, (and a future President setting a potentially different course) is fully within this context. How do you think individuals would respond if Pres. Nelson or Pres. Oaks made a sweeping announcement expanding marriage to include same gendered partnerships? How do you think other individuals would respond if Pres. Uchtdorf were President and made the same announcement?
In an expanded context, I’m always curious how individuals relate and respond to general authorities differently, based on that authority’s experience, expertise, or history.
I don’t think of RMN as being a scientist, just as I would not have called BKP an academic . I think that most of us who do biological or biomedical research for a living, think of surgeons as highly skilled plumbers who have utilitarian knowledge of human physiology, but not as scientists. Very good at what they do, but not someone who have any depth of understanding of genetics, evolutionary biology, systems biology, cell signaling, or any of the areas expected of a life scientist or to have the expertise to comment on evolution. I take his comments on evolution to be as about as knowledgeable as my comments on music or art.
Sure it impacts, but I agree with the comments that the Nixon in China quote would apply more if they turn a 180. Where by contrast they seem obsessed with a certain topic, I start to tune it out.
I listen with interest to what Christofferson and Gong say about LGBT issues because of their family background (and because I generally respect then—Gong was my stake pres and I think both are very intelligent and somewhat progressive). I don’t agree with them because I don’t agree with the church, but I hope to see more empathy and nuance from them than others. I love Holland’s exposition of New Testament texts and emotion. I love Uchtdorf’s wisdom. I think the sisters have been doing an excellent job the last few conferences as well.
I have a hard time with some of the others whose approach to the gospel or life is so contrary to my own world orientation (Anderson, Bednar). I listen but I take their words with a grain or more of salt. I no longer listen to Oaks at all—I turn the TV off and read later—which is too bad because growing up he gave some my of favorite and most influential talks. He’s become a one-trick pony ensnared by fear and bias.
As Saints we have always been counseled to heed the words of the Brethren, but I wonder if this has now reached a point of diminishing returns – both for members and for the institution. Increasingly the former no longer conflates animus with inspiration; as to the latter, by far the greater part of the justified criticism the Church receives is the result of something the top 15 have done or said, and it is primarily this that makes LDS a toxic brand. These men do not understand basic biology, what makes humans tick, the complexities of gender and sexuality in particular. I think you could say the same about any leader of fundamentalist conservative religion around the world. Until churches are wrestled out of this domineering personality type’s hands they will continue to decline.
I also think part of the problem is that in General Conference we are seeing an incredible lack of depth or nuance from men who are educated and accomplished in a variety of endeavors. We expect better of them, as we should. Take Elder Renlund, a former heart transplant surgeon. I imagine it takes significant amount of intellectual horsepower and critical thinking to be successful in that field, but his apostolic output does not reflect that. Mostly shallow, one-dimensional talks about “staying in the boat” and such.
On the other hand, Elder Rasband has a history of being a slimy, unscrupulous businessman, and he certainly comes across as one over the pulpit.
Jack Hughes has inspired me to rip the following totally out of the context in which Elder Rasband said it (see Newsroom):
““My view is that it doesn’t matter what you’ve done in business.” LOL
I wonder how RAR came to have that reputation with Jack.
In any event, I’ve seen again and again how hard it is for some [many?] to separate messenger and message. In matters of logical or ideological content that can be unfortunate. In matters of the heart or spirit it seems inevitable.
I take objection to the Nixon/Red China analysis.
I think there’s probably less of he could do it because he was anti-Communist than he could do it because the left was capable of flexible thinking and evaluating the logic of the idea. I often wonder how many really creative and constructive ideas this country has missed out on because conservatives, in general, aren’t willing to give much or even tolerate certain discussions without the imprimatur of some “authority” giving them permission. The whole concept of “talking points” has been, so far as I’m concerned, a huge step backward to immobilization and anachronism.
@alice 5:15pm
Perhaps it would be helpful to expand the definition on “Only Nixon could go to China.” ‘As a political metaphor, it refers to the ability of a politician with an unassailable reputation among their supporters for representing and defending their values to take actions that would draw their criticism and even opposition if taken by someone without those credentials. Although the example is that of a hardliner taking steps toward peace with a traditional enemy, and this is the most common application of the metaphor, it could also be applied to a reputedly cautious diplomat defying expectations by taking military action, or a political leader reforming aspects of the political system of which they have been strong supporters.’
In short, much of this phrase relates to the ability of the individual’s message/actions to be successful among their supporters, not necessarily their opponents.
And while I appreciate and agree with your concern about the reduction of the complexity and nuance of politics to talking points, it is a human (and very tribalistic) desire to have our opinions reinforced. This desire does not just exist within one political party, nor within one religion. Different authorities exist within both parties, as the leading democratic candidates have passionately discussed.
Perhaps part of my exploration of this idea of medium and the message within the church is that, like Jack Hughes stated, many of these educated individuals in the Q12/FP give messages that are staggeringly oversimplified. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, when applied in mortality, requires more depth and nuance than primary answers. Is it like what Jack Hughes stated, if we have higher expectations of them, we are more disappointed when those expectations aren’t met? Should I have lowered expectations for the messages of the FP/Q12, whether they are given in General Conference, or in political or legal statements or from Pres. Oaks?
@Mary Ann 10:55
Thank you for bringing up that point regarding the massive amount of scientific knowledge that has come forth after Pres. Nelson finished medical school. Is what 10ac stated correct? Are surgeons often very “highly skilled plumbers who have a utilitarian knowledge of human physiology”? (I’ll refrain from sharing my own opinions on some surgeons, since they, I myself, and many others have strong opinions on radiologists.)
To share another example of when the messenger increased the resonance of the message, I have very much appreciated Pres. Chieko Okazaki’s messages, particularly when she spoke about her experiences being and feeling different. In an interview, she was asked by Dr. Greg Prince on why she stayed in the church when she could have left. She responded:
“I stayed because it was God and Jesus Christ that I wanted to follow and be like, not individual human beings. I brought Buddhism with me. Buddhism teaches love for everybody…not limited just to the people in the Buddhist faith. I came to the Church having all these values. I brought them with me and I live them, and I’m grateful that I have them.”
@ Wondering 4:22pm
Thank you for your comment. I fully agree with you that it is often hard to separate messenger and message. One of my continuing personal goals is to embrace inherently good messages, even if the messenger is not admirable. I wonder if you wouldn’t share some experiences where you personally had difficulty separating the two. Were your responses influenced by your expectations of the messenger? Along those lines, do you think we put too high of expectations on the FP/Q12, particularly during conference talks? I’m sure they recognize that their words will be parsed no matter what they say. I would imagine that nearly all of them carefully study and pray over how best to say things. I would also imagine that some find this pressure only increases their desire to say what they strongly feel, even when it is later edited out of the printed text.
JD, I have been happier at church (and with General conference) since lowering my expectations. Really low expectations mean I can always find something to be pleased with rather than always feeling put off and disgruntled with superficiality, inanity, political statements confused with religious doctrine, dirge-like hymn singing (mumbling, really), and gratingly out of tune ward choirs. For me it is really helpful to have low expectations. I can create or find depth and nuance elsewhere — with occasional glimpses of it at Church.
Sometimes I think I tend to be too hard on President Oaks. He has been a lawyer, law professor, university president, and judge. His training and experience were directed toward asserting and arguing a position, not toward any skills or style conducive to comforting or inspiring. He did not serve as a missionary. I find no report of his ever having served in the Church in what I would call a pastoral role. I may not want to hear an appellate argument in General Conference or read a legal brief in the Ensign or in reports of other speeches, but there seems to me no good reason to expect anything else from him. And still I can find useful nuggets of wisdom in some of his talks. So, yes, in my view, lowered expectations are good and helpful.
I”m very familiar with the politics of Nixon’s opening US foreign policy to China. I lived through it.
I stand by my point that it’s not the exclusive fiat of a leader but the openness of the population to the ping pong matches, as it were. And I think the more inclusive sensibilities of the political left paved the way for general acceptance of his initiatives. He simply wouldn’t have had a successful transition with only his own followers.
JD: “… to embrace inherently good messages, even if the messenger is not admirable. I wonder if you wouldn’t share some experiences where you personally had difficulty separating the two. Were your responses influenced by your expectations of the messenger?”
I don’t care for the wording of the hypothetical in your goal statement: “the messenger is not admirable.” That sounds to me like a judgment of the person rather than a statement of my response to the person. I would rather seek to embrace good messages, even if I am put off by my past experience with or perceptions of the messenger or his/her prior messages.
I will try to respond with an experience of difficulty separating messenger and message and a comment on not even finding a message because of my reaction to the messenger.
My expectations of messengers are derived either (a) from what I would like to hear from someone in the messenger’s position, or (b) from my prior experience of that particular messenger. (1) As a teen my expectation of my patriarchal blessing was to hear something from the patriarch I could recognize as inspired guidance for me personally. Instead, I was overwhelmed with a single specific comment on my home and family life which I believed was fundamentally false and inspired only by the patriarch’s friendship with my parents, his lack of familiarity with what actually went on in the home, and certainly not by God. The result of my reaction to the false statement was an inability to see anything of value in the rest of that patriarchal blessing. Because I can still be triggered by the falsehood, I very rarely review the blessing. My wife finds more value in it than I can. (2) As one sibling once remarked, the only parental emotion we perceived as teenagers was anger. I was probably hypersensitive to that and to paternal berating rather than reasoning with my sisters. The result is that I have no recollection of learning anything good from my father who was, in those years, a well-loved and respected bishop of a large ward. What I learned was some of what not to do and not to say. From another sibling, one who was not so hypersensitive, I have gathered a very different view and very different memories of dad and what he taught. Perhaps my negative reaction to some of his behavior overwhelmed any ability I might have had to perceive and remember the good messages.
My expectations of GA talks changed radically when I recognized rhetorical overstatement in Marion G. Romney’s telling assembled BYU students that when us boys grew up we would be “exactly like” our fathers. (He also claimed that when the girls grew up they would be “exactly like” their mothers.). He was trying to tell young adults to look carefully at families in their choices of mates. But what he taught me was to apply a substantial discount to the truth-value of any broad statement from a GA. (Think here a few broad statements we’ve seen from RMN — some of them patently and historically false if taken literally, however one defines “prophet” or “truth” or “ALWAYS”.) My reaction to MGR was to think, “if I believed you, I’d go out and kill myself now..” I don’t think that was the reaction he wished to inspire.
I think lowered expectations of both messengers and messages are healthy. They can facilitate separating message from messenger as we consider what we hear and seek our own guidance from God.
@ Wondering 8:02
I used that phrase intentionally – if I can parse out an inherently good statement from an individual whom I do not admire, that is the ultimate for me in separating out the message from the messenger/medium. I realized this when I shared an aphorism recently. A friend of mine found the source of the quote so politically unacceptable that they had a hard time accepting the validity of the quote itself.
Thank you very much for sharing that, I can’t imagine your experience.
I think I have such a negative reaction to rhetorical overstatement because I have had years of training force increased precision in my professional written language. I recognize that my words will make a difference in someone’s medical treatment. Additionally, years of my own church experience have reinforced the power that the words of General Authorities can have.
There is currently a forgotten and largely silent member of the P3: President Eyring. His father was a brilliant scientist. Some of this must have rubbed off on him. His father was willing to dispute the bizarre ideas of Joseph Fielding Smith and BRM. But the younger Eyring continues to remain silent on the important issues that his two colleagues obsess over. Surely he has enough background to explain the potential problems with statements made by Prez Oaks and Nelson. Instead he gives talks that are banal and lacking in depth. We need him to speak out, both privately and publicly
Our current great hope is Elder Gong. But he is a very junior member of the Twelve. Hopefully in the coming years, he will become vocal. Maybe after a change in the top leadership of the Church.
Rogerdhansen, Sometimes silence (discretion) may be best.
In Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I when Prince Hal finds Falstaff pretending to be dead on the battlefield, the prince assumes he has been killed. After the prince leaves the stage, Falstaff rationalizes “The better part of Valour, is Discretion; in the which better part, I haue saued my life” (spelling and punctuation from the First Folio, Act 5, Scene 3, lines 3085–3086).
When I saw the video/pictures of the current first presidency when new, I thought Pres Eyring looked like he was in shock as the third-man out of the Oaks/Nelson mutual self-appreciation society. My impression was that he was retained for the sake of first presidency institutional memory and Pres Uchtdorf was released from the first presidency because even in the present culture of adulation RMN could never overtake Uchtdorf’s popularity and influence with the majority of members. I think Pres Eyring can fulfill the institutional memory function without publicly creating or reflecting dissension in the ranks. Perhaps he is more vocal in private councils. It seems to me too much to expect him to be publicly like his father or to be Pres Uchtdorf.
While Falstaff may have been cowardly, I choose to think Pres Eyring is not, but simply chooses not to fight public battles he cannot win.
JD, I don’t think we differ as much as might be imagined. Your reformulation — “individual whom I do not admire” — is to me quite different from your first — “messenger is not admirable.” The reformulation is a matter of the relationship in which I participate. The first seemed to me to be a judgment on the messenger independent of my perception or participation in the relationship.
I see both Oaks and Nelson, as republicans from 1980, first and apostles occasionally. I would like to think they are basically good men, just backward. I realise they live in a bubble, but surely they should have read some science since they went to school. I think if you are going to claim some authority, you have a responsibility to be uptodate.
The leadership have a responsibility to be credible, otherwise they damage the brand.
We had in our ph a talk by Jack Gerrard. As I hadn’t heard of him before, I looked him up. I was disgusted. He was big oils man in washington. He was paid millions, and had a budget to bribe politicians. If that did not work he had set up fake grass roots groups, who would campaign, against the politician on line, and even protest against them. He also spent a lot undermining environmental groups. Dirty tricks were his speciality.
That we would think people of his calibre should be GAs again undermines the credibility of the church. But then we have a local area authority, who ripped of the government, then sold his business just before it was investigated. Neither of these would carry much weight no matter what they said.
If Oaks succeeds RN not sure the church won’t implode.
So much goes to credibility. Many people leave because the no longer trust the leaders.
I think the only hope for the church is Uchtdorf. I don’t know if the conservative members would follow him (i’m told gay marriage is not compatible with the church) with major changes.
There needs to be retirement age for Apostles below 80.
Yes the deliverer very much affects the message.
I, like you, enjoyed Thomas S. Monson’s talks as a teenager and young adult in the church. His kindness and service inspired me and still do. I also loved President Hinckley. His optimism was contagious. When I see his smiling face it makes me think, “It’s okay, you’ve got this.” (I could use more optimism in this world and hope we are not too far gone.) I think it was their words but more so their outlook that drew me in. They both INSPIRED me to be better whereas now I feel like I am constantly being TOLD to be better.
Like 10ac says, a surgeon has no more understanding of evolution than a large vehicle mechanic has of quantum physics. In fact, it appears that President Nelson’s undergraduate degree was a BA, meaning that he didn’t even major in science as an undergrad. There are plenty of people in the church who do have expertise in evolution. I’ve served in a ward council with one and taken biology classes from others. But I’ve never known a surgeon or any medical doctor who has any expertise in it (although I’m sure they exist, somewhere).
I think the only hope for the church is Uchtdorf.
There needs to be retirement age for Apostles below 80.
Elder Uchtdorf turned 79 a week or two ago.
JD, great piece. Unfortunately I tried ponderizing the hypotheticals you suggested. I imagined Oaks at the GC pulpit “extending recognition of marriage to same-sex partnerships or extending priesthood offices to women.” For the record, my head exploded.
@ Wondering 10pm
I actually used the both phrases intentionally. Wouldn’t that be the most challenging application of separating the message from the messenger? Taking a message or quote that is inherently good from an individual who is empirically not admirable? I recognize that beyond the hypothetical, and certain figures in history and politics, it is always a matter of degrees. But I freely admit that I still have problems with that personally – accepting a message that is inherently good from individuals that I find reprehensible. One of my constant challenges.
@AO 11:49
Oh yes, I thoroughly appreciated Pres. Hinckley’s approach to public leadership. Growing up I was very proud of his public relations and media skills. Whenever he gave interviews, he often seemed to have a wry smile that showed that he was in his element. His approach resonated with me even more than most. Again, to emphasize the idea that people are complex, he still made statements often reducing the church and this gospel to a binary:
“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. ”
-American Experience Interview, The Mormons
“Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”
-General Conference April 2003 “Loyalty”
I’ve never found binaries helpful with the complexity of a human organization wrestling with the divine. While this is still a likely example of rhetorical overstatement, trickle-down local leadership applications of these statements cause a myriad of problems.
Nonetheless, both he and Pres. Monson inspired me to be better as well. Do you feel that it was more than their words and outlook that was so inspiring? Do you (or anyone) have any ideas or suggestions on how to encourage any of the authorities currently “telling” us to “be better” to emulate the behaviors that were so inspiring in others? That’s a good challenge. I would assume that Pres. Oaks feels that it is his prophetic responsibility to be a voice of warning regarding LGBT individuals. Other than encouraging him to not use oversimplifications and generalizations that he has made in previous talks (BYU Hawaii recently), I’m not sure how to encourage him otherwise.
I’ll be honest here. I’ve been struggling with Pres Nelson since the whole MTC Scandal broke. It brought up a lot of trauma about how my family was treated when it was revealed my dad was abusive. Plus the lawsuit against his own daughter accusing her of sexual abuse. Add in the recent abuse scandals in Utah and Arizona. So I have a hard time listening to him speak about how awesome women are when he clearly doesn’t show that by his actions. Same with President Oaks. I’ve been skipping sustaining them.
I used to love Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf, but they both seem on the Nelson adoration train and I struggle. Especially with the whole “Oh we’ve known about this abuse for years and we offered counseling” thing with the MTC Scandal AND the list of abuses the Church leaders knew about and just kept silent.
I don’t enjoy Conference anymore. It used to be such an uplifting time, but now it’s hard to get through talks that seem to either tell me I’m evil for having doubts, literally only talk about women in the context of being wives and mothers (as neither I am really struggling to find a place in the Church), and then laud how great a guy Nelson is. Plus the few women speakers… I just ache to hear women’s voices. Even the few women speakers I heard talked about the men in their lives.
I wasn’t going to comment (of course the messenger is part of the message) but this tickled my irony bone:
alice “…conservatives, in general, aren’t willing to give much or even tolerate certain discussions…”
ReTx “Our YW had a group text discussion on how the moment Elder Oaks stands up to speak at conference, they leave the room”
JD asks “Wouldn’t that be the most challenging application of separating the message from the messenger? Taking a message or quote that is inherently good from an individual who is empirically not admirable?”
A biblical example is Saul of Tarsus, who upon conversion became Paul. He went from the enemy of Christians to one of its most ardent defenders.
It caused many people to wonder at what power could exist that would so transform this enemy of Christians.
A great many people still despise the apostle Paul. What matters is whether God despises Paul (or you, or me).
Yes Ji I am aware of Uchtdorf age. I am in my 70s and am well past my prime. My father just died at 94. I don’t see any bishops or stake presidents in their 80s. Even Uchtdorf if he is well into his 80s is going to struggle.
A rediculous system has evolved, and needs to be changed, but only those that benifit from it can do anything about it. A retirement age plus the prophet being chosen on merit. Again a question of credibility and trust, which is one of the main reasons people leave the church.
And the sycophants publicly performing for RN is not uplifting.
“Only Nixon could go to China.” You imply this meant Nixon did a 180 and embraced Communism and persuaded his followers to do the same. He didn’t. He did open doors and a discussion with an ideological enemy. In the Church context you need to provide examples and hypothetical situations when the Brethren could open doors and a discussion with an ideological enemy while not embracing the enemy’s position.
@ Ralpo 9:33 am
Thank you for your comment. To reiterate, my message is simply that the medium (messenger) can affect the reception and success of the message, for better or worse.
I do not imply that Nixon embraced Communism and persuaded his followers to do the same. Specifically regarding “Only Nixon could go to China”:
1. Official relations were not established with the People’s Republic of China until Nixon’s visit.
2. In the 1960s, Nixon had gone from previously vocally supporting opponents to the PRC to recognizing the need for negotiation and not confrontation.
3. After the announcement of the official trip to China in 1971 by Pres. Nixon, many of the hard-line anti-communists (including Sen Goldwater) denounced the decision. Their policy had still been to deny recognition to the PRC.
4. Nixon had the public credentials of being “anti-communist” and so was relatively immune to criticism that because he was visiting the PRC officially, he was “soft on communism” Other individuals may not have fared so well in this criticism. (The origination of the phrase “Only Nixon could go to China.”)
5. Eventually official diplomatic recognition was granted to the PRC on January 1 1979, transferring it from Taipei to Beijing.
Now Nixon NEVER “embraced Communism and persuaded his followers to do the same.” What he DID do was recognize that it was inherently good for the US to build a relationship with China, ultimately leading to official recognition, even though there were many many differences between the countries. So at the end he was still an anti-communist. He didn’t practice it himself. He didn’t encourage others to practice it. But he did make major strides to official recognition of a country that did practice it, realizing the benefits of negotiation and cooperation over confrontation.
Regarding my own message, when has a message from a church leader resonated with you, positively or negatively, based on who they were, their public history, or areas of expertise? It’s a wonderful thing to ponder.