My daughter is on a Mormon Moms Facebook page in her town. (there are probably hundreds of them world wide). She told me that recently a woman posted on the page about bringing investigators to church. This woman was walking these investigators down the hall towards the Primary room, when she heard the familiar refrains of “Follow the Prophet” coming from the children.
Adam was a prophet, first one that we know. In a place called Eden, he helped things to grow. Adam served the Lord by following his ways. We are his descendants in the latter days.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; don’t go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; he knows the way.
There are actually nine verses, the above is only the first. You read them all here on lds.org
This sister, trying to be a good missionary, was embarrassed when she heard the repetitive chorus. She said it sounded very “cult like” when she put herself in her investigators shoes. So she turned them around and walked away from the primary room. My daughter said many of the other “Mormon moms” on the group agreed with the poster.
So what is happening to the church that our best and brightest rising generation thinks a favorite primary song makes us sound like a cult? All my daughters married very TBM husbands, and I assumed they would follow in their husbands footseps dispite their fathers progressive leanings. One daughter, with her husband and kids has left the church. The other two, while still very active (one daughter is RS Pres), ask very tough questions about the church, its history, and $100,000,000,000 in savings. Their husbands are the same.
Will this generation makes the changes that the church needs to make to stay relevant for the next century? Will change happen one funeral at a time? Or are the next generation of General Authorities already being groomed to keep the status quo?
Wheat & Tares 
Growing up in the LDS church, my life revolved around the social aspects and culture of the LDS church. Within that culture, there was less emphasis on modest dress for women, white shirts for men and more comfort with diverse views within the church. The focus was on being social and learning to follow Christ. Overall, back then, the entire world was more accepting of magical thinking, spiritualism and the concept of miracles.
When I compare those past years to now, I see a greater emphasis on members being required to be in lockstep with the mission of the church. There is a much greater emphasis on rates of activity, specifics of belief and on how members physically appear and dress. The social aspects of the LDS church still exist, but they are a much smaller part of the church experience. Relief Society and Primary are no longer mid-week activities. We no longer have social fundraisers to support the Relief Society and their local community causes. Relief Society and Elders Quorum no longer have local back accounts. They do not have full control over their budget money. They are given budget amounts from a centralized entity and that money could disappear at any time. Primary cannot save funds from one year for an activity in the next. Wards no longer have an ability to fundraise for their own local interests and events. Girls/women in mini skirts would no longer be acceptable at church. White shirts are becoming a cultural identity for LDS men. There is a greater emphasis on following the prophet and putting the organizational interests ahead of personal needs.
That culty-sounding song did not exist when I was a child.
The control and governance of the church, 50 years ago, was leaning towards something that looked like Scandinavia. Then, it became gradually more like China. There are areas of the church governance that are being accused of even more heavy-handed centralized leadership but I hesitate to compare that to North Korea.
The LDS church has always had centralized leadership from a leader who is considered a Prophet. In the last few generations, the reins have been tightened. The bishop handbook, that local leaders go to for instruction, is not available to the average member. Just as the Catholic Church used Latin as a way to allow their priests to control the narrative, the handbook is limited in who has access.
It feels to me as if LDS membership has moved away from being about individuals and their personal growth and has become too much about the centralized church. About 10 years ago, there were lessons and articles taught “You are considered righteous and obedient when you follow the church and it’s leaders, even if they turn out to be wrong. You are still blessed for that obedience.” Those lessons made me wince.
The internet has given us easier access to data and information, yet the LDS Church has continued to limit access to its historical library. The church made a huge emphasis many years ago of gathering up old family journals. They promised families that they could have access to those journals, but the church would properly preserve the journals for historical purposes. All that happened. That movement also kept those journals out of any access from anyone who is not a direct descendant. It is really hard to get any real information about the early days of the church. All that access and information is controlled by church headquarters.
Add huge financial reserves and minimal charitable-giving from tithing monies. Current charitable giving is from fast offerings and donations. Add the fact that a high number of the general authorities at the top are enmeshed and related through a variety of family ties. So many new GAs turn out to have a wife who is the daughter or niece of a GA. There is no disclosure of those relationships.
Add all of those pieces up, add secret finances with no sort of accountability to the general membership of the church. Most LDS people excuse it all simply because they view the LDS church as GOOD and being above such pettiness. They give the LDS Church a pass that may or may not be deserved.
For me, I think there is going to be some major housecleaning of the church organization and finances. I expect it will be driven by the US government over taxation issues.
Add all those pieces up. Look at the summary. There are real and significant reasons the church is losing members and seeing few converts.
I, too, cringe when we sing that song in Primary and I’m part of the baby boomer generation. Sure, we can/should consider what our leaders have to say, but we need to pray for answers and think for ourselves. But our worship ought to be Christ centered. We ought not to “worship” Prophets should we?
There seems to exist among many, a belief of blind obedience. When leaders (local on up) say “jump” the only question—“how high?”
We ran into this belief full force during the Prop 8 campaign and it resulted in permanent damage to some family member’s relationship with the church.
(I might point out, Abraham wasn’t being called to sacrifice Isaac by President Smith, but by God. Mortal men are not God).
Apparently change will come one funeral at a time. I speculate some of the younger apostles get it but they need buy in from older And more tired apostles. By the time they are in charge it will be too late or there will be new problems.
Just this weekend a much younger cousin of mine announced he was leaving the church. He’s always been extremely faithful. The $100B did it for him. He said he thought he was donating hard earned tithing to help the needy but instead he was donating to a hedge fund.
As an active, mostly conservative LDS, I can understand the cringe-factor of “Follow the Prophet,” but it seems much less cringe-worthy when I think of the prophet as simply a mouthpiece or instrument of the Lord. It’s like singing “Follow the Compass.” Yes, a compass is a pretty reliable instrument, but we still have to couple that with a knowledge of what makes a compass work, our immediate environment, and our internal compass (also from the same manufacturer in this case). That song feels like it could be one small piece of any number of other songs emphasizing reason, prayer, personal revelation, and reading the scriptures, among other things. It never feels like it’s the final word, at least to me. Maybe I’m abnormal in those regards.
Does the Church need to stay relevant for this century? I think there is a reason the Utah missions are some of the highest baptizing in the world, and I don’t think it can simply be chalked up to higher numbers of existing proselyters. The town I grew up in had non-members move in all the time. Many did it for no other reason than that it had a beatiful climate and people who had strong moral values and standards. A curiosity as to what formed those values and standards would often lead to baptism. These were people who were good (and good reasoners) before the Church came into their life, but if it becomes relevant to them, I have an even harder time asking if it’s relevant to the rest of society. It also really would not take a lot for changing circumstances in world to suddenly make it even more relevant.
I’ll admit I ask some very tough questions about the Church. I ask mainly to seek answers, but I’m willing to wait quite a while for some of those answers. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think many ask those same questions not seeking or waiting for answers, but for change. Sections 89 is proof that change can be a viable outcome, but I wonder how much divinely led personal change is being neglected by having the Church meet our worldview instead of the other way around. I realize some of these same arguments can be leveled back at me from a progressive point of view, of which I have no real response. I just worry many have crossed the line from sincere inquiry to a rejection or deaf ears of “trouble me no more on this matter.”
I’m also not above recognizing there are some problems. I think they’re less inherent to the institution than they are individual members and outside influence. Hawkgrrrl’s comment on the post last week highlighting the fact that embezzlers, sexists, and others can still slide through the recommend interview resonated with me on a couple of levels. I think it is the separation of temporal and spiritual emphasized in society that is a large part of this and has infected many a member. It’s why we occasionally see Bishops convicted of Ponzi schemes, among other things. For too many members, the Gospel is something they do one day a week, preaching about it from their Rameumpton. The other six days they seek to remain relevant in the world. Although I’m doubtful many of these problems work their way to the highest levels of leadership, I suppose it’s possible. The Book of Mormon indicates (can’t for the life of me find where again) that before the Lord comes again, he’ll clean his own house before moving to the rest of the world. President Benson was hopeful that after reading the parable of the ten virgins, many more members woud be prepared, and that the number would be greater than 50%. Now I’m not so sure. I have no doubt than many of those not ready will be made up of both “conservatives” and “progressives.”
I think the Church will change. It is a living church after all, but I think it will do so in ways that surprise both conservatives and progressives. It will still be very relevant to the truth seeker.
“The wagging finger” just infuriates me: and yes, most of these guys do it – at one time or another! I’d like to grab one of these.. and simply shove it up their nose!!
While I freely admit, the older I become, the less I really know….I do KNOW this: the more healthy distance – with well defined boundaries- I create between the LDS Church and myself….the closer I feel to the Divine within the Cosmos…and the greater peace I felt in the soul. The LDS Church and it’s demand for absolute obedience to it’s leaders and teachings.. is a cancer to the liberated soul: and it’s search for true and peace.
I am also a baby boomer, and I remember when “the prophet” meant Joseph Smith, not our current president, David O McKay. Back then, the president of the church was called “president”. He was not considered a “prophet” in the same sense that Moses or Joseph Smith was considered a prophet.
As Damascene said, that culty song did not exist. That attitude didn’t exist either. I never heard things like “you should obey the prophet, even if he is wrong” until I was about 40. At first I was shocked by the attitude. I thought back to discussions in Sunday school about how other Christians called us a cult and we were not because we did not blindly follow our leaders, and more importantly, our leaders would never ask us to. That is a discussion that would never happen today.
The church has lost the community feel that it had while I was growing up in Utah. I stayed active for 25 years as a doubter because as an active duty military spouse moving ever 2 years, I really needed the ward community. But when my husband retired and we settled down into a Utah ward that sense of community was totally gone. I think as activities were cut, then cut, then cut again, people lost the sense of community as a reason to stay Mormon and the church tightened it grip on members through the idea that we would be totally lost without a prophet to tell us how many earrings to wear. So, as the sense of community was lost as incentive to stay active, it was replaced with cult like blind obedience as incentive to stay active.
For people who like the thinking to be done for them, this will work just fine. The feeling of community will be based on all being followers of the same “hired shepherd” rather than living close and interacting on a daily basis. But for those of us with personalities more like cats than dogs, or goats than sheep, who get no sense of being a community from following in lockstep, it will push us out. I think it depends a lot on individual personality.
All one needs to do is check with a few of several cult experts to see the very recognizable indicators of cultism. I expect this comment to be dismissed because I am a former member (excommunicated for apostasy 4 years ago). But if it’s not dismissed, I suggest a little critical thought can go a long way.
Did the FaceBook Mommy Blog say anything about the poster’s children? My take from this story is that she was embarrassed to have an intelligent empowered adult hear what was happening in a Primary class but should we conclude she was willing to subject her minor impressionable dependent kids exposed to it on a regular basis? Do our kids get to investigate or is it necessary to program them?
So, the reason the song sounds “cult-like” is because it is. Bruce’s comment may seem hyperbolic or offensive to some, but I think he’s essentially correct. As a church, you can’t say things like “study and pray to find the truth out for yourself” and not really mean it. That’s one marker of a cult. We hear talk all of the time about agency and searching for truth and about faith crises and so-called big-tent Mormonism, but the underlying, unspoken yet pervasive narrative is, “you need to find the RIGHT truth and accept it, otherwise, you’re sinful/disobedient/proud, etc.”. Another hallmark of a cult is that when you demand accountability from it, it hems and haws, stalls and says things like, “well, there are higher purposes at work” or “be humble and obey, don’t question” or “our leaders are great and trustworthy.” The one thing it never does is become more transparent. And the other thing it never does is encourage more, rather than less, independent thought. I still find good things about this church and especially individual members I know personally, but the overall vibe I get really is about being unquestioningly obedient. And that feels more cult-like than church-like. YMMV.
“It is really hard to get any real information about the early days of the church.”
No serious historians of Mormon in or out of the Church like D. Micheal Quinn or John Turner would be able to you is seriously at all.
I’ll bet “Follow the Prophet” scores 100% on the Correlation hymn-rating rubric. I’m thinking it’s Correlation that’s making the Church more cultish, not Primary songs or the hymnbook. It is worth noting that the sacrament meeting — the adult meeting — has become more juvenile. We sang a Primary song in sacrament meeting today. They youth give opening and closing prayers, which used to be just adults. The deacons passing the sacrament are even younger than they used to be since the “advance them at age 11” revelation last year.
The Church is losing Millennials and post-Millennials, just like all the other churches. We’re actually keeping more of our youth and young adults, comparatively, it just doesn’t feel that way because the activity statistics for LDS youth/YA are trending down in absolute terms. We can’t just sit around and wait for 12 more funerals — it will be too late by then, and there is no guarantee the twelve replacements will think much differently than the current cadre. If we called a couple gay priesthood holders and a couple of women into the Twelve, that would change things. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Change only happens very slowly in the church and the leaders will continue making small changes which accumulate to make the church look quite different 10 years from now. First and foremost, the church leaders don’t want to offend the mostly Iron Rod-like rank-and-file. The are the pillars of the church. They are the ones who take the callings, give lots of their time and devotion to the church, and provide crucial backbone for it to survive. Changes that are made are made mostly with them in mind. How will the rank-and-file react? The investigators are least of their concern. Only a small percentage of those who are even baptized into the church stay for too long and/or perform callings. They figure that they will get strong converts without having to change too much. The middle-pathers or people who are prone to wander to the middle path are of more concern than investigators, but arguably less concern than the rank-and-file. Gradual changes are made for them, but only slightly and gradually. They won’t give in too much to their demands or try to change to much to cater to their ideas and sensitivities.
I find it useful to remember that we are first & foremost Homo sapiens sapiens. Our species is approximately 300,000 years old. Group formation & maintenance is probably our most fascinating trait. If you’re an anthropologist, the LDS Church is a gold mine. Don’t hate it. Study it!
JONAH WAS A PROPHET, swallowed by a whale.
When he was on board, the ship just couldn’t sail.
So they tossed him over, next thing that he knew,
NINEVEH REPENTED, JONAH HAD TO, TOO.
Swallow the prophet, swallow the prophet, swallow the prophet, won’t get away;
Swallow the prophet, swallow the prophet, swallow the prophet; he’ll find the way.
— From a comment by Grasshopper on Times & Seasons quite some time ago (shouting added).
I wonder if there couldn’t be application by analogy as well as humor there.
Changes that would need to happen from my perspective:
-full inclusion of LGBT members: don’t see this getting better currently; this may be one where we wait for some GA deaths but the collateral damage in the meantime is staggering.
-full inclusion of women in leadership, whether by actual priesthood ordination or by disaggregating priesthood office with many leadership positions: some positive changes in this direction in terms of more visibility for and inclusion of women, but to me those small changes only remind me how gigantic a structural problem with have. Don’t know if we will see more. Hard when the people who would need to make that happen are not women.
-more inclusion of other minorities in leadership positions: some progress being made. Not enough. A lot of disappointment when Renlund and Rasband were called instead of any POC.
-more engaging Sunday meetings: I think Come Follow Me is helping with this. I think this is improving.
-more emphasis on inner authority vs external authoritarianism: some progress with Come Follow Me. But we still have leaders like DHO who are reacting to this issue by pounding and throwing a fit and I don’t see how they think they’ll change anyone’s mind.
Some others but I guess my other big point is this: I don’t think younger people are going to continue to participate in church out of fear (the “one true church” argument, which is fundamentally fear based, doesn’t work for many people anymore because it’s at odds with their overall conception of the world and God). They will only participate if the church offers them a meaningful spiritual and community experience. I see some positive movement in that direction. I continue to participate because I love seeing the ministering and service and love that I see happening at a ward level and I know I couldn’t replicate those opportunities to serve and connect elsewhere. But I can’t stand listening to most of the Q12 and First Presidency speak and am very intentionally disconnected from the “headquarters” piece of the church because anything from there only makes me want to leave.
Yesterday we had our Area President and a member of the General Young Mens Presidency visiting our ward with their spouses in Australia. It was kind of nice to have them visit in a ward as I cannot remember this ever happening in recent memory. They often just come for stake meetings or firesides. Their talks were pretty standard for visiting general authorities. What I found interesting, and it was something I mentioned to my wife after the meeting, was that they all mentioned the Prophet in their talks in ways that “hero worshiped” them (for want of a better phrase). It was rather off putting. My wife mentioned that it was just a cultural thing and not to worry about it. I said it sounded very culty.
I have no problem with the concept of prophets, seers and revelators, but I think they are there to lead people to God. The inference from the visitors to our ward was that we should be lead to a prophet and that he is the focus of the gospel. I think that this is a dangerous concept.
I don’t have a temple recommended because I don’t properly sustain and follow the prophet. The bishop says I can pray for my own revelation regarding what the prophet says. But if my revelation differs from the prophet I need to go back and pray more to get the “right” answer.
“ And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”
Dieter Uchdorf
Oct. 2013
John W, I hope that is not the thinking, because that is not how Christ did it. He expects us to do what is right now, not when it suits us.
I’ve been on bishoprics for 15 years, on missions for 10, hp group leader twice, what more do they want.
Elisa, we’ve been told to expect exciting at April Conference. I think all your wishes will be delivered, along with a separation of the church from the Trump party.
Going to be exciting.
@Lois – I certainly appreciate acknowledgements that leaders can make mistakes like the one you quoted (although how strange that such a straightforward concept was met with such awe and gratitude because things like that are so rarely said from the pulpit – thank you Elder Uchtdorf). I think the problem, apart from their rarity, is that those acknowledgements often talk about mistakes like it’s some past thing—never the here and now, and never in any level of specificity. Leaders’ mistakes about, say, the priesthood ban trouble me but wouldn’t preclude me from activity today. What is incredibly difficult is when you can’t reconcile what leaders are doing *today* with what you believe is what Christ would do (and when you believe that current policies are actually harming individuals and families, as many believe LGBT policies to do). I don’t think there’s a model or much discussion of how to remain engaged during a crisis / agony over events *right now* as opposed to past mistakes that we can forgive and move on from. I certainly am seeing progress here and more willingness to be open about such issues but it’s still a lonely place to be and if we don’t have such a model for people I think we will continue to lose them. Even if leaders didn’t change policy I think some people who are otherwise leaving would stick around if they felt at liberty to be more open at church about their own feelings and struggles because then church could remain a place of spiritual nourishment and supportive community despite differences in opinion.
@Geoff-Aus hahaha. I don’t think my list is likely to come to fruition (but if it does could I add doing away with “worthiness” interviews please as well as your Trump suggestion?). I was just trying to answer what I thought would be required to keep millennials in the church. I might have a skewed sample of more progressive folks but I am around a lot of millennials in my community / work / family and those are the issues I see driving people away. But let’s cross our fingers!
I believe it was in Gregory Prince’s book, David O. McKay: The Rise of Modern Mormonism, that I read of the Church News referring to Pres. McKay as “the Prophet”. One of his councilors (I believe Pres. Clark) censured the editors with something like “the term ‘The Prophet’ is reserved for Joseph Smith alone. Pres. McKay is the president of the church.” After the councilor’s death, the practice of referring to the president of the church as “The Prophet” began and has continued.
As I read the comments to this post, I felt a sense of sorrow and loss coming from those of the baby boomer generation. That much of the church of 50 years ago is no longer reflected in the type of community, values, humility, and leadership of today. I share those feelings.
Corporate-speak has taken over ward and stake councils, with “trainings” and demands for “measurable outcomes”. The worth of a soul may be great, but we’re more interested in reporting key performance indicators.
My multi-year faith transition began with, and ultimately was decided by, a lack of confidence and trust in church leadership. Unquestioned loyalty and obedience to church leaders are repeatedly demanded – and, to me at least, are no longer deserved.
“Y’all just wait for next conference. We’re gonna be serving up some big revelations.” Is this a prophecy of prophecy yet to come? To me, it just comes across as an institution that is increasingly becoming more cult-like – and less relevant to an informed audience.
I was 17 when my girlfriend’s mom told me about the funniest new primary song and had their son play it on the piano and sing it. I acted cool but inside was horrified at what I was hearing. That was when I was a TBM, dyed in the wool, read my BoM and knew it was true, member.
Bruce writes: “All one needs to do is check with a few of several cult experts to see the very recognizable indicators of cultism.”
It depends on who you talk to. My dad got to interview a number of fascinating people in his career. One was a sociological historian who wasn’t a member of the Church if I recall. He stated the Church technically wasn’t a cult from day one. And yet, you get enough people to call it cult and definitions start to change in the minds of the majority. So yes, it might be politically correct to call it cult. That doesn’t mean it is.
“I suggest a little critical thought can go a long way.”
My knee-jerk reaction is always to say “YOU need to think more critically,” then I realize just how far I have to go to become more Christ-like. I really do think this line of thinking is an oversimplification and lacks a bit of critical thinking itself. There are LDS in all avenues of academia, of all backgrounds, and even of different political persuasions. Reading their writings or conversing with these people make it far too difficult to believe they haven’t thought about these things critically. For my own part, I’m a lowly semiconductor equipment technician, but I read. I’ll read Church material, uncorrelated material, and occasionally even anti material. I analyze these materials. I think about them. I’ve also grown to care less about the opinions others, including family members and institutions, and simply do what I feel is right. Logic would tell me that to an outside observer, all things being equal, there has to be some valid impetus keeping tethered to that Church I’m so active in, and they’d be right. It’s a desire to retain fidelity to truth as it’s been revealed to me. One might be tempted to chalk this up to a frenzied mind, but it’s my sincere belief that if one cannot recognize that critical thinking can be coupled with the reality of spirtual revelation, he or she lacks some critical thinking of his or her own. Fidelity to the Gospel has not in the least hampered my ability to think, but has accentuated it and given me reason to thirst for knowledge. I would expect nothing less from a Church that teaches we can become as God is. I try to maintain a respect for people who maintain I’ve done none of that, but I’ll admit it’s difficult. At the very least, I’m willing to admit they may have the same critical thinking skills I have, but have not taken in the same information I have, acted upon the same invitations, or have neglected to remember what came of some of those invitations. But at some point, I have to accept truth for what it is.
Alice writes “Do our kids get to investigate or is it necessary to program them?”
Seems this would be a little lopsided since the world is constantly doing its own programming. But to really answer your question, I’d say yes to both. If I had to boil down what I was taught most often of Church teachings growing up, number 1 would be the reality of the Atonement, number 2 would be the fact that we do not have to take what the prophet says for granted, but can study it ou for ourselves and pray about. I applied my investigative skills as a youth and took that to heart. I’m willing to admit not everyone was taught the same or had the same experience, which is unfortunate. So much about it is very relevant and a source of joy.
You ask why some of our best and brightest perceive the Church to be cult-like. I can give you a specific example of why:
Many members were affected negatively by the Nov. 2015 gay policy. But less understood is how many of these same members were affected just as negatively when the policy was reversed in 2018. Even though they might have agreed with the reversal, they could not understand how policy 1 could be declared as revelation only to have policy 2, also declared to be revelation, overturn #1 after 3.5 years.
This kind of decision making leads many members to believe that we are operating in a cult-like organization.
I always pay attention to Brother Sky’s comments as they always resonate with me (wait- am I in an echo chamber, chamber, chamber…?) “it sounds cult like because it is” – Amen. It is interesting that I found a fellow nuanced member in another primary teacher when I noticed he wouldn’t sing that song either.
Dave B – I absolutely agree that we can’t expect the progress many here (and Millennials and GenZ) would like to see. But I remember reading one of my favorite Mormon authors, Armand Mauss, and I tend to think that there is a chance that as things get bad enough, there will be some that take the reigns of power and actually make some changes. If you look at the history of the church (and most organizations) they adapt rather than fade away. Just look at how Jehovah’s Witnesses predictions of Armageddon starting in 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918 , 1925, and 1975 all while they are still growing in numbers (possibly more active members than the LDS church).
I am not saying there isn’t a chance that we have the opposite. Even Patrick Mason said back in 2016 that there was the chance that (put in my words) actions of the church leaders could disenfranchise all but the most conservative/fundamentalist leaving the church to even move to more fundamentalism bent and diverge more from society as a whole.
@Eli, I’ll just be brief. No, it doesn’t depends on who you talk to. Facts do not care what you b-e-l-i-e-v-e. They just are.
I offer to state, as a friendly observation, that there are too many logical fallacies in the rest of your comment to take any of it seriously. I’ll stand by my suggestion of critical thought. Objectivity helps overcome our biases, which we each have, every one of us. Me, included!
A number of years ago in Conference , I remember President Hinckley began a thought by saying, “I do not know what the future holds.”
I remember thinking that a leader of the church finally said something I could truly believe in.
👍