I listened to Conference so you don’t have to. Or, alternatively, maybe the following summary will whet your appetite for ten hours of listening and viewing pleasure. Don’t miss the little Korean girls singing a Primary song. Short summaries (sometimes very short) are mine and mine alone. Phrases or sentences within quotation marks are a good faith on-the-fly attempt at verbatim quotes. My helpful comments are in italics inside brackets [like this] and are almost never snarky. I reserve the right to do a longer post on this or that particular talk in coming weeks.
Saturday Morning
Pres. Nelson – Remove the spiritual debris from your life.
Pres. Uchtdorf [he’s always “President Uchtdorf” to me] – God’s endless love for you.
Pres. Joy D. Jones (of the Primary) – We value children and do all we can to combat the evil of abuse. [Except drastically overhauling or eliminating youth unworthiness interviews.]
Jan E. Newman (a Seventy) – The importance of a good nap. [This was my by far my favorite piece of counsel this weekend.]
Elder Stevenson – Be kind to rabbits and humans. That means no cyberbullying.
Elder Gong – “Let’s eat Chinese food” — good advice from Elder Gong’s father. [And a close second for my favorite piece of counsel this weekend.] [Bonus Points to Gong for being the smartest guy in the room.]
Pres. Eyring – “Temples of the Lord are holy places.” [Not a new observation, but I always have a tough time pulling a main point or a good quote from Pres. Eyring’s talks.]
Saturday Afternoon
Auditor’s Report – Reliable, effective internal controls and no material misstatements in the financial statements we are not allowed to see. [No mention of the Hundred Billion Dollar fund.]
Elder Holland – Forcefully denounces abuse, unrighteous dominion, spousal abuse, and child abuse, as well as sharp tongue and unkind words.
Jorge T. Beccera (a Seventy) – Sheep and goats: they all have a place in the Church.
Elder Renlund – The Rwandan Genocide and the Problem of Evil. Sometimes life delivers a tsunami of unfairness (Covid). He highlights, in surprising detail, the good work of African American lawyer and social justice activist Bryan Stevenson.
Elder Anderson – Speaks strongly against abortion and pro adoption. Story about a model Mormon couple with four kids … but The Spirit said four is not enough so they had two more. [Lots of discussion about this talk on social media.]
Thierry K. Mutombo (a Seventy) – Pray, pray, pray. [Bonus Points for a happy, upbeat delivery.]
Elder Ballard – Half of the adults in the Church are widowed, divorced, or single. But discipleship and being valiant is what counts. Exaltation for all who keep their covenants. [No mention of the Family Proclamation, which was pretty much AWOL throughout the whole Conference.]
Saturday Evening Priesthood Session
Elder Cook – Shall the youth of Zion falter? Elder Cook encourages bishops to delegate interviews to other ward leaders (including women, I think) “where worthiness is not an issue.” [But worthiness is always an issue in the Church. Delegating unworthiness interviews to ward leaders other than the bishop will make things worse, not better. This controversial directive has generated a lot of negative discussion online.]
Ahmad Corbitt (a Seventy) – Porn kills testimonies. [It wouldn’t be a Priesthood Meeting without playing the porn guilt card at least once. The leadership would be a lot happier if we were all eunuchs.]
Gifford Nielsen (an NFL quarterback) – Be good and courageous and fearless. [Bonus Points for telling a true sports story.]
Pres. Eyring – “I was the only deacon in my branch …” [See my earlier apology re: Eyring talks.]
Pres. Oaks – What has Jesus done for you lately? Four responses: Resurrection; forgiveness of our sins; Plan of Salvation with commandments, covenants, and ordinances; took our infirmities upon Him so he could succor us all. [I love enumerated lists, but speakers need to expressly identify points one, two, three, and four. I might have gotten some of them wrong.]
Pres. Nelson – Heart goes out to those who have lost family members, jobs, a sense of security, or faith during these difficult times. Maybe you found some things, too: a new perspective, revelation, personal growth. Four lessons you might have learned: home as the center of worship and three other points that I don’t have a clue: we need each other or you’re never alone or whatever. [Speakers who use enumerated lists should be required to display a PowerPoint slide during the talk.]
Sunday Morning International Session
[That sounds a little snarky, but I think it’s great one of the sessions highlights non-CONUS speakers and themes. The session started with two children’s groups singing in Spanish and then in Korean.]
Elder Soares – Jesus. But you still have to earn your salvation by good works. [Bonus Points for talking about Jesus on Easter Sunday.]
Reyna I. Aburto (Relief Society 2C) – Jesus. [Bonus Points for candidly and sincerely addressing the Covid pandemic.]
S. Mark Palmer (a Seventy) – “Except I shall see, I shall not believe.” Quoting Thomas the 1st century Pragmatist. [Bonus Points: New Zealand. Middle Earth!]
[Breakfast: I missed a couple of speakers but really enjoyed the egg and blueberry breakfast casserole thing that came out of the oven.]
Michael John U. Teh (a Seventy) – What think ye of Christ? Know Him versus know about Him. [It wouldn’t be Conference without a few digs at religious scholarship.]
Pres. Nelson – Faith can move mountains, but it doesn’t have to be perfect faith to move the mountains in your life (loneliness, doubt, illness). Five points, but the one you’ll hear about is: Choose to believe in Jesus Christ and the list of standard LDS faith claims. Don’t look for flaws in the Church. “Stop rehearsing your doubts with other doubters.” [This talk deserves its own post-length discussion.]
Sunday Afternoon
Pres. Oaks – Long discussion of “the divinely inspired Constitution of the United States.” A broader and more detailed discussion than the standard Conference religious liberty talk. He endorsed a states rights view (“the federal government sometimes takes away powers from the states, like family relations”). All LDS have a duty to uphold and defend the US Constitution and to seek out “good persons” for public office. Pres. Oaks got very direct late in the talk: He bluntly directed LDS members to not criticize other LDS for their political views. He bluntly declared there should be no political advocacy in LDS meetings. He very bluntly declared that no LDS member should suggest that membership in any political party is inconsistent with membership or good standing in the Church. [The bolded comments are very helpful and were long overdue. But I was bothered by the first half that termed any principle or Supreme Court decision he likes “inspired” and suggested any decision he doesn’t like was uninspired. That’s not how discussions of constitutional law generally proceed.]
Elder Rasband – More Jesus. And miracles. [Like the power coming back on after thirty minutes.]
Timothy J. Dykes (a Seventy) – Light. And prayer.
Elder Christofferson – Follow the covenant path. Avoid unforced errors in life. Good intentions are not enough, because covenants.
Alan R. Walker (a Seventy) – [Bonus Points for “both sides of the veil,” another suddenly popular Nelson phrase.]
Elder Bednar – A Gospel Principle is “a doctrinally-based guideline for the exercise of moral agency.” Principles are conveniently malleable and vary a lot in application depending on the circumstances.
Pres. Nelson – Yet another talk. He gave four talks this Conference. In this final address he announced twenty new temples. That’s not a misprint. Twenty new temples. Burley, Idaho, throw a party. Elko, Nevada, double down on LDS. Yorba Linda, California, you are now on the LDS map.
Wheat & Tares 
Wakolo – God shows his love by being mean to us. [was not a fan of this one]
I can’t remember much of the other international 70’s you missed during breakfast. Jesus, covenants, Nelson Nelson Nelson.
Pretty spot-on. Looking forward to some deeper dives.
It’s interesting that the Family Proclamation was not mentioned (that I recall) in this GC. I can remember pretty recent GCs in which the Family P played a pretty significant role. And there was definitely an effort to reach those who don’t have a “typical” LDS family. I was impressed with Elder Ballard’s comments that seemed to minimize to a degree the importance of marriage in this life. Nice.
Along these same lines, I think this GC fell short in that it’s not good enough to stop denouncing homosexuality. Where’s the outreach to our LDS LGBTQ friends? We have a family friend who just came out of the closet in January. He’s trying to navigate the complex reality of trying to be active LDS but being true to himself. I thought of him all weekend. Other than general messages to all of us about the power of the Atonement, where was even a single message of hope to him?
Also, I hate to come across as a quota guy, but two women speakers in four sessions of conference? Don’t our sisters (who represent well over 50% of our active members) have more to say than that?
The focus on Christ this Easter weekend: nicely done.
@Josh H, yes, only two women – and since it was priesthood session there’s not even the excuse that women speak in women’s session.
The excuse they always give is that all of the apostles have to speak, plus there are so many more 70’s than female leaders. Of course – that’s an absurd excuse since it’s their fault that there are no female apostles or 70’s equivalent. Personally I think they should stop having very apostle speak at every conference. Some of them have been speaking every six months for decades. It seems they are running out of material and have probably already shared every significant life experience they ever had. They do not need to speak every time. Let’s hear from a broader variety of people.
When more than half of the Church’s population is female, it’s not a quota to expect that around half of the speakers at any given meeting will be. But that never, ever happens above the ward level (and often not there either). I have truly lost my patience for a set of leaders that doesn’t see this as a huge problem. Getting up and telling people not to abuse or exercise unrighteous dominion over women (I’m looking at you Elder Holland) or telling women we need their voices (Pres Nelson several years ago) while persisting in silencing them in meetings and decisionmaking is pure hypocrisy. They need to recognize their own role in creating the environment that allows unrighteous dominion to flourish and women to cower.
Ok rant over. This one just really gets to me. It seems SO obvious and I know SO many people who are bothered by it (including many TBH men) so I just do NOT understand why they don’t change it. At the *very least* have a woman per session or a woman from each of the three auxiliaries. It’s inexcusable.
@OP re Oaks, I did appreciate the lines about political parties but the dig at the SCOTUS for legalizing gay marriage didn’t go unnoticed. Hah. “Don’t ever talk politics at Church unless it’s gay marriage.”
Sun AM Nelson – praised the faith and courage of COVID missionaries (thereby marginalizing any who did not complete 18 or 24 months despite the pandemic)
Eyring seemed tired and frail this time and a lot of his stuff was recycled (Church in New Jersey etc).
Thank you, Dave B, for your “Cliff Notes” guide to General Conference. Very helpful, and I also appreciate everyone’s comments (some especially so).
I think that Dallin Oaks’ Sunday afternoon talk should be given close attention. I am sure that others might think that I am reading too much into what he said, but when Oaks says that one person’s independent actions (I.e. that show a total lack of character) might cause a voter to vote for another candidate who has a platform that a particular voter might disagree with in many areas—well, I interpret this as his coming out and hinting strongly that he, who over the years and before becoming a member of the Q12, had associated himself with traditionally pre-Trumpian conservative views, voted for Biden. He certainly provided a strong rationale for many conservative voters in the Church to vote for the Democrat. I also appreciated his assertion that we owe loyalty to the Constitution and not to a person, and I interpret this as rebuke of the outrageous post-Election Day shenanigans of Trump and his cult-like army of admirers.
I am sure that there will be others who hold a more jaundiced view of Oaks’ talk than I do, but this is my take, and I would appreciate others’ thoughts.
I wish he had been even more direct, but Dallin Oaks always parses his words very carefully, and I think he was trying to maintain the Church’s fig leaf of political neutrality toward candidates.
Thoughts?
At this point I’ve watched both morning sessions, and the Priesthood session. President Eyring did not look well.
I really enjoyed Elder Gong’s use of the story of the Good Samaritan as metaphor, and how inclusive he was.
I thought President Uchtdorf looked pretty uncomfortable speaking immediately after President Nelson – and the apparently obligatory opening grovelling to President Nelson that requires…. Which for me spoiled an otherwise good talk.
Really the whole ‘dear leader’ thing is getting quite ridiculous and just feels sooo North Korea.
Joy D Jones looked positively manic, and I really don’t like the idea of parents as drill instructors…
I enjoyed Elder Stevenson’s emphasis on kindness.
In the Priesthood session there appeared to be an air of desperation with respect to retaining the youth, and if I recall correctly, whilst President Oaks didn’t on this occasion address the family proclamation, he couldn’t resist including a single sentence towards the end of his talk referring to marriage of a man and woman which wasn’t strictly necessary for the subject matter of his address. It did feel like he was shoe horning it in.
I generally enjoyed the Sunday morning session. The global flavour, though I did miss not having so many Easter oriented music. Though I did d enjoy the different choirs. The Mexican choir at the start were adults, not children. And either President Oaks omitted to thank Reyna Arburto, or she’s an honorary man. She’s an excellent speaker. That closing Easter hymn needed trumpets (of course I ‘m going to think this) for real celebration, the descant really wasn’t getting through.
Do not forget “Lazy Learners & unruly children” …………This was Easter Sunday……so much for treating others like Christ would
Taiwan, I heard Oaks as chastising both liberals and conservatives as well as party loyalists (some in each major US party) and person-loyalists (Trumpists and perhaps past Clintonites and Romneyites and any other “manner of-ites”) for their accusations of others who disagree on their choices of priorities and candidates as bad members of the Church or bad Christians or otherwise bad/immoral people. I didn’t perceive it as any hint that Oaks himself may have crossed a party line with his recent presidential vote. Maybe I didn’t catch such a hint because I heard it through ears that have been distressed for decades with the immorality/bad Christian or Mormon accusations leveled by Republicans at Democrats and by Democrats at Republicans, etc.
I was pleased with one of my diehard conservative friends finally acknowledging after listening to Oaks that there is a legitimate political and religious rationale for Uchtdorf’s family and others supporting those “baby-killing” Democrats with their votes for Biden. Oaks’ talk did more to bring that about than my saying much of the same thing about voting for decades. That part of Oaks’ talk should be repeated in GC every year until the general church populace thinks its something they’ve heard a million times over and have actually put in practice for decades.
Faith, Nelson’s “Lazy learners and lax disciples will only struggle to muster even a particle of faith” was introduced with a reference to faith in Christ, not faith in the COJCOLDS. That’s a distinction very important to some, but possibly unrecognized by some members and leaders of the COJCOLDS.
Maybe “lazy learners and lax disciples” was an attempt to get the attention Neal Maxwell’s overdone alliteration used to. Of course, that attention was mixed positive and negative, but RMN likely wouldn’t know that. I think I’ll put “lazy learners and lax disciples” in the category of RMN judgmental nonsense along with “victory for Satan” and merely appreciate a reference to “faith in Christ” instead of faith impliedly in the Church and its top brass.
I didn’t watch many talks this conference. However, those that I did listen to seemed to be full of “Nelson worship”. Meaning, of the talks I heard, all prophetic quotes used by other speakers were pulled only from Nelson’s previous talks and statements.
I vaguely remember seeing a conference analysis a few years ago shortly after Nelson had taken the helm which showed this very phenomenon with supporting data.
Just wondering if others also noticed this or if I happened to catch the only talks where this occurred.
@Taiwan Missionary: +1 for the phrase “fig leaf of neutrality”. I might just have to borrow that phrase sometime.
@op and all: thanks for the summary. I avoided conference almost completely for the first time, so anything I say about it is third hand so far.
There has been lots of talk in Liberally minded Mormon circles on social media on Oaks’ talk, but I think I was most informed by Jana Reis’s article in the Salt Lake Tribune about how parts of the talk were directed to different audiences, but in vague ways that can be misconstrued. Then the comments below demonstrate exactly that: several conservatives deny that any part of the talk applies to themselves.
https://sltrib.com/religion/2021/04/05/jana-riess-lds-leader/
Elder Gong understands what’s going on in the world and in the Church. I feel he will be a strong force toward moving the Church into the 21st century. His talk demonstrated his deep understanding.
President Eyring is a different matter. He doesn’t appear to be in good health, so I will take it easy on him. His father was a great (maybe brilliant scientist) chemist. Some of this must have rubbed off on his son. Yet, the son continues to give bland, forgettable talks. Why isn’t President Eyring talking about religion and science? Why isn’t he talking about evolution? Why isn’t he talking about biblical literalism? Topics that the Church needs discussed.
If President Oaks can obsess over legal matters, why can”t Eyring deal with substantive science and religion issues?
Taiwan Missionary,
I don’t know that I got any actual impression of Oaks having voted for Biden, nor did I specifically think that was a rebuke of die-hard Trump supporters (as a libertarian-leaning conservative, I sincerely feel the “cult of Trump” is highly overblown by those on left, as much or more so than many on the right probably have done with the “Cult of Hillary” and others). I felt it was pretty focused on the Constitution, which was refreshing, but could see minor shots taken at both parties. The fact that we’re both seeing things a little differently means that I’d agree he managed to choose his words very carefully.
I missed half of conference because of work, but I’d agree President Eyring did not look well. I’m sure he has some help caring for his wife, but I’m sure he insists on offering some of his own. I have as much sympathy for those who care for those with illness as I do those who have them.
It wouldn’t be a conference without mentioning “covenant path.”
Thanks for the summary of talks. Now if my mother-in-law asks what my favorite conference talk was (it is morally wrong to have a conference talk that you dislike in her eyes, also morally wrong not to watch conference (I no longer have the patience to slog through even one session)), I have an answer.
Because I have OCD, here are the talks not mentioned in the OP or 1st comment:
Dube – Endure
Texeira – obey-pray-serve
Wong – build on the rock of Jesus
On Oaks and politics, I think he was acknowledging that adherence to the conservative movement, viewing its present condition, can indeed be toxic and morally reprehensible. It’s no longer Republican Party or bust, conservatism or bust. But unfortunately for him, lots of his important followers are Trumpists and he feels it awkward to come right out and condemn them for supporting Trump. So he does the next best thing and tells them to adhere to the Constitution (which Trump has violated repeatedly) and to separate politics from church. I’m not sure he voted for Biden as Taiwan suggests, but I’m pretty sure Uchtdorf did. At least news broke that donations were made in an account in his name to Biden as well as the two Democratic senators in Georgia Warnock and Ossoff. Uchtdorf said that the donations were actually made by his family members using his name. And of course, Frank Fox, the retired BYU American Heritage professor, nor a church authority, but clearly worked closely with the leaders in shaping his narrative, came out and strongly condemned Trump and encouraged members to vote for Biden.
I really wish Oaks and other leaders would be or would have been more forthright in their condemnation of Trumpism. It was bad enough that the Motab sang at his inauguration (I announced on Facebook that I would boycott Motab over that decision and have held firm to this day). It would have been good form for the Motab to declare that they no longer did political events on the occasion of their invitation to sing.
“Uchtdorf said that the donations were actually made by his family members using his name.”
I think that is illegal.
“I announced on Facebook that I would boycott Motab over that decision and have held firm to this day.”
I am okay with the choir’s participation in civic events such as the inauguration. But Sunday morning’s choirs from Mexico and Korea (singing in Spanish and Korean respectively) was WONDERFUL and refreshing — I hope we see more of this. More of a new approach necessarily means less of an old approach, so maybe I am also in favor of less MOTAB (the old name) in conference. Saying no to the 2017 inauguration would have been impolite to the incoming president, but anytime in the next year or so would be a convenient time for the choir to make whatever policy adjustment it feels is needed.
ji: Yes, it is illegal to make political donations in someone else’s name, but if it was from a joint account (e.g. multiple cardholders under one account), it’s possible the recipients just showed his name as the primary. Regardless, there’s enough whiff of doubt to give him cover for essentially having broken the neutrality policy (in spirit if not in deed).
I was surprised to find that MoTab sang at LBJ’s inauguration. However, ever since then, it’s all been GOP down the line: https://www.thetabernaclechoir.org/about/choir/history/history-of-inaugural-appearances.html So much for neutrality. Having said that, I’m sure it’s also a byproduct of who requests them. They aren’t showing up to forcibly sing like Christmas Carolers when they aren’t invited.
Like others I am truly tired of the effusive groveling of conference speakers to RMN. I’m also tired of adults singing primary songs. Why can’t we have more complex and adult music?
I simply don’t understand this constant haranguing of the Saints by the authorities. I feel beaten half to death by these guys. How many times have we heard exactly the same message? Shouldn’t the GAs be out there converting The World? Wouldn’t that be a more productive use of their time? Back in the day Jos shipped – literally shipped – the entire quorum to Great Britain. That actually turned out very well, personal hardships notwithstanding, with a large number of converts. There are 3rd World countries today that would benefit from the same kind of attention.
“So much for neutrality.”
Singing at inaugurations whenever invited, regardless of party, sounds pretty neutral to me. I prefer that neutral approach over having the choir accept some inaugural invitations and reject other based on someone’s happiness with the election outcome.
ji: I don’t know about that. I think if David Duke is only ever invited to speak at really conservative universities that have white supremacist underpinnings (a long list, no doubt), it’s hard to say “Well, he speaks wherever invited, so he’s politically neutral.” If MoTab and the Church really had broad appeal, we wouldn’t see this type of outcome. Frankly, if MoTab had a broader range, sang with a little more soul and depth, I think we’d see the “America’s Choir” moniker stick. They have talent, but their selections are not as broad as they could be. Wouldn’t it be great to see what Gladys Knight could do with them? But I digress.
I have to agree with Hedgehog about the HUGE blindspot toward women that continues to be an embarrassment. The Church needs to get their act together on this because the young women notice this and will not stay in the Church. They don’t have the sunk costs we old folks have. We absolutely do not need EVERY apostle to speak every 6 months (particularly when they spend so much of their time fawning over RMN). We also don’t need so many members of the 70 to audition in GC. Things women noticed: 1) women and children being lumped together in choirs singing childrens’ songs (yes, we get it–the Church sees women & children as one category), 2) almost no women speakers, 3) after Sister Aburto spoke, the conductor said “Thank you brethren…” to those who had spoken in that session. So thanks to all of the speakers except her I guess.
I did want to make one quick comment about Nelson’s remark to “stop rehearsing your doubts with other doubters.” It feels like a play on Uchtdorf’s popular line to “Before you doubt your faith, doubt your doubts” (that was also not well received by ProgMos). In terms of rehearsing your doubts with other doubters, I’m not sure about the term “rehearse” here, but it reminded me of fast & testimony meetings which are essentially believers “rehearsing their beliefs with other believers.” So it feels like projection to say don’t do that with doubts. I’m frankly not comfortable with either form of declaration. I’ve been in some groups where they go around and basically share an “untestimony” which I don’t like any more than I like testimony meetings. They all feel like a way to crystalize beliefs or doubts, something that psychologically creates confirmation bias and will likely lead to wrong thinking and conclusions. The other thought I had about the admonition is that doubters certainly aren’t safe to confide their doubts to believers, so basically the point is talk to no one about your doubts. Only say faith-affirming things. That feels a little too transparent and forced to me, and I’m surprised if people don’t find it cynical.
I pretty much had three concerns I think I can sum up concisely right here:
1. If we have more than 100 billion in our stock/bond/cash investments, how come we can’t seem to afford something nicer looking than strange 70-ish style wood paneling behind the podium? Very unprofessional as if they didn’t look things over through the lens of a tv camera. And I believe it was the same in earlier pandemic conferences too.
2. Why can’t we take five or ten more seconds to acknowledge which choirs (by name) were singing from the past. They deserve some recognition even it was a recording and I think it would have been a touch more nostalgic. I did appreciate at least the dates because I don’t think we always got that from last year.
3. But my biggest concern ties in with the comments made by Elisa (above): if I were an outsider looking in and only seeing just quite older men in these socially distanced chairs with zero female representation, then go on to hear only two speakers in all those sessions over the two-day period, I’d be very spooked. More specifically: Why do we not get to hear from our General Relief Society President every single conference? Sister Bingham has only spoken three times in the last nine general conferences she has been associated with as a president. If she represents more than half of our church membership, she should be speaking every conference or at the very least every other time. But only 1/3 of the time? Wow. I don’t get it.
Elder Bednar, “When your greatest desire is to let God prevail, to be part of Israel, so many decisions become easier, so many issues become non-issues: you know how best to groom yourself.”
Making sure we don’t forget the important things,
ji, would you be OK if the Motab accepted an invitation to sing at Putin’s 2018 inauguration, technically a “civic” event celebrating “democracy” in Russia? The church is international after all. That the choir sang at any inauguration is highly problematic, but Trump’s particularly so. Motab has sung only at US inaugurations where the incoming president has won Utah’s electoral votes in the general election. It is hard not to see this as the incoming president (who has a lot of say in who is invited to the inauguration) rewarding Utah for its vote by allowing the Motab publicity at a highly spectated event (just ask Amanda Gorman if the inauguration hasn’t elevated her to a position of acclaim and fame). If the church wants to have the appearance of neutrality, especially on a world scale, it should have no business singing at presidential inaugurations. You can call the event “civic.” That doesn’t mean that it isn’t political. The event clearly is to promote US-ism and is a blatant display of the grandeur of the US political system. Parties and figures (especially Trump) coopt civic events to promote their brand all the time. The dividing line between civic and political is quite blurry, and Trump made it even more so. Now, I’ll allow a pass for choir participation at past inaugurations. But Trump’s “victory” in 2016 was a clear warning sign that the US republic system was at risk of being dismantled. The writing was on the wall. Highly controversial figures “winning” the electoral college while losing the public vote by 3 million was bound to unleash unprecedented tension throughout the US. For Trump could never once during his presidency be able to say that he was representing the majority. He most clearly wasn’t. Second, Russia threw the 2016 US election in favor of Trump and Republicans. This is just basic fact. Motab was not only accepting a political gift, they were celebrating a system that had been compromised and brought to power the most corrupt and mendacious figure in US presidential history. Trump’s so-called “win” should have given church leaders and the Motab pause and led them to decide to reverse course and discontinue appearances at political events.
I see Oaks’ talk as a timid acknowledgement (but still an acknowledgement) of how the leaders need to steer clear from politics in all its forms and how his beloved Republican Party can become tainted by the some of the US’s most despicable figures. If anything Motab’s appearance at Trump’s inauguration helped validate Trumpism among the Mormon community. Now Trumpism is a raging fire within it. And one that is putting the leaders at odds with its strongest devotees. I can’t help but think that the leaders regret allowing the Motab to sing and regret not pushing back against Trumpism earlier. Heeding coronavirus experts’ warnings is a step in the right direction, but it is too little, too late. This should have happened earlier.
Here’s the thing with Oaks’s talk: one vague talk like that doesn’t even scratch a dent in the Titanic of Benson’s repeated discourses on the subject. Ignorant of him or anyone to even think so. We’re way past that point. A lot more work needs to be done, and vagaries won’t cut it.
Brian, Bednar was quoting from RMN’s October 4, 2020 Facebook page:
“When your greatest desire is to let God prevail, to be part of Israel, so many decisions become easier. So many issues become non-issues! You know how best to groom yourself. You know what to watch and read, where to spend your time, and with whom to associate. You know what you want to accomplish. You know the kind of person you really want to become.”
Bednar seems to have had an obsession with grooming for some time (e.g. the two earring story from the May 10, 2005 BYU Devotional). Of course, back then he seemed intent on Hinckley-mimicking. Nelson-quoting is the fad du jour. But to be fair the Nelson quote went far beyond grooming and into something actually important.
Wondering, thanks, I missed that he was quoting Nelson. Bednar did cite that whole thing in his talk. Guess now we know grooming’s even more of a focus to pay attention to. Out of mouth of two witnesses.
John W,
I thought we were talking about U.S. presidential inaugurations. I am okay with the choir’s long-standing practice of accepting invitations to sing at US. presidential inaugurations, without regard to the political party of the new president.
I don’t know why this offends you and Angela.
But, I will answer the question. If the proper decision-maker thought that the choir’s singing at an appropriate civic event in Russia would create good will and so forth, I would be okay with that. From what I have read, the Saints in Russia could benefit from some good will from both the Russian people and the Russian government.
Wondering: Thanks for the additional context on the grooming quote. I was thinking it was about the other type of grooming, not toiletries.
Angela, I’m not convinced I’m very good at deciphering what RMN mean or Bednar mean. So I wouldn’t be betting on what type of grooming was in question — just guessing from context, and not the only reasonable guess. Given multiple meanings, it strikes me as a foolish word choice in the absence of further explanation. Maybe my guess as to meaning was influenced by my long ago revulsion at Bednar’s dyed hair with every one perfectly in place and at his use of GBH’s one earring/ear preference . Maybe RMN and Bednar meant groom yourself to be a model TBM and future Church leader (like an executive can “groom” an employee to be his replacement) or to groom yourself to be taken advantage of (like — well, you know). Oh, well.
ji, “if the proper decision-maker thought that the choir’s singing at an appropriate civic event in Russia…”
Well I specifically asked if singing at Putin’s inauguration, not an “appropriate civic event in Russia” would be acceptable and you answered with a red herring and in bad faith. Might singing at Putin’s inauguration, no matter the intent for good will by the church and choir, be easily construed as the church validating a sham election for an authoritarian? Now I realize the US isn’t Russia, but the 2016 election was compromised and the person who “won” had authoritarian instincts and complete disregard for the truth, common human decency, and the US constitution.
“mean” – “meant” Sheesh! Sorry.
Nice, succinct summary of conference. In reference to the comments in this thread on Bednar’s use of the word “grooming,” I’m fairly certain he was referring to personal grooming as in the “dress and grooming standards” o the Ricks College /BYU-Idaho honor code. This was a huge point of emphasis for (then) Pres. Bednar if we were to become “disciple leaders” and use our “moral agency” to “act and not be acted upon.” Funny (and creepy?) story about Bednar from my Ricks/byu-i days: He would get every morning at 4 or 5 am and run stairs at Viking stadium – year round – in Rexburg. In shorts sleeves if I remember right. At some point a few students caught wind of this and soon he had an army of loyal student admirers (“Bednar Youth” is the term I used at the time) running the stairs with him every morning. Point being, Elder Bednar’s emphasis of extreme self -discipline (including personal appearance) is deeply rooted in his personality and seems to have been forged in the frigid winters of Rexburg, ID. This leadership style worked great for model students, which I was most certainly not. Then again, I have always enjoyed his analytic speaking style.
Believing that you’re not just above the law but actually embody the law is a deeply male conceit. We evolved that way.
I might have missed something, but I appreciated Sister Aburto telling the most complete Easter story I heard this conference.
I heard Elder Oak’s political talk in light of the waves his own daughter, Jenny Oaks Baker and her children made during the election season.
You’ll remember that they campaigned for Trump/Pence by performing LDS hymns and using their popularity and GA last name through “Latter Day Saints for Trump” and a campaign event in AZ with Pence.
The group (which included Orrin Hatch and other popular LDS politicians) made headlines for usurping the Church’s name and symbols. The church had to legally threaten them to take down pictures of the Salt Lake Temple from their marketing materials.
Many LDS were livid with the Oaks-Baker family and lashed out to them on social media. One of his granddaughters came out swinging. So, when Elder Oaks sternly criticized members for judging other LDS based on their political choices, he was likely rebuking those who lashed out at his family. When he declared that there should be no political advocacy in LDS meetings, he was both drawing a boundary and absolving his family who had safely stumped outside church meetings. And, when he very bluntly declared that no LDS member should suggest that membership in any political party is inconsistent with membership or good standing in the Church, he was responding to a slew of people who had piled on his treasured family with that very accusation.
His tone of voice sounded definitely like a rebuke of anyone who had participated in the mud-slinging, for sure. And, I saw the clear warning against several Republican Party and Trumpian positions. But, at the same time- in welding that sword, he cut out careful exceptions for his own who hadn’t been behaving well at all.
I personally thought that he should have used a modifier in stating that no LDS member should suggest that membership in ***any***political party is inconsistent with membership or good standing in the Church. Really? Any? I can name several current and historical political parties that are completely in consistent with membership.
There are rubicons, Elder Oaks, and there are political stances that firmly set one on the wrong side of history, morality, and the work of the restored gospel. And those affiliations are undeniably incompatible with gospel values.Part of being valiant and standing for truth is to speak it, even when it’s unpopular, even when people in the lime-light are saying the exact opposite.
While it isn’t our place to pass judgement on individuals, when they usurp our collective name (and even Blasphemously invoke the Lord and his church), I totally have the right to speak out on the same platform to refute their representIon of the church, or Latter Day Saint values. It’s time to clearly articulate that they are not speaking with my consent or agreement. And since they dragged LDS values into the conversation, they don’t get to cry foul when others don’t agree with their high-n-mighty views and end up calling it crap. When the Baker- Oakes dragged pioneer songs (yes- even Come Come Ye Saints) and the SL Temple in to vie for an individual’s political power, we all have the right to be upset. My family consecrated their lives to help build that temple- and by G- I’m not going to stand by and ignore someone who decides to use it for their personal politics. JBO doesn’t get to use it as such, even if she has a daddy in high places. I hope that most saints would similarly call out the vain use and theft of our collective name and history as quickly as they would frown on someone slipping in their political penchant at the pulpit.
But, he stopped short of going that far with the rebuke, as it was probably too close to home to have avoided some blind spots.
@Mortimer lots of good points.
Total ink blot talk where each side will claim he was speaking for them but I think you’re onto something. Although I think he may also have been motivated by the reaction to the Uchtdorf/Biden situation.
I’ve heard some people saying that Oaks is saying no politics at Church. That’s not what he was saying. He was saying no political parties. Clearly, there’s still a welcome sign hung for political *issues* on which the Church takes a position. (And I agree with you – seriously, there are some cases where a political party is probably bad. Period.)
Churches can lose their tax exempt status if they engage in politics on behalf of candidates or political parties.
However, they can engage on issues.
Thanks for your review, Dave. Just to grab one point you made, I’m totally with you on President Eyring’s talks. I find it hard to figure out what he’s getting at. He tells a few stories, quotes a few scriptures, and sits down, and I wonder what his point was. And this is often true even when I go back and read his talks.
For a Cliff Notes view of the music, here is the best of the music (IMO):
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/music-from-april-2021-general-conference/2021-04-i-am-a-child-of-god?lang=eng
ji, Now that I’ve been able to review it, I see that your favorite music from the recent conference was a replay of a recording made for the March 2014 “General Women’s Meeting” to which girls age 8 and older had also been invited as announced in November 2013.
For me the best of the music was the replay of “God Loved Us So He Sent His Son” from the April 2010 priesthood session.
Of course, I also appreciate hearing the Tabernacle staff and choir make a silk purse our of a sow’s ear like “Let Us All Press On” which we heard in conferences in 2014 and 2016 and 2018.
Musically, the “I Am a Child of God” recording can’t hold a candle to either, but it did represent a basic doctrine of the Church and show wide international participation consistent with the use of speakers of widespread nationalities.
“Musically, the “I Am a Child of God” recording can’t hold a candle to either…”
Wondering,
I suppose we have different tastes. No doubt, your ability to judge music is superior to mine — you may see the “I Am a Child of God” recording with disdain, but I still like it.
ji, Recognizing a difference in musical quality does not imply disdain. Musical quality is also not necessarily the most important aspect of a recording. There is something important about children and youth participating in music making even if they are out of tune or have a less than ideal tone quality. Your liking the recording means to me that you are responsive to the message and the participants. That is valuable.